Posted on 05/23/2005 1:46:48 PM PDT by William D. Hodges
(Las Vegas, Nevada) On May 13, 2005, the Pentagon recommended military base closures and reductions of United States military installations throughout the country. For the first time since 1995, and while the U.S. is at war in the Middle East, the Pentagon’s proposal to close 180 bases, with 33 of them being major bases, in order to unify the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, is even more daunting than the Pentagon would have us believe. In addition, the Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington, D.C. would be moved to the present National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, MD, to combine both facilities. Early projections estimate a loss of at least 225,000 federal and civilian jobs combined with dramatic costs to state’s local economies and fiscal health, most notably in the Northeast.
The initial hearings from the independent Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) commenced May 16, 2005 with Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers, appearing in defense of the proposed closures. The congressionally chartered commission, dating back to 1988, is required to review the Pentagon’s proposed changes and present any recommendations to President Bush by September 8, 2005. The president must either accept or reject the proposal by September 23, 2005 at which time the Congress must consider passing or changing such proposals.
As noted, to the nine-member panel on May 16th, Secretary Rumsfeld stated that, “I made a conscious decision not to add anything or take anything out or change anything or make it more or make it less. I simply didn’t.” He has reiterated that “the current arrangement, designed for the Cold War, must give way to new demands of the war against extremism and other evolving challenges in the world. Many Americans may take issue with Secretary Rumsfeld’s lack of any suggestions to the proposed closings, and see the cuts to bases as a form of extremism with 80% of them effecting military recruitment centers.
At such time, the Army is well below its desired recruitment levels, and is facing its biggest challenge to date with the end of the draft in 1973 following the Viet Nam War. In testimony before Congress on May 2, 2005, General Myers voiced concern that the sustained deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan poses “significant risks” for future American war plans. And in the annual Military Risk Assessment and Threat Mitigation Plan revealed to the press in early May 2005, Myers stated that “the level of deployed troops meant that future wars could not be carried out as quickly or with as few American casualties as the Pentagon has planned.”
But the ramifications of the military restructuring loom much larger than mere fights over real estate between states, their respective economies or the politics of Capitol Hill. What has yet to come to the fore and is still being relegated to the back pages of the business section of newspapers and rarely publicly discussed by our lawmakers is that base closings this time around will be more devastating than ever, due to considerable erosion of our industrial and manufacturing base, especially since the last base closings ten years ago when 27 bases were closed and 22 realigned with a proposed $6.2 billion in savings while costing the Pentagon $6.5 billion.
As a result of our outsourcing, offshoring and the permanent loss of specific areas of U.S. manufacturing, many of these effected communities, also once rich in the manufacturing sector, look to never recover from a purported base closing in 2005. “Factory jobs that disappeared won’t come back, said Richard Berner, chief U.S. economist for Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, when speculating recently on the future of manufacturing job growth. Roughly 83% of all garments sold in the U.S. today are made offshore as are 80% of toys, 90% of sporting goods and 95% of all shoes. This is especially relevant to communities in the south which once enjoyed a thriving textile industry and along with a furniture industry since lost to U.S. companies, primarily outsourced to China. The tobacco industry also can no longer sustain the southern economy. Such underscores the extraordinary need to retain military bases such as Camp Lejeune in North Carolina for example, which will be spared calls for downsizing or closure this go-round.
The Pentagon is more and more dependent upon overseas manufacturers for weapons and equipment. For example the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, used in Iraq and Afghanistan, is proposed this year to be built by BAE Systems in Britain. The Marine One Helicopter fleet of 23, which is utilized by the president and his staff, will be built by Lockheed-Martin which will utilize its British base with major components supplied by European counterparts, although Lockheed still maintains that the copters will be “manufactured” in the U.S. Meanwhile Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. based in Connecticut, supplier of the presidential ‘copters since 1957 will be especially hit hard by losing its contract as Connecticut will suffer the largest loss of military jobs from the proposed shut down of the Navy’s submarine base in Groton, CT. And the Army awarded a multi-million dollar contract for 70 million rounds of ammunition to Israel Military Industries, for present use in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Ft. Monmouth in New Jersey is also included on the list for closure by the Pentagon. It has long been the hub of communications and electronics research and development functions. It is responsible for the development of the technology which jams signals intended to detonate roadside bombs, the defense measures used when missiles are fired at helicopters and locates sources of enemy mortar fire within seconds. All are presently being utilized in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Unlike our government’s rallying call to end dependence on foreign countries for our oil supply, there is no such cry for rolling back U.S. dependence on foreign countries for the natural resources and components used for our nation’s national defense and security. 50-100% of natural materials to create metals used in everything from “smart bombs” to reconnaissance satellites, jet-engine turbines, telecommunications, electronics and electrical transmissions, come from foreign entities. Aluminum, beryllium, nickel-based super alloys and titanium are critical components for U.S. military aircraft and space systems and with U.S. mining down 70% since 1997 we no longer depend on U.S. sources. According to the U.S. metal castings industry the majority of metal castings now come from China and other third world countries.
Lack of oversight of production and direct access to our technological needs with overseas entities due to arrangements with subcontracting contracts puts the U.S. at greater risk. In addition the European Union is looking to end its arms embargo with China in late 2005, which could have a dramatic long-term effect on our sovereignty.
30% of all jobs in the U.S. are either federal or state government jobs, while only 15% of the economy is manufacturing-based. Combining the elimination of military jobs, both administrative as well as those which touch upon some area of manufacturing, in a community with privately held factories which have long moved on, leaves the average American worker more vulnerable and leave more dependent upon public entitlement programs. Thus such will ultimately cut into projected savings from the proposed base closures. Prognosticators in both the private and public sectors to preach to workers to acquire more advanced degrees, high-tech jobs are being sent overseas and U.S. workers must compete with the importation of foreign workers hired to work on projects on a temporary basis, through the H1B Visa Program, specifically in the fields of research, development and information technology with companies such as Microsoft, Intel, IBM and SBC Communications taking advantage of lower wage workers from abroad.
