Painful, necessary closures

Congress has given the Pentagon marching orders. The latter has to cut spending by about $1 trillion. There's no quick, painless way to achieve savings of that size, but one way to help reach that goal is for the military to close some of the more than 700 bases it operates. The Department of Defense admits as much. In fact, military and administration officials presented a cost-cutting proposal that would include two rounds of closings to a House Armed Services subcommittee earlier this month. Its reception, to say the least, was hostile.

Both Republicans and Democrats made it clear that while they had to entertain such a proposal, the likelihood of approval at the moment is pretty much nil. Never mind that cutting defense costs is central to reducing the nation's deficit, or that military officials, however grudgingly, admit that closures could save money without jeopardizing the nation's security. Apparently, neither of those facts matters to many members of Congress.

What does matter, it is apparent, are the political ramifications of base-closings. Every member of the U.S. House faces re-election this year, and no representative wants the economic impact of a possible closure in their district to become part of a re-election debate. Indeed, members of Congress would prefer the topic never arise. When it does, the usual practice is to publicly agree about the need to save money, but to privately politick to close facilities in any backyard but one's own.

BRAC (base realignment and closure commission) recommendations are never popular, but they are a necessity if public money is to be managed wisely. If it can be done without damage to military preparedness, that's a bonus. This time round that seems possible. A defense official told the subcommittee that the Department of Defense currently has more than 300,000 buildings and 2.2 billion square feet -- "more than Wal-Mart" -- in its portfolio. She said closures are focused on "getting rid of capacity we don't need so we can use the resources elsewhere." That's a sound and practical approach to an important issue.

Still, members of the committee immediately objected to what still are preliminary plans on possible closures. Some objected because the plan doesn't yet contain savings estimates or related details. Others worried that closures would erode the strength of the military when the nation still faces challenges in Afghanistan and Iran. There are answers to those challenges -- if one wants to hear them.

It's too early for details. They will be provided as the plan is developed. And the Defense Department, remember, says that closures can be undertaken without endangering the nation.

Rather than balk, Congress should act in concert with defense officials on base closures. Under the law, Congress can reject BRAC recommendations completely, but it can't amend them. Rejection, though, is pointless unless making political points is the sole objective. Such intransigence serves no purpose. If Congress plays the spoilsport, the Pentagon can act on its own authority to close the bases.

Given the nation's budget woes, military base closures are going to come one way or another in the next couple of years. If Congress cooperates, the process likely will be smoother and more equitable than if it does not. That, not personal or political considerations, should guide the actions of both Democrats and Republicans on the issue.

Upcoming Events