Base Closings Hidden Problems

[NATO AIR]

interesting argument

http://www.slate.com/id/2118666/

Debased
The hidden problems in the Pentagon's base-closure list.
By Phillip Carter
Posted Friday, May 13, 2005, at 3:15 PM PT

Pentagon leaders announced their plans today to close or realign 837 military locations. Among the casualties: Walter Reed Army Medical Center would be realigned to a new facility in suburban Maryland; Fort McPherson in Atlanta would be shut, as would the Naval Submarine Base New London in Groton, Conn.* The closure list now goes to the Base Realignment and Closure Commission for a political review, then to the president, then to Congress for an up-or-down vote. Along the way, communities and interests from every corner of America will lobby for their bases, as they have in the four previous rounds of base closings, in what has been described as the mother of all pork-barrel political fights.

There are several clear trends in the BRAC list: the elimination of many bases in the Northeast, the shutting of myriad civilian defense agencies' offices, and the elimination of reserve armories in towns across America. The Pentagon says the closings will save $48 billion over 20 years. But they will also have one dramatic negative effect. BRAC will separate America's military even further from America's citizenry by consolidating military bases and removing the presence of the military from hundreds of towns across the country.

Today's military bases sit where they do by political fiat and historical accident more than any operational necessity. Most installations trace their origins to the great mobilizations of World War I and World War II, when the military established garrisons across the country to raise the armies of 5 million and 16 million respectively to fight those wars. When the world wars ended, it fell to Congress to decide which bases to retain. It is no accident that today's military finds itself overrepresented in the South and the West. In his majestic biography of President Lyndon Johnson's senatorial career, Robert Caro recounts how Southern legislators like the legendary Sen. Richard Russell, D-Ga., then head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, were able to keep a disproportionate share of bases in their states during those demobilizations. Everyone recognized then, as they do now, that a base in one's state or district was a political and economic pot of gold.

Continue Article

 

[dilloduck]

interesting argument

it can be as easily called "pork" as the absurdly packed Highway and Transporation bills. I wish some one could point out what it really is and that is financing the campaigns of politicians who are attempting to buy votes with federal taxpayers' money.

 

[mrsx]

I notice that after the Pentagon awarded the new Marine One contract to General Dynamics over Sikorsky (a Conn. firm), the government of South Korea announced it would by 3 of these billion-dollar-a-copy whirlybirds from Sikorsky. This is going to move a lot of people in the Nutmeg State to buy Hundai cars. I wonder what would happen if Japan ordered a nuclear sub from the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard?

 

[freeandfun1]

Our military's mission is to defend this country. Not provide economic benefits to Americans. Straight, and to the point.

These base closures are looooooooong overdue. The make-up and mission of our military has changed, and we need to streamline our military make-up. I am not sure why so many can't see that putting the defense and preparedness of our military is the MOST important of ALL issues.

 

[NATO AIR]

Our military's mission is to defend this country. Not provide economic benefits to Americans. Straight, and to the point.

These base closures are looooooooong overdue. The make-up and mission of our military has changed, and we need to streamline our military make-up. I am not sure why so many can't see that putting the defense and preparedness of our military is the MOST important of ALL issues.

I realize that, especially being in the Navy where a number of these bases are outdated for the mission we have today and in the future.

However, at least with the reserve armories, a number of good arguments against closing those like this one in the thread have me thinking.

 

[mrsx]

I can tell you from first hand experience what the reaction of a lot of people in Maine to the three major closings (over 7,000) jobs in this small, not too rich state is so far. Politics: we don't have a Republican governor and our two senators are moderate women who have been trying to avoid a train wreck over the "nuclear option" in the Senate. New Hampshire (the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is on the river that divides the two states) has a Democratic governor and, like Maine, went for Kerry last time around. The NH congressional delegation is all Republican, but again they are northeastern moderates - none too popular with DeLay and his ilk (I love that word, ilk).
Porstmouth is our premier facility for working on nuclear subs. Just last Wednesday, the Navy gave them an award for being the best facility of their type - cheapest, fastest, highest quality work of any Navy shipyard doing nuclear work. Washington just made a whole lot more Democrat voters up here!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I can tell you from first hand experience what the reaction of a lot of people in Maine to the three major closings (over 7,000) jobs in this small, not too rich state is so far. Politics: we don't have a Republican governor and our two senators are moderate women who have been trying to avoid a train wreck over the "nuclear option" in the Senate. New Hampshire (the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is on the river that divides the two states) has a Democratic governor and, like Maine, went for Kerry last time around. The NH congressional delegation is all Republican, but again they are northeastern moderates - none too popular with DeLay and his ilk (I love that word, ilk).
Porstmouth is our premier facility for working on nuclear subs. Just last Wednesday, the Navy gave them an award for being the best facility of their type - cheapest, fastest, highest quality work of any Navy shipyard doing nuclear work. Washington just made a whole lot more Democrat voters up here!

