425 US domestic base closings or "downsizing"

[Bluehawk]

This ain't soundin' too good, help decide whether it is or not:

To my mind and eye, it is beginning to suck.

Not sure why, at this moment, but it don't sound proper.

I've been steadfast in SecDef Rumsfeld's corner for a mighty long while. However, he'd best have a mighty good reason that can be fully and openly explained for this decision he is being given credit for.

425 as a number, does not begin to seem to be "less severe than expected.", sir... unless ya'll have some other agenda ya'll ain't as yet informed the electorate about so that we could help ya'll make the proper decision in our capacity as being of, by and for the people.

I am starting to begin to think that my nose oughta be outa joint, on this particular deal.

How 'bout ya'll?

-------------------

"(AP) Military base closings will be less severe than expected, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld indicated Thursday, saying he had scaled back his recommendations because the military had less surplus space than once estimated.

He predicted that his list of closures and realignments, if approved, would result in a net savings to the government of $48.8 billion over 20 years. That figure takes into account a recurring annual savings of $5.5 billion, partly offset by billions in closure expenses.

Previous estimates of savings from base closings have proven to be overly optimistic, although the Pentagon says it has recorded a net gain of about $18 billion from four previous rounds. Environmental cleanup is one of the biggest upfront costs.

More than two years in the making and wrapped in strict secrecy, the Rumsfeld recommendations on which of the Pentagon's 425 domestic bases to close, shrink or expand are scheduled to be delivered Friday morning to a congressionally chartered commission.

He is expected to recommend that dozens of Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps bases across the country be closed or realigned.

The commission will hold public hearings before presenting its recommendations to President Bush by Sept. 8.

At a Pentagon news conference, Rumsfeld said that domestic bases have 5 percent to 10 percent more space than they need. That contrasts with earlier estimates of 20 percent to 25 percent.

"The department is recommending fewer major base closures than had earlier been anticipated, due in part to the return of tens of thousands of troops through our global posture review and also due to decisions to reduce lease space by moving activities from leased space into (government) owned facilities," he said.

Rumsfeld said the military has so many pressing needs, including properly equipping its forces and reducing the stresses imposed by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that it must economize where possible.

Loren Thompson, a military analyst with the Lexington Institute think tank, noted that a net savings of $2.4 billion a year — $48 billion divided by 20 years — is the equivalent of cutting one major weapons program.

"The big story here is not going to be saving money. The big story is going to be preparing the force for future threats by moving it to more logical locations," Thompson said.

He predicted forces will move to the West Coast from the East since threats in Europe have been replaced by concerns emerging from across the Pacific. In addition, more forces could move south, where land is cheaper than in the Northeast.

Rumsfeld said the Pentagon stands ready to help ease the negative impact of base closings on communities that have long supported the military.

Rumsfeld was joined at the news conference by the chiefs of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force, who all said the base-closing process would help their services.

"It's a necessary step to improve the war-fighting capability of the joint force," said Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Rumsfeld said, "Current arrangements pretty much designed for the Cold War must give way to the new demands of war against extremists and other evolving 21st century challenges."

The military for years has been operating more bases than it needs for the 1.4 million troops on active duty. Throughout the late 1990s, Congress refused to authorize a new round of base closings.

The Pentagon has several motives for seeking to close and downsize some of its 425 major U.S. domestic bases. Fewer bases would mean smaller costs for operating and maintaining facilities. Another motive is to promote greater integration of training among the military services — and between the active-duty and reserve forces — by having them share bases.

State governments and their elected representatives are worried because losing a military installation can be a blow to the local economy, and they're doing whatever they can to try to spare their bases.

The last round of closings was in 1995, when 27 major bases were selected for closure and 22 were chosen for realignment. Minor adjustments were made at 57 other sites. As of 2001 it had cost the Pentagon $6.5 billion to implement the changes, while savings in operating and upkeep costs were estimated at $6.2 billion.

The Pentagon estimates that its 1995 base actions, combined with closings and realignments from 1988, 1991 and 1993, resulted in a net savings to the government of about $18 billion through 2001, and it projects recurring annual savings of $7.3 billion from those four rounds combined.

Although most of Rumsfeld's recommendations are expected to be endorsed by the base closing commission after its public hearings, the commission can under certain circumstances remove or add some bases."



©MMV, The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[Caldric]

I think it is a very good idea. Take for instance here in Alaska Anchorage.

We have Elmendorf AFB, but 10 miles across town at the International Airport we have Kulis AF Guard Base, I can see no reason why they can not move over to Elmendorf, seems a waste of money too me. Another example is Eielson Air Base, there just is no reason to have it and Elmendorf...

In fact after I looked over the entire list of places to be closed I do not see why they have been opened this long.

It is far beyond time for the DoD to start downsizing some of these outrageous cost for defense. I am all for lower defense budget and these are good common sense downsizing. Does not mean much on force sizes but like in Anchorage I see no need for two Air Bases with another less then 20 mins in a Fighter north of Elmendorf.

[RAMESES the Great]

I have not seen the full list, just my California bases, and, FOR ONCE, we have come up pretty sweet. We are losing 12 small facilities but gaining people at the others. Much better when a Major Army Depot and two large Air Bases were closed within ten miles of downtown. Sorry to be so parochial but that was are concern, Both Beale and Travis are presently safe.

[Caldric]

I will say however that I think closing the shipyards is a bad choice. Such places are very difficult to rebuild or bring back online.

[Woodmonkey]

Originally Posted by Caldric

I will say however that I think closing the shipyards is a bad choice. Such places are very difficult to rebuild or bring back online.

We should have a moderator merge this thread with the one CalDreaming started in ChitChat. Beast had something to say about the shipyards and I don't have time to copy it over here.

Generally, it appears they are getting rid of outdated facilities and merging operations. I posted an article in ChitChat about how Koreans are demonstrating about us closing a base over there. The Germans want our money too for their economy and don't want bases closed there.

Civilian jobs are not, IMO, a good reason to keep a base open.

[Caldric]

Originally Posted by Woodmonkey

Civilian jobs are not, IMO, a good reason to keep a base open.

I agree! That is very important.

Koreans can just go jump off the pier. Last year they were saying how evil we are and how they wanted us gone.

Nothing to say about the Germans.... I think we all know that issue.

[Bluehawk]

Well, I still regard this as a serious P/CP matter, for the present time.

Here is the link:

http://www.defenselink.mil/brac/

Go there, and click on "Closure and Realignment Impacts by State"

It is an impressive list, with quite a few surprises included.