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.
I thought so. It has a sickening sweet smell, doesn't it?
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?
THAT'S STUPID.
Just downright stupid.
In AK you have a state that is 100% pro-defense. You can’t get much more pro-defense than AK.
The bases/posts are huge and good (Some of the largest in the whole US-example Wainwright). Wainwright, Richardson, Eielson, Elmendorf are all fantastic instillations with good infrastructure. Look at the runway at Eielson! You can dam near land a C172 on the width of that runway. It’s an alternate for the Shuttle for a reason. The housing for soldiers ANYWHERE in Alaska is good. ANYWHERE in AK is better housing, gyms, hospitals etc than nearly ANYWHERE in Europe. Benning (Home of the infantry) isn't as nice as Wainwright.
We have HUGE impact areas where you can drop real big bombs and do real gun runs with A10s and fighters, day, night, Sundays or on Christmas if you feel like it........... If an A10/F16/15 wants to fly low-NOBODY CARES!
Actually we are not that far from many of the potential trouble spots (S. Korea for example).
AK is one of the last places we should withdraw forces. In my opinion (But I am biased I know), AK is a good location-pushed forward, pro-defense, with huge facilities and bases/posts, where the rules for training, impact areas etc are nearly without parallel, with a solid infrastructure, a state government which has always backed its military………. Really I don’t get it. AK was where we had missiles pointing at the USSR and where today we are emplacing interceptor missiles (At Greeley) to shoot down N. Korean or potentially future Chinese threat systems. Our DEW line and our missile early warning systems are based partially there. The Alyeska Pipeline is a strategic target and Saddam offered a multi-million dollar reward to blow it up (We pump ¼ of all the consumed US oil - about a million 44 gallon barrels per day). We used to have units (Army) dedicated to protecting it. While our population is small and many give us little thought, we are a rather good spot for our nations military.
Red6
While I was stationed at Eielson, I also had the opinion that there was a strong pro-American pro-military populace there. I have since been back two times as a 'civilian' and have learned all is not as I remembered.
There is a large group of radical 'sourdoughs' that consider the lower 48 as intrusive and undesirable misfit's wanting to take everything from them and give nothing. Now I sit back and remember how many of those old timers jobs depended on the military... har dee har har...
For the best example of what I am explaining, go to Homer, AK.
It is kind of interesting to hear those who want smaller gov't, less taxes, etc., want Eielson kept open. Of course they like the idea of 5000 jobs and they are trying to tell the Pentagon about the military necessity. The daily bitch in Fairbanks is that the private sector is in such trouble. I have been hearing how much trouble the private sector is in for over 30 years, meanwhile the pop has risen from 30K to 90K.
The local radio is interviewing some people on the history of Eielson. Used to be called the 26 mile alternate landing strip. Seems the major buildup was about 1993, which would coincide with when the traffic load started to go to h311 in town.
With all apologies to FReepers affected by base closings, wherever you are, military bases are there to serve the needs of the military, not to bolster the economy where they reside. People should read the writing on the wall and prepare themselves for what comes next.