Base closure, warfighter support and our security

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jffal

New member
The next round of BRAC (Base Relocation and Closure) has begun, with scores of facilities possibly being targeted. While this process commences, our warfighters are stretched thin in Iraq, Afghanistan and a variety of other fronts, forwarded to remote locations to protect our interests and lives. American troops stationed in Europe will be recalled back stateside and find themselves with fewer CONUS bases and depots to go to.
Meanwhile, we are engaged in a global war against enemies with national security being questioned.

BRAC began with the first Bush administration during the eighties and Mr. Cheney was involved in its creation. The claim is it ultimately will strengthen our military. The BRAC hearings have continued unabated for over a decade and a half.

There are claims from the BRAC commission that the communities hit hard by previous hearings have recovered economically from the closures. As with the other claims of a stronger military and national security, the media seems content to accept their word for it without probing deeper.

Regardless of potential savings, it seems questionable that a new round of BRAC hearings be held when we are in the midst of war and are planning to redeploy troops CONUS. With deficits remaining in national security, consolidating vital military support into fewer targets is an interesting choice.

Community leaders are becoming divisive, concentrating on trying to protect specific facilities at the expense of other communities.

I think that the focus of their efforts, and indeed that of every single concerned American, should not be the BRAC commission itself but the people who empowered them...and who have the authority to delay this next round of hearings until there is a more appropriate time to address the issues.

If, of course, those Americans believe that other political and questionable policy issues motivate BRAC besides the claim of supporting our warfighters.

Jeff
 
Jeff,

They are going towards composite bases. As in, you have at least three (AF, Marines and Army) on one base.

That is what they started doing when they change AFCC and SAC, TAC into one in the same, now it's one deal (ACC).

Now they are trying to cut it down even more to become a muliple command instead of many.

The idea is that you have a base that has all aspects of military contribrutions that will be able to deploy, as one, to any area that they are needed. You will have Air Force for sky attack, Marines for sea attack, and Army for land attack, all from the same base, as well as the equipment that they need. Good idea to me, sound.

Yet, with the base closures, you will have economy inpacts since most of the towns that have/had bases around them built up around the bases. I can't comment on that because they, the town counsel, built the town around that single income base. Not my fault that they did so.

Wayne
 
I don't think Jffal is saying that base scaling shouldn't occur...I think he has a problem with the timing given how over-stretched our military is. And I have to agree with him. This is the equivalent of the proverbial trying to change horses in the middle of a wild and whooly river. If you are going to police the world then you don't start doing it and then decide to change configurations. The change should have been started planned and started immediately after Desert Storm and completed at the turn of the millenium. We had 10 years to do it which is plenty of time if I understand BRAC correctly.

Their timing of it now is completely wrong and full of risk and is nothing Sun-Tsu would have approved of. If anything it lays us completely out to get wasted.
 
One thing you are missing in this is that part of the goal is to put bases where they are most effective and cause the least pain. A base in downtown San Diego is a HUGE pain - noise complaints restrict flight ops and the cost of living is a serious detriment to the quality of life of junior personnel.

Removing bases from areas where they are either unwanted (Northern California) or are too expensive or restricted to run is a GOOD idea. Transferring the base assests to smaller bases with plenty of growth potential and fewer restrictions INCREASES military rediness and cost.

Military bases are best located away from major population centers for reasons of cost, security and training. Any military member who has been stationed at both types of bases can tell you that.
 
The timing for base closures now is perfect. We don't have the money to upgrade security and man scores of small bases...but we do for a smaller number of large ones. Besides, when is it easier to close up shop and move: when the place is crowded with people or when there's no one there to get in the way? Having been stationed at both large and small bases, and having been stationed at both single service (Army) and multi-service installations, I am all for the multi-service basing concept. The services have learned a lot from the previous rounds of BRAC, and communities don't simply have to learn how to do without a base without any kind of warning. Both Kelley Air Force Base in San Antonio (which was the oldest base in the Air Force) and the Presidio of San Francisco were closed in the last few years...and both have been commercial successes. Several of the other installations, such as Fort Dix, have been turned over to the states for use by the Guard and Air Guard, both removing the burden form the overstretched Active Duty forces and giving the states places to train their forces.
 
Handy said: "Military bases are best located away from major population centers for reasons of cost, security and training. Any military member who has been stationed at both types of bases can tell you that."

Sorry to say but you are wrong...I am on a base and currently in the thick of it all.....military bases are best located where the forces can best mobilze in the shortest amount of time. Right now some of our fleet bases are NOT located for fastest mobilization and it is costing dollars and putting the FLEET to risk. Cost, security and training certainly are factors but major population centers are not high on the list given the rationale you provided.
 
