Close Unnecessary Bases, Save Lives!

Close Unnecessary Bases, Save Lives!

Make the U.S. Military More Effective and Efficient!

Congress: Close Half of the 800 Domestic/Foreign Bases in 70 Countries!
The recent fiasco in Niger where four brave warriors were ambushed by a terrorist group underscores a serious problem. I have been a constant and constructive critic of our military which I have served in one way or another [pro bono] for several decades. Previously, I focused on the need for DOD to develop clear strategies and beef up requirements for tactical, operational expertise/support.

Now I am calling out the self-serving congressional representatives who refuse to close a significant number of our unnecessary bases both at home and overseas. The reason for these closures is obvious. We don’t need them in a 21st century hi-tech military which relies on cyber weapons and advanced weapons systems. Such modern technology can be placed in anywhere and everywhere.

These unnecessary bases supposedly provide an income source for the congressional constituents in all of our states. However, they are in fact sucking away valuable resources needed for increased training and military support for our forward based fighting troops.

The example of Niger is perfect. We provided four military operatives to the Niger military. As a result of the absence of funding for American air support, we had to rely on the French fighter jets which could not arrive in time. Had we the necessary funds to station fighter jets beyond the purview of Djibouti, these four warrior lives might have been saved.

Here is how the math works out when we have bases that provide civilian jobs but provide absolutely no military value.

In fiscal year 2014, bases and troops overseas cost over $100B. Total warzones maintenance cost us close to $200B. [Politico, David Vine 7/15].

A nine member BRAC Commission, consisting primarily of civilians recommended the closing of the following bases in 9/15/11: [Wikipedia]

  • Fort McPherson, Georgia
  • Fort Gillem, Georgia
  • Naval Submarine Base New London in Connecticut.
  • Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Maine
  • Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota
  • Fort Monmouth in New Jersey
  • Defense and Accounting Service in New York
  • Fort Monroe , Virginia
  • Brooks City Base, Texas

The list today is even larger.  Almost every state has old unnecessary bases that are sucking the money away from job training for actual 21st occupations. Americans are caught in a symbiotic bad relationship between our so-called representatives and our military force structure.  Representatives, whether Dems or Reps, have held the military bases hostage as way of forcing our military to remain in places they don’t belong. Example: Ohio Republican Senator Rob Portman insisted that his citizens build the outdated Abrams tanks which our Pentagon informed him were completely useless. He built them despite the fact that it drained hundreds of millions of dollars from our fighting forces  [Ret. Chairman JCS Army General Marty Dempsey fought against this waste of money but unfortunately lost]. Portman like most of the privileged conservative/neocon Dartmouth draft-dodgers [worked for Robert Zoelleck another MIA in the US military], wasted countless billions of dollars that could have been used for increased training and aerial support for troops in overseas combat areas.

I am sick and tired of listening to the arcane, inane, entitled congressmen/senators who never served our country in real combat situations sit in their ivory towers absent of concern for our budgets and national security.

As a veteran of several overseas conflict zones, I have a duty as an American citizen to deride our so-called representatives who are too busy traveling around the world like Republicans Portman, and Ted Yoho [ AWOL after Fla. Storms]  than worrying about their constituents and our DOD force structure. It’s time to replace them as well as increase the powers of the BRACs.

Thomas Paine, said the following:

“I prefer peace. But if trouble must come, let it come in my time, so that my children can live in peace.” 

Also he added:

“Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.”  

Related posts

32 thoughts on “Close Unnecessary Bases, Save Lives!

  1. Chia Cha

    Information warfare, mafia games, using other peoples resources. That is more economical. All other adopted to american game already. America is becoming stupid power. You say one, to america, then you play with russian and chinese mafia, and because of much hollywood movies about mafia, even CIA thinks that is pro-american. If it looks american it is not pro-american. Others are now soft power capitalists also and are doing better job (in sense of return on investmetnts even they do not have such big printing presses)…

  2. Chia Cha

    Imagine what would happen when financial stimulus in combination with lower taxation starts. (never done in combination ever, anywere on west). When those international communists are removed. Plus high interest rates to debtors. Hi hi hi.


    The Zionist neocons are going to keep America at wars for as long as the Zionists maintain control of the U.S. government. While I agree with Pieczenik , unfortunately America is destined to be destroyed by the perpetual wars that the Zionists have planned for us.

    To see what the Zionists have caused read The Report From Iron Mountain and Orwells 1984, the die has been cast.

