Separating the Insanity from Reality on Military Base Closures

Traditionally, insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. This aptly describes the administration’s efforts to convince Congress to permit a Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round.  

Congressional analysts have confirmed that savings from the last round of BRAC are actually significantly less than initially promised. Also, the Pentagon’s 2004 assessment of 24 percent excess infrastructure didn’t budget much after the 2005 BRAC round. Add to this the sad reality that many local communities proudly supporting their military bases for decades felt betrayed by the department’s shoddy data collection and one quickly realizes, as I did while serving on the staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee, that our shareholders – the nation’s taxpayers – demand a better BRAC round.  

Yet over the last three years, the administration’s proposal for new BRAC authority in 2017 has been the same law, with dates changed, that cost more and delivered less in 2005.  No changes – the same process, the same blank check. When asked by Congress how the next BRAC round will be more effective, DoD has asked for trust that the new round would focus on efficiencies. Each year, Congress has asked the Pentagon to suggest improvements to the BRAC law and, each year, there have been none. It would be insane for Congress to say ‘yes’ to the same process and expect a different result.

Last year, Congressman Adam Smith (D-WA), the Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee in the House of Representatives, wrote and introduced legislation for a new BRAC round with substantive process changes specifically designed to address the problems from 2005. The cost controls and increased accountability measures in the legislation were summarily dismissed by the Pentagon in favor of sticking with the old law. Given the strain on defense budgets and Congressional calls to address wasteful defense spending, it is insane for the Pentagon to repeatedly ignore efforts to improve the law.       

The standard criticism regarding congressional protection of states or districts falls apart in the face of the reality that Congress has authorized and survived five BRAC rounds since 1988. There is no doubt a small percentage of local communities around the country are imploring their delegations to oppose a BRAC round at all costs to protect their vulnerable base. But a growing number of states and communities has dedicated resources to ensure that a round of BRAC will bring opportunities to grow military populations and expand the economic contributions of military installations. Communities also realize that the BRAC law can provide a series of incentives to speed up the economic redevelopment at the closed base. The majority of defense communities recognize that BRAC laws offer a remedy to the ‘death by a thousand cuts” sustained by most military installations.                

So if BRAC is the way to move forward, why is Congress not in step? The reality is that the same congressional defense committees considering BRAC also recognize the current insanity of a budget process known as sequestration, which capriciously cuts amounts for critical defense programs without regard to the implications to our national security. While defense spending needs to be scrutinized when faced with over $18 trillion in national debt, cuts must be applied with an understanding of the threats to national security objectives. Many congressional defense leaders are concerned that sequestration is resulting in Armed Force reductions that protect our citizens and our interests worldwide.

The Chairman of the Armed Services Committee in the House of Representatives – Congressman Mac Thornberry, (R-TX) – recently told CQ Roll Call regarding BRAC, “We are still having a discussion in this country about what the role of the United States is in the world and about what sort of military capabilities we need to fulfill that role. Once you give up a base or a training range, it’s gone forever… And, personally, I’m not comfortable yet saying we will never need this base or this training range until we sort our way through this bigger question of what kind of military capabilities are we going to need to fulfill the role that we intend to play in the world.” Authorizing a process to permanently eliminate military bases will reduce future options to address the gap between threats, strategy and resources.

Before the Pentagon can carry out an informed and effective BRAC round, both the administration and Congress must address sequestration, assess the risks our nation is willing to assume in the strategy-resources mismatch and stabilize military force structure within a rationalized defense budget. Then DoD must address valid congressional concerns about past BRAC performance by thoroughly adding cost controls and increased accountability to the proposed law. For passage to be possible, that is the reality.

Lucian Niemeyer retired last year from the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee staff after 11 years advising on a range of military issues and programs, including BRAC. He is currently a strategic consultant and founder of the Niemeyer Group.