Upitatanium
21-02-2005, 03:47
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=542&ncid=718&e=6&u=/ap/20050220/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/base_closings
Seems Rummy and Bush want to shut down a whole bunch of bases in the US to save money. Nice timing.
More info: A history of base closings in the US for the last 2 decades.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/brac.htm
(long, long article)
Niccolo Medici
21-02-2005, 09:50
Bases within the states are a study in making the undesireable seem valuable; through a lengthy process of conditioning, marketing, and above all economic gain. States now fight over the right to have military bases within their borders, historically military bases were not always look at so fondly.
Sure, famous institutions and acadamies were considered prestigous enough to tolerate within one's city; but who really wanted a barracks full of conscripts, dragoons, grunts, military brats etc? For hundreds of years the science of long-term Army Quarters was focused on making them profitable enough for the surrounding "natives" that they didn't complain about having hundreds or thousands of noisy troops milling about their streets, drinking, wenching and gambling.
In the US, this science has reached a new Zeinith. Indeed, this article talks about states desperately trying to keep the bases open, the closures are seen as outrages, taking away part of the community. I appluad the success in changing this outlook; it helps the soldier immensly to know that the whole community wants him/her there, easing the transition from soldier to civilian life.
This being said, I cannot really blame the current administration for closing these bases. However much I disagree with Rumsfeld on most issues, the bases within the States are in desperate need of realignment, refoucusing our strength on new or still active threats; rather than former enemies who are now close allies.
I do not know enough about our current force disperstion and deployment within the states to comment on the specific changes being made, but the move seems very prudent. As the article mentions, Clinton tried to do the exact same thing in his term, Bush now follows suit...How poetic that one of the few things that has bi-partisan support would be fought fiercely by all the induvidual states involved. Politics over practicality.