Defense officials are refereeing a control-and-culture clash between the Air Force and its sister services over a requirement to create 12 joint bases out of 25.
The 25 bases, it seems, already are run by their favorite service.
The mandate for joint bases is part of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure plan which became law in November of that year. The Air Force is to manage six joint base sites, the Navy four and the Army two.
But the Air Force, which for decades has spent more proportionally on quality of life programs and facilities, is wringing its hands and, critics contend, dragging its feet over the prospect of giving the Army control of McChord Air Force Base in the Tacoma area and the Navy control of Hickham AFB, Hawaii; Bolling AFB, Washington D.C.; and Anderson Air Base in Guam.
Air Force officials argue, at every opportunity, that their bases alone are fighting platforms for their aircraft and thus must be maintained in top form as the Navy strives to maintain its ships and the Army and Marine Corps sustain their deployed ground forces.
The Army, Navy and Marine Corps, on the other hand, are known to defer base maintenance from time to time when dollars are needed for other priorities. The Air Force fears that might occur under joint basing arrangements, reducing the quality of life and harming readiness at bases where the Air Force has lost control.
Under BRAC 2005, the Navy is to command jointly Naval Station Pearl Harbor and Hickham AFB; Naval Base Guam and Anderson Air Base; Naval Annex Anacostia in Washington D.C. and Bolling AFB; and Naval Station Norfolk, Va., and Fort Story. The Army is to manage jointly Fort Lewis, also near Tacoma, and McChord, and to do the same in northern Virginia with Fort Myer and nearby Henderson Hall for the Marine Corps.
The Air Force is to manage jointly Charleston AFB in South Carolina and Naval Weapons Station Charleston; McGuire AFB in New Jersey with Fort Dix and the Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst; Andrews AFB in Maryland with embedded Naval Air Facility Washington; Elmendorf AFB and Fort Richardson in Alaska; Lackland and Randolph AFBs in San Antonio along with Fort Sam Houston; and Langley AFB in Virginia with Fort Eustis.
Rep. Jim Saxton, R-N.J., a joint basing advocate, is losing patience with the Air Force, seeing its objections as bogging down the alignment group. He warns that Congress might have to intervene. Saxton pressed William Anderson, assistant secretary of the Air Force for installations, environment and logistics, to explain his service’s resistance to joint basing during a recent hearing of the House armed services subcommittee on readiness.
The Air Force supports joint basing and knows it can produce efficiencies, Anderson said. If done right, he said, it can enhance quality of life for members of all services. But the Air Force is fighting to have joint basing tested first at two or three sites.
“If we’re going to have a joint base, in our view, it ought to be truly a joint base,” said Keith Eastin, assistant secretary of the Army for installations and environment. Where Army is to run “the show,” he added, Air Force “ought to be giving up their TOA [total obligation authority] and they ought to be giving up their land.”
“Change is always hard, isn’t it,” said Rear Adm. Mark Handley, vice commander of Navy Installations Command. But under joint basing, he said, “most people are going to see an increase in standards across the board.”
To comment, write Military Update, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA 20120-1111, e-mail milupdate@aol.com or go to www.military.com.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
