2005 CPEO Military List Archive

From: Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>
Date: 3 Mar 2005 07:24:40 -0000
Reply: cpeo-military
Subject: [CPEO-MEF] Plan B
Best to have a Plan B if bases close 

March 3, 2005

The military installations in our state are essential for national
defense and homeland security. We are not thinking of our own interests,
of course, or the considerable economic contributions those bases make,
but the greater good of the republic, the safety of our citizens and
protection of our interests abroad.

Or so say we. And so say the other 49 states, each with equally vital
military facilities.

The Base Realignment and Closure Commission begins its work later this
year on recommendations to the president and Congress, but already the
lobbying has started from Washington, and presumably from every other state.


But the closure process promises to raise some interesting questions
both nationally and around here:

*	Will these decisions really be made on the criteria of national
security, or on the basis of which assemblage of congresspeople yelp the
loudest and most effectively?

*	What if the commission and the president and Congress do not agree
with this state's lofty opinion of the importance of those bases? Does
the state have a Plan B?


For the entire column, see


Lenny Siegel
Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
c/o PSC, 278-A Hope St., Mountain View, CA 94041
Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
Fax: 650/961-8918
Military mailing list
  Prev by Date: [CPEO-MEF] "U.S. seeking looser environmental laws"
Next by Date: [CPEO-MEF] Soviet nuke site
  Prev by Thread: Re: [CPEO-MEF] "U.S. seeking looser environmental laws"
Next by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] Soviet nuke site

CPEO Lists
Author Index
Date Index
Thread Index