BRAC Main Report: How to Cover Military Base Closings Without Losing Your Objectivity or Your Sanity

Even The Terminator is running scared these days.

Taking office as governor of California on Jan. 6, 2004, Arnold Schwarzenegger paused in his inaugural speech to cite the oncoming economic and political threat that he and every elected politician in the United States fear: the 2005 round of military Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) hearings.

"California's naval facilities, our air bases, our supply centers, our training commands have helped our nation produce the best trained and equipped military in the world," Schwarzenegger said. "I was in Baghdad last year. I met soldiers who call California home. I met soldiers who trained here and served here. California has a proud history of military support."

"The Pentagon will make the next round of base closures in 2005," the actor-turned-politician continued. "This could mean thousands of lost jobs to California. These bases are important to national defense, and they are important to our steady economic recovery. As a state, we will fight to keep our bases open."

Here's why Schwarzenegger and every other California politician are nervous: They have already seen what BRAC can do to a state's economy. In the four BRAC rounds (1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995), California lost 93,546 military and civilian jobs and revenue totaling $9.6 billion annually, according to the California Office of Military Base Retention and Reuse. California officials say job losses in their state constituted 60 percent of BRAC downsizing nationwide. Even so, California today has 61 military bases that add $32.5 billion through prime defense contracts to the state economy.

It's a one-syllable acronym, but BRAC is already keeping many officials awake at night. The 2005 round of military Base Realignment and Closure hearings officially kicks off on March 15, 2005 with the nomination of nine members to the independent panel. The process is anticipated to conclude eight months later with formal approval of a lengthy roster of military bases, depots and other installations slated for closure or realignment where tenant military units are shifted from one facility to another.

Pentagon officials and defense industry analysts say the 2005 BRAC round will be extremely harsh. While the size of the U.S. military has been cut nearly 40 percent since the end of the Cold War, the four previous BRAC rounds have eliminated only about 20 percent of the Defense Department's infrastructure capacity that existed in 1988. Experts have estimated that DoD wants to shut between 20-25 percent of the 425 major U.S. military bases in the United States to generate badly-needed revenue for ongoing operations, military "transformation" programs and research plus development of new weapons.

BRAC has also become entangled in the ongoing 2004 presidential election. The White House threatened a presidential veto of the defense budget if Congress added an amendment delaying the closure round by two years to 2007 (the measure was defeated). And presumptive Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry publicly came out against BRAC 2005.

That means between 85-106 major military bases will not survive.

For local and state governments, and the journalists who cover them, BRAC 2005 will be as big a story next year as the invasion of Iraq. It will pose unique challenges for editors, TV station managers and reporters as they attempt to cover such a controversial issue without surrendering their objectivity and professional detachment. In a September 1993 article, "Off Base," American Journalism Review found that many local newspapers and TV stations quickly succumbed to boosterism with support and sometimes even sponsorship of "save the base" rallies, special sections and programs, and even the emergence of a pro-base tone in straight news reporting.

In short, journalists must find a way to cover the contentious issue of BRAC without allowing themselves to descend into the role of cheerleaders and stenographers for the local Chamber of Commerce and "Save Our Base" Committee. Given that governors, congressional delegations and local government officials in all 50 states are banding together in emergency coalitions, hiring lobbyists and sounding the alarm that "We all must stick together and show a common front," merely documenting those activities will not provide a balanced and comprehensive coverage of BRAC.

There is a way to cover BRAC without losing either objectivity or personal sanity, and this article will suggest strategies by which local reporters can accomplish this. But first, some background.

BRAC in Brief

Before Congress created the concept of an independent BRAC commission in the late 1980s, the armed services had the legal authority to close their unneeded bases. Unfortunately for the Pentagon, Congress had the authority to override the military's decisions, as one now-famous American soldier discovered to his dismay. As an Army lieutenant colonel just back from Vietnam in 1973, future Gulf War commander H. Norman Schwarzkopf, while serving as an aide to the secretary of the Army, was assigned to a team of officers responsible for identifying inefficient and obsolete bases for closure. He recalled the experience in his 1992 memoirs, It Doesn't Take a Hero (Bantam Books, New York City):

"The [Army secretary's] staff had set out to determine objectively which [bases] would have to close. During the autumn of 1973, we digested tens of thousands of pages of mission analyses, economic-impact studies, environmental-impact studies, and the like, representing thousands and thousands of hours of work, to derive a final list."

