Thread: Air National Guard at heart of base-closing plan

Air National Guard at heart of base-closing plan
Status of units emerges as most contentious issue in military reorganization

Updated: 9:47 a.m. ET Aug. 2, 2005

WASHINGTON - A shake-up of dozens of Air National Guard units has emerged as the most contentious part of the Pentagon’s proposal to close or restructure hundreds of military bases across the country.

States are suing over the issue. Lawmakers in both parties are griping. And the independent commission reviewing the sweeping proposal has serious concerns about the impact of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld’s Air Guard plan.

A major question about that plan also remains unresolved just weeks before the commission’s September deadline to send its recommendations to President Bush, himself a stateside Vietnam-era pilot in the Texas Air National Guard: Does the law even allow the Pentagon to move Air Guard units without the consent of state governors, who through their adjutants general share authority over the units with the president?

Long pole in the tent’“

The Air Guard issue has become the long pole in the tent,� said Christopher Hellman, a base-closing expert at the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, a national security policy group.

In May, Rumsfeld proposed shutting or consolidating 62 major U.S. military bases and hundreds of smaller facilities, prompting lawmakers and communities to feverishly lobby the commission to spare their hometown facilities.

Only a fraction of the $49 billion Rumsfeld says his plan will save over 20 years would come from the Air Guard reorganization. But the impact on the Air Guard would be dramatic.

With roughly 106,000 members, the Air Guard currently has units stationed at about 95 Air Force bases and separate Air Guard installations and on leased land at about 78 civilian spots, including local airports.

Rumsfeld’s proposal would shift people, equipment and aircraft at 54 sites where Air Guard units are stationed. Half would grow, with the rest slated for closure or downsizing, including many units that would continue to exist with no planes assigned to them.

The Pentagon says the Air Guard changes are part of an overall effort to reshape the Air Force “into more effective fighting units� by consolidating a force that is now “fragmented into small, inefficient units.�

States are concerned

Lawmakers, states and commissioners worry about the potential impact of the Pentagon proposal on recruitment, retention and training, and question whether the Air Guard will be able to fulfill its homeland security mission.

Anthony Principi, the commission’s chairman, has appealed to all involved groups “to work to a solution that best serves the interests of our national security and our country.�

“The commission believes a solution is needed,� Principi told defense officials last month. However, he said, throwing out all of Rumsfeld’s Air Guard recommendations would be “irresponsible.�

Principi has since scheduled an Aug. 11 hearing to address the Air Guard plan.

Lt. Gen. H. Steven Blum, the Army general in charge of the National Guard Bureau, told lawmakers he’s committed to ensuring each state has at least one Air Guard flying unit.

“If I don’t have a flying unit in a state or territory, very shortly thereafter I will have no Air National Guard in that state or territory,� he said.

‘This doesn’t work’

Comments like those don’t ease the fears of states â€â€

Commission Keeps Two Air Force Bases Open

Saturday August 27, 2005 3:46 AM


AP Photo VAMC106

By LIZ SIDOTI

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - In two setbacks for the Pentagon, the base-closing commission crafted its own shake-up of the Air National Guard on Friday after voting to keep open Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota.

The nine-member panel endorsed the concept of restructuring the Air Guard but did not accept Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's proposal.

Instead, commissioners shuffled personnel and aircraft around dozens of units - both large and small - in states from coast to coast as they saw fit. They said they believed their Air Guard plan ensured homeland security was not compromised.

``In parts, we concur with their recommendations. In other areas, we're making some changes,'' Chairman Anthony Principi said.

Rumsfeld's plan had called for nearly 30 Air Guard units scattered around many states to lose their aircraft and flying missions, prompting howls of protests from governors and a few lawsuits.

Instead, the panel restored planes to some units, and in doing so, kept open some Air Guard and Reserve bases that would have closed under the Pentagon plan.

Commissioners long have voiced concerns about the homeland security impact of the Pentagon's proposal. Weeks ago, the panel asked that an alternative plan be crafted jointly by the Air Force, the National Guard and state adjutants general who oversee Air Guard units on behalf of state governors.

When that effort failed, commissioners said they had no choice but to come up with their own plan, which they said distributes aircraft around the country more evenly to ensure homeland security is not hampered.

``We have established more flying units then the secretary recommended but we still could not get a flying unit in every state,'' Commissioner Harold Gehman said. However, the commissioners pointed out that not all states have Air Guard units, and, therefore, wouldn't need airplanes.

The panel worked well into the evening Friday as members concluded the high-stakes decisions in the first round of U.S. military base closings and consolidations in a decade. Votes by the commission over three days of hearings brought sighs of relief and exasperation from communities across America. The commission adjourned until Saturday, when it simply planned to make closing statements.

By Sept. 8, the panel must send its final report to President Bush, who can accept it, reject it or send it back for revisions. Congress also will have a chance to veto the plan in its entirety, but it has not taken that step in four previous rounds of base closings. If ultimately approved, the changes would occur over the next six years.

Air Force officials said their overall plan - affecting active duty, Air Guard and Air Reserve bases - was designed to make the service more effective by consolidating weapons systems and personnel as it moves to a smaller but smarter fleet in the future.

Under the Pentagon's Air Guard plan, units without aircraft would have received other assignments such as expeditionary combat support roles. They also would have retained their missions of aiding governors during statewide emergencies.

