Base closings: Is it just me?

[trof]

It seems to me that the reasons for closing military bases should be the needs of the military. Right?

I'm sure not knowledgeable enough to argue the military merits of closing, one way or the other. I have no idea what should go and what should stay.

But it does seem to me the purpose of military bases is NOT to provide employment to the civilian population. Sure, that's a nice side benefit. And, given the anaconda-like intertwining of our current military-industrial complex, understandable.

But still, it seem to me these decisions should be strictly based of what is best for the military.
Am I nuts?

[RubyDuby in GA]

1. I'm not so sure

As for GA, who had 4 bases on the chopping block and got the notice of closure today, all 4 bases were little seas of blue in a big red state. Most people here see it as a payback for the locals. I, however, choose to see this as a big gift to us Dems on election day when Saxby (who's up for re-election) first can't explain why he couldn't protect jobs in GA while being one of the prez's biggest yes men. Same goes for our ridiculous governor who's already taking some pretty good punches for losing jobs.

[trof]

3. I know it causes some dislocation for a while.

And when it's your ox being gored, it's important to you.
Many time larger bases are turned into industrial parks.
The former Brookley AFB in Mobile is a good example.

[misanthrope]

12. Brookley is a good case study for all of this...

...Many still postulate whether Brookley was closed as political payback for Mobile's dalliances with the GOP in '64, voting for Goldwater in answer to federal integration policies. In fact, Republican Jack Edwards rode Goldwater's coattails into office that year and sat on Capital Hill for the following 20 years. In fact, Mobile has had a Republican U.S. Representative ever since.

At any rate, when Brookley closed, it really rattled the Mobile economy for decades. The industrial park has never completely paid the dividends they claimed it would.

Mobile bounced back somewhat, but it took the University of South Alabama and a couple of other non-traditional avenues to get that underway.

Wild speculation is still rampant as to why the city didn't move the airport to the former base when it closed in the late '60s. Mobile's airport was, and still is, small in comparison with very limited traffic and is located fairly out-of-the-way. Brookley had better hangars and runways (the space shuttle was once flown in atop a 747) and was adjacent to the downtown business district. White Flight was beginning to vacate the historic sections of the city and it would have kept activity close the city's downtown.

Some personal theorists would have listeners believe the answer lay in the small group of hands that controlled power in those days, of influential families who still preside over the current airport.

[spacelady]

15. Thanks for the info, Brookley seems to be an underused resource

for Mobile, however, being a transplant from the Midwest & only having lived here for 8 years, am lacking on the background.

[wuushew]

5. Running on the merits of pork is not admirable

if sufficiently left politicans held office those temporarily unemployed individuals would have the benefit of a social safety net at least.


Two facts
(a) military spending is the least efficient jobs creation option of all government spending choices.
(b) The United States spends more than the next twenty countries combined on "defense".

[trof]

8. 'zackly

There are better ways to "create" jobs.

[wli]

2. punishing Democrats and rewarding Republicans

Zero military prudence exercised.

[pocket]

4. Thune is gonna get hammered

his state's biggest base is going away.

[Joanne98]

6. I've noticed "Red State Packing" Greedy bastards.....

[punpirate]

7. BRAC claims to be independent...

... but the process is political--it's up to Congress to accept or reject the committee's recommendations.

As for what's good for the military, even that's political. Much of the supposed savings on closing bases in this country will be used to pay for more installations overseas (which are much more expensive to maintain). That's a question worth asking: why is it that we're expanding military presence overseas and closing bases at home? Is that defense-related or offense-related?

Another question: according to the Constitution, the citizen-soldier (National Guard) is the backbone of national territorial defense, so why are the closures disproportionally affecting national guard bases?

[trof]

9. "Is that defense-related or offense-related?" Um...offense?

Just guessing, here.
"But we have to fight them over 'there', so we don't have to fight them over here."
unh hunh

[wli]

13. independent my arse

Clearly punishing blue and rewarding red.

[Dogmudgeon]

10. That's the Businessman's approach

The one that sternly tells the slacker that the world does not owe anyone a living -- even as he picks the slacker's pocket.

I live near Willow Grove Naval Air Station, which is on the death list. It began to sink the local economy as far back as January, before the list was released to the public. NASWILGRO has been here so long that it's a significant part of the economy. When it is finally closed, it will seriously stress the area's jobs, capital, and land values.

There was another, smaller, base around here, too -- the Naval Air Development Center at Ivyland (Warminster), the home of the centrifuge in which the Mercury astronauts trained. When that was closed down, Warminster lost a majority of its engineering firms and a big chunk of tax revenue.

It's also becoming clear that the closure is a way of punishing the area for having been key to both Gore's and Kerry's victories in Pennsylvania, after close to 60 years of dependable Republican rule. I suspect that if Rick Santorum gets into trouble in his Senate race next year, Willow Grove base will be very publically saved by Santorum -- until right after the election.

What's best for the military? Asking Team Bush is not likely to provide an accurate -- or honest -- answer.

--p!

[Redstone]

11. Well, "the needs of the military" sure were NOT considered in deciding

to keep the sub base in Groton open.

If you've never been there, let me tell you something interesting about that base: There's a TWELVE-LANE HIGHWAY BRIDGE over the Thames River downstream from the base.

That means that if we got into the kind of shootin' war we'd need subs to fight, all the Bad Guys would have to do would be to drop that bridge, and bingo--no subs going into or out of the base for at least a couple of weeks.

Brilliant choice for a site for a naval base, yes?

Redstone

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

14. The BRAC decisions are highly laden with pork politics. As with almost

everything else associated with the military, like major weapons systems.

Often, House and Senate will do things against the express wishes of the DoD in order to keep their pet base or submarine/missile manufacturing plant, etc.

[MetaTrope]

16. The new regional facilities will be PERFECT for processing draftees

I have no doubt.

[flyarm]

17. ft monmouth has been in my hometown my entire 54 yrs

it is our community..this will kill our economy..it will kill businesses that supply the base..this is punishment for a blue state i have no doubt!!
Ft Monmouth was always army communications..it is why we had bell labs here too ( at&t now lucent technolongies headquarters) we have lost so many telecommunications now..and now Ft Monmouth getting killed will so hurt the economy..guess after 9/11 and * going to move the terrorism somewhere else they don;t need communications so close to ny!!

[TankLV]

18. If they were so serious about saving money, they'd have an Air force who

only flew planes, and no army or marine or navy "fliers".

The Navy would be limited to manning ships.

The army and marines would be limited to fighting on land.

There would be no overlap of functions.

The Air force could fly the army and marines around to wherever they'd be needed.

The Navy could transport the planes and air force members and marines.

Until then, it's all just a big awful game.

[cascadiance]

19. Sometimes I wonder if the "targetted" base closings...

that occur in Republican controlled states, kind of like in South Dakota where senator John Thune was taking on Bush to fight the closing of Ellsworth Base there. That battle still isn't over yet, but part of me wonders if the Bush administration never intends to close it, but makes it look like they are going to close it so that if and when the Bush admin "succumbs" and lets the base stay, they in effect give brownie points to Thune with South Dakota voters for "winning" their base back. That would then allow Thune to repay the Bush admin with voting on other legislation that his constituency would normally not support him voting on (social security?) after he's "earned" his stripes already and won't get judged as "harshly" if he gives in on these other bills. That way the Republicans generate support for their agenda with basically not doing much except playing a lot of roles in "political theatre". I guess we'll see what ultimately happens with Ellsworth to judge whether this might be the case or not, but I'm a bit suspicious.