THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, February 5, 1995 TAG: 9502030048
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J4 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: Medium: 56 lines
Say what you want about the Base Realignment and Closure process (BRAC), it was an inspired end run to avoid politics as usual. Politicians more interested in their electoral security than in national security had turned military bases that even the Pentagon no longer wanted into sacred cows. BRAC has gotten politics largely out of the way of needed downsizing. Until now.
1995 was supposed to be the year of the big cuts, matching all previous rounds combined. Now, if Defense Secretary William Perry is to be believed, the 1995 list of bases to be closed will be a lot shorter. He should know. It's his job to submit a list of targets by March 15.
Why the downscaling of the downsizing? It looks a lot like the selfsame politics that BRAC was supposed to avoid has reared its ugly head again. This time, it's presidential politics. The crux of the matter can be summed up in a single word: California.
California lost bases in 1993 and was expected to get whacked again in this year's round. The state is home to 279,000 Defense Department personnel and 67 bases, not to mention the hard-hit aerospace industry.
But the really significant number is 54. That's how many electoral votes the state possesses. If Bill Clinton hadn't won them in 1992, he wouldn't be president today. And if he can't capture them again in 1996, he can kiss a second term goodbye.
Secretary Perry admits the Pentagon still needs to eliminate bases. Force levels are coming down by one-third but only 20 percent of bases have been eliminated. Much more consolidation is possible. And unneeded bases eat up resources required for training, weapons systems and day-to-day operations.
But it appears the debate is no longer about military needs but political expediency. Not only is Perry going to draw up the list of bases to spare, but the eight-member panel that will review the recommendations is expected to contain three Californians. It's as tidy as a syllogism in logic. Clinton needs California. He can't win it if BRAC hurts California again. Therefore, BRAC must not hurt California.
But that's a corruption of a process that was supposed to be free of politics. Virginia, the state with the second-largest concentration of bases and personnel, may be tempted to regard the scaling back of BRAC as good news. But if California is untouchable, then states that Clinton can't win and doesn't care about may wind up feeling the brunt of the cutting. Virginia, for example.
In the long run, politicizing the process is in no one's best interest. BRAC was an attempt to make defense decisions on the basis of merit and need, not personal ambition and partisan pressure. If the process is subverted, we risk getting the kind of military the politicians want, not the kind the country needs. by CNB