Military base closings

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Sun, 22 Jul 2001 12:28:50 GMT

FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED JULY 20, 2001
THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
Military base closings

How large should America's peacetime military establishment be?

The question reminds us that America's founders wanted no "standing army" at all. In fact, they solemnly promised supporters and skeptics alike there would never be one. The clause "but no Appropriation of Money for that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years" was surely more than a mere bookkeeping reminder, back in 1787, that ongoing budgets and allocations needed to be rubber stamped again ever 24 months.

Would mere bookkeeping procedures merit 17 words and all those capital letters, placed in the same sentence for all the world as though they were somehow supposed to restrict the congressmen's newly delegated power "to raise and support Armies"?

Deeply concerned about the risk of armed federal troops coming to be used as domestic police, the founders in fact meant that every two years the public and its delegates should look around, determine whether the nation was at war, and -- if not -- have any remaining troops stack their arms in the armories, pay them off, and send them home.

One suspects that, today, folks like Mr. Jefferson would have added to the list of those to be regularly cashiered such armed (and now often uniformed, in frightening black) paramilitary forces as the DEA, the BATF, the FBI Hostage Elimination Team, and the IRS "Criminal Division," as well. (Is it "criminal" to decline to voluntarily subject oneself to a tax on "individuals," when "individuals" are defined for purpose of the statute as (a) aliens living domestically or (b) aliens living abroad?)

Interestingly, the authority to fund a Navy is listed separately from the "no more than two years" provision in the Constitution's First Article, and thus does not fall under it. This makes sense; one could hardly sell off all our warships for scrap, then hope to build more in time for the next unexpected war.

One of the big movies this summer is another re-enactment of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor; it's a useful reminder that enemies don't always give you years to ready yourself (even if the historical evidence is now conclusive that Mr. Roosevelt and his staff knew an attack was forthcoming somewhere.)

Of course, some will argue there is no peace today -- that America is constantly engaged in a kind of low-level war around the globe, a war which requires -- as one admiral of the "SEAL" persuasion declared this weekend in Las Vegas -- that he maintain a staff of 21,000 "shooters," keeping one-third on station around the globe at any given time, the better to respond to terrorism against America's citizens "and her customers."

The question of whether such an armed presence all around the world is merely prudent -- or sometimes tempts us to meddle in the affairs of foreign nations in ways so provocative as to foment terrorism -- we will leave for another day. (American agents did, within living memory, overthrow the legally elected government of Iran, did they not?)

In the end, most Americans concur that the nation should endeavor never be caught as unprepared as she was by the attacks of December, 1941. Some skeletal military establishment should be maintained. The question is how much, and what kind, and where.

Last week, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mike Ryan told the Senate Armed Services Committee, "Absolutely. Yes, sir," when asked if he agreed with President Bush that America operates too many military bases today.

The service has saved $4 billion to $5 billion a year from previous closures, Ryan told committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., yet the Air Force remains "over-based for the force structure it has today."

With the chiefs and civilian secretaries of the other branches joining in this request that they be allowed to focus their limited resources at fewer locations, one could well wonder why on earth those extra facilities hang on.

As though bent on giving us our answer, Sens. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., and Max Cleland, D-Ga., used the occasion of last week's hearings to denounce the Air Force's decision to cut the B-1 bomber fleet by one-third as a cost-saving measure, eliminating those now operated at Air National Guard bases ... in Kansas and Georgia.

What a coincidence, that this concern over a reduction in readiness to bomb foreign targets would come not from senators representing the citizens of Idaho and Indiana (who are surely just as concerned about our military preparedness), but rather from the senators of Kansas and Georgia ... the very states where the National Guards are to be reassigned.

I'm dabbling in irony, of course. The reason this protest comes from Sens. Roberts and Cleland depends not a whit on whether the present siting of these bombers contributes to our national security -- the senators (now popularly elected, and thus acting as mere jumped-up Representatives, which the founders never intended) are simply ringing their own states' dinner bells, jealously guarding the jobs and cash such basings inject into the economies of their home states.

