Panel Urges Changes in Base Closure Procedures

An advisory commission on defense strategy called Monday for swifter closing of unneeded military bases and a new approach to the cuts that could make it more difficult for California and other politically influential states to block such moves.

The National Defense Panel, created by Congress, said the government should consider more than the two rounds of base closures currently foreseen over the next four years.

The panel, organized to assess long-term defense strategy, also proposed that the government create a single “long-term installation master plan” as the basis for shutting and consolidating military facilities.

Under a system in use for the past decade, bases have been considered anew for cuts and elimination each time Congress has set up a new base-closing commission. Some critics have said that under this system, the selections have sometimes been based too much on the immediate needs of the individual military services, rather than longer-term defense needs of the nation.

And they contend that in putting bases at risk again and again, the system creates at least the appearance that the process is fundamentally political.

The panel, although praising the four rounds of closings to date, said its recommendations “would depoliticize the base closure issue to the extent possible, and establish a common reference point for future closure decisions.” Its report said the next round “might be preceded by an independent, comprehensive inventory of all facilities and installations located in the United States.”

By further removing the selections from politics, the process could take away an advantage enjoyed by states with considerable pull, such as California.

California’s special leverage was seen in 1995 when President Clinton, facing reelection in a year, ordered McClellan Air Force Base in Sacramento kept open over the recommendations of the base-closing commission.

California’s size and political importance “did help the state,” said Erik R. Pages, a vice president of Business Executives for National Security, a group that advocates more base closings.

Philip Odeen, chairman of the panel, argued that creating a single, final list of targeted bases could benefit communities by eliminating the disruptive uncertainty and anxiety they have faced.

“It might be easier for local communities to adjust,” he told a news conference at the unveiling of the report.

The panel also recommended that the government speed up the next two rounds of base closings that Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen has recommended. And the report said that if bases are consolidated between services, as has been recommended, there would be an opportunity to eliminate even more overhead through further base closures.

Although Congress has stalled base closings in the past two years to spare communities the pain of lost jobs, a wide range of defense experts--including Cohen--contend that only through such cuts can the Pentagon find the money to fund new weapons development.

The four previous rounds of base closings have cut installations spending by 21%. But the cuts are proportionally far smaller than those in military personnel and the overall defense budget, and analysts contend that huge unneeded overhead remains.

Cohen, in a statement, praised the panel’s report and said he “especially” supported its call for new rounds of base closings and other reductions in infrastructure costs.

The report doesn’t mention any individual bases as vulnerable to closure.

In another recommendation that could pinch California, the 80-page report urges faster consolidation of the nation’s defense laboratories.

Defense Department experts long have urged the closing or consolidation of the 29 Army labs, 38 Navy research sites and 19 Air Force facilities. A general accounting office report last year complained that millions of dollars were being wasted in overhead costs.

In California, defense labs are housed at the Naval Air Warfare Center at Point Mugu, the Naval Air Warfare Center at China Lake, and Edwards Air Force Base. The three have been mentioned for possible cuts or consolidation in past base-closing rounds, although this report doesn’t delve into the merits of specific sites.

The report’s overall goal is to urge a broad transformation of Pentagon strategies that it contends have become outmoded with the end of the Cold War.

The report questions spending on older technologies such as heavy tanks, tactical fighter aircraft and large ships, and urges policymakers to start quickly experimenting with generations of lighter, more mobile and more sophisticated weaponry.

Yet, as it calls for a sweeping reorganization, the report urges the the United States to retain indefinitely its commitment to maintain 100,000 troops in Asia, and the same number in Europe. The issue is extremely sensitive, perhaps especially in the Pacific, where allies fear that withdrawal could be destabilizing in the most highly armed region of the world.