Aww. No pork for the obstructionists. So sad. well. that's the way the bacon sizzles.

Hey Wade!

 

[mrsx]

I suppose so. At least there will be plenty of chittlins for you red necks. How did you figure out that it was me? You don't look that bright.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I suppose so. At least there will be plenty of chittlins for you red necks. How did you figure out that it was me? You don't look that bright.

Your high, yet misguided, intelligence and penchant for wrapping liberal crap in your own brand of faux patriotism.

 

[mrsx]

Your high, yet misguided, intelligence and penchant for wrapping liberal crap in your own brand of faux patriotism.

Calling me a liberal is as far off the mark as would be my calling you a fascist. If there is any Liberal party in this country (small government, unrestrained free-market, personal freedom) it would be the northern wing of the Republican party (Jeffords, Gregg, Collins). In fact, farther off the mark. What seems like high intelligence to you just seems like common sense to the rest of us. Keep plugging away, even a blind pig finds an acorn every now and then.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Calling me a liberal is as far off the mark as would be my calling you a fascist. If there is any Liberal party in this country (small government, unrestrained free-market, personal freedom) it would be the northern wing of the Republican party (Jeffords, Gregg, Collins). In fact, farther off the mark. What seems like high intelligence to you just seems like common sense to the rest of us. Keep plugging away, even a blind pig finds an acorn every now and then.

Would you settle for anti american? That's what you are. Your theories re: our defense and military are wildy wrongheaded. If you say you're not smart, I'll believe you.

 

[mrsx]

Thank you. I appreciate the courtesy. I believe we are both patriotic Americans who are genuinely searching for what will be best for our country. I have no argument with making our homeland base posture more efficient. I am a bit skeptical that efficiency is the only criterion in the current round of base closings. The Portsmouth yard, which I know well, has been consistently cited by DOD for its efficiency and the quality of its work. I know everyone cries, "Is it I, Lord?" but this time, I wonder.

I also think there is a lot of merit in the issue that others have raised here about the morale and political benefits of keeping small armories open. They cost almost nothing, can be valuable in the event of natural disaster or terrorist attack and form a very important link between our military and hometown America. I'd hate to see a handful of super-bases do to our Guard and Reserves what Wal-Mart has done to Main Street. I don't deny that Wal-Mart is more efficient, just that efficiency is not the only ciriterion.

I brought up closing bases in Iraq because I am afraid that we are hurting morale and defence posture trying to fight a basically unwinnable war with the finest military in the history of the world -- but one that was never designed to do jobs like this. I believe the current recruiting crisis could easily turn into the sort of "it's not my army" attitude of the 1970's that hurt our nation and hurt so many who served back then. Colin Powell was right that in a democracy you shouldn't lead the military into war unless the country is behind the cause. I'm very concerned that we have done so in Iraq. No WMD and no link to al Qaeda. It's all just nation building and Bush was *so* right back in 2000 when he said that wasn't the job of our troops.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Thank you. I appreciate the courtesy. I believe we are both patriotic Americans who are genuinely searching for what will be best for our country. I have no argument with making our homeland base posture more efficient. I am a bit skeptical that efficiency is the only criterion in the current round of base closings. The Portsmouth yard, which I know well, has been consistently cited by DOD for its efficiency and the quality of its work. I know everyone cries, "Is it I, Lord?" but this time, I wonder.

