Base-Closing Panel Examine Pentagon Plans

[BBond]

If there was a Democrat in the White House and Democrats controlling Congress the Republicans would be screaming bloody murder over closing military bases during this "time of war," just as Republicans STILL scream about the military downsizing of the early 90s EVEN THOUGH IT WAS STARTED BY DICK CHENEY WHILE HE WAS SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.

How many bases and how much safer would America be if they had $200 billion or so to spend on keeping bases OPEN instead of closing them? Just HOW DESPARATE is this White House for money?

Again, Iraq is negatively affecting this "war on terror" and the ability of the U.S. military.
And true to form, it's the Republicans who are behind this. Bush sent our troops to war unnecessarily, without proper planning, AND WITHOUT EVEN THE BASIC NECESSARY EQUIPMENT FOR THEIR SURVIVAL!

WHEN WILL YOU PEOPLE WTFU???!

"Smaller but smarter" my A$$. We're seeing the effects of "smaller but smarter" in Iraq. I have a suggestion based solely on past performance. If this is Rumsfeld implementing more of Bush's neo-con influenced plans for the military, we are in for another major blunder. Closing bases during "time of war" -- another Bush first.

Who wants to wager that the same idiots who refuse to admit that it was Cheney who downsized the military in the 90s will be the same idiots who refuse to admit it's the Republicans again who are downsizing the military today?

Here is a quote for those who doubt the effects of this second Republican inspired attack on the safety, effectiveness, and readiness of the U.S. military.

"...the commission itself has voiced concern that the plan would compromise homeland security..."

Before the right wingers start with their usual bleeting "but if this was the Democrats you wouldn't be complaining" -- WTFU -- THIS ISN'T THE DEMOCRATS AND IT HASN'T BEEN THE DEMOCRATS -- IT'S BEEN THE REPUBLICANS BOTH TIMES.

Base-Closing Panel Examine Pentagon Plans

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer

Thursday, August 25, 2005

(08-25) 04:07 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

After four months of work, a federal commission is steamrolling through hundreds of Pentagon proposals as it decides how many U.S. military bases should be closed down or restructured.

The nine-member panel was starting debate and voting on Air Force plans Thursday, grappling with arguably the Pentagon's most contentious recommendations just two days into what was expected to be a four-day meeting.

With communities around the country awaiting word anxiously, the panel breezed through Army and Navy proposals Wednesday, deciding even high-profile issues, such as saving a submarine base in Connecticut and a shipyard in Maine, in less than an hour.

The panel agreed with proposals to shutter hundreds of small and large facilities in all corners of the country, and, ahead of schedule, began taking up recommendations that would streamline support services across the military branches.

The commission planned to finish that joint-service section ? including voting on the closure of Walter Reed hospital in Washington ? before moving to the Air Force plan.

Much of that section includes recommendations to shake up the Air National Guard, a highly controversial effort. It also proposes closing both Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota and Cannon Air Force Base in New Mexico.

"We're doing some very large muscle movements," Gen. Gary Heckman, a top Air Force official who helped lead the service's base-closing analysis team, said in an interview.

He said the service branch wasn't hit in previous rounds of closures as hard as the Army and Navy because overhauling the Air Force's structure ? which is what has been proposed this time around ? is very difficult.

Ellsworth's proposed closing has caused the most political consternation because Sen. John Thune, a freshman senator, had argued during the 2004 campaign that he ? rather his Democratic opponent, then-Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle ? would be in a better position to save the facility. Nonetheless, it showed up on the Pentagon's closure list.

The closure of Cannon would cause Clovis, N.M., a small town on the Texas-New Mexico line, to lose nearly 3,000 jobs.

When complete, the commission's final report will be sent to President Bush, who can accept it or reject it in its entirety, or send it back to the commission for revisions. Congress also will have a chance to veto the plan but it has not taken that step in four previous rounds of closures.

If ultimately approved, the changes would occur over the next six years.

Overall, the Pentagon has proposed closing or consolidating a record 62 major military bases and 775 smaller installations to save $48.8 billion over 20 years, streamline the services and reposition the armed forces.

Since the Pentagon announced its proposal in May, commissioners had voiced concerns about several parts of it, including the estimate of how much money would be saved.

In some of its first decisions Wednesday, the commission voted to keep open several major Army and Navy bases that military planners want to shut down, including the Portsmouth shipyard in Kittery, Maine, and the New London submarine base in Groton, Conn., two of the Navy's oldest bases.

