Correct me if I am wrong, but given the number of civilians employed by the US Military and working on domestic military bases, doesn't the closing of American bases mean lost jobs rather than jobs created?
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon proposed Friday shutting about 180 military installations from Maine to Hawaii including 33 major bases, triggering the first round of base closures in a decade and an intense struggle by communities to save their facilities.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld also recommended a list of scores of other domestic installations — including 29 major bases — that will remain open but with thousands fewer troops. Dozens of others will gain troops from other domestic or foreign bases.
Overall, he has said his plan would save $48.8 billion over 20 years while making the military more mobile and better suited for the global effort against terrorism.
Rumsfeld's proposal calls for a massive shift of U.S. forces that would result in a net loss of 29,005 military and civilian jobs at domestic installations. He proposes pulling a total of 218,570 military and civilian positions out of some U.S. bases while adding 189,565 positions to others, according to documents obtained by The AP. End slice:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Given the history of this administration, I can't help but wonder what their real motives are.
Real motives? To prove their worth as soothsayers
Rumsfeld consulted his crystal ball. He claims to know what direction war-fighting will take over the next 20 years. Just like he knows today.
$48b saved over 20 years is entirely theoretical. Unless Rumsfeld's guess is perfect, the military is better off with redundancy.
I'll go with the guy who won in Afghanistan and Iraq. Which would be who?
Arrrggghh, I cannot wait until the mid-term elections
Post a Comment