BRAC Threat Takes DoD Budget Fight to Next Level

If the Pentagon didn't already have Congress' attention for its appeal to prevent next year's round of automatic budget cuts, it does now.

Thursday's "preview" of this year's Defense Department budget submission included the reappearance of one of Capitol Hill's most dreaded four-letter words: "BRAC." The Base Closure and Realignment process might be necessary, Pentagon officials warned, if the military services shrink as much as now planned, or more.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said that the DoD's $487 billion in reduced budget growth over the next decade, and the threat of another $500 billion in automatic growth reductions next January, might mean another round of base closures would be inevitable.

"As a result of all this, we will also need to look at facilities infrastructure, balancing overseas forward presence requirements with basing requirements back home. In this budget environment, we simply cannot sustain the infrastructure that is beyond our needs or ability to maintain," Panetta said.

The re-emergence of BRAC may have been as much a political gambit as a straightforward notice that the DoD might have to decrease its footprint around the U.S. A day after Panetta's announcement, the chiefs of the two biggest military services were split on whether they'd be affected by another BRAC, and made clear they were well away from making any decisions about the future of their bases.

In fact, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno said that even as his service plans to draw down 80,000 troops over the next six years, he didn't think that would require any major posts to close. Yet Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz said he feared the Air Force could be hit hard by a new BRAC despite its plans to reduce its force on a much smaller scale -- about 10,000 Airmen.

But whether the need is real or not, the mention of "BRAC" was radioactive in Congress, where it brought back memories of bitter competition between lawmakers trying to protect bases in their districts or dealing with the after-effects of closed or consolidated DoD facilities. The Pentagon's gamble may be that another BRAC is so unpleasant to contemplate that lawmakers would consider protecting it from next January's "sequestration" as a viable compromise.

Members of Congress in both houses wasted no time making clear that any talk of another round of BRAC closures was a non-starter.

Connecticut Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, issued a press release with two other Connecticut lawmakers calling a BRAC request "dead on arrival" if it reaches Congress.

"There is sweeping bipartisan opposition to another round of BRAC," the three wrote. "Given that the process requires congressional approval just to get off the ground, the proposal is dead on arrival."

Texas Republican Rep. Mac Thornberry, vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said he didn't expect Congress to approve a recommendation for another round of BRAC, describing the last closures as "bitter."

To be sure, Pentagon leaders said their BRAC talk was based upon an honest conclusion that a smaller future force naturally meant it would be "prudent" to consider leaving behind some bases, and not just as a threat to Congress.

"This is not a shot across anybody's bow," said Navy Capt. John Kirby, a top Pentagon spokesman.

And Schwartz said there was a case to be made for an Air Force BRAC, given that his service did not close any large installations in the last round of base closures -- even though Pentagon officials estimated the Air Force had 20 percent excess infrastructure. Since 2005, the Air Force has retired about 500 aircraft, leading Schwartz to expect to lose bases in a future BRAC.

"And so the presumption is, I think it's a fair presumption, that there's yet more excess infrastructure. And so indeed, we certainly support the proposal to go through another round of base closure analysis and execution," Schwartz said. "I think our expectation is that we would actually close bases in a future base closure round."

So Air Force base closures might be as much an example of the process catching up as a reflection of the comparatively small number of Airmen projected to leave the service.

Comparatively, the Army sustained massive closures and realignments of units over the last six years as part of BRAC. Fort Bliss, Texas, for example, added 18,000 Soldiers to its base as the 1st Armored Division completed its transfer from Germany to Texas.

"The Army went through a very significant BRAC here not too long ago. And we did a fairly significant consolidation within the Army. So for the Army, I believe a follow-on BRAC would be -- would not have as much impact on the Army because we've pretty much done what we want to," Odierno said.

"You might see a reduction in the installation, but I don't think you'll see a big installation being asked to close. We think we have the right footprint."

The Pentagon will request Congress start the first BRAC round in 2013 with the second starting in 2015, according to sources. Without Congress' support, though, the military will not receive the BRAC process Panetta has requested.

And although opponents were making their views clear in the days after Panetta's announcement, their position was not unanimous.

The ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Maryland Democrat Rep. C.A. "Dutch" Ruppersberger, said budget realities have forced the Defense Department to consider all solutions.

"The new defense budget reflects our economic reality and prioritizes planning for the threats of tomorrow: investing in cyber operations, technology-based weapons and space infrastructure. It's more modern. Our military footprint should also reflect that," he said.

As a former member of Congress himself, Panetta conceded that there are problems with the BRAC process, but he said it's the best way to reduce unnecessary defense infrastructure.

"I've been through BRAC. I know its weaknesses and its failings. Obviously, we will, we will continue to work to make sure that it's done effectively and that we achieve the savings that we hope to achieve from the process," Panetta said.