TOPICS
TOPICS
Overseas basing panel concerned about pace of relocations
Members of the Overseas Basing Commission Tuesday reiterated their concern that the Defense Department is moving too quickly in its plans to move nearly 70,000 troops stationed abroad to domestic military installations by the end of the decade.
At issue is whether the Pentagon can work quickly enough to prepare housing and training sites for the influx of troops, and whether the military has adequate air and sea lift to transport soldiers from the United States to foreign hot spots, members told the Senate Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee.
Meanwhile, a quick move -- mostly from Germany and the Korean peninsula -- might cost $20 billion or more and "adversely impact the services' ability to adequately fund modernization and transformation," commission Chairman Al Cornella told the panel.
Commissioners also warned that a hasty relocation might hinder recruitment and retention efforts, which have already faced serious challenges because of recurring deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Subcommittee ranking member Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., echoed many of the commissioners' fears and also noted that the Pentagon had not given enough thought to foreign policy, or to its "overreaching objectives," before preparing for the move.
Subcommittee Chairwoman Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, however, stated that delaying the move would postpone modernization efforts and the Army's transformation into a more nimble, brigade-based force.
In a "perfect world," military members and families would face no quality-of-life interruptions during the transfer back to the United States, but the impact of a delay on future plans would have even more devastating effects, she said.
Meanwhile, Pentagon officials contended that they have worked with the State Department on their overseas basing plan and have addressed foreign policy concerns with 20 nations.
Ryan Henry, the principal deputy undersecretary of Defense for policy, added that deploying troops from the United States for overseas contingencies, rather than directly from Europe or Asia, would not add any risk to operational and deployment plans.
"Uncertainty is part of the strategy landscape which we have had in the post-9/11 world," Henry said.
He added that the Pentagon will have a better idea of its strategic air- and sea-lift needs early next year, when it completes its massive Quadrennial Defense Review of military capabilities, force structure and plans.
Congress created the six-member overseas commission in 2004 to provide an objective, independent analysis of the Pentagon's global base posture plans. The commission submitted a preliminary report to Congress and the Defense Department in May, and will file its final report by Aug. 15.
Subcommittee members also voiced concerns about the overall cost of moving troops from overseas.
The Pentagon estimated that total costs could range from $9 billion to $12 billion, but a Government Accountability Office evaluation put the price tag at closer to $20 billion, much of which will come from the services' operations and maintenance spending accounts.
Defense officials told the commission that the total cost could come to $25 billion, Cornella said. And, while it is "logical to assume" that relocating troops to the United States might save some money in the long run, the savings might not amount to much because the military would have to replicate many of the facilities in Europe in the United States, he added.
"We just can't pretend we can do all of this with minimal-to-no cost," said Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La.
If adequate funds are not set aside for the troop transfer and the Pentagon sticks to its current schedule, it "could drive unforeseen consequences," noted commission Vice Chairman Lewis Curtis.
But despite several concerns about the Pentagon's timetable, the effects on military quality of life and the services' lift capabilities, commissioners stressed that they largely agree with the premise for the Pentagon's global basing changes and its desire to relocate troops.
COMMENTS
- Sorry Taxpayer, this time you are wrong. GovExec.com reader Posted July 1, 2005 7:43 AM
- Slowing the pace of the move is strategically wise and economically prudent. It is in the best national interest. Unfortunately, some of the loudest voices supporting the move are special interests. It’s not surprising that Texas stands to gain the most from this move. In newspapers Texas politicians and defense contractors have openly reveled over the potential huge profits. Yet, is this really the right thing to do? The plan to downsize Europe made sense at the end of the Cold War. America was at peace and enjoyed a budget surplus for the first time in decades. The idea was to replace overseas bases with rapid deployment forces based in the states. These were the conditions under which the plans were made, but they are not the conditions of today. Now we are engaged in two bloody and expensive wars. European logistical operations move supplies through the Suez and unnamed countries around the clock. Injured troops are treated at first rate military hospitals in Germany rather than languish another 10 hours flying across the Atlantic. Overseas bases provide all sorts of functions that just can’t be done from a "remote" base in Texas. Aside from directly supporting the troops, taxpayer money is also a real concern. Downsizing will save billions, but only after 20 years if you read the fine print. The truth is that the move has a huge initial cost and will add billions to the already large deficit. In addition, we need to further evaluate the cost of using rapid deployment forces based in the USA. This method was used for the first time on a large scale during the Iraq war. The figures are still coming in, but it appears this method significantly increased the cost of the war to US taxpayers. Not only are overseas bases much closer to the action, but they are often cost effective because expenses are shared with the host country. So hats off to politicians Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) and Mary Landrieu (D-La) for putting troops, their families, and the national interests ahead of special interests. GovExec.com reader Posted June 30, 2005 4:54 PM
- Getting our troops and our spending out of Europe is long overdue! This move is at least a decade late and should proceed at the most rapid pace possible - next month wouldn't be bad. Housing the troops is a joke! We give them significant housing allowances so they can buy or rent in the private sector while bases build housing to accommodate them. Diane has no idea what she is doing and should stay out of the decision because the returning troops would help her area of California. I think her voters need to be informed that she is proposing to delay an increase in economic activity in her district. She certainly is not doing what is good for the ocuntry. The economic impact of the returning troops will help growth in areas where they are based and many of the areas need the help. Why do our elected representative continue to support European over Americans? This is not a hire the Germans and Brits program. taxpayer Posted June 30, 2005 6:31 AM









