Posted on 02/06/2005 6:23:04 PM PST by SmithL
The Pentagon is piecing together its most radical base-realignment plans ever, impacting life on a quarter of all of its military bases and depots around the United States.
Expect closings that will be far more sweeping than previous rounds. Auditors claim the Pentagon would save $7 billion a year from those closings, and the Pentagon this year is under orders from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to reconfigure its forces to better fight the war on terrorism.
Translation: Expensive bases built to fight the Cold War are no longer needed.
Topping the hit list: Military depots and small National Guard and Reserve bases. The generals and admirals estimate that at least $20 billion could be saved privatizing the routine repair work depots do overhauling ships, planes and tanks. States already have hired teams of $400-an-hour Washington lobbyists to defend the jobs of thousands of civilian mechanics and other employees.
Big bases aren't exempt. The Air Force brass grump that they can't let pilots train on Luke Air Force Base near Phoenix when endangered Sonoran pronghorn antelope are spotted nearby, and the admirals argue it would make economic sense to relocate Navy air support units to Arizona from the crowded and expensive real estate surrounding the U.S. Navy base in San Diego.
Even the Pentagon's futuristic think tank, known as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and the Army's highly praised operations in Natick, Mass., aren't sacrosanct.
They talk but then the Congressmen starts yelling about THEIR economies and there we go.
Yeah, it's very unseemly. I expect liberals to act childish. But I get disappointed when I see "conservative" politicians do the same -- politicians who are supposed to have the greater good in mind.
It's hard to have any heroes in politics when everyone acts the same -- left, middle and right.
All politics is local.
I guess. I guess all politicians have to throw a tantrum about "their" military base -- damn the greater good. I guess it's the price of admission to Washington, and we can't expect anything better, even from the "best" politicians.
Rather than close OUR bases, how about us closing the bases in Germany and Korea? Clinton downsized our military and you see the shortage of men we've had to work with in Iraq. Also, we could stop funding terrorist nations, and use it here to build our military and use them on our borders. I think we need to have a new policy that says AMERICA FIRST!!!!
The only consideration should be military necessity. On the other hand, it would be fun to close bases in any state with Senators like Kennedy/Kerry, Fienstein/Boxer, Murray/Cantwell.
Closing bases has nothing to do with the size of the military. Some bases can be consolidated..some are leftovers from WW2 requirements.
The thing is, once the base is closed, there is no going back. We have all of these extra bases because we once had a military twice the size it is now, and no longer do.
I admire Rum and I admire what he is able to do with what he has to work with. But I'm concerned that the military is undersized, when we seem maxed out with one regional war.
Replacing high-priced real estate with lower priced real estate somewhere else makes sense; closing down high priced real estate and not replacing it gives you a one-time boost to your budget, but otherwise it is only a boost to real estate developers.
We've many of us railed against Clinton for his bone-deep cuts to the military, cutting both ground troops and the fleet by almost half. That was cashing in the "peace dividend". But fleets and divisions can be built back up if the bases are there to house them. Close the bases though, and unless you replace them somewhere else, you are accepting the Clinton-sized military as the new standard.
http://www.macombdaily.com/stories/020305/loc_brac001.shtml
Lobbyists fight potential base closings
TACOM appears on Internet list of sites under consideration
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Army Gen. Henry H. Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the House Armed Services Committee in July 2001 that the Pentagon maintained 25 percent more facilities than it needs, even after four rounds of base closings in the 1990s. By some accounts, the excess military bases annually cost taxpayers an estimated $3.5 billion.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/brac.htm
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
I hope you are right. Obviously, a fair portion of our military can continue to be forward based, we should be establishing permanent basing close to where we are likely to use it, closing our German bases and putting down more roots in the Asia Pacific region.
But closing major US bases looks like closing the barn door to make sure the horse never gets back in. It worries me. We've cut the military, so we don't need so many bases, which means then that we accept the Clinton-sized military as being the optimum for future requirements? Does this mean I have to quit condemning the Clinton cuts?
Very true. Closing bases does not mean that you are reducing troop strength, or impacting readiness. It's very expensive for DOD to continue to bankroll the infrastructure/support services they are required to maintain as long as there are SOME military on a given installation. Holding onto unused (and unneeded) real estate does not serve the best interests of the military, or the taxpayer.
It wouldn't bother me if they closed all U. S. bases in Europe, England and Japan. The Second World jWar is over!
There are needs for some overseas bases.
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.