The Senate Armed Services Committee hears from top officials of the Air Force, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Welsh III, right, and Secretary of the Air Force Michael B. Donley, left, during a hearing on Capitol Hill in early May 2013.
The Pentagon says it doesn’t need them, can’t afford to maintain them. Two congressional panels say you’re stuck with them. At a time of federal budget squeezing, the Defense Department’s effort to close installations rendered unnecessary by troop drawdowns has hit a political wall.
The wisdom of our founders is manifest in their putting the American military under civilian authority. But the downside to that act of constitutional genius is that decisions about the armed services are sometimes made for reasons that have nothing to do with defending the country.
Pentagon leaders say troop reductions leave them with facilities they don’t need. The money is needed for training and equipment. No matter. Not only did the congressional committees turn thumbs down to base downsizing, but one says the Pentagon can’t even plan for such a possibility.
The economic impact of military facilities is often crucial to nearby communities. But economic development is not the mission of the U.S. armed services, which are being forced to cut things they need and forbidden to get rid of what they don’t need.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.