    1. Chia Cha

      Wars are good if that is only way how to not have war at home. We should be little realistic. Problem with neocons was that they relied on liberal capitalism too ideologically. They do not have experience in ruling at all. Village people bureaucrats, ideologues. System thought, now we will put on power ideologues which are not going to meddle in economy and we in economy will do what is best only for economy. Wars will give us engough resources so no one will have to meddle in our economy, we will even deregulate everything. Well it does not work like that. Every economy is combination of fedualism, slavery, capitalism and sociali.m, was from time of cave, and allways will. Evidence is that there nothing fifth.

      1. DESERT FOX

        You are insane.

        1. Chia Cha

          People who think think that flavour of some group are producing systems, not necessity, and system and group as such, alone, are insane. Everyone is trying to survive. Just some could do it little better.

        2. Chia Cha

          Therefore you are moron.

        3. LBZ

          Accurate and concise response to this psycho “Chia Cha” whatever it may be. Perhaps h3/she is a former patient of Dr. P. Then again, may Chia Cha is still a patient. Why else would the spamming that comes out of that junk mind be tolerated by Dr. P and his webmaster?

          1. Chia Cha

            Bureaucrat!!! Go in to cave… And get trimmed. Government communist.

          2. Chia Cha

            Ok I made mistakes: 1. You never talk about rope in household of hanged. 2. Peoples are animals who does not like mirrors where above is written above word: ANIMAL. 3. Even if you die famous and people will remember you (as they will those lunatics like Napoleon, Hitler and Einstain, for ever), problem is that you will not care because we are all going to die. No one ever escaped.

  4. Chia Cha

    US can be proud on such base, it looks beautiful. It would be very nice facility of 3rd cyber division of US airforce. Which would be wrong. US armed forces should have 5 branches. Army, navy, airforce, space and cyber command. Everyone with own admirals and generals.

    1. Chia Cha

      Therefore I am genius. If you want change bureaucracy, inflate formal order of military. Eveyone would love it. Bureaucracy would love and accept it even they will end up with less jobs. If you want to trim down bureacracy give new formal shape to military caste. Beside right now not even bureaucrat can think that hacker should be bureaucrat. Only coca cola and donut producers.

  5. The Constitutional limit on two years for the funding of armies forces a defensive posture, and prohibits long term military industrial complex confrontations, aside from naval. The question of WW II might come up, with Japan in mind, but such a campaign could have been carried out largely navy on navy, until a blockade of Japan and pummeling of the coast could have been carried out. Eventually Japan would have run out of fuel and would have been unable to have a functioning war machine. This would have left the mainland of Japan vulnerable to an invasionary army or aerial bombardment of the leadership until it collapsed. Same end with a different military structure. It would have required an appropriate logistics structure along a northern route, but was doable. For Europe, it would have forced a strategy for taking Berlin more directly, forcing Germany to focus on removing forces from the places it was occupying or risk having the head cut off. Also doable. Maneuver warfare, not old continental force on force. Far less destructive, and not requiring a Marshall Plan to reconstruct an entire continent. High initial cost, but long term, far less. One that would not have required the US to team up with the USSR and give half of Europe to it, including Poland, which was the line in the sand that got the whole war going to begin with.

    1. Chia Cha

      US can win any war as long as US can: 1. Occupy in any moment Africa 2. impose sea blockade of Eurasian landmass and sunk eveything floating around. Americas fought for Pacif once, and americans will have to fight for Pacific again.

    2. That’s the point. Yet wars are being waged in a particular way. Apathy is one of the most effective weapons of war. Yet wars are being waged in a way that requires large militaries. The overall focus of the thread focuses on facilities, primarily domestic, rather than facilities overseas. Facilities being utilized to maintain a large footprint with no real resolution. To be serious about costs, it is this presence and the methods which perpetuate it that are of primary concern. Listing of a handful of domestic facilities rather than the much greater and almost entirely unnecessary foreign facilities, many of them quite redundant, does not address the primary cause. Facilities to fight wars which are now very unlikely to be fought, that the US is wasting money on.

    3. There is no need for a Pacific war with the US, the US is being acquired. The Chinese presence in the Pacific seems to be aimed at intimidating would be local challengers/countries.

    4. If China stopped shipping goods to the US, the US would collapse overnight, and the military would become almost instantly financially unsustainable, riots, and China could step in as the primary superpower, no bullets fired by China. While US assets become cheap and China has tons of money in reserves. If China blamed the US, half the US population would blame the US. A hot civil war could erupt in the US, tearing the US military to shreds through disintegration. Again, no bullets fired by China. No, not a US Pacific war.

      1. Chia Cha

        China thinks they just need those long range land-sea rocket launchers and then they will be ready Philippines without going in full war. Plus China cannot do anything to USA economically, but militarily they can.

