At Least 100 Bases Said to Be in Line for Closure

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bases14oct14,1,6226229.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is planning to close at least 100 of the nation's 425 military bases — more than in the four previous rounds of base closures combined — beginning in 2005, Pentagon insiders said Monday.

Rumsfeld is expected to submit to the congressional Base Closure and Realignment Commission a plan to shutter as many as one-third of Army bases, one-quarter of Air Force bases and a smaller fraction of Marine Corps and Navy bases, a senior defense official said on condition of anonymity.

Such a proposal would guarantee a political firestorm on Capitol Hill, where members jealously protect the bases in their home states or districts.

Military analyst Loren Thompson reported Rumsfeld's plans in an analysis prepared late last week for defense officials and reporters. Thompson, of the Lexington Institute, an Arlington, Va.-based public policy organization, said the savings are expected to exceed the $66 billion the Pentagon saved during the last decade from previous base closures, but would come at the politically controversial cost of shutting about 25% of the nation's bases.

[JohnGideon]

1. What Better Way To Get Cooperation

than to threaten to close military installations in the states where there are nay-sayers. Those pesky Republicans!

Peace!!

[Zhade]

2. Is this more than the amount closed under Clinton?

If so, here are some words for Skeletor to remember:

SHUT THE FUCK UP, YOU HYPOCRITICAL TRAITOR.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

18. Those bases were ordered closed shortly after Desert Storm under Bush I...

...and Cheney's Department of Defense. It was all part of a massive draw-down of U. S. forces following that war.

[SoCalDem]

3. Large bases mean commisaries, hospitals, DEPENDENTS

Rummy wants to limit the "liabilities".. Keep the bases consolidated and the families ...O U T ...

When they guys are called up, the families left on base are a money-pit for the defense dept..

He wants the llittle wifey & kiddies to be camping out with their Mom & Dad and NOT on the military's dime..

It's always about the money :(

[No Passaran]

32. not really...

BAH is BAH. When I go on a deployment, I close the lease on my house, my family moves in with my parents and we still get BAH and BAQ each month. It goes straight to savings.

Back to the subject:A lot of people depend on those bases to be open in order to have a job. A lot of jobless people running around pretty soon. I hope they realize that come election time.

[SoCalDem]

36. They DO realize it.. They just don;t care

Every time they close a base, they DEVASTATE the town nearest to it.. They "offer" the base to the community at rock bottom prices, but when the (soometimes) largest employer leaves, there is no reason to take them up on their generous offer..

[Democat]

4. Imagine if Clinton announced that during a "war"

The media will kiss Bush's ass on this just like they always do.

And many military people will continue to vote Republican, no matter how Bush tries to screw them.

[slaveplanet]

5. Not to mention

these will make really fine confinement/labor camps for all the dissenters they probably expect to encounter sometime in the future.

[ConcernedCanuk]

6. NOW I know what all the hoopla is about Cuba !!

. . GITMO ain't Big enuf for all the people that the BFEE and cohorts want to "hide away" from the American Public.

. . Hmmm - maybe that's why he doesn't want too many Americans going to Cuba,

. . They just might get a peek at the WH Concentration Camp

Cuba is one of the favorite holiday places for alot of Canadians, and not one of the people I have talked to have anything nasty to say about Cuba. They just keep going back.

But our "King" was elected !!

And instead of a War Machine - we got FREE Healthcare for EVERYONE.


King George II

[Lexingtonian]

7. cute timing....

The closings come in 2005, when either a Democrat is President or W is in a second term. Of course, the people getting kicked off the payroll will blame "The Government" and be "angry" and so on.

On the other hand, this is the sort of thing Republicans are in office to do. A lot of the present 425 bases exist to spread out military money into parts of the country where constantly declining cattle and corn prices are about all that otherwise underlies the local economy. This is, to ideological Republicans, a kind of cutting welfare/subsidies (to military families) with the "savings" thrown into the contractors, who then bleed it out into consluting (oops, I meant: "consulting") jobs for relatives of people on Capitol Hill and CEO pay raises and verrry curious stock deals.

So the trick is really that it all means a further socializing of military costs. More shifting of service burden on the National Guard and Reserves, Latin American volunteers, and outright mercenary outfits.

Yet...it may well mean 'downsizing' of the conventional military to more appropriate levels. Not that the way Rumsfeld has been 'reorganizing' the military with the Quisling chiefs of staff is going to leave the thing in any desirable shape, but maybe it can be rejiggered. Maybe it'll get a bunch of people out of the True Believer military teat-sucking mode of life.

