State officials plan to conduct a summit of local officials from communities that have military bases Nov. 13 at Ft. Bragg in Fayetteville. With another round of base closings less than two years away, the summit is meant to show North Carolina’s support for the military.
More than 100,000 military personnel are based in North Carolina. Only California and Texas have more troops than does North Carolina.
North Carolina officials have reason to be concerned about the new round of base closings in 2005. The military, despite four rounds of base closings in the 1990s, still is burdened with superfluous infrastructure.
Senior Pentagon officials have said that as many as one in four domestic military bases should be closed. By doing so, the Pentagon could save billions of dollars over time that could be used for more-productive activities, including buying more of the latest generation of weapons. The military estimates it is saving $6.6 billion a year from earlier base closings.
The Pentagon’s basing needs are determined by force structure. The closure of many bomber bases in the 1990s, for example, was a natural result of the retirement of about 150 B-52G bombers. Without the heavy bombers, there was no need for the bases.
In comparison to previous base closings, the Pentagon is placing a far greater emphasis in the upcoming round on interservice basing solutions. It also appears ready to accept plans for an overall reduction in force. These changes would allow a radical reduction in the number of bases, especially in the Army. Only one of the Army’s 30 largest facilities was closed in previous rounds.
In the last round of base-closing hearings in 1995, for example, the Pentagon’s assumptions essentially precluded the closing of any of the Army’s large “maneuver” bases. Maneuver bases, such as Ft. Bragg, typically house a division of troops. The Army has 10 active-duty divisions with the equivalent of two divisions stationed abroad. In 1995, the Pentagon required that there be enough room to house the units stationed abroad in the United States, if necessary. It also did not consider what unused capacity existed outside the U.S. Army. In the 2005 base-closing round, the elimination of these assumptions could easily result in the closure of at least one maneuver base, perhaps more. (This does not, however, necessarily mean that Ft. Bragg would be listed for closure or even seriously looked at by the base closing commission. Indeed, it has specialized facilities and was far from the lowest-rated maneuver base in 1995.)
Future force reductions, particularly in the Air Force, will also be a factor in 2005.
The base-closing process begins in earnest when the secretary of defense releases a list of proposed closures in May 2005. A specially appointed nine-member Base Closure and Realignment Commission will review the list. The purpose of the commission is to assure that all base closures or reductions are justified and that the right bases have been selected. By definition, this task involves making comparisons between bases. To assure that the proper installations are selected, the commission in the past has added comparable bases to the possible closure list. These facilities receive the same sort of intense scrutiny as the bases listed by the secretary of defense. By doing so, the commission preserves its options should its review show the Pentagon identified the wrong base for closure.
In 1995 the commission chose to evaluate all five Navy aviation depots for closure — including the one in Cherry Point, N.C. — instead of just the two recommended by the secretary of defense. The commission ultimately followed the secretary’s recommendations on which naval aviation depots to close.
In the second phase of the its work, the BRAC will go through the list of bases and make its recommendations for closure or realignment. The list is then forwarded to the president and Congress. The president can either approve the list as a whole or return it to the commission. Congress may not make any changes. It can only accept or reject the list of proposed closings in its entirety.
The combination of the sheer size of the base-closing list to be submitted in 2005, the need by the commission to consider alternatives, and the size of the military presence in North Carolina make it likely that at least some base in the state will be considered for closure or downsizing in 2005.
Michael Lowrey is an associate editor of Carolina Journal.