Base Closure Plan Goes Before Commission

[julialnyc]

http://tinyurl.com/d9o9j

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon got its last chance Saturday to try to ease the concerns of a commission reviewing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's proposal to close or scale back hundreds of U.S. military bases.


"Change is hard, and we fully appreciate its impact," said Michael Wynne, who led the Pentagon team that drew up the plan.

However, Wynne said, it's also necessary. Closing some bases and shrinking others frees up money to allow the U.S. military to improve its combat capabilities, he said. (Iran?)

In a rare weekend hearing, Defense Department officials told the nine-member commission that they did not overestimate savings from the plan and that the proposal would strengthen, not harm, the country's security.

The hearing was convened just days before the commission holds a series of meetings to vote on whether to accept or reject each part of Rumsfeld's plan.

Anthony Principi, the commission's chairman, has pledged not to "rubber-stamp" the proposal, and on Saturday he told Pentagon officials that significant questions remain just days before the commission's final deliberations.

"Will the claimed savings actually be realized? Are costs understated?" Principi asked in his opening remarks.

The commission has questioned the Pentagon's claim that it will save $48.8 billion over 20 years if the proposal is enacted. It has pointed to a report by the Government Accountability Office that found upfront costs will total $24 billion and disputed the Pentagon's projected savings.

Pentagon officials stood by their numbers.

Also a concern is the impact of the Air Force's restructuring of the Air National Guard on homeland security. It would close or downsize nearly 30 facilities where Air Guard units are stationed and leave units with no planes to fly in many of those cases. The Air Force says those units would get new, non-flying missions. State governors, and their adjutants general who oversee Guard forces, oppose the plan.

"Has the chasm gulf separating the Air Force from the Air National Guard been bridged?" Principi asked.

"We don't consider disagreements with a few adjutant generals out there in the states as a rift between the Air Force and the National Guard," Gen. John Jumper, the Air Force's chief of staff, told the commission. "I don't think there is a chasm out there that has to be bridged."

The commission also worries that the recommendations will leave the Northeast unprotected. On the Pentagon's chopping block are two major New England bases — the submarine base at Groton, Conn., and the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine. Forces at the Naval Air Station in Brunswick, Maine, would be drastically reduced. (blue states?)

"No single installation was considered in a vacuum," Adm. Robert Willard, vice chief of naval operations, told the panel. He said military value, as well as savings, were considered to ensure the best defense of the country.

In May, Rumsfeld proposed shutting down or at least reducing forces at 62 of the country's largest base and hundreds of smaller military facilities to save money and streamline the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps.

Over the past few months, commissioners and staff have made 182 visits to 173 installations and conducted 35 hearings. The commission has received more than 80,000 electronic messages and more than a half-million pieces of paper mail from those commenting on the process.

At least some changes to the proposal are likely. Previous commissions — in 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995 — changed about 15 percent of what the Pentagon proposed, and analysts expect history to repeat itself this year.

_____

On the Net:

Defense Department: http://www.defenselink.mil

Base Closing Commission: http://www.brac.gov

[julialnyc]

1. connecting dots

From soldiers for the truth forum:

(UPI story)
USAF playing cat and mouse game over Iran
By Richard Sale
UPI Intelligence Correspondent
Published January 26, 2005

NEW YORK -- The U.S. Air Force is playing a dangerous game of cat and mouse with Iran's ayatollahs, flying American combat aircraft into Iranian airspace in an attempt to lure Tehran into turning on air defense radars, thus allowing U.S. pilots to grid the system for use in future targeting data, administration officials said.

"We have to know which targets to attack and how to attack them," said one, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The flights, which have been going on for weeks, are being launched from sites in Afghanistan and Iraq and are part of Bush administration attempts collect badly needed intelligence on Iran's possible nuclear weapons development sites, these sources said, speaking on condition of strict anonymity.

"These Iranian air defense positions are not just being observed, they're being 'templated,'" an administration official said, explaining that the flights are part of a U.S. effort to develop "an electronic order of battle for Iran" in case of actual conflict.
(much more - good look at plans for Iran...)

[dogday]

2. If they did have nukes, they will not hesitate

to use them on us. We are just asking for them to hit our planes so we can claim imminent threat of danger.

[julialnyc]

3. this is the same thing they did with Iraq

N/T

[julialnyc]

8. they wouldn't have to use a nuke

the neo-cons to say the littlest action was evidence that we needed to attack them.

[Bluerthanblue]

4. we turned blue- paybacks a bitch-

but there are concequences for payback too- What better way to keep us blue.

[julialnyc]

7. but blue in more ways than one

N/T

[yourout]

5. I bet they change there minds on bases in Puke territory.

I bet anything that Ellsworth stays open just to make
the dipshit Senator from SD look good.

[julialnyc]

6. I bet your right!!!!

N/T

[julialnyc]

9. article

http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=9428708&src=rss/ElectionCoverage

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Cost savings from the latest round of military base closings appear to be far less than the $50 billion estimated by the Pentagon, members of the commission with veto power over the actions said on Saturday.

The net savings to taxpayers over 20 years looks more like $14 billion because military jobs cut from the bases will be shifted to other locations or given new missions, Anthony Principi, chairman of the Base Realignment and Closing Commission, said at a Capitol Hill hearing.

The Pentagon estimated in May that the base closings and cutbacks would eliminate nearly 11,000 military jobs, but the military said it is not planning to make reductions in future military force levels.

"I'm still very skeptical, because I think at the end of the day, the bottom line shows that you have not saved any (military) dollars," Principi told Pentagon officials at a the hearing.

He also pointed out that the base closings will cost $24 billion in one-time costs for a net savings of $14 billion.

The nine-member commission is preparing to begin final deliberations next week on the Defense Department's recommendations for closures or cutbacks affecting 837 installations in the first round of U.S. domestic military base closings in a decade.

Made up of former generals, admirals, congressmen and other ex-government officials, the commission must submit its changes to President George W. Bush by September 8. He and Congress can accept or reject the commission's list in its entirety but can make no changes.

MOVED UNITS

Commissioner Philip Coyle pointed out that a witness at a previous hearing likened the savings estimates to "Enron accounting." He added that he was skeptical that these positions would actually be eliminated, as many units are simply moving to new locations.

The comments echoed concerns raised by the Government Accountability Office in a July study that found the Pentagon estimates "create a false sense of savings." It found that 47 percent of the Pentagon savings were based on personnel reductions that may not materialize.

But Defense Department officials testified that they regard base personnel cut savings as assets that could be redeployed to new emerging missions, such as shifting jet fighter squadron personnel to controlling unmanned aerial vehicles and computer-based electronic warfare missions.

"We have voided costs that we would put into future years' defense programs. That, to me, is real money," said Army Secretary Francis Harvey.

The commission will begin voting on the fate of bases starting on Wednesday.