Time to close military bases?

[acludem]

Bush wants to close several military bases while we are at war - and just to appease you righties, I got the story from Foxnews.com

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120713,00.html

acludem

 

[Annie]

Interesting take on that reading, ACLU. Seems that both parties are lining up on both sides, I fail to see what's the appeasement to the 'righties.'

I got the feeling that if a state has military bases, they are against, and vice versa. More a question of bringing home the bacon rather than partisanship.

 

[rcajun90]

I'm assuming you are talking about closing U.S. military bases. I know one near New Orleans in my state is on the chopping block which will hit an already drepressed economy very hard.

Why not close the ones located in Germany. I know they are wonderful friends of ours but the Soviet threat is gone so let their economies suffer. Also Japan which is supportive of our efforts in Iraq can afford to pay for their own defense. The same can be said for the South Koreans which their youth has the nerve to stage anti-American protests.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by acludem
Bush wants to close several military bases while we are at war - and just to appease you righties, I got the story from Foxnews.com

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120713,00.html

acludem

All this is part of is the continued alignment and consolodation of forces. As for troops in Germany in Korea......

Germany provides a launching pad into the ME and hospitals near the battlefield in which our troops can be treated.

The troops in Korea are there more to secure our presence in the area in regards to China than anything else.

The troops are needed overseas to face regional threats not the old "Soviet Empire" that no longer exists.

Some are making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[dilloduck]

Amazing--- the military is a "good" thing when it happens to be based next door and the local economy can benefit from it but when it is used for the purpose it was created for people complain. It's obvious where THIER priorites lie.

 

[rcajun90]

>Germany provides a launching pad into the ME and hospitals near the battlefield in which our troops can be treated.<

Couldn't this be done in the UK where we at least a little more appreciated?

>The troops in Korea are there more to secure our presence in the area in regards to China than anything else.<

You sure it is not to stop those nice North Koreans from pouring over the border? Also we have bases in Japan to secure our presence in regards to China.

>The troops are needed overseas to face regional threats not the old "Soviet Empire" that no longer exists.<

I say let those regions defend themselves and pay for it themselves. I'm tired of being Uncle Sap.

Some are making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by rcajun90
Couldn't this be done in the UK where we at least a little more appreciated?

Sure, but that would require millions (billions?) of dollars to build new facilities. We already have those facilities in place now in Germany, so why not use them? We had many times more troops in Germany in the 80's than we do now, so forces have been steadily reduced there. But the facilities are another matter.

You sure it is not to stop those nice North Koreans from pouring over the border? Also we have bases in Japan to secure our presence in regards to China.

We don't have enough troops in Korea to stop the North is we wanted. They have always just been considered a "trip wire". Anyway, we have already announced the troops in Korea are moving into the southern part of the country and we are handing over a lot of our past responsibilities to the Koreans. Plus, we have steadily been downsizing our forces in Korea (a matter of fact, for the first time in history, we are taking troops from Korea to fight in another country [Iraq], so as you can see, we are re-organizing overseas too.

I say let those regions defend themselves and pay for it themselves. I'm tired of being Uncle Sap.

Actually, the Koreans and Japanese do share a large burden of the costs of our troops being in those countries.

This is not a matter of us defending them, this is a matter of the USA defending it's interests. If we did not believe it is in our interest to be there, we wouldn't be. Islamists are not just in the ME. There are millions of Muslims in China, Malaysia and Indonesia. We currently have troops "advising" in the Philippines and Thailand due to Islamist extremists in those countries. Having bases spread around the world is actually better for us when considering the overall WOT.

As for Korea, don't watch CNN so much. I go there very, very often (a matter of fact, I am leaving this Wednesday to go to Korea, Singapore and Malaysia) and Korea is VERY friendly towards the USA Yes, you see on CNN the "protests" against America, but there have been protests in support of America too. When the Korean government asked for troops to volunteer to go to Iraq, they have an OVERWHELMING number apply. They needed 3,600 troops and over 30,000 volunteered. So don't be so quick to think that ALL Koreans don't appreciate the USA.
Some are making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[dilloduck]

Isolationism will seriously hamper the war on terrorism. Do you really want to bring all our troops home and wait for them to attack?

 

[rcajun90]

>Korea is VERY friendly towards the USA Yes, you see on CNN the "protests" against America, but there have been protests in support of America too. When the Korean government asked for troops to volunteer to go to Iraq, they have an OVERWHELMING number apply. They needed 3,600 troops and over 30,000 volunteered. So don't be so quick to think that ALL Koreans don't appreciate the USA.<

That is very good to hear. I did see someplace a pro American protest in Korea. It didn't much coverage.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by rcajun90
That is very good to hear. I did see someplace a pro American protest in Korea. It didn't much coverage.

I shared this story before, but here it goes again:

Not long ago I was in Korea and riding the subway from my hotel to Yongsan to see a friend of mine. Two different times while I was on the subway I had Koreans come up to me and ask if I were an American. The first time I was scared to reply as I did not know what to expect. Finally, I said, "yes" and on both occassions, the Koreans reached their hands out and said to me, "thank you".

This is not a lie. I lived in Korea for three years and not once did that happen to me. Since the WOT has started, I have had that happend several times now.

Part of it is that Korea has a very large and growing evangelical Christian movement and they see our WOT as being very important.

 

[insein]

I really don't see how closing little used bases on a case by case basis to save money is such a bad thing. It stream lines the military and it saves money. Something the dems have been whining about for awhile now.

If you have more bases with less soldiers, arent you wasting money? If you have fewer bases with more soldiers at them, doesnt that help in your mobilizing and training efforts?

