GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Overseas basing panel concerned about pace of relocations

• 10761
  

  Sorry Taxpayer, this time you are wrong.

  GovExec.com reader Posted July 1, 2005 7:43 AM
• 10744
  

  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
• 10725
  

  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