On a November afternoon, a collection of state and local officials held a pep rally in Fayetteville in support of the state’s military bases. The reason for the summit was obvious enough: The Pentagon will go through a special process for the first time in 10 years in 2005 that allows for the closing or downsizing of military installations in the United States. The defense department thinks that perhaps 25 percent of its bases are unneeded and should be closed. It estimates savings in the billions of dollars per year. But many people fear the cutbacks.
The military is, of course, a big deal in North Carolina. About 100,000 troops are based here (only California and Texas host more) and their impact on the state economy is tremendous. Gov. Mike Easley and other state leaders want to show the military that North Carolina cares about “its” bases and its troops. To highlight the point, the General Assembly has appropriated $2 million to help in the fight to keep bases open in the state. Easley even declared North Carolina “the most military-friendly state in the nation.”
While it is nice to see state officials rallying around the bases, ultimately it is also a predictable act of no great significance. It’s predictable because there are few communities in America that do not appreciate their bases or (at the very minimum) the purchasing power of the troops stationed at them and the jobs of civilians employed on base. When a base closing round comes along, state and local officials throughout the country hold the same sort of events as happened last month in Fayetteville.
Politics to many involved is either a horse race or a sport. The object is not so much to get something done but to simply have power. It’s all about being ahead at the end of the day — and the next day, and the next. In this all-too common worldview, ideas and facts don’t matter much, just as long as you can spin the media and public better than the other guy. With this view also comes a strong desire to bring home some fat to local constituents.
Too many politicians view the defense budget as essentially just another big jobs program. This is precisely the wrong view. Defense is different. Every dollar wasted in keeping unneeded military installations open is a dollar that could have gone to buying more modern equipment for our troops or to better train them. Eliminating unneeded bases also creates a leaner, more combat-ready force. The benefits of this are far from merely fiscal — better training and equipment also save the lives of American troops.
The base-closing process will begin in earnest when the secretary of defense releases a list of proposed closures and realignments 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 a wrong base for closure.
In the second phase of its work, the BRAC will go through the list of bases and make its recommendations for closure or realignment. Its final list is 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.
It is possible that some military installations in North Carolina will be closed or reduced as a result of BRAC 2005. Certainly, other communities that have been highly supportive of the local fort or air base have seen their base close — the military’s basing needs, after all, are determined by its force structure, not local public support or the economic impact on the local community.
While any such potential closure would be highly disruptive locally, it also would be in our country’s best interest. The base closing process also assures that it will be the correct one and free from political influence.