"They have proved they are not a rubber stamp," said David Berteau, a Pentagon official who oversaw base closings for the Pentagon in 1991 and 1993. "But we don't know yet what the common theme is because they're dealing with each of these on a case-by-case basis."

By far, the most controversy ? both on the commission and off ? has surrounded the Air Force.

Most of its proposals cover the Air National Guard and would shift of people, equipment and aircraft around at at least 54 sites where Guard units are stationed.

Aircraft would be taken away from 25 Air National Guard units. Instead of flying missions, those units would get other missions such as expeditionary combat support roles. They also would retain their state missions of aiding governors during civil disturbances and natural disasters.

Several states have sued to stop the shake-up, the commission itself has voiced concern that the plan would compromise homeland security, and the Justice Department was brought in to settle arguments over whether the Pentagon could relocate Air National Guard units without a governor's consent. The ruling said it could.

The Pentagon says as a package, the Air Force proposals represent an effort to reshape the service branch into a more effective fighting force by consolidating both weapons systems and personnel, given that it will have a smaller but smarter aircraft fleet in the future.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Can you imagine how shrill the right would've been screaming if Clinton had called for all these base closings?

"OMG, you're gutting our military! You unpatriotic son of a b*tch!"

"OMG, we should either impeach him or assassinate him!" (Oh wait, that was already said.)

 

[5LiterMustang]

First of all I need to clarify something they ARE NOT shrinking the military, they are closing bases that are dual duty bases, in other words there is it at least ONE other base that does the same thing.

Having said that, as a republican I was against it when Clinton did it (however upon looking back I understand why some of the bases were closed) I'm also against it when Bush is doing it. Closing bases makes absolutely no sense to me, we consilidate our military to key bases and then its MUCH easier for the enemy to take down our capacities in various military areas by simply striking one or two key bases. It really REALLY bothers me.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
First of all I need to clarify something they ARE NOT shrinking the military, they are closing bases that are dual duty bases, in other words there is it at least ONE other base that does the same thing.

Having said that, as a republican I was against it when Clinton did it (however upon looking back I understand why some of the bases were closed) I'm also against it when Bush is doing it. Closing bases makes absolutely no sense to me, we consilidate our military to key bases and then its MUCH easier for the enemy to take down our capacities in various military areas by simply striking one or two key bases. It really REALLY bothers me.

I was more referring to the right-wing TV and radio pundits than anybody that would be doing the screaming. Clinton's reformation of the military is now being touted as being a "sleeker, more agile force capable of fighting the new war on terrorism". That was even stated during the Presidential debate by GWB. But I agree, the cost savings versus job loss and security loss do not make it worth it.

 

[5LiterMustang]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
[
I was more referring to the right-wing TV and radio pundits than anybody that would be doing the screaming. Clinton's reformation of the military is now being touted as being a "sleeker, more agile force capable of fighting the new war on terrorism". That was even stated during the Presidential debate by GWB. But I agree, the cost savings versus job loss and security loss do not make it worth it.

There are some bases that probably do legitimately need to be closed, but why aren't we building more modern bases as well? or modernizing some of the key bases that we have? One of our most important bases is Tinker in my home town, they've got 40,000 people working there which is pretty impressive and they dont get the money necessary to modernize. Yet they work on/repair/maintain vital portions of our military.

 

[lozina]

I'm all for these base closures if it will in fact save us money. It's about time they do something fiscally conservative.

And yeah, I'd bet my life savings if Clinton did this we'd see some people who would support this now be screaming bloody murder! Such is the life of a mindless partisan drone.

 

[maddogchen]

Well Clinton didn't have a war that filters all the military money away. The right probably understand that Bush needs to close bases to fund for Iran.

Although I'm not sure how closing a submarine base affects our homeland security. I haven't heard of terrorists planning to use underwater subs to target our cities.

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: maddogchen
Well Clinton didn't have a war that filters all the military money away. The right probably understand that Bush needs to close bases to fund for Iran.

Although I'm not sure how closing a submarine base affects our homeland security. I haven't heard of terrorists planning to use underwater subs to target our cities.

Dolphins are terrorists.

They hate the american pig capitolists and want to destroy everything that america stands for.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: lozina
I'm all for these base closures if it will in fact save us money. It's about time they do something fiscally conservative.

And yeah, I'd bet my life savings if Clinton did this we'd see some people who would support this now be screaming bloody murder! Such is the life of a mindless partisan drone.

It's highly unlikely that BRAC will save money. The Pentagon's "best case scenario" was something like $49B over 20 years . . . essentially over two decades they will "save" the equivalent of 1/10th fiscal 2005 DOD spending.