Before Army Secretary Howard "Bo" Callaway would publicly announce the list, he dispatched his staff to conduct courtesy briefings for the senators from states that had a base earmarked for closure. Schwarzkopf went along as an observer as the team briefed powerful Sen. John. J. Sparkman, D-AL, on why it was necessary to close Fort McClellan, a large base outside of Anniston, Ala. When the briefer finished, Schwarzkopf recounted, Sparkman cleared his voice and said, "Young men, ah wanna compliment you on this wonderful briefing. It's obvious that you have gone to a great deal of hard work, and the facts that you have assembled are startling, and I feel quite sure that you think every one of 'em is true." The group of officers smiled in response to this courteous response. Then Sparkman said, "There's something else I'd like to say about this wonderful presentation."

"You go back and tell your bosses in the Pentagon that as long as I am the senator from the great state of Alabama, you ain't nevuh gonna close Fort McClellan!"

Given the economic impact of losing a major military base, and the inevitable political struggle of all-vs-all to prevent local bases from being shut down, Congress implemented the independent BRAC Commission as a means to shunt the decision-making process out of the hands of either Congress or the White House. The change also provided political cover for local and congressional officials, who could tell the voters that the process was out of their hands.

Here's how BRAC 2005 will proceed:

Beginning last January, the Department of Defense ordered all military base commanders to send detailed information on their facilities to the Pentagon. While officials have not released such "data calls" nor even provided a specific list of the information sought, the material will be used to compile a database by which DoD officials can identify and recommend bases for closure. The Secretary of Defense will release that list of bases on May 16, 2005 (See detailed BRAC Chronology on the MRE website).

In the meantime, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld has established two teams of senior civilian and military leaders in the Pentagon who will oversee the analysis of the "data calls" and come up with the list of bases recommended for closure.

By March 15, 2005, the president will have submitted the names of the nine-member BRAC Commission to the U.S. Senate for confirmation. Then two months later on May 16, 2005, the Secretary of Defense will release the Defense Department's list of military installations it is recommending for closure or realignment. During July and August 2005, the BRAC Commission will conduct hearings to receive public input on the recommended closures. As in past rounds, the panel will hold these hearings in different geographic regions to focus on targeted bases in those areas.

Following the hearings, the commission will vote on its formal recommendations for base closure and submit that report to the President no later than Sept. 8, 2005. Under the enabling legislation, the President may only either accept the BRAC Commission recommendations in full, or reject the list in its entirety. If he accepts the list, the President then will forward it to Congress. Unless both houses of Congress enact a joint resolution of disapproval within 45 "legislative days" the BRAC decision becomes final.

In the event the President rejects the BRAC Commission recommendations, the panel has 42 days, until Oct. 20, 2005, to submit a revised list of recommendations that will then be sent to Congress by Nov. 7, 2005 for an identical 45-day countdown.

What is obvious about past and current BRAC procedures is how much the enabling legislation created a decision-making process that is extremely resistant to line-item changes and external political pressure. Neither the President nor Congress can amend the list - a standard means of compromise that would throw the entire process into chaos and failure. Next year's BRAC will feature several additional restrictions of this nature: The panel will consist of nine members rather than eight, making tie votes on closure recommendations difficult, if not impossible. And a new rule requires a "super-majority" of seven BRAC commissioners to amend the Pentagon's closure list, while in previous rounds it only required a simple majority.

Thus, journalists preparing to cover the BRAC Commission process next year can be sure of several ironclad realities:

* The timeline will be fixed and finite - approximately eight months from the March 15 nomination of BRAC commissioners to the final Congressional review sometime in October or early November 2005.

* Public hearings on a local military base recommended for closure will be held in the same geographic region as the base, enabling even small-budget news operations to cover them.

