GovernmentExecutive.com

Hundreds of Defense Department civilian jobs overseas likely will be eliminated as part of the Pentagon's plans to bring tens of thousands of troops back to the United States within the next decade.

"There probably will be some reductions in the numbers of civilians and contractors on the payroll by virtue of the fact that you will be closing or removing U.S. force structure from up to half, arguably, of the installations where we currently have force structure," a senior Defense Department official told reporters at a briefing on Monday. The official spoke only on the condition that he not be identified.

Earlier in the day, President Bush announced long-anticipated plans for the largest realignment of forces since the end of the Cold War. He said as many as 70,000 troops would be removed from Europe or Asia and returned mainly to the United States. The size of the military will not change, however, only its location, Defense officials stressed.

"Over the coming decade, we'll develop a more agile and more flexible force, which means that more of our troops will be stationed at home," Bush said during a speech at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Cincinnati on Monday. He said the move would mean more time at home for troops and fewer moves throughout their careers.

Defense officials offered few specific details about what troops would be withdrawn or to what U.S. bases they would move. The Army is expected to withdraw at least two divisions from Germany, while more than 10,000 troops also are expected to leave the Korean peninsula, officials said. Troop withdrawals would not begin until late 2006 at the earliest and the movements could last a decade, officials added.

The senior Defense official said troops returning home probably would need a similar civilian and contractor staff to support their mission. As a result, the official said, layoffs are not expected because "there are jobs here in the U.S. where this force structure is going to return to."

Defense officials said bases receiving troops will be selected after next year's round of domestic military base closings. The Pentagon decided on what troops would be moved now to help "inform" the services as they make base-closing decisions. One official noted that troops would be based along or near major transportation routes so they could be deployed quickly.

Defense officials also declined to offer figures for how much money would be saved by moving troops home, but disputed a report this spring from the Congressional Budget Office that found the moves would cost $7 billion and save only $1 billion. A Defense official noted that the military services would save money by not having to pay for moving as many troops and their families between overseas bases and the United States.

COMMENTS

• Taxpayer, did you say TWELVE semester hours???!!! Why not go all out and offer them an extra bowl of gruel while they're at the chow hall? GovExec.com reader Posted August 20, 2004 1:55 PM
• Fed'l Gov't Consultant - you miss the point entirely. This is not a summary of the paper, it is a list of questions that I believe the President needs to answer. Dean - I do not think you were on vacation - but that is the implied consideration of the President's statement that 70,000 troops in Europe and Asia are not necessary. The real question is that if these positions are not necessary why didn't Clinton reduce them? The time frame for removal of troops is a day - seems the consultant cannot see the forest for the trees. Why wait seven years? The president is saying here is a great savings but not until I am out of office. Stop sending guys there right now! Also there is a lot of concern about stoploss and who will sign up. That requires the decision to have an all volunteer military - in my opinion a great mistake from the start. We need to go back to the draft and not only draft those already serving with a stoploss. There are significant problems with the old draft but I believe the military was better and controllable, which is not the case today. I would propose that everyone be drafted the day they drop out or get out of high school and serve three years. Upon discharge the government should provide for 12 semester credit hours if done within two years of discharge to any publicly operated school in the USA and its territories. This would increase the body pool and reduce the number of married folks that have a hardship of overseas or on seas duty. Sorry if anyone took offense to the list of questions but do not confuse that with my position on the issue. I hope the USA is not paying for any environmental cleanup at overseas bases when we foot the bill to "protect" those countries in the first place - they should pay for all cleanup they want. tax payer Posted August 19, 2004 6:17 AM
• Firstly, having spent three tours (nine years)as a part of NATO forces I would like to let 'tax payer' know that it was never a vacation. In fact during my two years in Germany I never took leave. We were simply just too darn busy. By the way I also paid taxes during those nine years. Additionally, we worked darned hard over the decades to complete the philosophy of "deployed forward". I agree that we need more agile and flexible forces to meet today's contingincies, however I'm not convinced that it is a bad idea to keep them "deployed forward". Rick Posted August 18, 2004 3:56 PM