GAO analysis notes 47% of projected DOD savings would come from actual cuts in military personnel. Considering that it's far more likely that they will be reassigned, there's no real savings at all.

The previous four rounds saved only $29B through 2003. Granted, Bush/Rumsfeld DOD wastes a lot more than Clinton and Bush41.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: lozina
I'm all for these base closures if it will in fact save us money. It's about time they do something fiscally conservative.

And yeah, I'd bet my life savings if Clinton did this we'd see some people who would support this now be screaming bloody murder! Such is the life of a mindless partisan drone.

It's highly unlikely that BRAC will save money. The Pentagon's "best case scenario" was something like $49B over 20 years . . . essentially over two decades they will "save" the equivalent of 1/10th fiscal 2005 DOD spending.

GAO analysis notes 47% of projected DOD savings would come from actual cuts in military personnel. Considering that it's far more likely that they will be reassigned, there's no real savings at all.

The previous four rounds saved only $29B through 2003. Granted, Bush/Rumsfeld DOD wastes a lot more than Clinton and Bush41.

Bush is simply dividing the pie differently. More for the politicians and their friends in the defense industry and less for the soldiers and our security.

 

[EagleKeeper]

BRAC closings also produce a massive boost to most local economies 5-10 years down the road as private business utilizes the existing infrstructure of the bases.

Those numbers are not showing (and should not show up) in the cost benifit analysis to the military.

Many bases get enhancements as they absorb the work load from other bases.

 

[Train]

Funny how the biggest fight from the Dems is over the proposed base closing in Massachusettes, hmm, I smell a Kennedy.

 

[5LiterMustang]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: lozina
I'm all for these base closures if it will in fact save us money. It's about time they do something fiscally conservative.

And yeah, I'd bet my life savings if Clinton did this we'd see some people who would support this now be screaming bloody murder! Such is the life of a mindless partisan drone.

It's highly unlikely that BRAC will save money. The Pentagon's "best case scenario" was something like $49B over 20 years . . . essentially over two decades they will "save" the equivalent of 1/10th fiscal 2005 DOD spending.

GAO analysis notes 47% of projected DOD savings would come from actual cuts in military personnel. Considering that it's far more likely that they will be reassigned, there's no real savings at all.

The previous four rounds saved only $29B through 2003. Granted, Bush/Rumsfeld DOD wastes a lot more than Clinton and Bush41.

Bush is simply dividing the pie differently. More for the politicians and their friends in the defense industry and less for the soldiers and our security.

You're kidding right? He's pumped up R&D budgets and soldiers pay and along with that he's also trying to pump the intel budgets too. Clinton cuts were wayyy too deep.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: lozina
I'm all for these base closures if it will in fact save us money. It's about time they do something fiscally conservative.

And yeah, I'd bet my life savings if Clinton did this we'd see some people who would support this now be screaming bloody murder! Such is the life of a mindless partisan drone.

It's highly unlikely that BRAC will save money. The Pentagon's "best case scenario" was something like $49B over 20 years . . . essentially over two decades they will "save" the equivalent of 1/10th fiscal 2005 DOD spending.

GAO analysis notes 47% of projected DOD savings would come from actual cuts in military personnel. Considering that it's far more likely that they will be reassigned, there's no real savings at all.

The previous four rounds saved only $29B through 2003. Granted, Bush/Rumsfeld DOD wastes a lot more than Clinton and Bush41.

Bush is simply dividing the pie differently. More for the politicians and their friends in the defense industry and less for the soldiers and our security.

Translation: "Hi my name is BBond and I talk out of my ass."

Bush has given more pay raises to the enlisted in 1 year than Clinton did in 8.

 

[azazyel]

We are really going to hurt local economies with these closures...

Ellsworth Air Force base is home to half of the nation's B1-B bombers. The rest are at Dyess Air Force Base in Texas. The Defense Department wants to consolidate all of the bombers to that Texas base. It's a move that doesn't make much sense to South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds.

"It is a shock to me that we find ourselves placing our B1 bombers, which have become the mainstay of the Air Force's delivery systems, in one location in the United States," said Rounds. "The last time something like that happened was Pearl Harbor."[/b]

Rounds says that argument alone should be enough to keep Ellsworth open. But if that doesn't work....

"On the economic side, we have a tough time understanding why any state would be expected to lose its second largest employer," Rounds said.

