Ft. Monroe closure defended

The Press ^ | May 19 2005 | DAVID LERMAN

[robowombat]

Monroe closure defended The fort has little military use and should be closed, the Army tells a base-closure commission.

BY DAVID LERMAN I (202) 824-8224

May 19 2005

WASHINGTON -- Army leaders defended their recommendation to close Fort Monroe on Wednesday, saying Hampton's historic fort is a relatively small base for strictly administrative use and has low military value.

Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey said the proposed closures of Fort Monroe and two bases in Georgia are part of an effort to consolidate Army forces into larger, multi-use bases that can accommodate greater numbers of troops.

Under the Pentagon's plan, the headquarters for the Army's Training and Doctrine Command would move to nearby Fort Eustis if Monroe is closed.

"That's a move to get out of bases that are confined in urban centers and don't have a lot of military value," Harvey told the independent Base Realignment and Closure Commission.

One commission member questioned whether the Army is moving too quickly to close bases at a time when it is adding 30,000 troops and must bring home 47,000 troops from overseas in coming years. ........... "It seems to me we shouldn't rush to close facilities," said commission member James H. Bilbray, a former Democratic congressman from Nevada. "It's going to be very difficult in the future to open new bases."

................................

The closure of Monroe would move most personnel to Fort Eustis, and a smaller contingent - made up of the Army Accessions Command and Army Cadet Command - to Fort Knox, Ky.

[meandog]

...let's see, Fortress Monroe construction began in 1819; and by the late 1850s a colonel named Robt. E. Lee told Congress that it had outlived its usefulness, considering the army then was much more modern than the one in the War of 1812 that prompted its construction. HMmmmm, I suppose the Army is on solid ground in closing it...

[Swiss]

Well I hope they make it into a historical site.

I was thinking the other day is why do we have four seperate service academies. Most of our officers isn't coming from them and the costs to create an officer at West Point or the Naval Academy is much greater than ROTC or OTC.

Using the justification of all these Base Closings we should close the Service Academies.

[Gardener]

I grew up near Hampton and we shopped at the commissary at Ft. Monroe quite often. I don't think there has been any reason for many, many years to keep it open, I'm sure any operations ongoing there could easily be moved to one of the other nearby stations, it's not like there aren't enough of them in the area.

I do think the fort itself should be preserved as a historic monument though. It's a very interesting place.

[meandog]

Using the justification of all these Base Closings we should close the Service Academies.

I would very much be in favor of closing the AF Academy and merging the Dept. of the AF back into the Dept. of the Army...
It worked perfectly to have a USAAF back in WWII; the AF cadets would be educated at West Point and make the decision of which service branch Army or Air Force to go into following graduation--the same as Marines do that go to Annapolis.