| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: WoT | |
| More Military Bases in the U.S. to Be Closed | |
| 2005-02-20 | |
Washington- Safe for a decade, military bases in the United States face an uncertain future. The Pentagon plans to shut down or scale back some of the 425 facilities, the first such effort to save money in 10 years. The downsizing is part of Defense Seretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's long-term transformation of the Cold War- era military. The Pentagon chief argues that closing or consolidating stateside facilities could save 7 billion annually and that the money would be better spent improving fighting capabilities amid threats from terrorists.
| |
| Posted by:Andrea Biology Jackson |
| #6 The assumption is we know what we will need. BRAC is all good and fine till you discover the assumptions they base their actions upon don't hold up over time for all the grounds they close. Its easier to keep some installations open for future expansion than it is to fill all the &&^^^%*&## forms and reports and surveys to open a new facility later on. If you need to park materials enroute to a deployment site, either air or sea, a military compound near the deployment site may not be huge, but it'll get around all the local, state, and federal BS when it comes time to store stuff, the type the government neither confirms or denies, a night or two. |
| Posted by: Grort Shotle5111 2005-02-20 7:31:19 PM |
| #5 Live from my news desk in Vermont # 2 Barbara Skolaut and et al you are correct about "static" bases, putting the tax doller to bettter usage. However, Do they ever "weed" out position's in Congress and the other offices where these decision's are made?? I can see a Pearl Harbor situation happening. And YES, we will get hit again by terrorist- and I HOPE THE U.S. is fully prepared with ample military. Andrea Jackson |
| Posted by: Andrea Jackson 2005-02-20 5:41:16 PM |
| #4 Provided they continue to roll out aircrat carriers, the "static" bases become obsolete anyway. I say go for it and sell off alot of the land, plus there's immense savings vs. having to man all those bases. This is not, by the way, the same thing as Clinton and his wholesale dismantling of the military budgets and base closures. The Pentagon is finding more efficent ways to spend the existing funds, NOT cutting down our military strength. |
| Posted by: Chris W. 2005-02-20 4:52:28 PM |
| #3 Agree. BRAC is painful but necessary to control wasteful spending. It is also a good way for the Generals and Admirals to even things up with congresscritters who have screwed them in the past. That's why Pelosi, Lee, Woolsey et al no longer have any military bases in the SF Bay Area, except Onizuka AFB and the two ships left in reserve at Mare Island. All that should be moved too. Tell Lockheed to move it all out and put the offices on the market. Sobrato and Ariellaga can afford it. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-02-20 4:24:19 PM |
| #2 What Shieldwolf said. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2005-02-20 4:12:08 PM |
| #1 I have to disagree strongly to that sentiment. A good number of the existing bases are simply placeholders in congresscritters' districts : make-work pseudo-welfare establishments with skeleton maintenance staffs and infrastructure worthy only of bulldozing. The larger bases in this country can handle the training of the needed troops for the WOT, the placeholder bases need to be shutdown - since a number of them are now in suburban zones and cannot be used for livefire training due to political/legal constraints. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2005-02-20 3:54:35 PM |