I think we can all agree that an exorbitant amount of money can be saved from the closure of numerous military bases (both within the US and overseas). Let's just talk about the continental United States...What has happened to the nonpartisan council involved with this? How can we expect to maintain our force readiness, and fund all of these superfluous bases? Has anyone heard of another proposed round of base closures?

MrsP. You must not live in an area with a large military base. As I have lived, and currently still do live in a city with a large Air Force Base(mainly training). The closing of this base would obliterate the local economy here putting tens of thousands out of work in a relatively small city(300,000 population). Granted there are some bases that could use reductions, I would be in more favor of cutting out needless administration.

The review of military base closures is an on-going thing I think and is continuing. I'm not sure how many bases are left to close in the US though. I know they've closed a ton of them in California, some quite surprising to me. I did hear Rumsfeld say something about it in a press conference quite some time ago indicating that he wanted to close more. I do think we need to review our needs for some of the bases in Germany and perhaps consolidate those bases. They have to be costing us quite alot of money.

Just as a source of info for everyone here is a link:

BRAC website

Thanks for the link DTOM

Sleeper, I understand that many areas of the country depend (financially) on these bases to stay open. That is the reason for the independent council, because no Congressman would vote for base closures due to the impact on their area. There isn’t an infinite amount of money for defense. If we plan to maintain our force presence overseas, fund new weapon development, and pay for multiple deployments and subsequent possible military engagements, something has to go.

Sometimes, unfortunately, base selection cannot be completely contingent on the economic effects to an area. For example, we have an airbase here in Las Vegas because there is a vast amount of land and ranges available for training purposes (in the desert). The same is true of Luke AFB in Phoenix, AZ. Neither of these areas would be drastically or irreparably devastated by a closing, but there are no alternatives as far as airspace goes.

Consider the purpose of the military, which is defense. Do the bases exist to help an area, or is it a pleasant but unrelated side-effect? If the costs to the military of keeping a base functioning greatly exceed its benefit, shouldn’t it be closed?

I would not be in favor of closing them in the US. However, there are many parts of the world where we should. What about Bosnia? Are we really doing anything over there? Is our presence positive at all?

Pack up and leave the parts of the world where our work is done. Move them all back home. I'm sure the soldiers would appreciate that.

--cheers

No bases in the US should be closed but i think ones from Saudi Arabia & Bosnia should be closed

Bosnia has been quiet for a while so there is no reason to stick around there.

Saudi Arabia definetly if what i've been hearing about the Pentagon arranging with the incoming Iraqi government about opening some bases in Iraq.

SunTimes

2 i can understand but 4?!


Digital Patriot Posted on Apr 25 2003, 07:39 PM


That would be a good idea. We are stretched too far already & if another conflict pops up (considering the current problem in the Korean Penisula, it may be a possibility) we would be streched too far & we would also be short on troops.

I agree with closing overseas bases where not needed, or where the country in question can no longer realistically be considered an ally. That last would seem to apply to Saudi Arabia, hmm? And if there are good substitutes, then they're no longer needed, right? Though I guess what bases we can keep in Iraq will depend on the new government there, and that isn't settled yet.

So far as domestic bases, I think we should close them if they're there as a jobs program for a community, because that's not what military bases are for, Congresscritter's opinions to the contrary notwithstanding. Military bases should exist because the military needs them.

If only there were some good way of letting the military decide that themselves without having to involve Congress ... but of course our system doesn't work that way, even though no Congresscritter will vote to close a base in their own district or even state. That's why they had to let a non-partisan commission make up the base closure list, and only let Congress vote yes or no on the whole package; if they hadn't done that we'd still have lots of bases that serve no military purpose, which was a huge waste.

I am very very unhappy about this one. Actually, I'm still in denial. This means increased, extended deployments and lots of expense. It also hurts our credibility abroad if we ostensibly 'liberate' a country militarily, and then set up a permanent presence.

I find it disturbing that some conservatives are against social welfare but for military welfare, i.e., keep US bases open to boost the local economy--regardless if these bases contribute to national security or not. Seems that these same types of conservatives are for corporate welfare but against social welfare.

Why do these types hate the little people?

Anyway, I'm all for reducing waste, and if we don't have a good reason for maintaining a military base, let it go. Hey, it's just business, kinda like how I took my layoff 18 months ago.

