1. #26
    Forum Member
    ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,334

    Default

    We are stretch thin now and need more people in country, if we are to gain a victory in Iraq. It that is not the plan, then we need to load every one up and bring them home.
    Now you're talking sense.

  2. #27
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,230

    Default

    When Clinton continued the base closings started by poppy Bush (the good one), Clinton was accused of 'gutting' the military by conservatives.

    I'm sure the same refrain will be heard again when Dubya allows this action in September.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  3. #28
    Forum Member
    Dave1983's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gator Country
    Posts
    4,157

    Default

    I dont pretend to know the story behind all the closeings. But what they are doing here makes perfect sense. The Navy reserve center in St.Pete is on one side of the bay, the Marine Corps reserve center is on the Tampa side. Takes about 15 minutes to travel between the two. So close one, and have both share the other. Why not? The Marine Corps is part of the Navy anyway.

    Granted, Im sure for every closeing that makes as much sense as this ont, their are ones that make no sense at all. But I do see the point of trying to cut waste and eliminmate duplication of services.

    And George is right, a lot of these facilities where built in a different time, and probably no longer serve a purpose.
    Fire Marshal/Safety Officer

    IAAI-NFPA-IAFC/VCOS-Retired IAFF

    "No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government"
    RUSH-Tom Sawyer

    Success is when skill meets opportunity
    Failure is when fantasy meets reality

  4. #29
    former FH.com member

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    860

    Default

    I think the backlash from base closings is more related to the effect on the local civilian economy rather than a loss of military effectiveness. San Antonio is a bigtime military city with 3 Air Force Bases and 3 Army Posts. BRAC is taken extremely seriously and contested vigorously every time here. While most decisions made about realignment are "way above my pay grade" I do see the need for it. The conflicts we are involved in today are of a different nature than those the miltary is currently largely configured for. I'd rather see the money better used to provide better equipment and support for our troops. All that being said, I was sad to see Otis ANGB recommended for closure. The 102nd Fighter Wing was my first unit when I enlisted and is an outstanding organization.

  5. #30
    Forum Member
    DennisTheMenace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC/Northern Virginia
    Posts
    3,717

    Default

    Originally posted by stm4710
    There are alot of civillians and companys that depend on these bases. Mass. alone, 30k+ WILL be out of a job. How many more economys is Bush going to ruin at the stroke of a pen?


    Signed
    A concerned citizen.
    So the Military should waste money that could go towards readiness and protecting the troops because some communities have not diversified their economies?
    Be for Peace, but don't be for the Enemy!
    -Big Russ

    Learn from the mistakes of others; you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by nyckftbl View Post
    LOL....dont you people have anything else to do besides b*tch about our b*tching?

  6. #31
    Forum Member
    DennisTheMenace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC/Northern Virginia
    Posts
    3,717

    Default

    Originally posted by allineedisu
    Being a veteran myself, I know that the military can have too many posts and could have them consolidated. The reserve places, for what ever reason has always been separate for the armed forces. Bring all these together would make more sense.

    Cutting out large post, may not be the best route to go. Each of these have a different and separate purpose. The sub base in Groton will never be closed! Likewise some of the Army larger posts that have been targeted to be closed could be a problem.

    If this country would step up war production and bring back the draft, provide more supplies, we may be able to have a victory in Iraq and not have another Vietnam.
    Groton is tiny when compared to Norfolk or SanDiego, those subs and units could be moved to Norfolk with minimal effect on deployment readiness, but a maximum savings by sharing the support facilites. I fully suspect that Groton will stay on the cutting block when all the reviews are done. There is also not an Army base on the list that is too big to be easily aborbed by other bases. These saving will allow more production of the things the troops need, that is what will help in the desert.
    Be for Peace, but don't be for the Enemy!
    -Big Russ

    Learn from the mistakes of others; you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by nyckftbl View Post
    LOL....dont you people have anything else to do besides b*tch about our b*tching?

