CSNbbs

Any BRAC affect MAC communities?

I saw something in Kent closed.

Troy and Mobile, AL had a closing, as did Huntington, WV.

Will CUSA or SBC be affected much?

The one in Troy and two in Mobile were just reserve centers which typically have small employment. Not sure what the Naval Support Activity in New Orleans is, but I'd imagine it has a small impact on the overall New Orleans economy.

That was it for the Sun Belt cities.

The biggest hit in Michigan is the Battle Creek Air National Guard Base in Battle Creek, which is near Kalamazoo (WMU).

I'm guessing the 110th Fighter Wing (A-10s) will relocate to either Selfridge (Detroit area) or up north in Alpena at the Combat Readiness Training Center.

Here's the details for Battle Creek:

W.K. Kellogg Airport Air Guard Station, MI

Recommendation: Close W.K. Kellogg Airport Air Guard Station, MI. Distribute the 110th
Fighter Wing’s A-10s (15 aircraft) to the 127th Wing (ANG), Selfridge ANGB, MI.

Justification: The Air Force placed one squadron at Selfridge (62) because it is significantly
higher in military value than Kellogg (122). The Air Force retired the older F-16s from Selfridge
and combined the two A-10 units into one squadron at Selfridge to retain trained and skilled
Michigan ANG Airmen from both locations.

Payback: The total estimated one-time cost to the Department to implement this
recommendation is $8.3M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the
implementation period is a savings of $46.7M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after
implementation are $12.7M with an immediate payback expected. The net present value of the
cost and savings to the Department over 20 years is a savings of $166.8M.

And all those new buildings at Battle Creek ANG that tthe government pumped millions into? I'm guessing the City of Battle Creek will find some use for it, otherwise the MIARNG could annex part of it to Fort Custer.

The Toledo Air National Guard Base housing the 180th fighter wing(F-16's) is NOT being closed. Perhaps being the first to respond on 9/11 played a pretty big role in their importance.

The Buffalo-Niagara Falls area got slammed. Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station is on the close list. Terrible news for that area especially when Niagara Falls NY is trying to revitalize itself and the base is the 2nd largest employer in the county. Hillary Rodham and a bunch of other state reps are vowing to fight this until the bitter end.

Just for a little icing on the cake.....the Buffalo Navy recruiting district headquarters is also on the close list. Doesn't sound like much but that's several more well paid workers in a very successful office leaving an area that can't afford to lose jobs.

Michigan has the 107th Fighter Wing (F-16s) at Selfridge, and the 110th Fighter Wing at Battle Creek. It appears that the Pentagon plan is to consolidate both fighter wings at Selfridge where the 127th Wing (higher headquarters) is located.

The 107th has a great history dating back to the 1920s when it was the 107th Observation Squadron. During World War II the unit flew photographic recon missions over Normandy in preparation for the invasion. The squadron was later the first Army Air Corps unit to operate from French soil.

Columbus will gain a lot of jobs out of this. Cleveland will lose quite a few. Mansfield and Springfield will also be hit.

Cleveland is slated to lose 1,000 jobs downtown due to the closing of the DFAS administrative center which is right accross the street from my office. My company also stands to lose some revenue if this group goes as well...

This is a double whammee week for Cleveland as the area lost out earlier in the week for a NASA admin center to Mississippi...

Schadenfreude Wrote:Columbus will gain a lot of jobs out of this. Cleveland will lose quite a few. Mansfield and Springfield will also be hit.

Gee, Columbus benefiting while the rest of the state suffers? Imagine that. :rolleyes:

Oddball Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:Columbus will gain a lot of jobs out of this. Cleveland will lose quite a few. Mansfield and Springfield will also be hit.

Gee, Columbus benefiting while the rest of the state suffers? Imagine that. :rolleyes:

Hard to see a grand conspiracy in it. State government wasn't in charge of this decision.

Schadenfreude Wrote:

Oddball Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:Columbus will gain a lot of jobs out of this. Cleveland will lose quite a few. Mansfield and Springfield will also be hit.

Gee, Columbus benefiting while the rest of the state suffers? Imagine that. :rolleyes:

Hard to see a grand conspiracy in it. State government wasn't in charge of this decision.

