Pentagon to Make Fresh Appeal to Congress for Base Closures

As the Senate returns to work on the 2018 defense policy bill, the Pentagon is hopeful that Congress will leave the door open for a future round of base realignments and closures — a process known as BRAC.  

However, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis now believes the Pentagon will have a stronger hand in future negotiations and intends to press the case that base closures should not be seen as cost-cutting drills — as it has been the case in previous BRAC rounds — but should be viewed as opportunities to help the military better prepare for global challenges.

“The secretary has charged each of us to immediately address the readiness concerns,” and that means looking at how Defense Department facilities could be used more effectively to train and station forces, said Lucian Niemeyer, the newly installed assistant secretary of defense for energy, installations and environment.

In just his third week on the job, Niemeyer has been thrown into this highly contentious and divisive policy debate. A former Senate Armed Services Committee staffer, he is steeped in the issue and predicts Congress will be open to the idea that a “basing strategy” should be part of the Pentagon’s broader game plan for tackling global threats.

Niemeyer stressed that the Pentagon fully supports an amendment to the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act floated by Senate Armed Services Committee leaders that would allow a review of existing bases, if not a full-blown BRAC round. The House version of the NDAA rejects any proposal to close bases.

“DoD is in a good position to request an authorization and carry it out,” he said. “Our goal is to make the military more effective.”

Even without specific BRAC authority, “we’re looking every day at how best to utilize our training ranges,” for example, said Niemeyer. If Congress approved base realignments, the Pentagon would not necessarily be interested in shutting down facilities but ensuring they provide military value, he added: “To what degree can our current ranges support fifth-generation weapon systems? Those discussions are happening every day in the military. To what degree can we support the president’s energy policy by adjustments in range policies or access to ranges? 

It is still not clear how these questions would be addressed in a future BRAC round, he noted. “The connection has not been made because we don’t have an authorization yet.”

Mattis believes the Pentagon should put forth a plan that shows how the national defense strategy would drive change in infrastructure and training ranges, Niemeyer said. The national defense strategy is still in the works, pending the completion of a more comprehensive national security strategy by the Trump administration.

This is not to say that the Pentagon doesn’t believe in closing unneeded bases, said Niemeyer. “Efficiency is always important,” he said. “But what I am much more concerned about is how we enhance lethality and readiness.”

The idea that BRAC should be tied to a larger plan to prepare the military to fight emerging threats is not new. Military analysts have warned for years that U.S. forces may not be ideally positioned to defend key areas of the globe or protect themselves from enemies’ increasingly advanced missiles and long-range projectiles. The Pentagon has funded outside studies that suggest there ought to be changes in air and maritime basing.

In addition to addressing concerns about survivability and proximity to allies, base realignments could allow the Pentagon to station combat units in areas where they could train closer to home. “We have forces in the United States that may not be ideally placed to get the readiness they need,” said Niemeyer. “We need to look at how we might station forces at locations where they can get a wider array of full-spectrum training closer to where they live.”

Past BRAC requests emphasized cost savings, efficiency and shedding excess capacity, but that approach has backfired as some BRAC rounds have not yielded significant savings. Cost cutting is still a “noble cause” that the Pentagon will not lose sight of, said Niemeyer. “But we also need Congress to allow us to look at our basing, allow us to decide how to position forces and where should we could add capabilities and give force opportunities for combined arms training. It’s not just a matter of finding efficiencies but improving the lethality and effectiveness of our military.”

Former House Armed Services Committee staffer Andrew Hunter said the Pentagon faces a tough battle ahead when it comes to BRAC.

The previous five rounds took place in 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995 and 2005. The political climate is much different now, said Hunter, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “It’s complicated,” he said. “When you have to crunch the numbers, how to do you turn military value into numbers? It’s a tricky thing.”

Congress has been extremely leery of base closures not only because it could mean job losses in their districts but also out of fear that decisions that seem smart today may prove shortsighted years from now, Hunter said. “BRAC is irrevocable.”

Sandra Erwin is a national security and defense reporter for RealClearDefense. She can be reached at [email protected]. Follow Sandra on Twitter @Sandra_I_Erwin.