Military Makeover
With a painful plan to close some bases, Rumsfeld launches a new round of reform
After five years of preaching the necessity of a nimbler military, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld last week took perhaps the most important step in the quest to turn his vision of the future into reality.
The announcement that the Defense Department would propose closing 33 of the nation's 425 major bases sent shudders through communities from Kittery, Maine, to Clovis, N.M. While some cities like Corpus Christi, Texas, would probably little notice the economic impact of the closure, other places, like Rapid City, S.D., would surely feel the loss of their bases acutely. Although Rumsfeld and other officials acknowledged the economic turbulence to come, they emphasized that they were taking advantage of an opportunity to reorganize the armed forces and change the way the nation fights.
There have been four previous rounds of base realignment and closure--BRAC in Pentagon patois--since 1988, and they were all fundamentally about saving money by doing away with unneeded facilities. The government estimates it saved $29 billion between 1988 and 2003 by closing 97 major bases and scores of minor facilities. This time around the Pentagon certainly intends to save money--a projected $49 billion to $64 billion over two decades. But today reshaping the military is as important as reducing waste. With brigades of tanks stationed in Europe, overlapping domestic research facilities, underused naval stations, and duplicative training centers, Rumsfeld believes America's bases are still arrayed for yesterday's fight, not tomorrow's. "Current arrangements pretty much designed for the Cold War must give way to the new demands of war against extremists and other evolving 21st-century challenges," Rumsfeld said.
As a result, the Pentagon's list contained more reshuffling than outright closure. Fort Knox, Ky., for example, would lose its armor center and school to Fort Benning, Ga., which already has the Army's infantry school--but it would receive a new brigade and combat support units returning from overseas. Each service has a list of shuffled combat brigades, ships, and fighter squadrons. "We got to ask ourselves: If we were king for a day, how would we redo the Air Force?" says Maj. Gen. Gary Heckman, who helped oversee that service's realignment.
No meddling. The realignment of bases provides Rumsfeld with perhaps his most important opportunity to reshape the military for years to come. Although the secretary has managed to kill off some weapons programs he regards as legacies of the Cold War, many of his attempts at modernization have been hampered by lawmakers. But the base closure system has been well designed to keep congressional meddling to a minimum. The Base Realignment and Closure Commission, appointed by President Bush, will now review the Pentagon recommendations and has until September to make changes, though major revisions are unlikely. President Bush then reviews the list and sends it to Congress, which must consider the proposal as a whole; if the legislators don't reject it within 45 days, the closure recommendations go into effect.
Still, there is sure to be congressional opposition. New England was particularly hard hit by the proposed loss of Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Maine and the New London submarine base in Connecticut. Those decisions will most likely spark a fight, despite Congress's limited ability to tinker with the list. The restrictions have increased the amount of grumbling about the process in recent years, and so this round of realignment is likely to be Rumsfeld's last. "You have one shot, and you are not going to have another for a decade," says Ken Beeks, vice president of Business Executives for National Security.
Rumsfeld believes America is ill-served by having heavy forces sitting in garrisons in Germany or even South Korea. Indeed, Rumsfeld began asking his regional commanders about American troops stationed overseas back in August 2001. "All of these questions Rumsfeld asked led us to the strong conclusion that globally we were in a Cold War posture," says Ray DuBois, the acting under secretary of the Army. "And you have to ask yourself: What sort of posture do we need for the next 20 years?"
Location. The essential belief inside Rumsfeld's Pentagon is that because of restrictions other nations put on U.S. troop movements, forces can move to a conflict from the United States as fast as they can from a foreign base--as long as they are positioned domestically near railheads and airports. The Pentagon plans to move about 70,000 troops stationed overseas back home, but there are some who have raised doubts. Last week, to the dismay of the Pentagon, a commission appointed by Congress released a report that questioned the details of the overseas withdrawal. Al Cornella, the commission chairman, said that he did not disagree with Rumsfeld's overall vision but added that the Pentagon is moving too fast. Before the military leaves Germany, Cornella says, the Pentagon must be sure it has enough ships and cargo planes to deploy troops from America quickly. "We will get one chance to do [this]," he said, "and we want to do it right."
The decision to redeploy American troops from Korea and Germany to domestic bases has blunted some of the pain of base closure. Some of the bases that have been considered for closure in earlier rounds, like Fort Riley, Kan., and Fort Carson, Colo., were designated by the Pentagon last week for expansion--because of large training areas and newly renovated railroad connections that allow rapid deployment. Another winner was Texas: Fort Bliss will receive troops coming home from Germany. Some could not resist pointing out that it also made for good politics to move troops back to Colorado, Texas, and Kansas. "Those are red states by the way, if you haven't noticed," says Bill Nash, a retired major general now with the Council on Foreign Relations. "This is a great opportunity to take care of your friends and lessen the impact of BRAC."
The closure list also reflects Rumsfeld's desire for an integrated military in which the Army, Navy, and Air Force not only fight together but train side by side and share facilities. In years past, individual services have largely chosen which bases will close. This time around, Rumsfeld was determined to change the process. "The Rumsfeld people . . . are making the services work together," says Christopher Hellman, a military analyst with the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation.
And the final list reflects that emphasis. Walter Reed Army Medical Center would be largely shuttered and combined with the National Naval Medical Center to create a joint hospital. "Does it really matter what uniform a doctor wears?" Hellman asks. Pentagon officials also pointed to their proposal to create combined training centers for cooks and truck drivers at Fort Lee, Va. (at the expense of Lackland Air Force Base, Texas). Several Army and Air Force bases like Fort Dix and McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey and Fort Lewis and McChord Air Force Base in Washington State would consolidate their operations. And the 7th Special Forces Group would leave Fort Bragg, N.C., to work with Air Force Special Operations at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla.
In previous rounds, about 15 percent of the Pentagon decisions have been overturned by the BRAC commission. Pentagon officials believe this time there will be fewer overrides, in part because of new rules and in part because they believe the services have done a better job of evaluating what's needed. The next months will show whether that confidence is merited. But even if the list remains relatively unchanged, it will take years to see just how successful Rumsfeld's plan is. It is easy to talk about making the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines work together more closely. It is more difficult to make it happen.
This story appears in the May 23, 2005 print edition of U.S. News & World Report.