  7. #32
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,230

    Default

    Originally posted by stm4710
    There are alot of civillians and companys that depend on these bases. Mass. alone, 30k+ WILL be out of a job. How many more economys is Bush going to ruin at the stroke of a pen?


    Signed
    A concerned citizen.
    DennistheMenace is correct. The purpose of the DoD is to protect the nation. Not provide for the local citizenry. The more money spent on DoD expenditures (as well as any other govt program), the less there is for other responsibilities of govt. Or ultimately, the more taken away from the citizen in taxes. Eisenhower hit it right when he described the destructive nature of the military industrial complex.

    One of the few times I agree with conservatives.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  8. #33
    the 4-1-4
    Jasper 45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    ...A great place, on a Great Lake
    Posts
    2,784

    Default

    Originally posted by scfire86


    The purpose of the DoD is to protect the nation. Not provide for the local citizenry. The more money spent on DoD expenditures (as well as any other govt program), the less there is for other responsibilities of govt. Or ultimately, the more taken away from the citizen in taxes. Eisenhower hit it right when he described the destructive nature of the military industrial complex.

    I have to agree with you here Sc. I've had time to read and think about the closings and reallignments, they don't appear to be force reductions but adjustments to a changing role and purpose for the military. If the DoD is able to reduce the duplication of service, increase efficiency and effectiveness all while saving money so much the better. That is something the government as a whole could use, efficiency with more effectiveness.
    The DoD is there to provide national defense, not jobs. The jobs provided are a definate fringe benefit for defense, but not the primary consideration. No matter where the changes are made someone will not be happy.

  9. #34
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    163

    Default

    Well, my local base NAS Willow Grove is closing..but not 100% sure due to the Air National Gurad unit there that's under the control of the state govenor...and he filed paperwork to stop it all....well...the A-10's are on standby right now....so pending a new decision we'll see what my reservist buddies (crash crew USMC bubbas) are gonna do....and if I ever go back in....

    At least they saved a few bases....

  10. #35
    the 4-1-4
    Jasper 45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    ...A great place, on a Great Lake
    Posts
    2,784

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rscamaro73
    At least they saved a few bases....

    The point of this whole program is not to save a few bases, but to save money, improve effectiveness, improve efficiency and so on. My community is taking a big hit, the 440th TAW is being removed, yet it is necessary to support this, you simply can't support an initiative as long the cuts don't affect you.
    Many of our bases date back to the civil war era, many to the cold war, many somewhere in between. How can the military be effective if it never adjusts?
    Another thought here, if the pentagon was looking to close these installations, just how big of an excess were they? Since when does the pentagon turn anything down, moneywise at the least.
    These realignments should be an example for the rest of government to follow, at all levels. Every branch of government wastes our money, including all of our own departments.

  11. #36
    Forum Member
    SpartanGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    489

    Default

    Read the latest issue of TIME magazine. They have an excellent article on the opportunities presented to communities by base closures. If people can get past the 'mourning' stage, you have prime real estate, fully equipped with utilities and the like, to turn into housing developments, airports(like San Antonio did with Bergenstrom, i think), or what not. And a study shows that something like 85-90% of cities that suffered base closings have regained all of the lost jobs.

    The point is, it'll hurt, but that hurt only lasts a bit. It's like getting your wisdom teeth pulled. It might hurt for a week, but after that, you'll end up better off.
    "Captain 1 to control, retone this as a structure and notify the fire chief...."

    Safety is no accident.

  12. #37
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Memphis Tn,USA-now
    Posts
    5,436

    Default

    Are you seriously advocating mixing Army doggies with Marines?Say it ain't so!
    Better call out the Sheriff and the Highway patrol for this one.Unless in Texas,then you only get one Ranger for one riot.

