Posted on 08/25/2005 5:42:35 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar
ANCHORAGE—The Base Realignment and Closure Commission on Thursday rejected the Pentagon’s proposal to place Eielson Air Force Base near Fairbanks on “warm” status.
Instead, commissioners recommended keeping the 354th Fighter Wing’s F-16 fighter planes at the base instead of distributing all fighter aircraft to installations outside Alaska. The base's A-10s would be relocated to Moody Air Force Base in Georgia.
The 168th air refueling wing, a National Guard unit, would remain at home as well.
“I don’t think it can be kept in warm status,” said commission member James Hansen before the vote was taken. “It would be rather foolish on our part to put it on warm status.”
The original proposal would have cost Eielson almost 3,000 jobs.
Earlier Thursday, the commission accepted the Pentagon’s proposal calling for Fort Richardson near Anchorage to be co-managed with neighboring Elmendorf Air Force Base.
The panel also voted to consolidate Fort Richardson’s civilian operations center within Fort Huachuca, Ariz.
The two actions would lead to a loss of 285 civilian and military jobs at Fort Richardson, said Maj. James Law with the Alaskan Command. The Army post shares a border with Elmendorf near Anchorage.
The nine-member commission has until Sept. 8 to submit its final recommendations to President Bush, who can accept the report, reject it or return it to the panel for revisions. Congress can veto only the entire plan, but that hasn’t happened in four previous rounds of base closures.
GEEEEEEEE...you'ld think this would have been a no brainer....
to keep the jets that is...
WOOOOO-HOOOOOOO!!!!!!
Would it not be so much more sensible to allow the military to decide on military matters amd keep the crooked politician/lawyers out of the trough?
No! We need our local pig-fat pork, don't we?
Sorry if I trod on liberal toes here with that statement, but the purpose of the military is NOT to provide welfare.
The original plan was flawed. They had wanted to take the A-10s and F-16s from Eielson. In addition, they were going to pull F-15s out of Elmendorf. This would have left only one squadron of F-15s to protect all of Alaska.
That's dumb.
To only have 1 squadron in AK
who said it was flawed? I doubt that at that level there was a "flawed" decision. It was purposeful. What was the "WHY"?
Somewhere there was a reason for the original decision but now ... we are back to the PORK vs military needs again.
I still bet on the PORK reasoning.
You still haven't answered WHY? did they want that base closed?
So according to you, it was a TRAITOR inside the USAF high command that decided to leave the underbelly of the US in Alaska exposed?
I do not believe in stupidity in the pentagon, so it must have been treason.
They didn't want to close the base. They were to have left it open, with the tankers they already have. They were to have moved the A-10s to Georgia and the F-16s to Nevada.
Why? To save money.
More--
Commission votes to keep some fighter planes at Eielson
By RACHEL D'ORO
Associated Press Writer
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) -- Eielson Air Force Base would keep half its fighter planes under a revised plan approved Thursday by a federal commission that concluded that stripping the base in Interior Alaska would be a mistake.
For months, Alaskans lobbied to keep Eielson open, arguing that the Pentagon's plan to all but close it would devastate the local economy while putting the nation's security at great risk.
The Base Realignment and Closure Commission agreed, rejecting the proposal to place the base on "warm" status. The nine-member commission voted 7-0, with two members recusing themselves.
Before voting, commission members praised Eielson, noting its access to vast open areas for military exercises. They spoke of the base as a major line of defense in the north.
"This plays a very, very important role for the Air Force in the Pacific theater, particularly," said commissioner Lloyd Newton.
Instead of removing nearly all aircraft from Eielson, commissioners recommended keeping the 354th Fighter Wing's 18 F-16 fighter planes at the base and distributing 18 A-10 aircraft to installations outside Alaska. The 168th air refueling wing, a National Guard unit, would remain.
"I don't think it can be kept in warm status," said commission member James Hansen. "It would be rather foolish on our part to put it on warm status."
Military officials in Alaska said it was too early to say how many jobs would be saved if the recommendations are approved by President Bush, but the number is expected to be significant.
The original plan, which would have cost Eielson almost 3,000 jobs, caused the loudest outrage of several proposals affecting Alaska installations that were released by the Pentagon in May. State, federal and local officials pressed the commission, which visited Fairbanks in June, to take a closer look at the plan.
"This is great. The people of Fairbanks need to celebrate," said Maj. Gen. Craig Campbell, adjutant general of the Alaska National Guard and a member of the Save Eielson Task Force. "We were coming from behind. It took all of us working together to make the commission understand what the truth was."
The statewide effort paid off Thursday, said Gov. Frank Murkowski, who formed the 15-member task force after the plan was announced.
"I am pleased that the BRAC commissioners noted Eielson's strategic importance in the Pacific Rim, and I believe this bodes well for the future of this base," Murkowski said. "The commission clearly saw our argument that its airspace and training facilities are too valuable and it is impractical to 'warm base' such a cold place."
U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, had been a vocal critic of the Pentagon's plan for Eielson. He said the outcome was a huge improvement, although he would have preferred to see the A-10 fighter planes remain as well.
"About the A-10s, I'm very upset about that, but the system is declining. They're not making new ones," Stevens said. "They have to leave sometime."
Earlier Thursday, the commission voted to recommend closing the Galena Airport Forward Operation Location, which was among installations added to the elimination list in July by the panel. BRAC commissioners had suggested that Eielson could take on Galena's reduced function even if Eielson's own role is diminished.
The Galena issue had been another sore point for officials, who said the Air Force pullout would devastate the community of about 700 people, about 270 miles west of Fairbanks.
U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said she was heartened that the commission agreed to include language in its final report to ensure government help for Galena to adjust to the changes ahead.
"It is of my highest priorities that the Defense Department step up to the plate and remediate any hazardous materials that they have left behind and I hope that the BRAC commission's decision today will make funds available to expedite this process," she said.
Also on Thursday, the commission accepted the Pentagon's proposal calling for Fort Richardson near Anchorage to be co-managed with neighboring Elmendorf Air Force Base.
The panel also voted to consolidate Fort Richardson's civilian operations center within Fort Huachuca, Ariz.
The two actions would lead to a loss of 285 civilian and military jobs at Fort Richardson, said Maj. James Law with the Alaskan Command. The Army post shares a border with Elmendorf near Anchorage.
The commission has until Sept. 8 to submit its final recommendations to President Bush, who can accept the report, reject it or return it to the panel for revisions. Congress can veto only the entire plan, but that hasn't happened in four previous rounds of base closures.
That seems odd that the military would have come up with that idea.
It is more of what a lawyer or politician would have thought of - especially since most of them only care for their own pockets and nothing for the country.
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.