* The decision-making process will make it all but impossible for congressional barons and state-local political alliances to pull off a behind-the-scenes deal to save a base by inducing the commission to shutter another one somewhere else.

What's Different This Time

The previous rounds of base closure during 1988-95 were as straightforward attempt to shrink the infrastructure of U.S. military bases, depots and facilities to reflect the downsizing of the U.S. armed forces after the Cold War's end. This time around, BRAC is taking place at the same time as two other military initiatives that promise significant, major change in the size, force structure and organization of the military. They are:

* An ongoing DoD review of overseas basing requirements for the U.S. military; and

* An ambitious "transformation" initiative affecting all five services in which gains in communications, weaponry, other technological advances and an increased focus on "jointness" - inter-service cooperation - will further reshape the force.

In the 42 months since the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq, the Bush administration has quietly been reviewing the overseas basing structure that for decades positioned hundreds of thousands of American troops in Europe and nearly 50,000 troops in the western Pacific as well as tens of thousands of personnel based in the Persian Gulf region after the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

The Pentagon's "Global Posture Review" is an the effort designed to transform the U.S. military into a more mobile force that can respond rapidly to a crisis that might arise outside the traditional Cold War theaters of Western Europe and Northeast Asia. Testifying to the Senate Armed Services Committee in March of this year, Gen. James L. Jones, the commander of U.S. forces in Europe, said he foresees a dispersed network of expeditionary bases in places such as Eastern Europe and Northern Africa that would supplant many of the long-occupied "Little America" military communities in Germany and other countries. "We could use it for six months, turn off the lights, and go to another base if we need to," the Marine four-star general explained.

Last February, a little-noticed article appeared in the non-governmental newspaper Army Times revealing that the Pentagon and State Department were already negotiating with Germany for a "potentially major reduction" in U.S. troops permanently based there. The newspaper noted that in 1997 the Rand Corp. in a separate study for the Army had concluded the U.S. military could feasibly relocate a third of the existing Germany-based force - about 23,000 soldiers - to existing bases in the United States. The Rand study identified the troops as belonging to the four heavy-maneuver brigades of the 1st Armored and 1st Infantry divisions.

Already, U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and the global war on terrorism are using such bare-bones facilities, including bases in the former Soviet Asian republics, the Persian Gulf region and the Horn of Africa.

The bottom line for such a change would likely be major increases of troop strength and budgets for a number of Army bases here at home. Rand concluded the most likely bases that could accommodate the soldiers were Fort Bliss, Tex.; Fort Carson, Colo.; and Fort Lewis, Wash., all of which have prime maneuver space and extensive infrastructure. Three secondary installations: Fort Knox, Ky.; Fort Riley, Kans., and Fort Polk, La., also could gain units, the Rand report noted.

In other words, BRAC 2005 and the parallel "Global Posture Review" will likely result in major gains for a number of military bases here at home. Another cause for boosting employment, construction and budgets at local bases will come from the second aspect of BRAC - the "realignment" of military units from one base to another should the former be selected for closure. In 1994, the Navy's Trident submarine base at Bangor, Wash., found itself with an additional submarine when the Pacific Fleet transferred the top-secret spy submarine USS Parche to Washington state. The reason: The Parche's home port at Mare Island Naval Shipyard had been recommended for closure in the 1993 BRAC round.

The Pentagon's "transformation" effort is still in its early stages, with much of the focus on developing new strategies, tactics and military organizational changes to capitalize on the revolution in communications and computer technology. But a second factor involved - the military's embrace of "jointness" after years of mutual suspicion and rivalry over money and missions - will likely also add a tremendous shift to the basing of ground, air and naval units. Even today, the five combat services still own and manage their own bases, and tenant units from another service are rare. But even this is likely to change.

For example, last December, The Navy and Marine Corps dispatched a new "expeditionary strike group" comprising the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp, six other warships and 2,200 Marines for a week of live-fire combat training - at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. For decades, such units would travel to the island of Vieques off the east coast of Puerto Rico, but Vieques was recently closed after years of political opposition there. Air Force and Navy officials said they were eager to see if the first-ever use of the 740-square-mile base by Marine combat units could become a permanent arrangement between the services.

