FEATURE ARTICLE

April 2005

BRAC 2005 Could Help Fix Training, Housing Shortages

by Sandra I. Erwin

It’s that time again: that periodic base closing drill that pits the Defense Department against military commanders who need ever so much housing and training facilities. Added to the mix is an array of politicians and business interests hell-bent on preserving jobs and other benefits to local economies.

Pentagon officials have stressed for years that the Defense Department is saddled with too much unneeded property, and that they would like to see bases trimmed by at least 25 percent.

But comments from military officials in recent months suggest that, even though the Pentagon probably has more surplus real estate than it can afford, it still lacks facilities to meet fundamental needs, such as military housing and training.

To fulfill the growing demands from combat operations, the Marine Corps, for example, is being asked to expand the force by creating an infantry battalion and a light armored reconnaissance battalion.

The Corps has enough Marines to staff those battalions, but not enough housing to accommodate them, says the commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen Michael Hagee.

Past base-closure rounds and other downsizing exercises have left the Corps with barely enough housing for the current 24 infantry battalions in the force. “We normally have six battalions out at all times,” he said. “If you brought them all back, we wouldn’t have enough infrastructure for them.”

The $75 billion emergency-spending request that the Defense Department sent to Congress last month includes funds to build housing for one Marine battalion at Camp Lejeune, N.C. As for the other battalion, “we are still considering where to put it,” Hagee adds.

The Corps also plans to set up a new unit of 400 Marines that will be dedicated to training foreign troops. Asked where that organization will be based, Hagee replies, “We don’t know. Again, we have facility problems.”

The housing example illustrates the dilemma facing the commission: Can the Defense Department close bases and still meet the needs of the military services?

The answer is yes, says Ken Beeks, a BRAC expert at Business Executives for National Security, a group that supports base closures as a necessary step to cut wasteful Pentagon spending.

The facility glut and the shortage of barracks are “the flip side of the same coin,” says Beeks.

“They have too much of the wrong stuff,” he adds. On the one hand, there aren’t enough barracks and family housing for soldiers and Marines. On the other hand, the Air Force has too many aviation training sites. “They will never have that many pilots,” Beeks says.

This year’s commission has an opportunity to fix the problem. The 25 percent excess facilities reported by the Pentagon is an accurate estimate, on average, Beeks says. But it doesn’t mean that there aren’t shortages of certain types of facilities, while, in other areas, the overcapacity may be even higher than 30 or 40 percent.

Can BRAC be done based on real needs, and not whittled away by the political process?

“I’m optimistic,” says Beeks. “The process is much more capable than in past rounds.”

The secretary of defense is expected next month to forward recommendations for realignments and closures to the commission. It will then send its report to the White House by September. The President will have two weeks to accept or reject the recommendations in their entirety.

If accepted, Congress will have 45 legislative days to reject the proposal or it becomes binding. Implementation must start within two years, and actions must be complete within six years.

The nine-member commission will conduct regional meetings to solicit public input before making its recommendations.

Politics always have played a major role in the BRAC process, but it is possible that, this time around, pragmatic judgment might prevail, Beeks says. That optimistic view is not necessarily shared by other observers on the scene, however.

During the four previous BRAC rounds, the Defense Department, claiming it could save billions of dollars by closing bases, faced a phalanx of powerful lawmakers and lobbyists. Their attitude, Beeks says, was that “we are a rich country, so we can afford to keep all these bases.”

Reality has changed since the last BRAC round in 1997. Cost is an issue, but so are military needs for better training, and for joint-service exercises. Further, housing requirements will continue to escalate as the Pentagon relocates forces stateside from overseas. Joint training also will contribute to the strain.

The BRAC process, Beeks says, must ensure that facilities are available for large-scale multi-service training exercises. That may require consolidation of single-service facilities, he notes. “The Air Force and the Navy have jet fighters: why can’t they train together if they have to fight jointly?”

The Army’s reorganization into “modular” brigades also will require new training facilities. The supplemental budget request includes $261 million for these efforts.

Many players wonder whether a late inflow of funds into a facility will save it from closure. According to Beeks, that is no guarantee. “We continue to upgrade the base until the day it closes,” he says. “You could build a superhighway to the commander’s door and still lose the base.”

Governors and mayors, meanwhile, continue with their public relations and lobbying blitz in an effort to save bases in their respective jurisdictions.

Sadly enough, says Beeks, the politicians are wasting their time and money.

And so it goes. This next round of base closings offers a tremendous opportunity for the military to get its house in order. It would be a shame if politics as usual were the name of the game.

Back To Top