GovernmentExecutive.com

Two strategies that many lawmakers are counting on to protect military bases in their home districts emerged this week, as the Pentagon released its official criteria for choosing which bases to shut down, and the House held its first election-year hearing to review the base closure process.

Some lawmakers have questioned the wisdom of eliminating U.S. installations until the Pentagon determines what to do with the influx of troops returning from anticipated base closures overseas. Others have gone the domestic route, seeking ways to influence Pentagon decision-making through local community activism and lobbying for specific installations. Some defense analysts to warn that neither approach offers a foolproof strategy to neutralize the impact of the next Base Realignment and Closure round in 2005.

Senate Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee Chairwoman Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, who has been wary about closing bases prematurely during the war on terrorism, reacted to the Pentagon's base-closure criteria Thursday by praising the Pentagon's plan to weigh overseas bases in drawing up the hit list it must submit to an independent BRAC commission next year.

"Thanks to a united approach by the Texas congressional delegation, the Pentagon has acknowledged the necessity of considering homeland security and overseas base factors in the deliberations on the value of military bases," said Hutchison.

While it is unclear exactly how many troops will return from bases abroad, and how much excess capacity exists among U.S. installations to accommodate them, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is expected to submit a congressionally mandated report on force structure to lawmakers later this monthpinpointing excess capacity.

That study, according to one congressional analyst, will enable the military to determine with much greater certainty where returning troops can be sent without requiring additional infrastructure. And Rumsfeld's report most likely will abrogate any argument that suggests the Pentagon should not close installations at home before it starts shuttering bases abroad, the analyst said.

Raymond DuBois, the Pentagon's undersecretary for installations and environment, said Rumsfeld will begin releasing pieces of his plan to realign forces overseas in the next 90 days, including which units will be returning home. The Army is especially primed for adapting to these changes, given Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker's plan to radically reform the service's structure around modular brigades designed to "plug-and-play" with any Army division. According to analysts, this reconfiguration could allow troops returning home over the next several years to be readily split up and redistributed around the country wherever excess basing capacity exists.

On the domestic front, states and local governments clamoring for funds to hire lobbyists who can help "BRAC-proof" their installations could be wasting their time, analysts said this week.

During the House Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on base closure Thursday, DuBois emphasized that the Defense Department's base closure recommendations would be based exclusively on certifiable data generated internally. Analysts interpret this to mean that BRAC planners will rely not on information gathered by local communities, lobbyists, or even lawmakers, but rather on information collected from base commanders. The effect would be to put a wall around the Pentagon to shield it from outside influences until the Defense secretary sends his list of recommended closures or realignments to the BRAC commission in May 2005. At that point, according to DuBois, the public can submit information to the commission in an effort to amend the base closure list. But if previous BRAC rounds serve as an indicator, analysts warn, once a base lands on the list it is all but impossible for the commission to remove it.

COMMENTS

• After Nov 2004 the discussion and comments about base closure may be creditable. Until then it is all politics and getting elected. For example, there are a large number of troops in Iraq that are guard and reserve. These guys will go back to civilian life and not require a base capacity. Not only should we close several bases but we should reduce the numnber of active duty military as well. However, that is not going to happen in an election year and we will have to pay for it for many years to come. GovExec.com reader Posted February 17, 2004 6:30 AM