Nor is this one solitary experiment. Last year, Raymond F. DuBois, the deputy undersecretary of defense for installations and environment, told European Stars & Stripes that the Pentagon and armed services are actively exploring plans to share base facilities on a permanent basis. "We're going to see more and more multi-mission, multi-service installations" both overseas and in the continental United States in large part because the services are fighting, training and deploying jointly, DuBois said.

Again, it is a distinct possibility that the 2005 BRAC process will result in major changes in military base manning that will result in a major expansion of units being "realigned" to other installations managed by different services.

BRAC Coverage Thus Far

In the past 17 months, more than 250 news articles have appeared in the Pentagon's daily "Early Bird" news summary covering the ongoing preparations for BRAC 2005. A review of the stories revealed that with one or two exceptions, the print coverage actually consisted of only seven broad topics. They were:

(1) Omigod, BRAC 2005 is coming and we need to get ready.

"A campaign to save the San Diego region's 12 military installations from a round of base closures in two years was initiated yesterday by the City Council. 'If we don't start on it now, we'll regret it in 2005,' Mayor Dick Murphy said. … Consultant William Cassidy Jr. warned that the Defense Department plans to close up to 25 percent of its bases and related operations nationwide in 2005. Studies are under way to determine which installations are expendable, and San Diego could be vulnerable, said Cassidy, a former deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for base conversion and redevelopment in the Clinton administration. - San Diego Union-Tribune, Apr. 23, 2003.

"Department of Defense officials are planning the most aggressive round of domestic base closings yet seen for 2005, and supporters of New Jersey bases need to start figuring out strategies if they want to keep those facilities off the hit list, according to one congressman on the House Armed Services Committee. … 'We have one year to get ready, and I'd like to see that year mapped out. We need to fine-tune our plans,' [Rep. H. James] Saxton said in a prepared statement warning other New Jersey officials." - Asbury Park Press, May 28, 2003.

(2) Our base is active and essential and it's probably safe from closing - right?

"Dyess Air Force Base should fare well in the 2005 base realignment and closings because of its classification as a large aircraft base, B-1 bomber performances in the Middle East, and other factors. … Consultant Paul Thompson, a representative of BRAC solutions, focuses on BRAC processes for the city. 'Dyess has great military value for large aircraft,' Thompson said, 'but I'd be lying to you if I said you're sitting pretty.' " - Abilene Reporter-News, Aug. 20, 2003

"One year from now, 3,400 square miles of New Mexico desert will be picked over and dissected as part of the military's next big liquidation. Winners in the next round of base closures will remain military communities, where base personnel spend their paychecks and civilian contractors bid for government work. Losers would be left with vacated land and, in many cases, gaping economic holes. 'I think that the concerns are modest-to-light,' said Republican Rep. Steve Pearce, whose district covers the majority of New Mexico military land. 'Having said that, every game that we get into of this importance, we play as if the concern should be great.' - Albuquerque Journal, Feb. 22, 2004.

(3) Our local-regional-statewide BRAC defense team is hard at work and rolling up its sleeves.

"When Arizona Sen. John McCain urged West Valley leaders last year to do more to protect Luke Air Force Base, they sprang into action. They formed the Fighter Country Coalition, which included West Valley cities, county, state and federal officials, business owners, neighboring landowners and others interested in preserving the base, which trains F-16 pilots and crew chiefs. Now coalition Chairwoman Elaine Scruggs, Glendale's mayor, says the coalition will temporarily advise Gov. Janet Napolitano's Military Facilities Task Force." - Arizona Republic, July 22, 2003.

"Base closings will be the focus of the first meeting of the Texas Strategic Military Preparedness Commission on Thursday in Austin. Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, vice chairman of the commission, said Friday he is inviting interested communities and public officials across the state to attend the meeting." - Abilene Reporter-News, Aug. 2, 2003.

(4) If we don't get that hangar fixed/pier repaired/barracks built, we're screwed.