About 5,000 people are employed at Ellsworth, and about 1,000 of those are civilian jobs. An Air Force study last year estimated the annual economic impact of Ellsworth at $278 million, including its $161 million annual payroll. The Pentagon says politics didn't play into the decision to close Ellsworth or any other base. Political scientist Bill Richardson of the University of South Dakota says, by the looks of the list that's true.

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/f...s/2005/05/13_hetlandc_ellsworthcloses/

 

[5LiterMustang]

Originally posted by: azazyel
We are really going to hurt local economies with these closures...

Ellsworth Air Force base is home to half of the nation's B1-B bombers. The rest are at Dyess Air Force Base in Texas. The Defense Department wants to consolidate all of the bombers to that Texas base. It's a move that doesn't make much sense to South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds.

"It is a shock to me that we find ourselves placing our B1 bombers, which have become the mainstay of the Air Force's delivery systems, in one location in the United States," said Rounds. "The last time something like that happened was Pearl Harbor."[/b]

Rounds says that argument alone should be enough to keep Ellsworth open. But if that doesn't work....

"On the economic side, we have a tough time understanding why any state would be expected to lose its second largest employer," Rounds said.

About 5,000 people are employed at Ellsworth, and about 1,000 of those are civilian jobs. An Air Force study last year estimated the annual economic impact of Ellsworth at $278 million, including its $161 million annual payroll. The Pentagon says politics didn't play into the decision to close Ellsworth or any other base. Political scientist Bill Richardson of the University of South Dakota says, by the looks of the list that's true.

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/f...s/2005/05/13_hetlandc_ellsworthcloses/

Good point, closing bases is ok, but they have to be careful and they really need to make sure its the right thing...I dont think they do that...

 

[EagleKeeper]

In investments, the rule is to diversify. that way if a downturn hits one segment of the market, not everything will be lost.

Maybe SD needs to look at their economic dependencies and grow their commercial environment.

I do agree that placing all weapons systems of any one type in one location could be a poor idea.

If Ellsworth was converted to private enterprise, it would probablby be a better economic benefit to SD though in the mid-term than the existing base is.

And what would be Rounds response if the B1 wing at Dyess was to be relocated to Ellsworth.

Thanks - but no thank-you?

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Can you imagine how shrill the right would've been screaming if Clinton had called for all these base closings?

"OMG, you're gutting our military! You unpatriotic son of a b*tch!"

"OMG, we should either impeach him or assassinate him!" (Oh wait, that was already said.)

no kidding. clinton was treasonous in these idiots eyes.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Can you imagine how shrill the right would've been screaming if Clinton had called for all these base closings?

"OMG, you're gutting our military! You unpatriotic son of a b*tch!"

"OMG, we should either impeach him or assassinate him!" (Oh wait, that was already said.)

You do of course realize there was a round of BRAC during the clinton term. And there was screaming and gnashing of teeth about homeotwn pork being lost. SD was screaming about losing their airbase then too, but Clinton stepped in and saved. I am sure there was not politics involved in this decision.:roll:

 

[alent1234]

Originally posted by: azazyel
We are really going to hurt local economies with these closures...

Ellsworth Air Force base is home to half of the nation's B1-B bombers. The rest are at Dyess Air Force Base in Texas. The Defense Department wants to consolidate all of the bombers to that Texas base. It's a move that doesn't make much sense to South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds.

"It is a shock to me that we find ourselves placing our B1 bombers, which have become the mainstay of the Air Force's delivery systems, in one location in the United States," said Rounds. "The last time something like that happened was Pearl Harbor."[/b]

Rounds says that argument alone should be enough to keep Ellsworth open. But if that doesn't work....

"On the economic side, we have a tough time understanding why any state would be expected to lose its second largest employer," Rounds said.

About 5,000 people are employed at Ellsworth, and about 1,000 of those are civilian jobs. An Air Force study last year estimated the annual economic impact of Ellsworth at $278 million, including its $161 million annual payroll. The Pentagon says politics didn't play into the decision to close Ellsworth or any other base. Political scientist Bill Richardson of the University of South Dakota says, by the looks of the list that's true.

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/f...s/2005/05/13_hetlandc_ellsworthcloses/

i was around for the last round of closures and it was the same whining and people making up reasons for the bases to stay open in their backyard

 

[5LiterMustang]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Can you imagine how shrill the right would've been screaming if Clinton had called for all these base closings?

"OMG, you're gutting our military! You unpatriotic son of a b*tch!"

"OMG, we should either impeach him or assassinate him!" (Oh wait, that was already said.)

no kidding. clinton was treasonous in these idiots eyes.

ummm actually yeah, china ring a bell?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
BRAC closings also produce a massive boost to most local economies 5-10 years down the road as private business utilizes the existing infrstructure of the bases.

