ORANGE COUNTY VOICES : Lean and Mean Should Be Our Goal for U.S. Military : The emphasis should be on high-tech weaponry and training. There is no room for obsolete or redundant bases.

Of all the federal government’s obligations, to “provide for the common defense” is unquestionably the most vital because it involves the very existence of our nation. It is still, however, a federal program, which by definition makes it inherently wasteful. (Yet, unlike most other federal programs, the military actually works.)

With the almost total collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, there is general agreement that we now have an opportunity to reduce the size of the military without increasing our vulnerability. Our goal should be a lean and mean military that emphasizes high-tech weaponry and highly trained, highly skilled combat forces. The Gulf War showed this to be a winning combination.

In such a scenario, there is no room for obsolete or redundant military facilities, which is why the base closing commission was established. Briefly, the process works like this: The Pentagon selects the domestic bases it wants closed. The base closing commission reviews the list and reports its findings to the President. In this process the commission acts as a sort of court of last appeal. Finally, the President sends the list to Congress, which can either disapprove the entire list or do nothing, in which case all the bases will be closed.

As in the manner of all things political, the national interest may in the end lose out to parochial interests. Many members of Congress are gearing up to fight tooth and nail to save the military bases in their districts listed for closure. The irony here is that many of those members now so vociferously fighting the determinations of the Pentagon are the very same ones who have made careers of bashing the military. They are all in favor of defense cuts, but not in their districts. Liberals are rightly infamous for such hypocrisy, and they also exhibit this trait regularly in defense procurement, when they vote against every weapons system imaginable except for those that happen to be produced, in whole or in part, in their districts.

A perfect example in the case of base closings is Rep. Joe Moakley (D-Mass.), chairman of the powerful House Rules Committee. Let’s be clear: My colleague Joe Moakley has never been confused with a hawk. But because he is unhappy that Ft. Devens near Boston is on the list of bases to be closed, Mr. Moakley has threatened the Pentagon that he may use his committee chairmanship to allow for floor votes on amendments to stop the closure of individual bases, which, of course, could doom the entire process.

Moakley is, of course, more concerned about the civilian jobs supported by Ft. Devens than about the necessity of the base itself or whether it fits into our overall national defense strategy. But where he sees disruption and dislocation, I see opportunity--just as I see a golden opportunity for Orange County in the closing of the Tustin Marine Corps Air Station. (We love our semper fi chopper troops, and it’s nice to know they aren’t moving far away.)

As Will Rogers said, “Real estate is a good investment; they’re not making it anymore.” Indeed, in Orange County they didn’t make enough of it to begin with. And although many groups have already laid claim to the land at the Tustin base for their pet projects, it is not often we in Orange County have the luxury of debating the disposition of such a large piece of valuable land. And whether it is eventually used for a park, a commercial center, housing, or some other use or mixture, I am confident that whatever it is, it will have a more salubrious economic impact on the surrounding community than the base ever did.

Experience shows this to be a reasonable assumption.

In 1986, the Defense Department released a study on the economic aftereffects of the closing of 100 bases. It found that the number of new jobs more than replaced the lost civilian jobs at the closed military facilities. Instead of unnecessary military bases, there are now colleges, vocational schools, industrial and office parks, and civilian airports. In short, the local economies generally did better without the military bases than with them. And can anyone argue that the commercial prospects for land in Orange County are anything but promising?

However, for a successful transformation to take place in Orange County, the Marine Corps must make good on its commitment to thoroughly clean the property, which has been contaminated with toxic wastes. Until that job is completed, the land will not be fit for development or habitation. As the base will not close until 1997 at the earliest, the Marine Corps should have plenty of time to clean up the base while giving local business people time to adjust to new economic opportunities.

When all is said and done, however, this is still a national security issue. A military base has to be something more than an income redistribution mechanism through which liberal members of Congress can funnel a little more pork to their districts. Defense is not a public works project. There are other programs better suited to that role.

The world is still a very dangerous place. And unless human nature enjoys a fundamental change in character, it will remain so. Who knows how many other Saddam Husseins wait in the wings? That is why it is important that we spend our scarce defense dollars more responsibly. That means saying no to Ft. Devens and Tustin, and yes to programs such as the B-2, the Advanced Tactical Fighter and the Strategic Defense Initiative.