"Land encroachment issues, such as those plaguing Oceana Naval Air Station, should be considered in the next round of base closings, according to criteria released Monday by the Department of Defense." - The Virginian-Pilot, Dec. 23, 2003.

"The possibility of bases closing may give defense officials leverage to improve education for military children, the Pentagon's personnel chief said. In a Jan. 21 interview with Military Times editors and reporters, David S.C. Chu, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, noted that some civilian schools provide an excellent education, but that in too many locations, the quality is not as good as it should be. … Responsibility for schools rests largely with local jurisdictions, making this a 'ticklish federal-state issue,' Chu said. But the base-closure process may provide an incentive for local authorities to do better." - Air Force Times, Feb. 9, 2004.

(5) They can't dare close this base because [fill in the blanks].

"If Fort Gordon [Ga.] doesn't survive the next round of military base closures in 2005, retirees from the installation would be among those most affected." -- Atlanta Journal-Constitution, May 5, 2003.

"California lawmakers are actively seeking to influence Defense Department policy regarding the next round of military base closings, arguing that 68,000 jobs and $8 billion in annual state revenue are at stake. All but three of California's 55-member congressional delegation wrote Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld last month to demand 'recognition of the disproportionate contribution [the state] has already made to the streamlining of the military's base infrastructure.' " - Inside the Pentagon, Jan. 29, 2004.

(6) Here are the latest clever and sneaky things we're doing to help our base.

"With the next round of military base closings looming, a Homestead business group is trying to make sure the air reserve base doesn't make that list. The first essential step, they say, is to throw up a barrier to encroaching development around the base to protect its flight paths - and anyone living beneath them. That was the idea behind the recently completed 'Encroachment Study' done by Michael Richardson of the Vision Council, Homestead's economic development agency." - Miami Herald Aug. 5, 2003.

"The proposed Army Heritage & Education Center has long been promoted as an investment in military history. Now, it's also being touted as a $100 million insurance policy that a local leader said she hopes will ensure Carlisle Barracks stays open." - Harrisburg Patriot-News, Aug. 20, 2003.

(7) Think of all the tanks/soldiers/tugboats/F-15s we'll get if the other base closes!

"More fighter jets. More choppers and drones. And thousands more people in military fatigues. Tucson and Southern Arizona could be in for a big military boom if state and local officials succeed in keeping the area's bases from closing. That's because base savers aren't just trying to keep existing bases open: They'll also be pitching Arizona to the Pentagon as a perfect place for major expansions of military operations." - The Arizona Daily Star, Aug. 20, 2003.

"Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius said Monday that the state should be aggressive as it devises a campaign aimed at protecting the state's military installations from closure. Sebelius told her Strategic Military Planning Commission at its first meeting that rather than just protecting existing facilities from down sizing or closing, it should aggressively stress expansion opportunities. 'We not only have military installations that are in great physical shape and improvements being made, but we've got a lot of wide open spaces,' she said." - Kansas City Star, March 2, 2004.

A Strategy for Effective Coverage of BRAC 2005

If you want coverage of BRAC 2005 to go beyond merely documenting the rhetorical flourishes of your local "Save Our Base" Committee, here's a 10-step strategy for doing that.

Define your coverage area.

Will coverage merely focus on the military base in town? Or a cluster of different installations within a local metropolitan area? Or the entire roster of military bases statewide? Setting the scope of coverage should be the first decision reporters and their superiors make.

Assign people and resources early.

Unless you are a fulltime military reporter or have previously covered BRAC rounds, you will find it an uphill struggle to master the basic facts about the U.S. military, commands and bases in your area, and the BRAC process itself. It is not too early to begin preparing now.

If your news organization has a Washington, D.C. bureau you can get help from, it is never too early to request dedicated assistance from key reporters such as a Pentagon correspondent or Capitol Hill reporter. While the Pentagon promises to have an ironclad choke-hold on BRAC information release, and Congress has formally sidelined itself in the creation of the independent BRAC Commission, these two institutions will still be the sources of major stories as the closure hearings proceed - even if it is to provide a sideline chorus to the main event, the BRAC Commission itself.