I disagree on that.

Domestic Bases are used as training facilities for our troops in preperation for going into a hostile situation like Afghanistan & some domestic as well as Kuwaiti bases were used to train troops on Urban Warfare Tactics & Preperation.

I don't see how that's a disagreement. I didn't say or imply that training isn't a legitimate and important military use, only that being a jobs program for the local community isn't.

the theory that the U.S. would close it's base in Saudi Arabia is correct. But only 400 troops will be sticking around.

Also, the US Navy is going to leave Vieques after 60 Years

Yahoo: Navy Set to Leave Vieques After 60 Years

That is outstanding news to all military personnel and their families

I also don't really think it is necessary for bases within the U.S. to be closed, but I do support the closure of unnecessary bases in previously stated places like Saudi Arabia. Is there anything that would hurt the US by doing this? Does anyone know how many soldiers are at these bases in other countries? The US is already wasting all this money, and all I can think of is that they wont have a place for those soldiers.

So do i. We already have a base in Afghanistan and a few in Iraq. We don't need a Saudi Base because Saddam is out of power and not threatening SA and Kuwait anymore.

I think there are some bases in the US that can be closed, without too much damage to the cities they are in.

For instance, does San Antonio, Texas really need 3 Air Force Bases, and an Army base? Could closing one or two of the bases, and moving their tasks to other bases be feasible? Bases in towns that could ill afford the hit to civilian jobs? Considering that San Antonio is a fairly large city, I would have to say yes.

Here's what's going on with Colorado Springs and the military bases:

Colorado Springs is home to the Air Force Academy, Fort Carson, NORAD, Peterson Air Force Base, Schriever Air Force Base, and the recently formed U.S. Northern Command. According to the website www.coloradosprings.com, in 2001 the military brought $2.67 billion in revenue to the local economy and employed 41,672 people, of which 29,218 were active-duty personnel and cadets. The rest were civilians. One out of three adult residents depended on the military, and this number may be higher today as the private economy suffers while the military builds up.

That's an excerpt from one of my articles. We have six major military facilities in/near a city whose population is only 300,000 (give or take a few thousand).

Let's just say hardly anyone wants to shrink or close any military facility down around here, whether the facility is needed or not. This leads to a lack of objectivity when making decisions. Shoot, if 1/3 the tax base comes from the military (support by taxpayers) and 1/3 of the economy depends on military-derived income (supported by taxpayers), who could possibly suggest that maybe Peterson AFB, for example, ought to be shut down?

Here's another affect: Those without current security clearances can't get high tech jobs with the military. A handful of positions require the potential of obtaining clearance, but most require current clearance. This has closed the doors of employment to a lot of CS residents because private industry simply isn't hiring.

So not only do we have a local economy heavily dependent on military taxing/spending, but we have an elitist job force growing that has a problematic bottleneck to entry. Last statistic I saw, security clearances are backlogged by over 200,000. Maybe the process ought to be simplified? The responsibilities expanded out of the FBI?

And now, with the rebuilding of Iraq requiring more troops and support contractors, looks like base closures will not be an issue. Besides, with 78 billion coming down the pipes, I'll bet more military-oriented facilities open here and abroad.

At the least, the present facilities will expand.

It wasn't many years ago that people dependent on military taxing/spending fretted about base closures after the Cold War was supposedly over. Guess now there's nothing to worry about on that level because the Cold War didn't really end, just transformed to the war on terrorism and the resulting nation-building.

The outcome of this, IMO, will be about a decade of expansion. It's a good thing that GDP is up because the private/public non-military economy has to grow tremendously to support all this. We'd better not depend on exporting jobs or cutting taxes to boost this GDP either. Better get going on exporting goods and services, too (i.e., job creation and at decent rates of pay).

I can't understand how base closing became a political issue in the first place. They're MILITARY bases, not political issues. If the military doesn't need them, close them. How is it exactly that some politician suddenly became more knowledgeable on this issue than those that do this for their profession?

I am more open to the political ramification of foreign bases, since having a 'presence' in many countries is for a mainly political purpose to begin with. But this should never be the case for domestic bases.

