Security Insiders: High Time for Congress to Cave on Closing Military Bases

“But they won’t,” one Insider said.

Tech. Sgt. Andrew Gravett walks along the top of a C-17 Globemaster III while wearing a safety harness as he does a routine maintenance check of the aircraft June 4, 2013, at Joint Base Charleston, S.C. The first C-17 to enter the Air Force's inventory arrived at Charleston Air Force Base in June 1993. The C-17 is capable of rapid strategic delivery of troops and all types of cargo to main operating bases or directly to forward bases in the deployment area. Gravett is a crew chief assigned to the 437th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron.
National Journal
Sara Sorcher
Feb. 17, 2014, 6:55 a.m.

It’s high time for Con­gress to agree to the Pentagon’s re­quest to close mil­it­ary bases, a whop­ping 91 per­cent of Na­tion­al Journ­al‘s Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity In­siders said.

Law­makers, even as they search for ways to cut spend­ing, have re­buffed the De­fense De­part­ment’s re­quests to close mil­it­ary in­stall­a­tions it no longer needs as the mil­it­ary downs­izes after long wars in Ir­aq and Afgh­anistan — to the dis­may of the pool of na­tion­al se­cur­ity ex­perts. “Enough already,” one In­sider said.

“Con­gress rails about waste, un­til the Pentagon comes up with le­git­im­ate sav­ings that re­quire con­gres­sion­al states­man­ship,” an­oth­er In­sider said. “At which point, Con­gress goes si­lent.”

The Pentagon wants to use the money on oth­er cru­cial pri­or­it­ies as the de­fense budget shrinks, while law­makers have ob­jec­ted to the up­front costs of clos­ing bases. One In­sider ac­know­ledged base clos­ings “of­ten take time to show sav­ings.” Still, the In­sider said, es­pe­cially in this era of fisc­al aus­ter­ity, “every little bit helps in the out years.”

In­siders say law­makers’ real con­cern is the polit­ic­al price they will pay for po­ten­tial job losses in their dis­tricts. Even so, one In­sider said, “bases should be loc­ated where there ex­ists mil­it­ary ne­ces­sity, not where there is polit­ic­al con­veni­ence.” U.S. mil­it­ary bases, an­oth­er In­sider ad­ded, “are not in­ten­ded to serve as eco­nom­ic pork to con­gres­sion­al dis­tricts. There are bet­ter ways to stim­u­late the eco­nomy than play­ing polit­ics with our mil­it­ary basing.”

By re­fus­ing the Pentagon’s calls to close fa­cil­it­ies, one In­sider said, Con­gress is break­ing faith with the troops. “It is un­fair to take away re­tire­ment pay, and health care be­ne­fits that ser­vice mem­bers have earned over a ca­reer, while con­tinu­ing to op­er­ate bases no longer needed and main­tain weapon sys­tems no longer needed be­cause Con­gress re­fuses to act re­spons­ibly,” one In­sider said. “That is pun­ish­ing the people who have sac­ri­ficed the most for the safety of our na­tion to pro­tect reelec­tion op­por­tun­it­ies for mem­bers.”

Sev­er­al In­siders were up­front about the prob­ab­il­ity of Con­gress ac­tu­ally cav­ing. “They won’t,” one In­sider quipped.

A tiny 9 per­cent minor­ity said Con­gress should not listen to the Pentagon’s re­quests to close ex­cess fa­cil­it­ies — if only be­cause it’s their right. “As much as the Pentagon may like to ig­nore it when it dis­agrees, the Con­gress rep­res­ents the people and has the power of the purse,” one In­sider said. “It’s up to them to de­cide how as­sets should ul­ti­mately be al­loc­ated. It may seem il­lo­gic­al to the Pentagon. But no one elec­ted them.”

1. Should Con­gress agree to the Pentagon’s re­quests to close bases?

(59 votes)

  • Yes 91%
  • No 9%


“More bloat in basing than ever be­fore.”

“But they won’t”

“Ex­cess ca­pa­city ex­ists across all the mil­it­ary ser­vices. Con­gress and com­munit­ies face either a slow de­cline at every base, with little hope for any eco­nom­ic re­lief any­where, or se­lect­ive clos­ures that bol­ster needed bases and let oth­er areas start on the road to re­cov­ery and life after clos­ure.”

“Con­gress wishes to re­tain sur­plus fa­cil­it­ies as a form of ‘pork’ for their con­stitu­ents.”

“In 1966 Aaron Wil­davsky wrote that the Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee was ‘a sort of real es­tate com­mit­tee deal­ing with the re­gion­al eco­nom­ic con­sequences of the loc­a­tion of mil­it­ary fa­cil­it­ies.’ Little has changed, so I wouldn’t bet on Con­gress do­ing the right thing here.”

“Of course they should. Na­tion­al in­terest is not just the col­lec­tion of pa­ro­chi­al loc­al in­terests.”

“We badly need to shrink the Pentagon back of­fice and in­fra­struc­ture to free up re­sources for forces and hard­ware.”

“The mil­it­ary budget has been slashed to pay for Amer­ica’s ad­dic­tion to en­ti­tle­ment pro­grams. It is time for loc­al com­munit­ies to pay the true price for this de­cision.”

“Con­gress should un­der­take many needed and over­due ef­forts to pare Pentagon ex­cess, but it wont.”

“With the sig­ni­fic­ant re­duc­tions in force struc­ture, there will be ex­cess ca­pa­city. We will not be able to spend bil­lions main­tain­ing un­used fa­cil­it­ies, and the ser­vice chiefs will in­creas­ingly high­light this dis­con­nect.”

