U.P.I. December 06, 2004
Analysis: Some states see opportunity
By Phil Magers
States with major military installations are gearing up to protect their interests in next year's round of base closures, and some of them are extending a welcome to any other military jobs that might come their way during the realignment process.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said the 2005 Base Closure and Realignment, the first in a decade, may surpass the previous rounds of consolidation combined. He has talked about a 25-percent reduction in domestic base capacity.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry was in Washington last week to personally tell Pentagon officials how much the state values the $32.8 billion in defense dollars spent annually in the state and what the state is going to do to support major bases with new roads and other pro-military programs.
In California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has named former Clinton Chief of Staff Leon Panetta to head an 18-member council to advise state and local communities on base-closing issues. His state had been hit the hardest in the previous four reviews.
Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has also named an advisory council of retired military and business executives to protect the state's military bases, a $30 billion contributor to the economy. The state has 21 military bases and three unified commands.
In Colorado, the Greater Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce hopes to save five military installations in the Pikes Peak area south of Denver that contributes 40 percent of the local economy and employees more than 30,000 people.
Jeff Markovich, the chamber's vice president for military affairs, said there is no specific campaign aimed at protecting Fort Carson and other military bases in the area, but they stay informed on closure issues. They would welcome more with open arms.
"The Colorado Springs community is a military community, and I would say we would welcome any addition to our already military infrastructure, without mentioning any specific bases in particular, if any would come here," he said.
Although the base realignment and closure process is designed to be above politics, with an independent commission appointed to compile the list next year, that doesn't keep states and local communities from working hard to protect their interests.
"States are going to have to show some real focused interest if they want to protect their facilities," said Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute, a Virginia-based public-interest group.
Although no one can predict how many bases might be closed, Rumsfeld seems to hint there will be deep cuts in base capacity. His statements have been enough to get the attention of states like California, Florida and Texas with billions at stake.
Texas has moved to protect its existing 18 bases, although four of them are considered vulnerable. The state has also created a $250 million low-interest revolving loan fund to help military towns with economic development or infrastructure needs.
Texas has spent $20 million at Fort Hood and $16.2 million at Fort Bliss to build new roads and other infrastructure. When that announcement was made earlier this year, the Defense Department announced nearly 9,000 additional troops would be assigned to the two Army posts.
"We are here to demonstrate that Texas is committed to doing everything it can to enhance the value of its 18 military installations and to attract additional missions and troops to them," Perry said in Washington. "If the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines or Coast Guard have a need, Texas will fill that need."
Although major Texas military posts like Fort Hood and Fort Bliss are expected to be spared, others are vulnerable, like Brooks City-Base in San Antonio, Goodfellow Air Force Base near San Angelo, Ingleside Naval Air Station near Corpus Christi and the Red River Army Depot at Texarkana.
"Some states are certain to get some hits, like Texas and California, simply because they are so large with so many bases," said Thompson, but he said that doesn't mean a state like Texas might not be a net gainer in the end.
Some critical military installations, such as Elgin Air Force Base in Florida, Fort Hood in Texas or Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado, would probably be spared in next year's rounds. The ax might fall on smaller, less critical facilities.
John Pike, director of the non-partisan, non-profit GlobalSecurity.org, said it is difficult to predict the magnitude of the realignment and closures, partly due to the number of troops now scheduled to return from overseas bases.
"I really don't know of any major facilities that strike me as being good candidates for closure," Pike said. "The reason you were able to have big closures back a decade ago was that you had bases that suddenly nobody worked there any more. You had a draw down in force structure from 18 Army divisions to 10."
Rumsfeld will submit his final criteria to Congress in February. President George W. Bush will name the nine-member commission in March, and then Rumsfeld will submit his recommendations. The commission's list is released in September for a straight up-or-down vote from Congress, without changes.
Thompson gives the Bush administration high marks for sealing the process off from political influence. He said communities hiring consultants are wasting their money and any hint of politics will cause the process to collapse.
"When there are thousands of jobs and millions of dollars on the line in each state, the slightest hint that this was done for political purposes will be enough to subvert the process," he said.
© Copyright 2004, U.P.I.