I also think there is a lot of merit in the issue that others have raised here about the morale and political benefits of keeping small armories open. They cost almost nothing, can be valuable in the event of natural disaster or terrorist attack and form a very important link between our military and hometown America. I'd hate to see a handful of super-bases do to our Guard and Reserves what Wal-Mart has done to Main Street. I don't deny that Wal-Mart is more efficient, just that efficiency is not the only ciriterion.

I brought up closing bases in Iraq because I am afraid that we are hurting morale and defence posture trying to fight a basically unwinnable war with the finest military in the history of the world -- but one that was never designed to do jobs like this. I believe the current recruiting crisis could easily turn into the sort of "it's not my army" attitude of the 1970's that hurt our nation and hurt so many who served back then. Colin Powell was right that in a democracy you shouldn't lead the military into war unless the country is behind the cause. I'm very concerned that we have done so in Iraq. No WMD and no link to al Qaeda. It's all just nation building and Bush was *so* right back in 2000 when he said that wasn't the job of our troops.

Most of your concerns are merely negative thinking. The country IS behind the war; That's why Bush won reelection. Saddams stated intentions and observable behavior reveal he is a threat to the west, wmd or no. There are obviously links between Iraq and global terror. He was giving money to palestinian bomber families. Non iraqi insurgents are also very high in number, indicating a link to much larger global terror networks. Negative thinking, fact twisting, and straight up ignorance are not a valid basis for a legitimate worldview.

 

[mrsx]

Most of your concerns are merely negative thinking. The country IS behind the war; That's why Bush won reelection. Saddams stated intentions and observable behavior reveal he is a threat to the west, wmd or no. There are obviously links between Iraq and global terror. He was giving money to palestinian bomber families. Non iraqi insurgents are also very high in number, indicating a link to much larger global terror networks. Negative thinking, fact twisting, and straight up ignorance are not a valid basis for a legitimate worldview.

Hello? Most of the country is NOT behind the war. Polls show that Americans think the invasion of Iraq was a mistake by 2-to-1.

Bush did not campaign on the Iraq war. He tried to confuse it with the hunt for bin Laden in Afghanistan. Then he slimed his opponent's war record (the brave little deserter who couldn't even fulfill the cushy obligation his daddy bought for him) and fired up the hillbillies about gay marriage.

Nobody outside of the the U.S. was scared of Saddam by 2000. Bush wanted to top his daddy, who bungled the job in the first Iraq War by letting Saddam go. "He tried to kill my Dad," was the closest Bush ever came to talking straight about Saddam. BTW did you know that Saddam got his nerve gas, along with a set of solid gold spurs, from Donald H. Rumsfeld? Saddam was always our guy. When he asked if it was OK to invade Kuwait, the U.S. Ambassador told him the U.S. regarded it as an internal matter between Arabs. The Daddy Bush turned on him the way turned on Manuel Noriega.

Wishful thinking and fatuous adherence to failed policies aren't much of a basis for a world view either. Why don't you stick to ideas instead of pretentious attempts a preemptive characterization? It looks more becoming on you.

 

[freeandfun1]

Hello? Most of the country is NOT behind the war. Polls show that Americans think the invasion of Iraq was a mistake by 2-to-1.

That is this week's poll. They go up and down based on how the media covers the war, so this means - NADA.

Bush did not campaign on the Iraq war. He tried to confuse it with the hunt for bin Laden in Afghanistan.

He might not have campaigned on it, but he didn't hide it either. If you recall, it was Kerry's fli-flopping on this subject that ended up costing him.

Then he slimed his opponent's war record (the brave little deserter who couldn't even fulfill the cushy obligation his daddy bought for him) and fired up the hillbillies about gay marriage.

Stop being so biased.... it makes you look (as we know you are) ignorant. So speaking the truth about Kerry's lackluster military record is "sliming"? Also, Bush did serve out his obligation. You just choose to ignore the FACTS.

Nobody outside of the the U.S. was scared of Saddam by 2000. Bush wanted to top his daddy, who bungled the job in the first Iraq War by letting Saddam go. "He tried to kill my Dad," was the closest Bush ever came to talking straight about Saddam.

