More on BRAC. - As I have feared, Marine Corps' logistics center in Albany is noted as being ripe for realignment under BRAC.
Excerpts from a 3-20-05 New York Times article entitled:
States and Communities Battling Another Round of Base Closings
For the first time in a decade, communities across the country are bracing for a major round of military base closings, and they are mounting aggressive lobbying campaigns to stave off cuts and other changes that some independent experts say could dwarf the previous four rounds combined.
Pentagon officials say all 425 domestic bases are under scrutiny, as the military looks to squeeze efficiencies and billions of dollars in savings from a cold-war network that has nearly 25 percent more capacity than what the armed services say they need.
After more than two years of exhaustive study, Pentagon analysts are putting the finishing touches on a list of recommendations that Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld will present to a nine-member independent commission for review. Scores of Pentagon analysts and auditors have been poring over data and dozens of options as part of an effort that is intended to mesh with Mr. Rumsfeld's broader goals to make the military more agile and responsive to security threats.
Military officials assert that the Pentagon has no preconceived notions about which bases to close or consolidate, or the amount of annual savings. But senior military officials say the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines are likely to end up sharing more bases, laboratories, depots and training ranges in an approach consistent with Mr. Rumsfeld's philosophy that the armed services should fight and operate jointly.
One prominent military analyst, Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, said the military's excess industrial capacity made bases like . . . the Marine Corps' logistics center in Albany, Ga., ripe for realignment. Such bases, while not widely known, employ large numbers of civilians.
Mr. Rumsfeld will submit his list of recommended base closings, consolidations and realignments to the commission by May 16. A final roster of cuts and other changes, prepared by the commission, is due Sept. 8. Previous base-closing commissions have endorsed 85 percent of the Pentagon's recommendations. President Bush and Congress must then accept or reject the list by Nov. 7.
The four previous rounds of base closures, in 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995, eliminated 97 bases and several hundred smaller facilities, and reduced overall capacity by 20 percent. . . . This is the last scheduled round of closings, under the current model begun in the late 1980's, putting even more pressure on the decisions to come.
Adding to the uncertainty of this year's round are the open-ended military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon's plans to bring 70,000 troops and 100,000 dependents in Europe back [with NATO] to bases in the United States, and a sweeping review of the military's strategy, forces and missions as required by Congress every four years.
Lawmakers and community leaders are searching for clues for what the Pentagon considers the most vulnerable bases, but any leaks of information have all but dried up because hundreds of military and Pentagon employees working on the process have been required to sign oaths of secrecy.
The bulk of the analysis in the Pentagon is being carried out by seven groups of military and civilian officials who are organized to focus on these pivotal functions or organizations: industrial activities, supply and storage, headquarters and support, education, intelligence, medical and training.
The Pentagon teams are using several criteria to assess a base's value, including the base's mission, cost savings, availability of land and air space, and economic impact on local communities, aides said.
In this round, Pentagon officials said, the Defense Department is looking at more shared or consolidated basing arrangements, either for cost savings or operational reasons. This could involve merging contiguous bases like Fort Bragg in North Carolina, headquarters of the 82nd Airborne Division, and Pope Air Force Base. Under some situations, Marine or Navy aircraft could fly from Air Force bases.
It has been 10 years since the last batch of base closings, largely because Republicans accused President Bill Clinton of politicizing the 1995 round when he objected to the commission's decisions to close maintenance depots at McClellan Air Force Base in California and Kelly Air Force Base in Texas. Republicans said the administration was seeking to curry favor with voters in those big states by preserving those jobs. In the end, Mr. Clinton grudgingly approved the list.
In part because of that controversy, the rules were changed to require seven of the nine panel members to agree to any proposed additions to the defense secretary's list. A simple majority of its members may preserve a base that is a target of Mr. Rumsfeld.
Congress created the base-closing process in the late 1980's as the military reduced in size in response to the collapse of the Soviet Union. With Congress unable to agree on which bases should be closed, a bipartisan Congressional group proposed turning the selections over to an independent commission.