    Quote Originally Posted by DennisTheMenace
    They are just moving that operation to another base, consolidation for savings, it will work and not lower true readyness at all.
    Again, there is going to be consolidation of the centers. Why have a Marine Reserve Center three blocks away from an Army Reserve center when each is really only used for one or two weekends a month? They can be consolidated for great savings with out any real inconvience added for anyone.

  13. #38
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Memphis Tn,USA-now
    Posts
    5,436

    Default

    A lot of bases,Army posts and Air Force fields were built when ships,aircraft and ground vehicles didn't have the range that they do now.
    There was also a different population density which explains all the "secret"areas out in the Southwestern corner of the country.
    I say,close what needs to be closed and consolidate as much as possible but just remember,there may come a call for that base or capability.It's always better to have something and to not need it than to need it badly and not have it.

  14. #39
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Memphis Tn,USA-now
    Posts
    5,436

    Default

    Better believe it.Gas prices are so high because China's buying lots and lots of oil.Wonder what they have planned for using it?

    Quote Originally Posted by spearsm
    That could be a dangerous belief. China may be limited now, but don't turn your back......



  15. #40
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    630

    Default

    First I give the BRAC a lot of credit for not being a rubber stamp on the Pentagon's proposals.

    I live near Ellsworth AFB. The final figures from the GAO and the BRAC indicated that it would not save money but actually cost twenty million more to move the B-1s to Dyess instead of leaving them where they are. It also appears a lot of the cost savings were personnel costs that were in fact transferred to another base.

    The amount of recovery typically quoted in studies is for bases closed in larger metro areas where there are more opportunities for redevelopment.

    Look at the bases in rural areas such as Loring AFB Maine and see what percent of the civilian workforce has been replaced with new industries.

    The 80-85% figure that is touted is for the civilian workforce, it does not include the thousands of military positions that left the area.

    It also appears that the Pentagon did not follow it's own guidelines when evaluting many of the bases.

    Do we need to close some of them? You bet. Should Ellsworth have been closed? Maybe. The base has basically been rebuilt in the last twenty years. It has the room and facilities expand. It could also be used by units that are removed from Europe.

    Stay Safe
    IACOJ
    Last edited by Rayr49; 08-29-2005 at 04:09 PM.

  16. #41
    Forum Member
    VinnieB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    On the couch in my skivvies
    Posts
    2,316

    Default

    Base closures hmmm....I'll tread lightly here. Anyway....these old posts are being closed because YES...they are "waste" in the eyes of the Government. I have been to many old posts...and wondered..how much does it cost to keep this place open when it only have about 100 personnel? Who are only there 1 a month. To me...moving them to a Large base that is close by makes sense. The savings on utilites and the sale of the land could benifit the Grunts on the ground better, b/c of the revenue it would create. Many are not even major instillations so to speak. The personnel there are going to be moved to the Base that are close to them. These are not the same cuts a Clinton.....he closed entire major installations and desbanded entire Divisions.......that's not the intent here.
    IACOJ Member

  17. #42
    Forum Member
    Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Add another on the Maine list. Brunswick Naval Air Station.This base has recently had a boatload of money put into it,now it's going,going,gone and along with it one of our major resources for a major petrochemical event. I spent some time training on the base and knew quite a few on the crash crew.I can't see the logic of moving the P-3's to hurricane prone Jacksonville,but what do I know? T.C.

  18. #43
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    How many of them do you suppose are headed for the federal Superfund List?

  19. #44
    Forum Member
    TCFire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Lockport, New York
    Posts
    417

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI
    How many of them do you suppose are headed for the federal Superfund List?
    BINGO! Pandora's Box!
    In Arduis Fidelis
    Faithful in Adversity

  20. #45
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    630

    Default

    George,

    Most of the bases that dealt with munitions, fuel, or other hazardous materials including the base land fills are already on the superfund list.

    The fire training areas used to burn anything that was flammable. We just opened the valve in the dike to let the water/foam and fuel drain out to make room for the next training fire.

    Stay Safe
    IACOJ

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register