Those numbers are not showing (and should not show up) in the cost benifit analysis to the military.

Many bases get enhancements as they absorb the work load from other bases.

Your argument is missing the primary caveat that all speculative statements should contain, "past performance is not indicative of future results." Granted, you should probably toss in, "massive and most are hyperbole and not intended to reflect reality."

Let's take an example I agree with . . . closing Walter Reed. The near term costs will most likely exceed $1B:
1) closure
2) building infrastructure elsewhere
3) actual transitioning

But it's one of the few examples where BRAC (although not necessarily the Pentagon) admits that "savings" aren't going to happen. The argument is that Walter Reed is an outdated facility (although some buildings a merely a few years old) and Bethesda is a hop and a skip away. Makes sense . . . and it's honest.

In general, the upfront costs for most of these "transitions" will be quite high and very REAL. The "savings" are unlikely to match prior BRAC rounds. The primary reason the "projection" goes 20 years is to make this pig look pretty.

Obviously, the boost to growing facilities is significant and certainly should be included in any analysis. But by definition, that "growth" eats the "savings."

As for communities that plan for closure and have the ability to take advantage of the real estate . . . more power to them. But I see that as quite an uneven prospect. Some communities might thrive (if it's urban or otherwise prime location). IMO, places like Ellsworth are going to catch hell. I'm not saying that's a reason NOT to do it. If Ellsworth is strategically unnecessary, by all means, close it. I am saying cheerleaders for BRAC need to keep it real. Arguably, Thune has a job b/c he could "save" Ellsworth. Clearly, South Dakotans think it's really important.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
BRAC closings also produce a massive boost to most local economies 5-10 years down the road as private business utilizes the existing infrstructure of the bases.

Those numbers are not showing (and should not show up) in the cost benifit analysis to the military.

Many bases get enhancements as they absorb the work load from other bases.

Your argument is missing the primary caveat that all speculative statements should contain, "past performance is not indicative of future results." Granted, you should probably toss in, "massive and most are hyperbole and not intended to reflect reality."

Agree with past performance.

It would be interesting if one was to look at all the existing BRAC results and getan economic analysis from the local community leadership that was impacted by each one.

Large facilities in urban areas will have the most positive economic impacts.

As your example states for Ellsworth, out in the boonies where the facilitiy is the only thing around, then ghost towns will develop unless thestate/Feds embark on a massive economic seed plan for the area.

However, outdated/nneeded facilities should not be kept open if their purpose is a negative cost to the overall military system and the mission can be covered elsewhere.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
BRAC closings also produce a massive boost to most local economies 5-10 years down the road as private business utilizes the existing infrstructure of the bases.

Those numbers are not showing (and should not show up) in the cost benifit analysis to the military.

Many bases get enhancements as they absorb the work load from other bases.

Your argument is missing the primary caveat that all speculative statements should contain, "past performance is not indicative of future results." Granted, you should probably toss in, "massive and most are hyperbole and not intended to reflect reality."

Agree with past performance.

It would be interesting if one was to look at all the existing BRAC results and getan economic analysis from the local community leadership that was impacted by each one.

Large facilities in urban areas will have the most positive economic impacts.

As your example states for Ellsworth, out in the boonies where the facilitiy is the only thing around, then ghost towns will develop unless thestate/Feds embark on a massive economic seed plan for the area.

However, outdated/nneeded facilities should not be kept open if their purpose is a negative cost to the overall military system and the mission can be covered elsewhere.

Have you ever been to Ellsworth?? It is not outdated and it makes no strategic sense to put all our B1's in one location. Only an idiot would think that was a good idea. It seems the numbers were might have been rigged also.
BRAC chairman: Closing Ellsworth may not be worth the cost


In the earlier brac thread you said this list was final and the bases on the list were selected by the brac commission and the President had to take all or none. The truth is that this was the Pentagon's list and brac still had to go through the list. Either you were lying or you just don't know WTF your talking about.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Wow! Getting a little testy in here.

Admittedly, I don't know all the details of Ellsworth. But my guess is that it would be a devastating loss for South Dakota unless we do as EagleKeeper mentioned . . . give them "welfare" for a decade or so . . . joke . . . sort of.

Many of DOD's decisions do not appear to make strategic sense, so I won't even argue the point. I'm just offended that people pretend there's money to be "saved" through the exercise. It certainly happened to a certain extent through the previous rounds but it appears this round may be fundamentally different from prior ones.