It's all about economics, as pointed out in the C-Springs posting. Military bases are not walled-off from the communities in which they reside; they provide a significant economic boost to the businesses in the surrounding areas. That's what makes it a political issue: Congressfolks are required to "bring home the bacon" to win elections. If a military base pulls up stakes, the politicans are the ones everyone blames when the local economy tanks.

Of course it's political. Take the example of where I live in central Illinois. Chanute Air force base had been here for over 50 years when they decided to close it in 1991. That was done under the current BRAC guidelines.

The town that the base was located at, Rantoul, was about 20,000 in population, and the base had about 30,000. I'd say a good 5,000 of the town worked on base in a civilian capacity.

If the closings weren't done by an independent committee, but by congress, and this were approved at the time, how long do you think Illinois congressmen's jobs would have lasted, for closing two bases in the state that year, and losing about 10,000, or more in jobs?

Since they are done by an independent committee, the politicos can say "look, it wasn't my fault, I have no way to bring any pressure to bear on these guys. You can't blame me for their recommendations"

It's not so much about having a "political" presence in the US, as it is about having an "economic" presence, in some areas.

Economics. As pointed out, many bases in the U.S. add jobs....something that is very unstable in the civilian world.

Also, they help the economies of the countries they are in. Soldiers shop at stores in Germany, japan, South Korea, and helps the local economies

Actually, the San Antonio bases are all very neccesary for training etc- Ft Sam is the medical institute of the entire Army, the Academy of Health Sciences is located there, as well as Brooks army medical center, the Army's burn clinic (back in the 80s the victims of the german disco tech bombing were flown there) . Also the air force bases are the main training bases for the entire air force ( I forget which one, Randolf I think, is the base for all air force basic training). None of those bases will ever be slated for closing!

So, are these military bases, or economic entities? If their purpose is economic, then why put them in charge of the military? Did the military somewhere assume an economic enlightenment? If their purpose is military, then that should be the basis for their existence. If the politicians want to get involved in military matters, then perhaps they should join the service?

While it is unfortunate that military base closures have a negative impact on the economy that should not be the reason to decide to keep a base open. Politics comes into more play than it should when deciding where to place military posts, but I think that is the intractable nature of the beast.

We should make decisions about bases and personnel levels entirely on military need. I think we need to increase our troop level for the time being but also think that we should look at closing military bases abroad. I would like to see us get out of South Korea. We can let North Korea know that they should expect a war if they invade and conquer South Korea. Our present forces in South Korea do not seem to be a match for the North Korean army. This way if they invade they know they have a war but they could likely capture over ten thousand American GIs who are presently serving the role of speed bumps.

Government expenses should be constantly audited and checked for waste, redundancy, and obsolescence. When these things are found they should be fixed. If that means a base closure it should be an easy decision to make with some unfortunate consequences for the local economy.

If you want to see Republicans and Democrats act in a bipartisan way, just let the Pentagon start hinting they are looking into closing a military installation in their area. Man, will they respond quick, fast and in a hurry.

And why not? They're trying to protect jobs---their own among others. Everyone is in favor of trimming the fat and eliminating waste and redundancy, but NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) kicks in and suddenly that old warhorse of a base that nobody cares about suddenly a top priority to be saved.

I was stationed at Rickenbacker AFB in Ohio. It was closed as an active base over 10 years ago and now it's used by FedEx and other commerical interests to fly in their wares. There has been a big fall-off in employment, but while there are no troops there are still plenty of civilian jobs.

It's tough on small communities when a base closes and puts people out of work, but that can't be the main reason to keep a installation open. The military is not the same thing as a major coropration, but like a corporation when locations no longer make economic sense and their work can be better deployed elsewhere they have to go on the chopping block.

That's just the way it is.

Some people would be glad to see the local army base go. Especially Air Force bases. Talk about noise. You have fighters landing day and night.

But i wouldn't mind. I love American military aircraft. They are so cool to look at and so cool to see do demos at air shows. The last air show we had here had a flyby of an F-117. It was so cool. From below, it looked like something you'd mistake as a UFO. Also, i love to see the displays of the aircraft (restricted access & no armaments of course...except the Apache Helicopter...you could climb into the cockpit) on the tarmacs at the air show.

Anyways...noise and activity would be a good reason why some would love to see them go. If it weren't for the economic value, americans all over the nation would be demanding the base near them be shut down.

P.S.: Sorry for going on about the air show...sometimes i get too involved