Joint Bases Make Economic, Defense Sense

With the November elections in sight, Congress has again rejected the Defense secretary’s pleas for another round of base closures. Budget analysts predict the Defense Department will be forced to “starve” individual bases for lack of funds. Meanwhile, numerous military installations have launched expansion initiatives. Why does the military need more land when it wants to close bases?

There is a fundamental problem in the stationing of our military forces. Dense military units are crowded into small bases while large military parcels in the West are underutilized. The mismatch is a product of history. In early years, when military units did not require big training areas, Army and Navy units were located on small bases named for Civil War generals or frontier heroes. But modern jet fighters, rocketry and other high-tech weapons emerged after World War II and required significantly more space. Large Western test ranges were established to make these weapons ready for use by the regular military units on their smaller bases.

That goal has been achieved. Environmental laws, now aggressively enforced on military bases, exacerbate the problem. Some bases try to expand, but there is virtually no land in the East and an unusual coalition of conservative sagebrushers and yuppies opposes plans in the West. Each has more local clout than the military and both have an interest in constraining military impacts. Expansion plans often are defeated while damaging relations between the military and local communities.

Realignment and closure are obvious answers, but pork-barrel politics keeps bases open because closure is not discussed in this context. It is presented as a means of saving money, which Congress accomplishes by cutting the budget and keeping bases open. Closure would be more compelling if it were part of a long-term strategy to rationalize military land holdings. This would improve national security and minimize unpopular military land expansions.

There is a great opportunity to improve military effectiveness, reduce impacts and save money by closing several small bases and realigning some regular military units into two or three large existing Western test ranges. Such centralized bases would mix Air Force, Navy and Army activities along with special testing programs. They would allow reduction of total military land and airspace requirements and elimination of many of the expansion proposals. In addition, this plan satisfies the need to train for joint use of Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine capabilities. It would reduce the need for land expansion.

There are, of course, a few hitches. First is the military land management system, which fragments planning and use among the different forces and their numerous sub-organizations. The Defense Department would need to coordinate and optimize across all lands and functions. Second is limited money to build the necessary facilities on the Western ranges. A phased strategy, combined with funds saved by closing other bases and funds pegged to replace aging infrastructure on remaining bases, would be needed. Third is the need for local and regional agreement to move through the complicated environmental review process.

Nevertheless, this approach provides a compelling strategic rationale that has been absent from the base closure debate. It responds to almost 20 years of congressional pleading for cooperation across the individual services. To bring about such a plan or to create alternative visions that could change the nature of the base closure debate, the Defense Department should create a single land use and infrastructure policy planning office. It should be chartered to conduct analyses across all military lands. The Western states must participate, perhaps through the Western Governors’ Assn.

The governors’ group holds its annual meeting later this month in Alaska. The governors have a unique opportunity to help their region and improve national security. They should go on record as endorsing a national assessment of military basing needs.