Korean Job Discussion Forums

rok_the-boat · Joined: 24 Jan 2004

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050830/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/rumsfeld

To me, closing the bases at 'home' (combined with new ones overseas) suggests that the troops are not returning anytime soon. Am I the only one who sees it this way? Seems an important point, does it not?

Bulsajo · Joined: 16 Jan 2003

The base closures are ones slated by the Pentagon as no longer worth keeping open from a military point of view. This isn't a new process, it's been ongoing for some time. It's the tail end of the effects of winning the Cold War, the changing geo-strategic landscape, the change in the way the military operates (how many bases supporting SSBNs and B-52s are really needed these days?).

As pointed out in the article the BRAC sees things differently than the Pentagon, largely for political and economic reasons.

I'm fairly certain that 9/11, The War on Terror, and the War in Iraq have very little bearing on this process.

You don't need too many Ohio class subs to occupy Iraq or fight Al Qaeda...

Ya-ta Boy · Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994

I don't think the fact that the bases were opened when the Democrats were the majority party in Congress has anything to do with their location. I also don't think that they are being shuffled around has anything to do with the GOP being the majority party. Base locations are always made as a purely strategic decision. That is why my mom worked for the Navy in Iowa during WWII. (For those who are woefully undereducated in American geography, Iowa is about a thousand miles from any ocean.)

On the other hand, judging by the map, the bases are being moved out of the Blue states and into the Red states in preparation for the coming coup d'etat/civil war.