The commission began work on the Air Guard plan just as a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled that the Pentagon lacks the authority to close an Air Guard unit located at the Naval Air Station Willow Grove in Pennsylvania without Gov. Ed Rendell's approval. The judge declared the plan for that unit ``null and void.''


Aware of the ruling, the commission labored on anyway - and twice voted on the fate of the Naval Air Station Willow Grove. Ultimately, the panel decided to close the base, but keep intact the Air Guard unit that was subject to the lawsuit and create an Army Guard and Reserve center. However, that unit would exist without aircraft.

Commissioners denied the lawsuit affected their ruling.

In May, the Pentagon proposed closing or consolidating a record 62 major military bases and 775 smaller installations to save $48.8 billion over 20 years, make the services more efficient and reposition the armed forces. The Air Guard proposal emerged quickly as the most contentious issue.

The decision to spare Ellsworth Air Force Base was a blessing for South Dakotans, who feared losing some 4,000 jobs, and a victory for Sen. John Thune and the state's other politicians, who lobbied vigorously against closure. Thune, a freshman Republican, unseated then-Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle partly on the strength of his claim that he would be better positioned to help save the base.

``This fight was not about me,'' Thune said just after the vote. ``This whole decision was about the merits. It had nothing to do with the politics.''

Famous for its Cold War-era arsenal of missiles and nuclear bombers aimed toward the Soviet Union, Ellsworth is home to half the nation's fleet of B1-B bombers and provides some 4,000 jobs for South Dakota. The Pentagon had wanted to move all the bombers to their other location, Dyess Air Force Base in Texas.

The commission found that closing Ellsworth wouldn't save any money over 20 years and actually would cost nearly $20 million to move the planes to the Texas base. The Pentagon had projected saving $1.8 billion over two decades.

The panel worried that putting all the B1-B bombers at one base would hurt force readiness. Commissioners noted that Ellsworth, located on prairie, had plenty of ``unfettered airspace.''

South Dakota politicians praised the panel for acting as an independent check on the Pentagon.

``They made some tough decisions. Today, they listened to the whole story,'' Republican Gov. Michael Rounds said. Added Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., ``This is a great decision for America's national security.''

Rejecting another Pentagon proposal, the panel also decided to keep open Cannon Air Force Base in New Mexico. However, the base would lose all of its aircraft and face the possibility of closure in 2010. By that date, the panel said the Pentagon must find other missions for the facility or Cannon will shut down.

The vote was a compromise among commissioners who struggled to balance national security interests with fear that closing the base entirely would devastate the economy around tiny Clovis, N.M. Some commissioners said the fate of Cannon was the most difficult decision to make so far.

Gov. Bill Richardson, D-N.M., portrayed the outcome as a ``partial victory.''

The panel found that closing the base, home to four F-16 fighter squadrons, would put at least a 20 percent dent in the local economy, costing almost 5,000 jobs on the base and in the community near the New Mexico-Texas line.

Several commissioners said those stark numbers had persuaded them to keep the base open. Others advocated closure, saying the Air Force must be able to reshape itself to face future threats.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...236942,00.html

Federal Lawsuit Over Base Closings

Aug 23, 2005 7:23 pm US/Eastern


PHILADELPHIA (AP) In a case that could affect National Guard units nationwide, a lawyer for Pennsylvania’s governor told a judge Tuesday that the Pentagon wrongly proposed trimming the state’s Air National Guard without the governor’s consent.

A Justice Department lawyer insisted that the Base Realignment and Closure Act supersedes a federal statute requiring gubernatorial consent. The lawyer, Matthew Lepore, said [color=red]Congress passed the act to prevent exactly what Gov. Ed Rendell is doingâ€â€

Base closings would strip region of military presence
By Associated Press
Wednesday, August 24, 2005

The military may save money with deep cuts at Northeast bases, critics say, but that would probably come at a cost – an erosion of public support in the region where Americans first took up arms for their new country 230 years ago.

A national commission starts final review today on a plan that could erase 12 percent of jobs at bases across the region, according to a tally by the Associated Press.

If adopted as proposed, the cuts would more deeply stamp America's army as an institution of the South and Midwest – and not of the Northeast, say some analysts and community leaders. They predict weaker backing in wartime, fewer recruits and strained contractor relations across the region.

``We're quickly moving to the point where we will have no military bases in the Northeast, and this undermines support for the military,'' said U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons, (R-Conn.), who was an Army reservist for 33 years. ``We are a nation of citizen soldiers.''

In Arlington, Va., the nine-member Base Realignment and Closure Commission will consider closing or trimming 62 of the largest bases and hundreds of smaller sites in proposals laid out by the Pentagon. President Bush and Congress each exercise veto power over the final plan.

The most contentious issues have been the Air Force's proposal to strip aircraft from about two dozen Air National Guard facilities and the Navy's efforts to scale back its forces in New England. They include closing the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Maine and Submarine Base New London in Connecticut and sharply reducing forces at Naval Air Station Brunswick in Maine. Otis Air National Guard Base on Cape Cod would close.

http://news.bostonherald.com/nationa...rticleid=99373

all of these base closings along with the alleged plan of the Defense Department and Pentagon to attack the American people, makes the "plan" more possible

common sense dictates that you beef up the military during a time of war and state of emergency -- closing military bases wouldn't make sense to a stupid person, so why is Congress and the so-called educated "elites" pushing this off on the citizens and the states?