[truthisfreedom]

8. ahh, bush's civil war... he's in control, you know. he stamped his foot

and said so.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

9. What the hell? Are we going to privatize the army next????

[w4rma]

10. Soldiers of good fortune (on the corporatization of the U.S. military)

They fly helicopters, guard military bases and provide reconnaissance. They're private military companies--and they're replacing U.S. soldiers in the war on terrorism

At a remote tactical training camp in a North Carolina swamp, six U.S. sailors are gearing up for their part in President Bush's war on terrorism. Dressed in camouflage on a January afternoon, they wear protective masks and carry nine-millimeter Berettas that fire nonlethal bullets filled with colored soap. Their mission: recapture a ship--actually a three-story-high model constructed of gray steel cargo containers--from armed hijackers.
…
Because they operate with little oversight, using contractors also enables the military to skirt troop limits imposed by Congress and to carry out clandestine operations without committing U.S. troops or attracting public attention. "Private military corporations become a way to distance themselves and create what we used to call 'plausible deniability,'" says Daniel Nelson, a former professor of civil-military relations at the Defense Department's Marshall European Center for Security Studies. "It's disastrous for democracy."
…
When the companies do screw up, however, their status as private entities often shields them--and the government--from public scrutiny. In 2001, an Alabama-based firm called Aviation Development Corp. that provided reconnaissance for the CIA in South America misidentified an errant plane as possibly belonging to cocaine traffickers. Based on the company's information, the Peruvian air force shot down the aircraft, killing a U.S. missionary and her seven-month-old daughter. Afterward, when members of Congress tried to investigate, the State Department and the CIA refused to provide any information, citing privacy concerns. "We can't talk about it," administration officials told Congress, according to a source familiar with the incident. "It's a private entity. Call the company."

The lack of oversight alarms some members of Congress. "Under a shroud of secrecy, the United States is carrying out military missions with people who don't have the same level of accountability," says Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), a leading congressional critic of privatized war. "We have individuals who are not obligated to follow orders or follow the Military Code of Conduct. Their main obligation is to their employer, not to their country."
…
The companies don't rely on informal networking alone, though. They also pour plenty of money into the political system--especially into the re-election war chests of lawmakers who oversee their business. An analysis shows that 17 of the nation's leading private military firms have invested more than $12.4 million in congressional and presidential campaigns since 1999.
…
The United States has a history of dispatching private military companies to handle the dirtiest foreign assignments. The Pentagon quietly hired for-profit firms to train Vietnamese troops before America officially entered the war, and the CIA secretly used private companies to transport weapons to the Nicaraguan contras during the 1980s after Congress had cut off aid. But as the Bush administration replaces record numbers of soldiers with contractors, it creates more opportunities for private firms to carry out clandestine operations banned by Congress or unpopular with the public. "We can see some merit in using an outside contractor," Charles Snyder, deputy assistant secretary of state for African affairs, recently told reporters, "because then we're not using U.S. uniforms and bodies."
…
Despite such experiences in the field, the Bush administration is rapidly deploying private military companies in the Persian Gulf and other conflict zones. By March, DynCorp alone had 1,000 employees in the Middle East to assist in the invasion of Iraq. "The trend is growth," says Daniel Nelson, the former professor at the Pentagon's Marshall Center. "This current president and administration have--in part because of September 11, but also because of their fundamental ideology--taken off constraints that somewhat limited the prior administration." According to some estimates, private military companies will double their business by the end of the decade, to $200 billion a year.

President Bush only has to look to his father's war to see what the consequences of this trend could be. In the Gulf War's single deadliest incident, an Iraqi missile hit a barracks far from the front, killing 28 Army reservists who were responsible for purifying drinking water. Other troops quickly jumped in to take their place. "Today, the military relies heavily on contractors for this support," Colonel Steven Zamparelli, a career contracting officer, notes in the Air Force Journal of Logistics. "If death becomes a real threat, there is no doubt that some contractors will exercise their legal rights to get out of the theater. Not so many years ago, that may have simply meant no hot food or reduced morale and welfare activity. Today, it could mean the only people a field commander has to accomplish a critical 'core competency' task such as weapons-system maintenance...have left and gone home."
http://indyweek.com/durham/2003-07-23/cover.html
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=ab794c9ba4c5b4f23927aca96a1bb76c&threadid=35837

[ze_dscherman]

11. Yes. Privatizing the army.

That's exactly the plan, at least for the "non fighting" units. All that pesky maintenance, housing and logistics stuff will be outsourced, as well as the training of foreign "security forces".

[Ernesto]

21. privatizing the Navy

Last weekend I visited the USS Hornet. The WW2 aircraft carrier/ floating museum is moored @ what was Alameda Navel Air Station on the San Francisco bay. Durring the tour, I asked the docent about all the navy frieghters near by. He explainded that these were not really navy ships, that they were actually operated by "private contractors". Then I replied: "Oh I get it, Halliburton on the water!" The (retired navy) docent just rolled his eyes & agreed.... I just wonder who crews these things. As in what foriegn flag do they fly.

[teryang]

14. J.E.B. received $2,000,000 from Lay sponsored

...fund raising for his campaign for governor two months after the Enron bankruptcy. Just before the bankruptcy Jeb arranged for the the Florida State Pension fund purchase over $300,000,000.00 in worthless Enron stock. As governor he was the pension funds chief trustee.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

35. The effing Bushes take care of their own,

You wanna bet that while Tommy Chong does time Rushbo, will be given a free ride and be called a hero for facing his demons (for the third time). Our country has been taken over by a strange new mafia.