IZHuminter said: "The timing for base closures now is perfect."

It is not perfect...the perfect time has passed. The reason it is happening now is because we have waited far too long to do so and we have to get it done now. That does not make it the perfect time...it makes it being done out of absolute necessity.
 
It isn't being done out of "absolute necessity." Congress may very well decide to vote no on the BRAC recommendations and continue to fund all the bases we currently have. Even if they did vote yes, the President could still veto the legislation. We don't need to close any bases any more than the Army and Marines needed to get new uniforms. However, we should consolidate our forces and facilities because it makes financial sense, allows for more rapid deployment and better interservice training. Now is a great time to do it.

If you are going to police the world then you don't start doing it and then decide to change configurations. The change should have been started planned and started immediately after Desert Storm and completed at the turn of the millenium. We had 10 years to do it which is plenty of time if I understand BRAC correctly.
Click to expand...

Then you don't understand BRAC correctly. It is an ongoing process, not a one time thing. You need to study up on the subject before you talk about it here.

Even if it had been a one time thing, how long do you think it would have taken to execute? Do you have any idea how much the services drew down after Desert Storm? The Army went from 18 Divisions to 10. The Air Force went from 40 Fighter Wing equivalents to 20 1/2. The Navy went from 15 Carrier Battle Groups to 11. The services focused on cutting manpower and equipment and had no time to close bases. Besides, it wasn't until the manpower and equipment were cross-leveled that the BRAC could even identify which bases could be closed. What if BRAC had convened in 1992 and closed bases that same year without giving the local populations any chance to react? Who would have cleaned up the ranges and other environmental hazards? The fact is you have no clue what and how long it takes to close a military installation.

The services have changed a lot in the last decade, and now is the best time to change their infrastructure to match.

IZHuminter said: "The timing for base closures now is perfect."

It is not perfect...the perfect time has passed. The reason it is happening now is because we have waited far too long to do so and we have to get it done now.
Click to expand...

Again, see above. A military community is not a McDonalds. You can't just lock the door and take down the sign.
 
Sorry to say but you are wrong...I am on a base and currently in the thick of it all...
Click to expand...
Back at you. I'm the Assistant Operations Officer for NAS Fallon. I've been stationed in Norfolk, Pensacola, Oceanside and San Diego. The base closures we're seeing, like El Toro and probably Miramar, come from the constant frustration of trying to keep anyone trained in areas with houses clustered around you and too much air traffic overhead.

There are a multitude of places in the US that provide easy passage and realistic training without impact. Huge cities in California need not apply.

.....military bases are best located where the forces can best mobilze in the shortest amount of time.
Click to expand...
In this century you do not need to have your military massed at the docks. Most of the military now deploys by plane, and much of our floating forces are located at uncongested ports.


Military bases in close to huge population centers are also harder to guard, and therefore present a greater target for terrorism. This is bad for the base AND city. It is also not so hot for readiness.



Color me stupid if I suggest that using land located away from large groups of people, adjacent to realistic range facilities and easy to defend is a terrific idea. Imagine, better training for less cost. How awful.
 
I know what I am talking about because of an "incident" that occurred that I have first hand personal knowledge of 6 months before we went into Iraq the second time. So go ahead and believe all you think you know because you apparently don't have a clue as to the reasons why this is being pushed now.

And that's all I am going to say about this matter.
 
Oh, very secret squirrel. I'm convinced!


Oh wait, I just remembered that I have an even better argument than yours that I also can't tell anyone about. And I was there! :D
 
Handy:

Lets get something straight...I happened to be stationed at the base and I am not authorized to divulge what it is I know. So if you want to act like a stupid ass and not respect that fact that I happen to be privvy to something you aren't then be my guest.
 
Call me crazy, but I have trouble imagining an "incident" at a single port that would dictate all of our bases be chosen primarily by how fast forces can mobilize from them (rather than how much and what type of training land is available, or how easy it is to supply them, or how secure they are for example). As a former Air Load Planner and Unit Movement NCO with six major deployments and redeployments under my belt, I've seen how little attention is paid to mobilization. Unless it's a major conflict (and I'm talking Desert Storm or Iraqi Freedom here), mobilization of home station units is rarely a consideration by units or installations. Plans are made and then just sit on the shelf. However, the installations that we still have even after the first few rounds of BRAC are ones that units can more easy mobilizr from...and they continue to get better. I've seen the expansion of runways and the consolidation of forces both at home and abroad and it's a trend that is only going to increase as we continue to close smaller installations.