States and Communities Battling Another Round of Base Closings
For the first time in a decade, communities across the country are bracing for a major round of military base closings, and they are mounting aggressive lobbying campaigns to stave off cuts and other changes that some independent experts say could dwarf the previous four rounds combined.
Pentagon officials say all 425 domestic bases are under scrutiny, as the military looks to squeeze efficiencies and billions of dollars in savings from a cold-war network that has nearly 25 percent more capacity than what the armed services say they need.
After more than two years of exhaustive study, Pentagon analysts are putting the finishing touches on a list of recommendations that Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld will present to a nine-member independent commission for review. Scores of Pentagon analysts and auditors have been poring over data and dozens of options as part of an effort that is intended to mesh with Mr. Rumsfeld's broader goals to make the military more agile and responsive to security threats.
Military officials assert that the Pentagon has no preconceived notions about which bases to close or consolidate, or the amount of annual savings. But senior military officials say the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines are likely to end up sharing more bases, laboratories, depots and training ranges in an approach consistent with Mr. Rumsfeld's philosophy that the armed services should fight and operate jointly.
One prominent military analyst, Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, said the military's excess industrial capacity made bases like . . . the Marine Corps' logistics center in Albany, Ga., ripe for realignment. Such bases, while not widely known, employ large numbers of civilians.
Mr. Rumsfeld will submit his list of recommended base closings, consolidations and realignments to the commission by May 16. A final roster of cuts and other changes, prepared by the commission, is due Sept. 8. Previous base-closing commissions have endorsed 85 percent of the Pentagon's recommendations. President Bush and Congress must then accept or reject the list by Nov. 7.
The four previous rounds of base closures, in 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995, eliminated 97 bases and several hundred smaller facilities, and reduced overall capacity by 20 percent. . . . This is the last scheduled round of closings, under the current model begun in the late 1980's, putting even more pressure on the decisions to come.
Adding to the uncertainty of this year's round are the open-ended military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon's plans to bring 70,000 troops and 100,000 dependents in Europe back [with NATO] to bases in the United States, and a sweeping review of the military's strategy, forces and missions as required by Congress every four years.
Lawmakers and community leaders are searching for clues for what the Pentagon considers the most vulnerable bases, but any leaks of information have all but dried up because hundreds of military and Pentagon employees working on the process have been required to sign oaths of secrecy.
The bulk of the analysis in the Pentagon is being carried out by seven groups of military and civilian officials who are organized to focus on these pivotal functions or organizations: industrial activities, supply and storage, headquarters and support, education, intelligence, medical and training.
The Pentagon teams are using several criteria to assess a base's value, including the base's mission, cost savings, availability of land and air space, and economic impact on local communities, aides said.
In this round, Pentagon officials said, the Defense Department is looking at more shared or consolidated basing arrangements, either for cost savings or operational reasons. This could involve merging contiguous bases like Fort Bragg in North Carolina, headquarters of the 82nd Airborne Division, and Pope Air Force Base. Under some situations, Marine or Navy aircraft could fly from Air Force bases.
It has been 10 years since the last batch of base closings, largely because Republicans accused President Bill Clinton of politicizing the 1995 round when he objected to the commission's decisions to close maintenance depots at McClellan Air Force Base in California and Kelly Air Force Base in Texas. Republicans said the administration was seeking to curry favor with voters in those big states by preserving those jobs. In the end, Mr. Clinton grudgingly approved the list.
In part because of that controversy, the rules were changed to require seven of the nine panel members to agree to any proposed additions to the defense secretary's list. A simple majority of its members may preserve a base that is a target of Mr. Rumsfeld.
Congress created the base-closing process in the late 1980's as the military reduced in size in response to the collapse of the Soviet Union. With Congress unable to agree on which bases should be closed, a bipartisan Congressional group proposed turning the selections over to an independent commission.
posted by Sid Cottingham | 8:44 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home