“The new budget will cut force struc­ture to main­tain read­i­ness and to avoid a hol­low force; we no longer have the lux­ury of ex­cess base in­fra­struc­ture for pure polit­ic­al pork; the next BRAC is in­ev­it­able.”

“There is ex­cess ca­pa­city as the armed forces are downs­ized fol­low­ing the Ir­aq and Afgh­anistan wars. However, we must main­tain enough ca­pa­city and cap­ab­il­ity to ex­pand the force if needed. And we must main­tain ad­equate train­ing lands.”

“In his re­cent mem­oir, Robert Gates called Con­gress’s in­ab­il­ity to pass le­gis­la­tion in the na­tion­al in­terest an ‘out­rageous derel­ic­tion of duty.’ Con­gress should stop treat­ing de­fense like a jobs pro­gram. Clos­ing un­ne­ces­sary bases is an ex­cel­lent way to save money without com­prom­ising U.S. mil­it­ary power.”


“As much as the Pentagon may like to ig­nore it when it dis­agrees, the Con­gress rep­res­ents the people and has the power of the purse. It’s up to them to de­cide how as­sets should ul­ti­mately be al­loc­ated. It may seem il­lo­gic­al to the Pentagon. But no one elec­ted them.”

Na­tion­al Journ­al‘s Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity In­siders Poll is a peri­od­ic sur­vey of more than 100 de­fense and for­eign policy ex­perts. They in­clude: Gor­don Adams, Charles Al­len, Mi­chael Al­len, Thad Al­len, Gra­ham Al­lis­on, James Bam­ford, Dav­id Barno, Milt Bearden, Peter Ber­gen, Samuel “Sandy” Ber­ger, Dav­id Ber­teau, Steph­en Biddle, Nancy Bird­sall, Mari­on Blakey, Kit Bond, Stu­art Bowen, Paula Broad­well, Mike Breen, Mark Brun­ner, Steven Bucci, Nich­olas Burns, Dan By­man, James Jay Cara­fano, Phil­lip Carter, Wendy Cham­ber­lin, Mi­chael Cher­toff, Frank Cil­luffo, James Clad, Richard Clarke, Steve Clem­ons, Joseph Collins, Wil­li­am Court­ney, Lorne Cran­er, Ro­ger Cres­sey, Gregory Dahl­berg, Robert Dan­in, Richard Dan­zig, Daniel Drezn­er, Mack­en­zie Eaglen, Paul Eaton, An­drew Ex­um, Wil­li­am Fal­lon, Eric Farns­worth, Jacques Gansler, Steph­en Gan­yard, Daniel Goure, Mark Green, Mike Green, Mark Gun­zinger, Todd Har­ris­on, John Hamre, Jim Harp­er, Marty Haus­er, Mi­chael Hay­den, Mi­chael Her­son, Pete Hoek­stra, Bruce Hoff­man, Linda Hud­son, Paul Hughes, Colin Kahl, Don­ald Ker­rick, Rachel Klein­feld, Lawrence Korb, Dav­id Kramer, An­drew Kre­pinev­ich, Charlie Kupchan, W. Patrick Lang, Cedric Leighton, Mi­chael Leit­er, James Lind­say, Justin Lo­gan, Trent Lott, Peter Mansoor, Ron­ald Marks, Bri­an Mc­Caf­frey, Steven Metz, Frank­lin Miller, Mi­chael Mo­rell, Philip Mudd, John Nagl, Shuja Nawaz, Kev­in Neal­er, Mi­chael Oates, Thomas Pick­er­ing, Paul Pil­lar, Larry Pri­or, Steph­en Rade­maker, Marc Rai­mondi, Celina Realuyo, Bruce Riedel, Barry Rhoads, Marc Ro­ten­berg, Frank Rug­giero, Gary Sam­ore, Kori Schake, Mark Schneider, John Scofield, Tammy Schultz, Steph­en Ses­t­an­ovich, Sarah Se­wall, Mat­thew Sher­man, Jen­nifer Sims, Su­z­anne Spauld­ing, Con­stan­ze Stelzen­müller, Ted Stroup, Guy Swan, Frances Town­send, Mick Train­or, Richard Wil­helm, Tamara Wittes, Dov Za­kheim, and Juan Za­r­ate.

What We're Following See More »
Trump Won’t Debate Sanders After All
15 hours ago

Trump, in a statement: “Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher. ... I will wait to debate the first place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be.”

UAW: Time to Unite Behind Hillary
1 days ago

"It's about time for unity," said UAW President Dennis Williams. "We're endorsing Hillary Clinton. She's gotten 3 million more votes than Bernie, a million more votes than Donald Trump. She's our nominee." He called Sanders "a great friend of the UAW" while saying Trump "does not support the economic security of UAW families." Some 28 percent of UAW members indicated their support for Trump in an internal survey.

Trump Clinches Enough Delegates for the Nomination
1 days ago

"Donald Trump on Thursday reached the number of delegates needed to clinch the Republican nomination for president, completing an unlikely rise that has upended the political landscape and sets the stage for a bitter fall campaign. Trump was put over the top in the Associated Press delegate count by a small number of the party's unbound delegates who told the AP they would support him at the convention."

Trump/Sanders Debate Before California Primary?
1 days ago
California: It’s Not Over Yet
1 days ago

"Clinton and Bernie Sanders "are now devoting additional money to television advertising. A day after Sanders announced a new ad buy of less than $2 million in the state, Clinton announced her own television campaign. Ads featuring actor Morgan Freeman as well as labor leader and civil rights activist Dolores Huerta will air beginning on Fridayin Fresno, Sacramento, and Los Angeles media markets. Some ads will also target Latino voters and Asian American voters. The total value of the buy is about six figures according to the Clinton campaign." Meanwhile, a new poll shows Sanders within the margin of error, trailing Clinton 44%-46%.