BRAC reaction

In responding, Virginia must look to the future, guided by the facts

August 31 2005

Gov. Mark Warner gave his annual summer fiscal talk to the legislative money committees on Monday and chose to "digress" over to the subject of the BRAC process and its impact on Virginia.

The governor offered a short preamble, saying, "Virginia has a long and unique relationship with America's armed services."

Yeah? How about that relationship Virginia had with the federal government in the mid-19th century?

Sad to say, whether contending with George McClellan's 1862 tour up the Peninsula or waving bye-bye to Fort Monroe in 2005, there's always a lot of wringing of hands and sorting out to do.

This go-around, there's a net gain in federal military and defense employment for Virginia, but as Warner pointed out, more than "100,000 jobs - not including any at Oceana - will either be moved into Virginia, moved out of Virginia, or moved from one duty station to another within Virginia."

By gosh, there are even "implications," Warner says.

Yes, governor, there are - and if enough public heads think realistically and intelligently about the subject, we might even come out ahead.

To begin, stop talking about "partnerships." The federal government and the states are no more partners than Virginia state and local governments are partners. There are plenty of opportunities for cooperation between levels of governments, but these are power relationships etched out in the highest laws of the land.

The states rule local governments, and, when it comes to defense, you better believe the feds call the shots over the states. Which is as it should be.

At some point in the post-World War II era - after the United States decided that standing armies were a good idea in the Cold War - localities became confused and started thinking that defense spending constituted some sort of entitlement. It can't work that way.

The Defense Department has the job of protecting the nation - that's why we call it the "defense" department - with substantial but not inexhaustible resources to do it. When it comes to employing, deploying or locating those resources, the Defense Department, with congressional oversight, must have the ability to do so.

The governor plans to appoint four "working groups" charged to look at what the base closing commission wrought and develop a plan of action. One working group will focus on the Peninsula and the proposed closure of Fort Monroe, as well as changes affecting Fort Eustis and Langley Air Force Base.

Excellent. The state should labor to clear any and all barriers to Hampton being able to advance the redevelopment of Fort Monroe. Heaven only knows what lies buried in that grand and historic moated citadel, so we better squeeze the feds for the money to clean it up.

About Oceana and the stringent conditions the base closing commission attached to its continued operation in Virginia Beach: The temptation is to say, "turn out the lights, the party is over. Let's not throw good money after bad." The governor, however, seems interested in rallying the troops. We'll see. But a couple of points need to be made and repeated.

For starters, Virginia Beach made its choice a long time ago by allowing residential and commercial growth to encroach upon the base - incrementally, yes, but conclusively. And so here we are today, looking for statewide commitment to bail out a single, wealthy locality for its repeated failures of planning.

Another point: Some of the immediate reaction over Oceana's demise has been, if not preposterous, a little overwrought. Ever since the controversial Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain, Virginia politicians have been lining up to sing the glories of private property. In the wake of that, the city of Virginia Beach is going to bulldoze 1,800 homes and businesses in order to meet conditions set for keeping Oceana? Yeah, right.

Let's be real, too, about the broader context in which these decisions are being made. Simply put, Florida needs Republican votes more than Virginia does, if, perchance, the calculus of presidential politics is considered. Which might suggest why Florida is suddenly the location of choice for the relocation of Oceana's jets. And if you put the planes in Florida, that gives you a better argument for putting one of the Norfolk-based carriers down there to replace the USS John F. Kennedy once it goes out of service.

Oh, you thought BRAC got the politics out of base closures? Man, then you need to trip out to South Dakota to visit the last line of defense against the hordes of Manitoba: Ellsworth Air Force Base.

Sorry to say, but South Dakota's newly minted Republican Sen. John Thune proved a more important commodity to the White House than the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, John Warner. Thune, you see, unseated the then-Senate minority leader, Democrat Tom Daschle, by campaigning in part on a promise that he could save Ellsworth. There's no threat to John Warner in Virginia, but Thune's position may be less secure. Call it investing in the future.

And speaking of investing in the future, Mark Warner and the leadership of Virginia Beach need to be very careful about their next steps regarding Oceana. Are there guarantees that Oceana's jets will stay if the state and the city spend millions of dollars? No, there are not.

So the task must not be defined in narrow terms of "saving" Oceana. It's to look at the facts, and on the basis of those facts pursue the best possible outcome. It's to look ahead, not claw after the past.