You're grasping. Of course nobody was scared of him, we (the USA) was detaining him. But we (the USA) were also the ones bearing the burden.

Saddam got his nerve gas, along with a set of solid gold spurs, from Donald H. Rumsfeld? Saddam was always our guy.

Again, you are exhibiting your ignorance of history or, you are just denying that times change and that there were reasons way back then for why we were playing BOTH sides (Iraq and Iran).

When he asked if it was OK to invade Kuwait, the U.S. Ambassador told him the U.S. regarded it as an internal matter between Arabs.

Pfft. Bullshit!

Wishful thinking and fatuous adherence to failed policies aren't much of a basis for a world view either. Why don't you stick to ideas instead of pretentious attempts a preemptive characterization? It looks more becoming on you.

Why don't you take your own advice. You prove over and over and over again how STUPID you are.

 

[5stringJeff]

Hello? Most of the country is NOT behind the war. Polls show that Americans think the invasion of Iraq was a mistake by 2-to-1.

According to http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm , the current numbers say about 41-44% think it was worth going to Iraq, 54-57% say it wasn't. That's a far cry from 2-1. Moreover, during all of 2003, the majority of Americans supported the decision to invade Iraq.

 

[mrsx]

That is this week's poll. They go up and down based on how the media covers the war, so this means - NADA.

He might not have campaigned on it, but he didn't hide it either. If you recall, it was Kerry's fli-flopping on this subject that ended up costing him.

Stop being so biased.... it makes you look (as we know you are) ignorant. So speaking the truth about Kerry's lackluster military record is "sliming"? Also, Bush did serve out his obligation. You just choose to ignore the FACTS.

You're grasping. Of course nobody was scared of him, we (the USA) was detaining him. But we (the USA) were also the ones bearing the burden.

Again, you are exhibiting your ignorance of history or, you are just denying that times change and that there were reasons way back then for why we were playing BOTH sides (Iraq and Iran).

Pfft. Bullshit!

Why don't you take your own advice. You prove over and over and over again how STUPID you are.

The polls show almost no (less than margin of error) up-and-down on a weekly basis; on the contrary, there is a steady, linear decline in support for the Iraq adventure as one after one the administration's lies have come to light.

I agree with you *completely* about Kerry's flip-flopping. His war record, however, is a different matter. I think he was politically ambitious and anxious to get as many medals as he could. He did however, really volunteer, really get shot at. Even the Swift Boat Slimebags admit to that. There is *no* record that Bush fulfilled is obligated days after transfering out of Texas and not a single member of the unit to which he was reassigned has ever come forward to say they saw him at drills etc. The White House came up with something to show he visited the dentist once - that's it. Even if he had served, it would have been in a safe home billet he got through his daddy's influence. He specifically *declined* to serve abroad - an option that the guys over whom he jumped to get into TANG didn't have when they were drafted instead. Defending this little rat shows a cynical, disingenous attitude toward the "glum heroes"* who were drafted or, like Kerry, volunteered and served in combat.

Both the U.N. inspectors and our own guys could find no evidence of WMD before (or after the invasion). All that talk of "mushroom clouds" and "mobile germ warfare labs" was bullshit and people in the administration, including Colin Powell, knew it at the time.

We were hardly playing both sides in the Iran-Iraq war. We backed Saddam because we were mad at the Ayatollahs (still are, still powerless against them). We gave him nerve gas. Did we think he was going to use it on roaches in the palace?

You keep calling me names but you have no refutation for the facts with which I have made my point. You have the forensic skills of a lawn gnome and are just as cute.

*Before you bust a patriotic gasket at the phrase "glum heroes," look up the poem by Owen from which it is taken.

 

[freeandfun1]

The polls show almost no (less than margin of error) up-and-down on a weekly basis; on the contrary, there is a steady, linear decline in support for the Iraq adventure as one after one the administration's lies have come to light.