      2. Chia Cha

        US controls trade routs on sea… Money is in trade, not in production.

      3. You’re kidding, right? Look on the shelves and read the “Made In” labels. If that place stopped shipping to us overnight, the economy would crash, at least for a while. Neither can do anything with military due to MAD. Production is wealth creation, the rest is currency circulation.

        1. Chia Cha

          You have to sell what you have produced right?

  6. And that is the interesting question. There is a yes answer, and a no answer. And there are conditions which must exist for either answer. China also has a vast untapped resource, a domestic market. Remember, economy is about flow, and while the populace in China is poor, that condition could change by changing the flow. Selling to foreign countries is one possible market, but it is not the only one.

    1. Part of the US trade policy by US companies moving to China is to exploit cheap labor to increase profits from import sales within the US. Part is based with getting their foot in the door into China in the hopes they will have access from the start to over a billion potential consumers, should the flow within China change.

      1. Chia Cha

        Yes but chinese are not idiots, they know that by giving more of consumer goods to own people, people will have more of political
        means (power). In best case scenario for us, that would be end of China as unified country. Problem is of course in US, because evidence shows that American capitalists will give consumer goods to people only when they are fighting non american communists who are activly exporting communist revolution. China is on path of victory because: 1. China is not exporting revolution for US to win again. 2. China is becoming consumer society for US to win again. China would become consumer society: 1. if they would be one who control trade routes and 2. if they would have US as communist nation exporting communist revolution.

        1. Chia Cha

          sorry. 2. China is not becoming even half consumer society for US to win again on terms where US in controling trade routes.

      2. Chia Cha

        US today is half middle class society only because: 1. US is controling trade routes, but it is not fully because: 1. trickle down does not work in global economy 2. there is no need for trickle down because there no government force is exporting communist revolution around world. 3. rich does not need trickle down. To fight america who won cold war, China have adopeted on american terms.

      3. On your first 1 and 2, 1 China is exporting the revolution through investment in the US, 2 China is maintaining a limited consumer economy. For your second 1 and 2, 1 there is no such thing as trade routes anymore only export/import policies, 2 China is buying op Hollywood to export the revolution through the hugely successful “entertainment” industry. And yes, they are not idiots, in terms of consumer goods. The point was though, that US companies are operating under the false assumptions in their long term strategy, and that China does not need a foreign market in order to produce meaningful wealth and maintain an economy if the US economy collapsed. If China were to decide collapse of the US economy were preferable to current value acquisition, which is not a likely decision at this point. On your third 1-3, 3 the elites are handing the US over to China and China has adapted itself to that. They are not idiots, but they are not innovators, they are followers. Their revolution was not their creation, nor were they the leaders of it, not even Mao.

        1. Chia Cha

          Yea but I think that YT is new Hollywood, they sold Hollywood because capitalists always sell when something is expensive (and will become old and cheap because they decided to move money from there) and they only buys when something is cheap. And then they make cheap expensive just by putting their money there, and atracthing those who follow them behind, simply because when thay put money there that thing starts to have growth. Than they sell that again. Beside for propaganda YT is much cheaper. How much you have to invest in one hollywood star and how much in one amateur YT studio, plus in hollywood no one belives.

        2. Chia Cha

          As long you have US navy around China will never go to develop middle class and consumer society. Imagine if China would have consumer society while US navy is controling all trade routes around and CIA decides prices of every needed material on COMEX. That would be ultimate dream of US capitalists, evey chinses capitalist would become US agent, and then capitlists them self would become more important then party. America from 1920es have that dream about China as big consumer market. Plus chinese cannot have consumer society because they cannot buy enough resources on their own terms. They have little consumer class, but all those are party members and their families, under ideological control or central committee. No government will give material resources to someone who is not controlled and controlled are only those control those who are harder to control. Haiti is easy to control, therefore they does not need to be controled, that is why capitalsits will not invest anything there.

      4. Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noriega, Mobutu Sese Seko, Fidel Castro, all Manchurian candidates of a sort put in place by what Agency, what Department? Which brings to mind the 1961-1963 guy, did he start the wars in the 1940s-1960s, put all those people in place? Before he was anybody? From the grave? No, the same Agency, the same Department. Not 1961-1963 guy.

      5. China buys Hollywood, and all of a sudden there is a purge? After all these years? This is more like a house cleaning to make way for new heads, new talent, for the new owner. Their revolution is alive and well, just without all the death. Well, at least for now. The safe move for some seems to be to talk crazy and fade back out of the limelight to the point of being unnoticed, to the point of being a non-threat.

  7. Ron Sanderson

    If it’s broke don’t fix it
    Rule number one

Comments are closed.