Posted on 05/16/2005 3:16:58 AM PDT by Jet Jaguar
Across the nation, from the biggest states to some of the smallest communities, the cry of "Save Our Base" has been rolling in to Washington, D.C., as astute politicians and others try to keep their coveted military installations open while the next round of base closings proceeds.
Many have been at it for years, some much less so. But regardless of the length of their lobbying effort, their leaders in and out of government were keenly aware that the Base Realignment and Closure Commission was going back to work this year. Base supporters have spent millions of dollars and thousands of hours and have promised more as they try to convince the commission that this Army post or Navy shipyard or that Air Force base or Marine camp shouldn't be shuttered.
And then there's Alaska and Fairbanks, whose stunned officials learned Friday that Eielson Air Force Base is on the list to be all but closed, its aircraft and personnel sent elsewhere.
Alaska and Fairbanks appear to have done nothing to prepare for this possibility. That needs to change--and now.
Here's what other states were doing while Alaska was idle: North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley 16 months ago--16 months ago--gave his lieutenant governor the job of protecting the state's military installations in the 2005 round of base closings. With the military bringing $18.1 billion into the state's economy each year, the governor and others clearly recognized the need to play defense. So far, Lt. Gov. Beverly Perdue has made several lobbying trips to Washington, has worked with local governments to improve their own base-saving campaigns and has put together a package of military-friendly legislation.
Other states are equally as strident on behalf of their bases. In Illinois, retired military officers, politicians and public relations experts are part of the effort to not only save their bases but also expand them. Illinois has been lobbying since the 1995 round of shutdowns, with the cost of the lobbying effort to date expected to top $3 million. Michigan officials in March made their case with officials in the Defense Department and the Defense Logistics Agency.
In Georgia, Gov. Sonny Perdue has traveled to the Pentagon to make the case for his state's bases. Georgia also has a top-flight Military Affairs Coordinating Committee that includes five retired generals or admirals and is led by two former U.S. senators--Sam Nunn, former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Mack Mattingly, former chairman of the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee.
In Florida, former Defense Secretary William Cohen and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey are part of a $50,000-a-month consulting team working for the state. Massachusetts has a $410 million plan to develop bases and has hired a former BRAC chairman to be its lobbyist. In New York, Gov. George Pataki last month said the state expects to spend millions of dollars lobbying the government to keep all of the state's bases open. In California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has hired President Clinton's former chief of staff to lead his state's military lobbying effort.
Leaders in Alaska and in Fairbanks, meanwhile, were led into complacency. They believed that powerful U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens would not permit the closing of any of the big four installations--Elmendorf and Eielson Air Force bases and Forts Richardson and Wainwright. They assumed the annual lofty pronouncements of visiting high-ranking military guests regarding Fairbanks' "strategic location" meant that the area's military installations were secure from closure.
While the process is far from finished, most of the installations the Defense Department recommends for closing or downsizing do meet their suggested fate. And that leads to a debate about the effectiveness of lobbying; the opinions vary. But if lobbying is to pay off, then it will come between now and the time the commission makes its final list and forwards it to the president and Congress.
Eielson is far too important to this community, and therefore to the state, for the announcement of its near-closing to be received without a fight. It is unacceptable to conclude, as Sen. Stevens did on Friday, that Eielson's closing is regrettable but acceptable given that Alaska as a whole has fared well overall when considering military additions of recent years. Since when is it acceptable for a community to lose thousands of people in one stroke?
So now what?
Although Alaska and Fairbanks are terribly far behind in the lobbying wars, they should immediately open and adequately fund a campaign to save Eielson. The effort must be led by Sens. Ted Stevens and Lisa Murkowski, Rep. Don Young, Gov. Frank Murkowski, local mayors and legislators and the Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce. The governor took a good first step on Friday in announcing the creation of a panel that will work to prepare for Eielson's shut down while also working to keep it open. The priority, though, should be on the latter.
Despite what effort may be mounted on Eielson's behalf, the work will be difficult--more so because nothing has been done so far. To drive that point home, here's a sobering statement from a consultant whose firm works for several military communities in the South and Midwest: "For any military community waiting to this stage to hire a lobbyist, it's too late."
It's time to prove him wrong and keep Eielson open.
Eielson AFB slated for realignment (Alaska)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1402785/posts
The defense department isn't a jobs program. If it makes military sense to close the bases on the list, then we have to close them. If Alaska wants more jobs, it should drill for more oil.
Thing is, it doesn't make sense. The plan is to remove the fighters (F-16's and A-10's) to the lower 48.You know this... but Rumsfeld and the Joint Chiefs don't?This leaves Elmendorf's F-15's as the only fighters in the area.
Alaska itself has many strategic targets, including the oil pipeline, the oil transfer station in Valdez, and the Anti-Ballistic Missile site in Delta Junction.
In addition, if the Korean War was to heat back up, Eielson Forces are the closest, behind those in South Korea and Japan.
Bad idea. I say.
The BRAC may not. It is all still a proposal. It is my hope the powers that be look into it and reconsider.
You do make some interesting points. Alaska is at the very edge of our defense perimeter facing a very obvious set of current and potential enemies.
I thought so. It has a sickening sweet smell, doesn't it?
I remember when, after ten years of insults and demands to shut down the San Francisco Bay area naval bases, the US Navy actually proposed doing so.
Suddenly, Senators Boxer and Feinstein were screaming bloody murder...
We shouldn't be surprised. It is human nature to want the other guy to be sacrificed, just don't place me on the alter with those other lambs. ;)
The funniest part was that Boxer had actually campaigned for years on closing down Mare Island and Alameda.
Then the Navy said, "Sure, no prob, let's do it," and she not only turned on a dime, she gave back a few cents' change...
"Thing is, it doesn't make sense. The plan is to remove the fighters (F-16's and A-10's) to the lower 48."
Even Elmendorf is being shrunk.
Any idea where they are going? These resources belong to the PACAF, and with things going the way they are, it's best to keep them close to Taiwan/Korea. There's no breakdown on overseas changes, they are all lumped into one line item.
According to one article I read, the vipers go to Nellis, the hogs go to Moody.
Go figure.
I agree totally.
I may be mistaken, but the BRAC reccomendation didn't say Eilson was going to be closed, but that it was going to be realigned. I'm not sure what this means, any guesses?
Your guess is as good as mine.
Oh, to be in Guam again...
Great place.
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.