I agree with you *completely* about Kerry's flip-flopping. His war record, however, is a different matter. I think he was politically ambitious and anxious to get as many medals as he could. He did however, really volunteer, really get shot at. Even the Swift Boat Slimebags admit to that. There is *no* record that Bush fulfilled is obligated days after transfering out of Texas and not a single member of the unit to which he was reassigned has ever come forward to say they saw him at drills etc. The White House came up with something to show he visited the dentist once - that's it. Even if he had served, it would have been in a safe home billet he got through his daddy's influence. He specifically *declined* to serve abroad - an option that the guys over whom he jumped to get into TANG didn't have when they were drafted instead. Defending this little rat shows a cynical, disingenous attitude toward the "glum heroes"* who were drafted or, like Kerry, volunteered and served in combat.

Both the U.N. inspectors and our own guys could find no evidence of WMD before (or after the invasion). All that talk of "mushroom clouds" and "mobile germ warfare labs" was bullshit and people in the administration, including Colin Powell, knew it at the time.

We were hardly playing both sides in the Iran-Iraq war. We backed Saddam because we were mad at the Ayatollahs (still are, still powerless against them). We gave him nerve gas. Did we think he was going to use it on roaches in the palace?

You keep calling me names but you have no refutation for the facts with which I have made my point. You have the forensic skills of a lawn gnome and are just as cute.

*Before you bust a patriotic gasket at the phrase "glum heroes," look up the poem by Owen from which it is taken.

So then Iran-Contra was all made up!? Olly and Reagan are cleared now then!!!!!!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The polls show almost no (less than margin of error) up-and-down on a weekly basis; on the contrary, there is a steady, linear decline in support for the Iraq adventure as one after one the administration's lies have come to light.

I agree with you *completely* about Kerry's flip-flopping. His war record, however, is a different matter. I think he was politically ambitious and anxious to get as many medals as he could. He did however, really volunteer, really get shot at. Even the Swift Boat Slimebags admit to that. There is *no* record that Bush fulfilled is obligated days after transfering out of Texas and not a single member of the unit to which he was reassigned has ever come forward to say they saw him at drills etc. The White House came up with something to show he visited the dentist once - that's it. Even if he had served, it would have been in a safe home billet he got through his daddy's influence. He specifically *declined* to serve abroad - an option that the guys over whom he jumped to get into TANG didn't have when they were drafted instead. Defending this little rat shows a cynical, disingenous attitude toward the "glum heroes"* who were drafted or, like Kerry, volunteered and served in combat.

Both the U.N. inspectors and our own guys could find no evidence of WMD before (or after the invasion). All that talk of "mushroom clouds" and "mobile germ warfare labs" was bullshit and people in the administration, including Colin Powell, knew it at the time.

We were hardly playing both sides in the Iran-Iraq war. We backed Saddam because we were mad at the Ayatollahs (still are, still powerless against them). We gave him nerve gas. Did we think he was going to use it on roaches in the palace?

You keep calling me names but you have no refutation for the facts with which I have made my point. You have the forensic skills of a lawn gnome and are just as cute.

*Before you bust a patriotic gasket at the phrase "glum heroes," look up the poem by Owen from which it is taken.

That's right. Saddam was just a big loveable pussycat who wouldn't hurt a fly. We're mean.

 

[mrsx]

So then Iran-Contra was all made up!? Olly and Reagan are cleared now then!!!!!!

Iran-Contra was not made up. What made Reagan's selling SAMs to Iran illegal was the embargo law he violated, a law passed to *prevent* Iran from arming against Iraq. Using the money from the illegal sales illegally to fund terrorists and murderers in Central America was equally treasonous. To have a U.S. Marine officer on active duty (North) deliberately perjure himself before the U.S. Congress was a stain on the honor of the military.

So, in addition reminding us that Reagan was a doddering old fool and North a liar, you confirm that we were not "playing both sides" in the Iran-Iraq war as you so rashly asserted. We backed Saddam. We armed Saddam with WMD. We gave him the green light (by mistake perhaps, but nonetheless) on Kuwait. Our troops defeated him in the field and then that fat idiot Schwartzkopf let him keep his helicopters and stay in power when his military was set to dump him. Bush told the Kurds and Shia'a to rise up against Saddam, promised help and then betrayed them. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi patriots died because of this gutless wimp. His idiot son is responsible for the death of a hundred thousand more. And you are proud of these guys. HA!

You twist and turn, but the more you thrash about for some factoid to support your ranting, the more you undermine your position and support mine.