Another NON-Issue that the Dems are clinging to.

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
All this is part of is the continued alignment and consolodation of forces. As for troops in Germany in Korea......

Germany provides a launching pad into the ME and hospitals near the battlefield in which our troops can be treated.

The troops in Korea are there more to secure our presence in the area in regards to China than anything else.

The troops are needed overseas to face regional threats not the old "Soviet Empire" that no longer exists.

Some are making a mountain out of a molehill.

It's not often that I find myself in agreement with freeandfunDAMENTALIST1, but in this case I believe he (she?) is correct.

The problem is political not military. The Congress has been unable to do what just about everybody in the Pentagon and the R's and D's in Congress know should be done. Close bases and consolidate. The reasons are purly political. A base means jobs and money in a Congressional district. It's all about who's ox is going to get gored. Congress recogonized that because of their vested interested, they should try to de-politicize the process by setting up a commission to recommend base-closures or BRAC, Base Re-Alignment and Consolidation. In doing so, it was thought that Congress could do what it should do without the "I'll protect your base if you protect mine" deal making going on by both parties in Congress, particularly in the House Armed Services Committee.

The latest round of BRAC closing reported on Fox is a scheduled part of the process. It will not deminish the ability of US forces fighting overseas, in fact it will help them a lot by eliminating unnecessaryy expendatures that can be better used in the field.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
It's not often that I find myself in agreement with freeandfunDAMENTALIST1, but in this case I believe he (she?) is correct.

The problem is political not military. The Congress has been unable to do what just about everybody in the Pentagon and the R's and D's in Congress know should be done. Close bases and consolidate. The reasons are purly political. A base means jobs and money in a Congressional district. It's all about who's ox is going to get gored. Congress recogonized that because of their vested interested, they should try to de-politicize the process by setting up a commission to recommend base-closures or BRAC, Base Re-Alignment and Consolidation. In doing so, it was thought that Congress could do what it should do without the "I'll protect your base if you protect mine" deal making going on by both parties in Congress, particularly in the House Armed Services Committee.

The latest round of BRAC closing reported on Fox is a scheduled part of the process. It will not deminish the ability of US forces fighting overseas, in fact it will help them a lot by eliminating unnecessaryy expendatures that can be better used in the field.

Right on. Politics is a dangerous game.

 

[5stringJeff]

As a budget analyst for DoD, I think I might have a little insight into this.

Bases cost money. Every dollar spent on base operations is a dollar that can't be spent on training a soldier, or buying him ammo or food or body armor. So if you can consolidate bases, than you are saving in the administrative costs of maintaining the military, so you can spend more on fighting wars.

IMO, Bush's plan for another round of BRAC (Base Realignment And Closure) is a good thing. It will save DoD a lot of money, and we will be able to redirect those dollars to either 1) the GWOT, 2) debt reduction, or 3) SS/Medicare.

Besides, aren't the liberals always talking about how Bush just wants to bloat the DoD at the expense of the rest of the federal gov't? Look like the opposite case here. In fact, the House wants to stall BRAC for another couple of years.

 

[dilloduck]

Whatever will all the pawn shops and hookers do? j/k

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by dilloduck
Whatever will all the pawn shops and hookers do? j/k

:rotflmao:

 

[acludem]

What about the costs to the local economies of areas where these bases are local? Won't the cost of lost jobs, lost businesses, and lost tax revenue offset any gains created by closing these bases?

acludem

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by acludem
What about the costs to the local economies of areas where these bases are local? Won't the cost of lost jobs, lost businesses, and lost tax revenue offset any gains created by closing these bases?

acludem

The "cost" of lost jobs/businesses is not borne by the federal government. Many employees on military bases are military spouses; their income is secondary and not necessary for a family to survive on. I'm not denying that a base closure would be bad economically, but it's as big of a deal as one might think. And with jobs being created and unemployment going down, I think it would be relatively easy for the newly unemployed to find a new job, should a base close. I think lost tax revenue would be minimal. And over a ten year period, a BRAC round is supposed to save billions of dollars. Even if we paid every base employee 10 years of welfare, I think we would still come out ahead.

 

[acludem]

The problem with your theory is this: in many of the small towns near these bases, the economy is based almost entirely on the presence of the base - both in terms of jobs and in terms of business revenues. There are several small towns in my home state of Missouri like this - one example is Knob Noster near Whiteman AFB. Closing bases can literally spell the end of some towns, just as the closing of a factory, college, etc. can. I hope the government is extremely careful about closing bases. I would hope the federal government could help to provide the necessary subsidies to draw some sort of large, job producing business to these areas (and I'm not talking about a Wal-Mart, either) I'm talking good jobs like the jobs on the bases.

acludem

 

[insein]

Originally posted by acludem
The problem with your theory is this: in many of the small towns near these bases, the economy is based almost entirely on the presence of the base - both in terms of jobs and in terms of business revenues. There are several small towns in my home state of Missouri like this - one example is Knob Noster near Whiteman AFB. Closing bases can literally spell the end of some towns, just as the closing of a factory, college, etc. can. I hope the government is extremely careful about closing bases. I would hope the federal government could help to provide the necessary subsidies to draw some sort of large, job producing business to these areas (and I'm not talking about a Wal-Mart, either) I'm talking good jobs like the jobs on the bases.

acludem

Deh took er jooobs!! Sorry had to add that in there.

Businesses and factories close all the time. Towns find ways to survive. It doesn't mean that the town just dies. If they can't survive then they move to a town that can. These people will get by.