TEXANS ON THE MILITARY
"God grants liberty only to those who love it and are always ready to guard and defend it." I was reminded of that famous Daniel Webster quote by an insightful Texan who responded to my annual survey.
As the United States takes up the mantle of freedom around the globe, those words ring as true today as when they were uttered nearly two centuries ago. With 1.37 million active duty military personnel serving around the world and 1.28 million more waiting in the wings on standby and ready reserve, it is clear that our nation is poised to defend the liberty we love.
National defense has always been one of my top priorities. Not only because I believe our democratic system is the best in the world, but also because I understand the need to bolster diplomacy with military might.
As we are engaged in a global war on terror and tensions spark around the world, it is important for the United States military to maintain a strong, capable force. Four times in the past 15 years we have attempted to streamline our military through the appointment of a Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) commission, chartered to recommend the elimination or realignment of unneeded bases.
To gauge your opinion on base closures, I posed the following question in my survey: "The Pentagon has announced another round of military closures in 2005. Because a round of base closures riddled with mistakes could be more costly than no closures at all, I believe we need to have a good idea of force structure for the future before closing bases. What are your views?"
I received many pointed replies to that question from civilians and military personnel alike. A full 40 percent of the responses I received agreed that the Pentagon should be required to outline a 20-year military strategy before closure decisions are made. Twenty-seven percent of respondents felt the decision must consider the impact of closures on homeland security and local economies. The remainder were split evenly between closing no bases at all and going forward with the process.
One Texan from Winnie said, "Too much politics has been involved in closures; bases that are set up to do a job should not be closed and money then used to get another base ready to do the same job." I couldn't agree more. It has been my experience that there can be unintended consequences when we miscalculate future needs for military bases. First, I have seen bases closed and dismantled, only to later realize their missions have again become relevant to U.S. military operations. Second, I have not seen estimates ever come close to the true cost of closing a base. How can we best avoid the missteps of the last round of base closures?
The fate of Reese Air Force Base in Texas is an excellent example of a base closure that the commission said looked good on paper, but it turned out to be a costly mistake. Reese was one of the Air Force's premier sites for entry-level pilot training, but an Air Force analyst decided there were adequate training facilities available elsewhere. Reese was closed. Today, the Air Force is experiencing a serious shortfall in training spaces for new pilots and is desperately trying to reestablish training sites on other bases. Everyone involved now agrees that Reese never should have been closed.
Another egregious example can be found in the 1995 BRAC decision to convey Fort Chaffee to the local community. The small, rural town of Barling, Arkansas was charged with the impossible task of turning Fort Chaffee, pockmarked with more than 700 lead paint and asbestos-laden World War II-era buildings, into an economic asset for the community. It couldn't be done. The Pentagon may have saved money with the closure, but it saddled a small town with an expensive, environmentally hazardous burden. Similar closures have resulted in the same devastating impact all over the country.
As incoming chair of the Senate Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee, I believe we must operate not only with our national security interests in mind but also with good business sense. Rather than waste millions of dollars on ill-fated closures, we should spend that money building better housing and more facilities for the men and women of the military, purchasing better technology and equipment, and paying our personnel for the difficult job we are asking them to do.
As we begin the 108th Congress, I will make it a top priority to ensure that we carefully and thoughtfully assess troop strength and future military needs before closing bases. When the time is right, we must have a well-defined, transparent process that is conducted fairly and in the open.
As we wage this war on terrorism we must heed the words of Daniel Webster because our liberty is at stake. We must support the President and give him the resources he needs to ensure victory in this great battle. And we must make sure that our men and women who proudly serve in the U.S. military have every tool and resource they need to win this war. Before we make any decisions to close another base, we must keep these objectives in mind.
December 20, 2002