GOVT 2302 Discussion Topic
Originally posted on the (private) discussion boards for my second semester Government course:
Military Base Closings
The Base Realignment and Closure process is designed to manage military spending in a way that is more efficient, by assigning monies to the military posts that will shoulder the responsibility of maintaining the bulk of the military’s work force. Bases that are no longer necessary could be closed down, new bases could be opened, and other bases may be expanded to included troops and equipment from newly closed bases. By removing the unnecessary bases, government monies can be redesignated to areas more important to military operations: specifically, troops and equipment. The Bush administration had estimated (at the time of authorization for this round of closings, in late 2001) that twenty to twenty-five percent of military bases are surplus, and that three billion dollars could be saved annually by closing these extra posts. Other, more recent estimates have been even more generous with how much could be saved by even modest cuts to the military infrastructure.
Participants in the so-called Pentagon version of “Survivor” include not only Department of Defense officials, but also the President, the Congress and the military and local community officials. Pains have been taken to consider how base closings will affect not only the military, but also the civilian communities that have built up around these facilities. Often, the military is one of the largest employers in the areas that the posts are located, and losing one of these could be devastating to the locals. However, there is an attempt with BRAC to soften the blow for local communities by transferring the closed facilities to local redevelopers at no cost, provided that the proceeds are reinvested.
BRAC doesn’t just affect the domestic military bases, however, regardless of how much press it gets in comparison. Our foreign military posts are also on the chopping block, although like the stateside bases, they face more realignment than closure. Closure (or even proposed closure) of bases in foreign countries allows us to reward countries that support us and rebuke countries that do not. In the same way that a closure would hurt a local American community, it can devastate a foreign local community. Bases in Germany are looking to be in danger from all this, and even if the number of foreign bases are not reduced, they could be moved to countries more friendly to us and less expensive for us to operate in. An increasingly unsupportive Western Europe could see closings while countries like Poland, Afghanistan and Uzbekistan may see new facilities open up. Eastern Europe in particular could see gains as their relatively weaker economies would welcome American military dollars with open arms (and wallets).
The process is in full swing now, and the list of bases recommended for closure is due for release on the 16th of May this year. This round of cuts follows previous rounds in 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995. Regardless of the stated goal of the process, ostensibly to save federal monies or to spend already appropriated monies more efficiently, there is still a great deal of politicking involved even despite the Republican majority in the Congress. The President had to utilize a legal loophole to appoint the members of the BRAC committee that he wished to, making the appointments while Congress was in recess. But the entire process could end in upset, as the May 16th list is only a recommendation from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The list of recommendations is then reviewed by the BRAC committee, and then sent as an entire package to President Bush and finally to the Congress for approval. The most obvious stumbling block is the final stop, at Congress, where the slim majority of Republicans may not support all the cuts unanimously, especially if any of their constituents are impacted.
For direct background on the 2005 round of closings:
http://www.defenselink.mil/brac/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/brac.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2004/040212-brac.htm
Recent articles that deal with this issue:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22106-2005Apr2.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55060-2005Apr14.html
http://news.tbo.com/news/MGB722J3H7E.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-04-14-concord_x.htm