St. Petersburg Times
Special report
Video report
  • For their own good
    Fifty years ago, they were screwed-up kids sent to the Florida School for Boys to be straightened out. But now they are screwed-up men, scarred by the whippings they endured. Read the story and see a video and portrait gallery.
  • More video reports
Multimedia report
Print Email this storyEmail story Comment Email editor
Fill out this form to email this article to a friend
Your name Your email
Friend's name Friend's email
Your message

Pentagon makes final pitch to ease fears of base-closing panel

Associated Press
Published August 21, 2005

WASHINGTON - Pentagon officials said Saturday in their final appearance before the commission reviewing their plan to close or scale back military bases that the changes do not overestimate savings and would strengthen national security.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's representatives sought to ease concerns of the nine-member panel just days before it votes on whether to accept or reject parts of a proposal that would affect hundreds of bases. MacDill Air Force Base, which plays a pivotal role in the war on terror, is not expected to be affected.

Some commissioners still expressed skepticism.

"I still don't buy their argument about savings," said Anthony Principi, the commission's chairman.

Michael Wynne, the Pentagon's technology and weapons-buying chief who oversaw the development of the proposal, said the savings projection was "adequately defended."

The commission must send the proposal to President Bush in September and then to Congress this fall.

Previous commissions - in 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995 - changed about 15 percent of what the Pentagon proposed. Analysts expect that to happen again this time.

During the rare weekend hearing, Principi told Pentagon officials that significant questions about the plan remain.

Those include whether the plan will save $48.8-billion over 20 years as the Pentagon estimates; whether New England will be left unprotected by the closure of major bases in the region; and whether the Air Force's proposal to restructure the Air National Guard will hurt national security.

"It may sound like we're against the whole thing," said James Hill, a commissioner and a retired Army general. While much of Rumsfeld's proposal is "really well made," Hill said, "we're not going to bless it all, I suspect."

Rumsfeld has proposed shutting down or reducing forces at 62 of the largest bases and hundreds of smaller facilities.

In questioning the Pentagon's estimate on savings, the commission has pointed to its own analysis as well as a report by the Government Accountability Office that found upfront costs will total $24-billion.

That report said eliminating jobs held by military personnel would make up about half of the Pentagon's projected annual recurring savings. It also said much of that money would not be available for other uses because the jobs - and salaries - simply would be relocated.

"It doesn't appear to us the savings are real," Philip Coyle, a commissioner and former assistant secretary of defense, told officials.

The Pentagon stood by its estimates and Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey said personnel cuts in the "institutional Army" in the years ahead will produce "absolute dollars saved."

Additionally, Wynne said recommendations in the proposal "not only make economic sense but also, and primarily, military and operational sense."

Some commissioners fear the proposal could leave the Northeast unprotected. On the Pentagon's chopping block are two major New England bases - the submarine base at Groton, Conn., and the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine. Forces at the Naval Air Station in Brunswick, Maine, would be reduced drastically.

"We can provide, and believe we are providing, adequately for the area of New England as far as coverage is concerned," Wynne told commissioners.

Commissioners also are concerned about the impact of restructuring the Air National Guard on homeland security. Governors and their adjutants general, who oversee Guard forces, oppose the plan.

[Last modified August 21, 2005, 00:51:14]

Share your thoughts on this story

[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Subscribe to the Times
Click here for daily delivery
of the St. Petersburg Times.

Email Newsletters