Mobilization really isn't the most important issues for the 3 and 4 stars that I've had the dubious pleasure of being forced to listen to. They focus instead on the cost savings of expanding multi-use training areas, sharing single logistics and support functions across service boundaries and providing for a more protected environment for our personnel, equipment and critical functions.

All that aside, ask any commander, of any service, at any time what the two most important things in their life are and you'll hear "Accomplishment of my mission" and "keeping my people safe" (and sometimes in the opposite order). Okay...you might hear "my relationship with Jesus" or "my wife and kids" but you get what I'm saying. Force protection is far more important to tactical and operational commanders, and unit and installation commanders, then nearly any other issue. When I was conducting site surveys and vulnerability assesments as a newly minted Staff Sergeant, I had instructions to walk into my Brigade Commander's office unannounced if I found something that was going to get one of her people killed if not fixed pronto. This from a woman who made her Executive Officer and Battalion Commanders make appointments. Every commander I've worked for before or since, at any level, has been the same way when it comes to protecting their people, and every one of them took the time to listen to my recommendaions on how to fix the problem. I find it beyond the realm of belief that this behavior stops when they pin on stars and plan which bases to cut and which bases to keep.
 
BigBore

Drop the "I have a secret" crap. If you really are privy to something you can't talk about, then you can't even bring up the fact you can't talk about it. That's how real secrets work.

There are far too many people here who really do have things they aren't allowed to talk about whether they be criminal investigations, classified programs or intellectual property covered by nondisclosure agreements for your childish antics to work.

Either you give us some reason to actually listen to what you're saying, or you drop the whole thing and get out of the thread. It's that simple.
 
Last edited:
Some fools just don't get that some people have DOD jobs with national security restrictions.

I'm sorry but you are a complete moron in my book. And I don't give a damn if my saying it is breaking forum ettiquette.
 
Thought I should put my money where my mouth is since BigBore won't. From GlobalSecurity.org:
In July 2001, the Department of Defense announced an Efficient Facilities Initiative (EFI). This consolidation was projected to save an estimated $3.5 billion annually. EFI will enable the US military to match facilities to forces. EFI ensures the primacy of military value in making decisions on facilities and harnesses the strength and creativity of the private sector by creating partnerships with local communities. All military installations will be reviewed, and recommendations will be based on the military value of the facilities and the structure of the force. The EFI will encourage a cooperative effort between the President, the Congress, and the military and local communities to achieve the most effective and efficient base structure for America's Armed Forces. It will give local communities a significant role in determining the future use of facilities in their area by transferring closed installations to local redevelopers at no cost (provided that proceeds are reinvested) and by creating partnerships with local communities to own, operate, or maintain those installations that remain.

In mid-December 2001 House and Senate negotiators authorized a new round of military base closings, but delayed any action until 2005. While the Bush administration and the Senate had wanted the base-closing process to begin in 2003, the House had been opposed. Under the compromise plan, the Secretary of Defense will submit a force structure plan and facility inventory, with a certification that proposed closings were justified by the force structure plan and and that they would produce net savings. The closings would also consider environmental costs and community impact. Seven of the nine commission members could vote to add bases to the Pentagon's proposed closure list, but a simple majority would suffice to drop bases from the closure plan. The Bush administration has estimated that 20 percent to 25 percent of military bases are surplus, and that the Pentagon could save $3 billion a year by eliminating surplus facilities.

In August 2002 Phil Grone, principal assistant deputy undersecretary of defense for installations and the environment, estimated the next round of base closures in 2005 could save $6 billion a year, even if it cut only 12 percent of DoD's military infrastructure. One 1998 study suggested that 20 to 25 percent of the military's infrastructure could be considered surplus. Grone indicated that an analysis to "shed excess capacity" would be completed in 2004, before the Pentagon decided how many bases must be closed in the 2005 BRAC round.
Click to expand...
So BigBore, since this was proposed in July 2001 and approved in December 2001, over a year before OIF started, how did this incident, which you have personal knowledge of and which could not have happened any earlier than September 2003, move up the timetable? Especially since they delayed it to 2005?

Just keep it coming... I'd love to hear an explanation for this... :rolleyes:
 
You folks can sit there all you want and make fun of me for I will continue to respect my committment to the DOD in the matters I have alluded to. What amazes me about all you is that you cannot fathom or grasp or just plain live in denial that someone on this board is held to DOD security restrictions.

And by the way in answer to your "delay to 2005". There is a saying in the DOD. 1 day in the US military = ten years in real time.
 
And by the way in answer to your "delay to 2005". There is a saying in the DOD. 1 day in the US military = ten years in real time.
Click to expand...

Really? Funny how I've never heard that saying. I guess I haven't really been in the DoD for the last 12 years. Anybody else ever heard that saying?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top