Oh, I think that there is a grand conspiracy of sorts, but you're probably right that this may not part of it. The state pecking order ensures that Columbus gets the lion's share, Cleveland and Cincinnati eat next, then the rest of the state can fight for the crumbs. Just a fact of life in Ohio. This may just coincidentally fall into that pattern.

Closing the military bases under this BRAC will save 49 billion over a 20 year period (about 2 billion a year). So it’s a no-brainer….close the military bases in Iraq instead because that has cost more than 80 billion in only two years (40 billion a year). Sorry I forgot……..this administration has no brains.

Spoken like a true Democrat.

bronco67 Wrote:Closing the military bases under this BRAC will save 49 billion over a 20 year period (about 2 billion a year). So it’s a no-brainer….close the military bases in Iraq instead because that has cost more than 80 billion in only two years (40 billion a year). Sorry I forgot……..this administration has no brains.

Whether for or against military action in Iraq, I shouldn't have to point out why that's a ridiculous comparison.

-Dan

I agree with the base closings. Sure, local areas will take a hit; however, the military has to cut costs. We can't spend this kind of money and increase the national debt. We need to ask our leaders to use our tax dollars wisely. As long as national security isn't compromised, I support the decision.

I usually don't engage in political discourse here but, ...

let's close US bases and put US CITIZENS out of work and hurt already struggling Northern economies while,

we pour billions into a country that HATES us despite the fact that we removed a despot who was mudering more of their own citizens than the insurgents are today

I am well educated and I can't make sense of this crap, it makes my head hurt thinking about it most days...

bronco67 Wrote:Closing the military bases under this BRAC will save 49 billion over a 20 year period (about 2 billion a year). So it’s a no-brainer….close the military bases in Iraq instead because that has cost more than 80 billion in only two years (40 billion a year). Sorry I forgot……..this administration has no brains.

Here are a few reasons why we have our Military overseas in the Middle East right now (along with 17 Resolutions passed the UN Security Council as well which approved force):

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." S
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Senator John Edwards (D, NC) Press Release: Oct 10th, 2002:
"The bipartisan resolution on Iraq was cosponsored by Senator Edwards. It closely tracked provisions he spelled out one month ago. The joint resolution gives the president authority to use military force against Iraq to enforce relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. It calls on the president to work with the U.N. to make Iraq comply with its resolutions, but authorizes force if diplomatic means fail. The measure also focuses on what happens in a post-Saddam Iraq and its transition to democracy.

Senator Edwards said the debate on the congressional resolution helped make the case to the American people that Saddam Hussein must be stopped from adding nuclear weapons to his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction."

KnightLight Wrote:Here are a few reasons why we have our Military overseas in the Middle East right now (along with 17 Resolutions passed the UN Security Council as well which approved force):

I hate enabling this thread derailment, since I know a lot of people probably want to blame me for the last one.

I'll keep this short:

1. Kofi Annan has consistently said the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter. The words he usually chose were "not in conformity" with the charter. But he was a little more explicit last year:

<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm</a>

2. The rest of what you posted is cute.

Bottom line: We didn't find any weapons.

A Senate panel concluded intelligence was faulty -- and the administration has hammered that point again and again.

Yet the panel has explicitly avoided the the question of whether intelligence was twisted to fit the Bush administration's conclusion that Iraq must be invaded.

Despite Congress' inaction on that question, there was big news on it this week. Perhaps you saw it?

<a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051201857.html' target='_blank'>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5051201857.html</a>

Seven months before the invasion of Iraq, the head of British foreign intelligence reported to Prime Minister Tony Blair that President Bush wanted to topple Saddam Hussein by military action and warned that in Washington intelligence was "being fixed around the policy," according to notes of a July 23, 2002, meeting with Blair at No. 10 Downing Street.

"Military action was now seen as inevitable," said the notes, summarizing a report by Richard Dearlove, then head of MI6, British intelligence, who had just returned from consultations in Washington along with other senior British officials. Dearlove went on, "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD [weapons of mass destruction]. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

"The case was thin," summarized the notes taken by a British national security aide at the meeting. "Saddam was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."