| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| 2005 BRAC process likely to be less dramatic |
| 2005-04-01 |
| WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Tuesday that he expects this year's Base Realignment and Closure process to be more modest than estimates that have been used in the past six years, due to the large number of troops moving back to the United States. A March 2004 study by the department indicated that military facilities nationwide were at 24 percent excess capacity, and a 1998 study estimated it was between 20 and 25 percent. But Rumsfeld said those numbers came before officials reassessed forces stationed overseas, and decided to rotate thousands of troops out of Europe and east Asia. "It looks now like actual number will be less than the lower end of that (1998) range," Rumsfeld said at a news conference Tuesday. "But how much lower still remains to be seen." In August, President Bush announced plans to return to the United States about 70,000 troops from Europe and the Pacific, to reflect global posture needs. Units have begun planning moves, but exactly where they'll be based has yet to be announced. The BRAC commission is scheduled to announce its closure recommendations on May 16. After the May report is released, the BRAC commission will review the list with defense officials and submit its final recommendations to the president in September. In November, the president is scheduled to submit his recommendations to Congress, who will announce their final list in late December. Several Democratic lawmakers have pushed to stop the BRAC process in recent months, saying that the uncertainty surrounding those troops' futures and the ongoing war on terror makes closing down bases a risky prospect. But Rumsfeld referred to the BRAC commission as "a good thing" because it helps make sure taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely. The defense secretary said no decisions have been made so far as to which facilities will be closed or reduced. Defense officials have emphasized closings will be done only if facilities aren't needed, not based on political considerations. Rumsfeld said he has not met with any state governors about the process, even though a number have visited Washington to lobby on behalf of their military bases. |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #5 Frank, Of course the irony is that without Camp Pendleton Southern California would be an uninterrupted sea of townhomes and strip malls from Ventura down to the Mexican border. |
| Posted by: Dreadnought 2005-04-01 4:56:41 PM |
| #4 480K [per capita the lowest since 1940], Wow! I didn't know that. I figure the pre-WWII build up had started. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-04-01 4:45:52 PM |
| #3 plus, the difficulty in establishing new bases is enormous - enviros and lefties out of the woodwork. Can you imagine tring to get Camp Pendleton or North Island Naval Air Base built in today's environmental/NIMBY climate and land prices? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-04-01 2:53:38 PM |
| #2 Not to mention the effect that base closures have on reserve units and retirees. Yeah, that base over in the next county is under-utilized, but it is also the place where the reserve units in your part of the state train. Close it down, and now the units have to travel another 150 miles on the weekends. Which translates into fewer training hours and, unless the CO is a real hard-charger, probably fewer weekends down range overall. Bottom line: If you're going to use the Reserves and Guard like they're regular forces, you need to have lots of excess bases for them to train at. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2005-04-01 2:40:36 PM |
| #1 And throw in the rebuilding of the Army from a low of 480K [per capita the lowest since 1940], then some installations on the cut list may well be needed in the expansion. The US Army was operating with 750K volunteers at the end of Gulf War I, so a larger expansion is still possible. It just takes more time to build up than to cut. |
| Posted by: Cleretle Glick2989 2005-04-01 2:10:50 PM |