New England Military Base Closures

More testimony on the various closure plans and reasons not to close these bases. I'm not in agreement on some of these arguments, but then I don't have the level of information that was mad available to the committee. This is especially true with relation to the Otis Airbase closure data. Though the security aspect of it I find dubious.

Closing Cape Cod's Otis Air Force Base would leave New England ill-prepared to protect major buildings, transportation routes, and energy delivery systems in the event of a terrorist attack, Massachusetts officials told members of the military's base-closing commission yesterday.

Governor Mitt Romney privately provided commission members with his administration's assessment of the state's potential terrorist targets, which he did not make public. He said the ''sensitive" assessment demonstrates the essential role played by Otis-based fighter planes in protecting the region. The assessment was reviewed by the Department of Homeland Security, he said.

And

Massachusetts officials argued that shutting down Otis, as recommended by the Pentagon in May, would leave the region with only two fighter planes on alert within a 175-mile radius of Boston, a situation Romney called ''impractical" and potentially dangerous.

He said the state's security assessment demonstrates Otis-based planes guard busy air routes and rail lines, gas pipelines, telecommunications infrastructure, and other potential targets that require ''special prevention and protection plans."

The only protection that an Air Force base could provide would be relative to terrorist attacks with air planes. I'm not convinced that there is a substantial nor even plausible threat to the Boston area that would make this a convincing argument. One wonders how long it takes a fighter jet of today's technology to go from start up to 175 miles. I'm betting it's not very long. I think this argument just doesn't carry any weight.

They also stated this:

''Much of the energy and transportation capability of the entire Northeast centers on our Commonwealth," Romney told the five members of the nine-person commission who attended yesterday's New England regional hearing. ''Obviously, any vulnerability is unacceptable."

Sorry, that isn't a reasonable argument. If it were, Washington D.C., or any other major metropolis, would have continual fighter protection in the air. The statement that any vulnerability is unacceptable is just ludicrous. How much money does one use to ensure that a terrorist doesn't get there hands on a small pox carrier and spread the disease to Boston? It's a more plausible threat, but it's a vulnerability that would be very costly to put countermeasures in place for. Mitt's over reacting to the security argument.

Maine and New Hampshire officials argued that the Pentagon ignored its own data with regard to the Portsmouth base's military value and the costs that would be incurred by shifting its ship-repair functions to other bases. They also said the 4,000 jobs that would disappear there would devastate the economy of the southern parts of the states that provide most of the base's workforce.

Senator John E. Sununu, Republican of New Hampshire, presented data showing that the Pentagon did not account for $293 million in costs associated with having other bases pick up Portsmouth's workload, and overstated cost-saving estimates by $1.5 billion over 20 years.

In an exchange that left Maine and New Hampshire lawmakers optimistic about Portsmouth's fate, commission chairman Principi raised the possibility of scaling back the Pearl Harbor base in Hawaii and keeping Portsmouth open as a larger naval base.

''The justification given for closing Portsmouth and retaining Pearl is that Pearl is strategically placed," Principi said. He noted that if Pearl Harbor were downscaled instead, more ships could be moved there if a greater Pacific strength is needed. Last week, Principi asked Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to explain why he wants to keep Pearl Harbor and close Portsmouth, given that Navy statistics show that Portsmouth -- which has continuously operated since 1800 -- is more efficient.

I've worked at several shipyards in the past including Portsmouth. I will say that there always has been a substantially more efficient team there. They've been that way for a long time, considering that they are always near the edge of the closure list. The point about Pearl Harbor is valid. The costs to run that facility are likely to rival those of Portsmouth, and Portsmouth's track record on cost savings and efficiency is much better than Pearl's.

The only problem is that Portsmouth isn't a Naval Base in the sense that Pearl is. Portsmouth is a repair facility and has no other facilities for ships. Strategically, Portsmouth is irrelevant.

Economic effects are supposed to be viewed in the closure plan. There is no doubt that New England is taking the brunt of the closure effects.

Nationwide, the Pentagon's recommendations, issued in May, would close 33 large military bases and redefine the missions of some 800 other military installations, in an effort to generate $48.6 billion in long-term savings. New England would suffer the largest job loss of any region, with the six-state region on track to lose nearly half of the 29,000 jobs expected to be lost nationwide.[Emphasis Mine]

That is a major economic hit for the North-East.

Unfortunately, I'm thinking this will all come down to politics. Portsmouth is likely doomed because they aren't strategically relevant and they don't have any major political muscle pushing for them. Otis has a lot of political muscle, though the need and relevance to the overall military structure is probably slight. I didn't note New London Naval Base, but of the three discussed in the article, I think it has the most relevance and economic benefit for being maintained.