PROPOSED BASE CLOSINGS WILL REVEAL LOSS OF INDUSTRY

By Diane M. Grassi
On May 13, 2005, the Pentagon recommended military base closures and reductions of United States military installations throughout the country. For the first time since 1995, and while the U.S. is at war in the Middle East, the Pentagon’s proposal to close 180 bases, with 33 of them being major bases, in order to unify the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, is even more daunting than the Pentagon would have us believe. In addition, the Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington, D.C. would be moved to the present National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, MD, to combine both facilities. Early projections estimate a loss of at least 225,000 federal and civilian jobs combined with dramatic costs to state’s local economies and fiscal health, most notably in the Northeast.

The initial hearings from the independent Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) commenced May 16, 2005 with Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers, appearing in defense of the proposed closures. The congressionally chartered commission, dating back to 1988, is required to review the Pentagon’s proposed changes and present any recommendations to President Bush by September 8, 2005. The president must either accept or reject the proposal by September 23, 2005 at which time the Congress must consider passing or changing such proposals.

As noted, to the nine-member panel on May 16th, Secretary Rumsfeld stated that, “I made a conscious decision not to add anything or take anything out or change anything or make it more or make it less. I simply didn’t.” He has reiterated that “the current arrangement, designed for the Cold War, must give way to new demands of the war against extremism and other evolving challenges in the world.” His hands-off approach in not making any suggestions to the proposed closings is unsettling, and with regard to the “extremism” many Americans across the U.S. take issue with the “extremism” of the cuts to bases, with 80% effecting military recruitment centers.

At a time when the Army is well below their desired recruitment levels, and at its lowest in 15 years, one would be wrong not to take issue with some of the Pentagon’s proposals. In testimony before Congress on May 2, 2005, General Myers voiced concern that the sustained deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan poses “significant risks” for future American war plans. And in the annual Military Risk Assessment and Threat Mitigation Plan revealed to the press in early May 2005, Myers reportedly stated that the level of deployed troops meant that future wars could not be carried out as quickly or with as few American casualties as the Pentagon has planned.

But the ramifications of the military restructuring loom much larger than mere fights over real estate between states, their respective economies or the politics of Capitol Hill. What has yet to come to the fore and still relegated to the back pages of the business section of newspapers and rarely publicly discussed by our lawmakers is that base closings this time around will be more devastating than ever, due to considerable erosion of our industrial and manufacturing base, especially since the last base closings ten years ago. As a result of our outsourcing, offshoring and the permanent loss of specific areas of U.S. manufacturing, many of these effected communities, also once rich in the manufacturing sector, look to never recover from a purported base closing in 2005.

“Factory jobs that disappeared won’t come back, said Richard Berner, chief U.S. economist for Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, when speculating recently on the future of manufacturing job growth. Roughly 83% of all garments sold in the U.S. today are made offshore as are 80% of toys, 90% of sporting goods and 95% of all shoes. This is especially relevant to communities in the south which once enjoyed a thriving textile industry and along with a furniture industry since lost to U.S. companies, primarily outsourced to China. The tobacco industry also can no longer sustain the southern economy. Such underscores the extraordinary need to retain military bases such as Camp Lejeune in North Carolina for example, which will be spared calls for downsizing or closure this go-round.

The Pentagon is more and more dependent upon overseas manufacturers for weapons and equipment. For example the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, used in Iraq and Afghanistan, is proposed this year to be built by BAE Systems in Britain. The Marine One Helicopter fleet of 23, which is utilized by the president and his staff, will be built by Lockheed-Martin which will utilize its British base with major components supplied by European counterparts, although Lockheed still maintains that the copters will be “manufactured” in the U.S. Meanwhile Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. based in Connecticut, supplier of the presidential ‘copters since 1957 will be especially hit hard by losing its contract as Connecticut will suffer the largest loss of military jobs from the proposed shut down of the Navy’s submarine base in Groton, CT. And the Army awarded a multi-million dollar contract for 70 million rounds of ammunition to Israel Military Industries, for present use in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ft. Monmouth in New Jersey is also included on the list for closure by the Pentagon. It has long been the hub of communications and electronics research and development functions. It is responsible for the development of the technology which jams signals intended to detonate roadside bombs, the defense measures used when missiles are fired at helicopters and locates sources of enemy mortar fire within seconds. All are presently being utilized in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Unlike our government’s rallying call to end dependence on foreign countries for our oil supply, there is no such cry for rolling back U.S. dependence on foreign countries for the natural resources and components used for our nation’s national defense and security. 50-100% of natural materials to create metals used in everything from “smart bombs” to reconnaissance satellites, jet-engine turbines, telecommunications, electronics and electrical transmissions, come from foreign entities. Aluminum, beryllium, nickel-based super alloys and titanium are critical components for U.S. military aircraft and space systems and with U.S. mining down 70% since 1997 we no longer depend on U.S. sources. According to the U.S. metal castings industry the majority of metal castings now come from China and other third world countries.

Especially while at war, our lack of oversight of production and access to our technological needs with overseas entities puts us even more at risk. And with the European Union looking to end its arms embargo with China in late 2005, it could have a dramatic long-term effect on our sovereignty.

30% of all jobs in the U.S. are either federal or state government jobs, while only 15% of the economy is manufacturing-based. Combining the elimination of military jobs, both administrative as well as those which touch upon some area of manufacturing, in a community with privately held factories which have long moved on, leaves the average American worker more vulnerable and more dependent upon entitlement programs. Thus such will ultimately cut into projected savings from the proposed base closures. And while it has been convenient for prognosticators in both the private and public sectors to preach to workers to acquire more advanced degrees, high-tech jobs are being sent overseas and U.S. workers must compete with the importation of foreign workers hired to work on projects on a temporary basis, through the H1B Visa Program, specifically in the fields of research and development.

The matter of base closings is being portrayed to the American public as one of location or geography, cloaked in political squabbles rather than as a matter of national security. Similarly, as the battle continues on Capitol Hill to formulate an equation to equitably satisfy states in the funding of first-responders for matters of homeland security, both issues will have a profound effect on the future of Americans. As such, politics should be placed on the back burner.

This time around no one goes unscathed and it is a rare opportunity for us to come together as a nation, which should not be squandered. Important, vital issues which will effect the future of Americans for generations to come, must be decided not just for the good of the military but for the future health of the U.S. economy. Such decisions require critical thinking from our representatives and now we will see if they are up to the challenge.