Identify and Contact Outside Experts

A number of Washington, D.C. think tanks have already assigned staff members to monitor and review the BRAC process. These experts should be contacted and cultivated well in advance since it is probable their phones will never stop ringing in 2005. If your news operation can financially support it, an interview trip to Washington to make direct contact with these experts and others, such as key staffers in your state's congressional delegation, will be money well spent.

The local and statewide organizations lobbying to protect bases will certainly have knowledgeable retired military people on board who can provide valuable background information and context on specific issues.

Budget and Travel.

In addition to a Washington reporting trip, you should anticipate one or more reporting trips to cover the BRAC Commission's regional hearing relevant to your community, as well as the panel's deliberative meetings (probably again in the nation's capital). Faced with competing news stories, it is important that you and your superiors plan and budget for the expenses you will incur in covering the hearings.

Start Research Immediately.

Once you have identified which bases you will be covering, if you haven't done so already, arrange for a full background briefing and tour of each facility by contacting the local base Public Affairs Office. Under the BRAC rules in effect, base commanders have been formally ordered not to discuss the "data calls" they have already sent to the Pentagon, but you can obtain a detailed profile and history of each base with ease.

Know the Competition.

One of the open secrets of the BRAC process is that your base isn't being judged in the BRAC process with every other military base - it's being measured against other bases of the same category. If there is an Air Mobility Command base in your area - belonging to the Air Force command in charge of aerial refueling and/or transportation of troops and equipment worldwide - that base will not be judged against a naval submarine base or Army maneuver area. It will be weighed against other large Air Force bases. One of your first research tasks will be to assemble a matrix of all of the bases "competing" with yours. (See "List of Military Installation Categories" on the MRE website).

Research Past BRAC Rounds.

There are a handful of military bases that were on the Pentagon's recommended closure list in past BRAC rounds. Study that list to see if any of your targeted bases escaped closure in prior years. Odds are, they will be on the 2005 list. This alone would constitute an excellent in-depth article - "How Fort Smith escaped closing in 1993."

Look at the Overseas Picture.

Study your local bases and military units to see if they have any past or current link to either the massive Cold War military infrastructure or the ongoing occupation of Iraq and operations in Afghanistan. The chances are that if, say, your Army base has part of a division whose brigades are still based in Germany, the ongoing review of foreign basing may result in a major unit redeployment announcement (or maybe not: the Army already has split up several of its divisions among two separate bases in the United States).

Don't Overlook the Military "Jointness" Revolution.

Does your area have an Army depot that is only half-used? That could bring either great or terrible news next year. Even today, the different military services manage their own support infrastructure such as medical facilities, research labs, repair depots, communications commands, undergraduate pilot training bases and the like. The Pentagon has all but publicly announced it plans to take a hard, deep look at this tradition, which produced a huge amount of duplication and waste. Anticipate the DoD to recommend, and the BRAC 2005 commission to approve, massive realignments of such support units. During your research it will be important to itemize the various functional support elements at each base.

Life after Base Closure.

If a local base in your community ends up on the closure list, it will mark the end of a military history chapter but will also mark the beginning of a new community redevelopment effort that can over the long term be as beneficial, if not even more so, than the military base it replaced. Should this occur, you can anticipate months and years of planning, cooperation and political intrigue as the base is transferred to either state or local ownership.

In either event, journalists should gird themselves for a wild roller-coaster ride of a year in 2005.

Footnote: As for Fort McClellan, the base that Alabama Sen. John Sparkman had vowed would never close? Sparkman retired from the Senate in January 1979 after 42 years of service. Fort McClellan was finally shuttered as a result of the 1995 BRAC hearings - 22 years after the Army had originally decided it didn't need the base.

Ed Offley is a Director of Military Reporters & Editors and is Editor of DefenseWatch magazine at SFTT.org. A military reporting specialist for 23 years, he covered all three previous BRAC rounds while working at The Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

---

The MRE website is designed and maintained by:

Copyright © 2007 - Military Reporters and Editors