This is what disturbs me. These bases, once closed, are irreplaceable.
The logic is perverse. We rail against the Clinton cuts to the military, where our force was cut in half, and we have been left with a military that is sorely taxed to manage the occupation of one relatively small country of 25 million people.
But closing these bases means that we accept the Clinton-sized military as the right size.
We don't need these bases because our immediate military needs are reduced from Cold War and World War levels. But should we ever have to fight a serious war agaginst a serious enemy, we will find that we have closed the barn door and there is no getting back in. In the age of "not-in-my-back-yard" lawsuits and inflated property values, building new bases in the middle of a future conflict will be costly and painful.
I don't agree that they are irreplaceable. However, I do think that instead of just giving these bases to the local governments, we should sell them to pay down the national debt.
If you'll think back you will remember that all the bases closed while Klinton was in office were scheduled for their closures way back in 1988.
It was set before he took office.