Fortunately, once the initial fear of change is overcome, many states have actually found such base closings to be "win-win" situations. From the Presidio in San Francisco to Quonset Point in Rhode Island, local communities have found that replacing the bare-bones, peacetime military use of prime and strategically located real estate with tax-paying, private sector residential, commercial and industrial activity actually ends up generating more jobs and money for the local economy.

(The only surprise is that this should surprise us. Were we under the impression the method of asset allocation practiced in the Soviet Union worked out well?)

When the heads of every branch of the armed services say they want more bases closed, so they can make more efficient use of the "mere" $329 billion President Bush has proposed giving them next year (the Navy alone will get $24.6 billion to build new ships -- the admirals would like $34 billion), Congress should listen up.

Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Subscribe to his monthly newsletter by sending $72 to Privacy Alert, 561 Keystone Ave., Suite 684, Reno, NV 89503 -- or dialing 775-348-8591.

Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com

"When great changes occur in history, when great principles are involved, as a rule the majority are wrong. The minority are right." -- Eugene V. Debs (1855-1926)

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken

Add comment Edit post Add post

Previous Posts:
I must be paranoid; I still believe in communists
I'm Back
Last Day in Ukraine
The transparent sham of the 'public meeting'
The hidden war on academic achievement
'Flag desecration amendment' does not improve with age
National Firearm Purchase Day
Do Something
Barring the people from the land
Oink for Liberty

Navigation

History

Quotes

Government doesn't work. Never did. Never will. Can't. But there are lots of good people. Love them.

-- Bill St. Clair

The Atlanta Declaration

Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission.

-- L. Neil Smith

Reread that pesky first clause of the Second Amendment. It doesn't say what any of us thought it said. What it says is that infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms is treason. What else do you call an act that endangers "the security of a free state"? And if it's treason, then it's punishable by death. I suggest due process, speedy trials, and public hangings.

-- L. Neil Smith

A Penalty Clause for the Bill of Rights

Any official, appointed or elected, at any level of government, who attempts, through legislative act or other means, to nullify, evade, or avoid the provisions of the first ten amendments to this Constitution, or of the Thirteenth Amendment, shall be summarily removed from office, and, upon conviction, deprived of all pay and benefits including pension, and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

-- L. Neil Smith

Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a single gun control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents.

-- John Lott, commenting on the National Academy of Sciences report on gun control laws.

Who is a libertarian?

Zero Aggression Principle ("Zap")

"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."

-- L. Neil Smith

(Formerly called the "Non-Aggression Principle", or "NAP")

Why Did It Have to be... Guns?

Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

-- L. Neil Smith

Concise

"Tell me," I was once asked, "What do you think about gun control? Give me the short answer." To which I replied, "If you try to take our firearms we will kill you."

-- Mike Vanderboegh

Also from The Atlanta Declaration:

... like going to the bathroom, breathing, eating, sleeping, or making love, it turns out that self-defense is a bodily function one cannot safely or effectively delegate to a second party.

-- L. Neil Smith

This does not mean that "Marijuana should be available by prescription." It means that morphine sulfate should be available in five pound bags at the supermarket for a couple of bucks, like sugar... but probably in a different aisle, to avoid confusion.

-- Vin Suprynowicz

If you refuse to pay unjust taxes, your property will be confiscated. If you attempt to defend your property, you will be arrested. If you resist arrest, you will be clubbed. If you defend yourself against clubbing, you will be shot dead. These procedures are known as the Rule of Law.

-- Edward Abbey

The state can only survive as long as a majority is programmed to believe that theft isn't wrong if it's called taxation or asset forfeiture or eminent domain, that assault and kidnapping isn't wrong if it's called arrest, that mass murder isn't wrong if it's called war.

-- Bill St. Clair