The matter of base closings is being portrayed to the American public as one of location or geography only, but it also is as a matter of national security. Similarly, the battle continues on Capitol Hill to formulate an equation to equitably satisfy states in the funding of first-responders for matters of homeland security. Both issues profoundly effect the future of all Americans. Important, vital issues which will effect the future of Americans for generations to come, are being decided and will effect not only the future good of how our military operates but the future health of the U.S. economy as well.
There will be TV stories on how Joe's cigarette shop outside Blelp AFB is going to have to close up because of those mean old budget cutters.
P.S. Someone should teach this idiot the difference between "effect" and "affect". She doesn't seem to know.
Those jobs only exist because of the wealth created by the other 70%. We should never look at that dependency backwards.
And the Army awarded a multi-million dollar contract for 70 million rounds of ammunition to Israel Military Industries, for present use in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I guess BAE is just doing the work General Motors doesn't want. And Israeli Military Industries is taking up the slack for Winchester.
It is absolutely ridiculous to take tax dollars for weaponry and spend them overseas. Our own tax-base will suffer, along with military readiness. We need to get the military procurement people to remember on which side their bread is buttered. Make a law, if need be. Tax dollars should be spent here, at home, if at all possible. Jeez.
As a side note, "70 million rounds" would be sufficient to shoot every Iraqi TWICE. Quite alot for an occupying force...
Hopefully closing several in Nevada!
Take that, Harry Reid!
"W" and Sec.of Defense strike again. The President's domestic policies are just depressing. It makes sense to me. The greater our worldwide military committments the greater cuts we make in our military ability. This sounds like something from Ted (the scuba diver)Kennedy.
That all sounds great, but I'll believe it when I see it has happened.
What ever happened to Bush saying he wanted to close foreign military bases? Why not start overseas first?
Perhaps the reason recruitment is down is because prospective recruits are realizing that joining the Army means the real possibility of actually going to war. Imagine that! For over three decades the military sold itself as a great way to learn life skills and pay for college. Too many young skulls of mush signed up not because they loved their country so much they were willing to die defending it, but because they saw all of the posters and commercials telling them how the military gets them in shape, teaches them leadership, takes them around the world and sends them to college all the while paying them a salary with pretty good benefits.
Are you sure that's "in Britain"?
You cannot hold onto a base infrastructure that was designed for a 500 ship Navy and 20 division army and size of an Air Force that is equivalent to 20 Divisions when you have under one hundred ships, 10 divisions and 10 AEFs.
We also cannot cut back on Military R & D for the simple reason that Clinton allowed us to fall backwards in most research areas.
If we want to have a military of the size that justifies the sort of base structure we had in the Cold War than we need to substantially increase the defense budget, and that will mean canning the social programs established during the Clinton years.
Remember just to stand up 1 division take around 1.5 Billion dollars.
Clinton -with the help of a GOP Congress - fired 500,000 military personnel and during the same period hired roughly the same amount of federal employees for the various expansion of "social programs."
While I am all for bring back the size and the strength of the Cold War military, I think it would be wise to do that with the curent level of technology.
To get anywhere closr to that would mean that we would have to come very close to doubling the aprox. 500 billion a year we already spend on the DoD. Yes, you could probable pull a substantial portion out of Medicaid fraud alone, but the point is that we have to have the political will to do so.
Remember that the Democrats would much rather see that money spent of troops than R & D, as the later makes the country stronger whereas the former is a just more government jobs for them.
Unfortunately the BRAC is doing just the opposite. The Unit I work for at Maxwell-Gunter AFB is slated to move to Hanscom AFB, MA. An area with almost 2 times the cost of living as Alabama.
Over 3000 GS & Contractors will beout of jobs. The AF will go from paying 1500 contractors an average salary of 60-70,000 a year to having to pay an average salary of 100-140,000 a year.
Yep, this BRAC move is really fiscally intelligent!
Some of you don't seem have no clue about the military and the bases being cut. They have already started to close military bases overseas and bring home troops -- some bases are being closed in western Europe and moved to more friendly countries and a lot will be without dependents as the military deploys for six months at a time instead of a couple of years with dependents. Munich has taken a huge hit with most of the Army either pulled out or will be pulled out.
These 33 major bases being cut are somewhat a misnomer unless you work there. A major base being cut would be Scott AFB, Tinker AFB, Jacksonville NAS, or Fort Campbell as examples. The bases being cut are for the most part smaller bases and are being consolidated into larger bases to save money and time it takes to get people deployed around the world in a short time.
Tinker AFB has the Navy here because the Navy E-6 platform and AWACS are the same which is what they are attempting to do with other weapons systems -- match everything they can with the service consolidation.
Air Force lost more major bases in previous rounds then this one as they were hit hard in the last BRAC.
Yes, I am sure. I have heard of the company, and the text of the story is quoted above.
I don't doubt that you have heard of BAE Systems, but I don't believe that as a result of their acquisition of United Defense Industries, they will move production of the Bradley to the UK. In short, the source is wrong.
They blows up real good.
We gotta shoot Iranians, Syrians, Egyptians, Jordanians, Pakistanis, North Koreans, Saudis...
Red dawn??
Panama’s President Ignoring Chinese Smuggling
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/8/22/100034
Chinese Enter U.S. Through Virgin Islands
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/8/10/214414
Gee let's make it easy for them. Let put all our egg in one basket /s
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.