[MaineDem]

23. Did he honestly send that???

How disgusting! He has zero class.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

37. Oh, yeah. Go to Smoking Gun and you can see DOZENS of buddy-buddy

notes and letters between the two.

[GOPBasher]

12. I agree with Rumsfeld!!

I NEVER thought I'd say that!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

19. There are better ways to recover military spending costs...

...and one of those ways is to begin cutting boondoggle programs like "Star Wars".

Base closures affect far more than the military personnel assigned to each base. Businesses in nearby towns/cities also suffer losses to include bankruptcies. Not a good thing under the current economic mess.

[leetrisck]

13. This was supposed to come up much earlier

The delay until 2005 is because of election. They've already done this on several military and veterans issues - they are doing stuidies until after the election - trying to hang on to the military and veteran votes - veterans are very angry.

[teryang]

15. The political attack on the Army continues

the closures fall more heavily on the people intensive Army. This takes valuable dollars away from the so called "precision targeting" defense contractors who can "destroy targets" more cost effectively according to the neo cons. However, war isn't just about destroying things, it has political objectives. Such objectives cannot be achieved without a large regular Army. Neo cons won't admit this because they have no interest in the quality or security of human life abroard, only the capital infrastructure and resources that they can defraud or take from other nations.


Another trend is the exporting of military dollars overseas to protect these private corporate interests.

[Noordam]

16. "one-third of Army bases"

If you are not Space Wars then you are shit.

[Paragon]

17. Nail in the coffin for Rummy

Goodbye, Don. Enjoy your job search.

[chasqui]

27. GO CUBS!!!!

GO CUBS!!!!
GO CUBS!!!!
GO CUBS!!!!

[DemVet]

20. Hopefully...

...Rummy won't be in the picture by then.

[bushisanidiot]

22. Closing 100 Bases While We Have 2 Simultaneous Wars Going On?

What idiots.

And they expect to get the military vote in 2004??


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

[earthman dave]

24. Could this be to free up resources for more overseas bases?

With the New American Century underway, it seems silly to have a load of expensive bases in the US where they're never going to be needed. You're gonna want a lot more in the Middle East though.

[IndianaGreen]

25. I posted a partial list in GD several weeks ago...

I posted a partial list in GD several weeks ago, you might check the archives using "BRAC" as search criteria.

I had a copy of the list of bases that the Chiefs had proposed closing, subject to final approval by SecDef, that the Pentagon will be submitting for BRAC 2005.

Among the Navy installations: Pascagoula NS, Mississippi; Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, NH; MCAS Miramar, CA, etc.

Among the Army installations: Fort Monmouth, NJ; Fort Monroe, VA; Redstone Arsenal, AL, etc.

Among the Air Force installations: Beale AFB, CA; Shaw AFB, SC; Brooks AFB, TX, etc.

The list is quite extensive, and will probably undergo some minor changes particularly when Congress gets nervous about some of the installations being closed.

[LeftHander]

26. Don't want that money to go to soldiers or communities....

It's slated for Halliburton!!

[jobendorfer]

28. there's another angle to base closures ...

... many DoD bases were sited and built decades ago in
the WW-II era. In some (but not all) cases, cities have
grown out and surrounded once-isolated installations. In
such cases (example: Camp Pendleton, between San Diego and
Los Angeles), the real estate value of the installation is
enormous -- and developers have been slobbering over them
for decades. A boon to the Residents's developer buddies?

J.

[IndianaGreen]

29. Camp Pendleton is not on the proposed base closure list

Miramar is on the list.

[jobendorfer]

33. understood!

I was probably a bit less than clear. Camp Pendleton and
Miramar are both excellent examples of military installations
whose real estate has become extremely valuable due to
suburbanization and nearby development. Whether they're on
the block this year or not, real estate developers have been
lusting for both for decades ... I'm not sure what satisfies
a real estate developer's lust, and that may be too obscene
a thought to consider -- but I wouldn't underestimate it!

I used to work at an outfit called Cipher Data, just off I-15
(I think of it as 395, but that's how long I've been gone)
and Miramar's main runway, right next to Doc-in-the-Box. It
was kind of cool to sit outside, eat lunch, and watch the Top
Gunners practicing snap rolls.

Too bad they can't turn it into a chaparral park or something.
I hate to see the government sell the property, though, if they
ever need them again, the price will be horrific.

J.

[IndianaGreen]

34. Someone made money out of Presidio, SF

Prime real estate in an urban setting! I haven't followed through with that.

[Roy]

30. Still another angle on base closures......

All the soldieirs will be in Iraq. So empty bases are not needed. What happens to the grunts that make it back?
Well, thats long term planning, and all repub long term planners are busy researching for more power grabs!

[salin]

31. Not to mention... cutting costs (make some money) but increase overall

spending? A way to get free up even more money for defense contractors? Where is the line between providing necessary services and war profiteering?