Will Base Closures Change Minds?

While this is actually a serious post, I had to do this bit of silliness first. Our cat was sitting in the office watching teevee today ... or so it appeared. And what was she watching? C-Span's discussion of the base closures!


Mind you ... this is the same cat who, during the campaign, was among the legions of "Security Cats For Bush", as evidenced by this sign on her condo. (the very, very fine print says: Because we're nervous).


And now back to our regularly scheduled political discussions ......

These base closures obviously have the potential to wreak economic havoc on a lot of communities ... the worst hit being blue states, like Connecticut. And that's certainly fodder for 'discussions' with our republican ...... uh ..... brethren.

But can we also use this as a meme for Bushco's lunacy and insincerity in supporting the troops? Using the Groton nuke boat facility as an example ...... here is a base that is irreplaceable. Nuke boat bases are unlike any other in the Navy. And if Groton goes, Electric Boat, in next door New London, the only place we build nuke boats, could well go with it. Whatever you think about the military industrial complex, this one is serious. Until evry nuclear missile on earth is destroyed, these nuke boats need to remain in service.

Now, if they say there's some new overall military strategy that will be less reliant on subs (I don't see what that can be) just remind them that it was their boy who told us all there are a shitload of 'loose nukes' held by 'rogue nations' ... or was Bush lying about that too? (In actual fact, there *are* a shitload of loose nukes .... 'loose' because we don't know where they are.)

I see this type argument applying to Groton. but there's no doubt there are other cases. This is a very real threat to our national security ... wrought by the boyking himself. And since he goes biking when red alerts are called, we need to watch out for ourselves .... yanno?

Anyway, I really see this as a talking point when we talk with all those republicans out there. Find one good example of how these base closures affect national security and hammer it home. Don't argue any other aspect of this. just the national security.

If we argue it as being political, which it oh so obviously is, we lose. Argue it as a security issue and I guarantee your reasonable republican friend will listen and the ditto monkeys' heads will explode.

<edit for spelling that slipped past spell check>

Having worked near a base that CHENEY closed in '91, I can guarantee they'll lose votes.

I think this could be something that will get them mad. I heard about this on the local news today and some guy was on there saying how this was ridiculous and he seemed pissed off about this so I assume there are other's who are pissed as well. I only wonder why they're doing this. :shrug: What purpose could they have? Oh and cute on your cat (orginial poster)!

Our national treasury is being drained by the Iraq tragedy / profiteering orgy.

Maybe people will realize that drowning the government in a bathtub isn't such a smart idea, afterall.

I saw the BRAC list today, and the New London announcement had to be the most unexpected of all.

Rumsfeld is a former Navy fighter pilot, so you might expect him to have some appreciation for nuke boats. As you or someone else noted in another thread, I can't imagine most Navy brass going along with such an asinine scheme. If it's not a political ploy, then it should at least convince anyone with half a brain that this crowd is truly Bush League. Eliminating boomers is like doing away with aircraft carriers! Neither idea has been feasible since the Washington Naval Treaty. (But then, His Fraudulency and company don't know their history, either; that's why we're in Iraq!). Of course, George III knows that America can always count on the USS Seaview to handle threats foreign and domestic! (Cue the "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" theme...)

As you point out, this is a way for Democrats to play up their often-underreported concerns for national security. A friend of mine who served on the Ethan Allan has been a big Bush backer; I'll be interested to see if this news makes the scales fall from his eyes.

.... particularly a boomer sailor.

And yeah, that was my other post about this.

My only fear is that we'll get torpedoed on this by our own side. There are two schools of thought:

a) Good riddance to all of them (And from their perspective, a valid argument. And from an overall perspective, a point of view meriting serious discussion.)

b) An evolving military is a good thing, but we still need to be able to defend ourselves effectively and successfully (again a meritorius perspective and again it is worthy of serious debate)

I'm of the option b) school of thought.

While I am a Democrat and consider myself somewhat left of center, I subscribe to the "old Democrat" school of Roosevelt through Johnson (and, one could argue, Carter) that believes in a thoughtful, strong national defense. Total nuclear disarmament is great in theory, but I doubt it will ever be accomplished in fact. And given that submarines (whether with cruise missiles or SLBMs) are one of the most stealthy means of power projection, removing a linchpin of their support system is absolutely nuts. I would hope that the Democrats who are more seasoned on national security matters take the point position here; if Kerry and others frame it quickly enough, that will be seen as the "mainstream" party view. So, I too favor Option B. The whole problem with Rumsfeld's approach is that "transformation" can be negative as well as positive, and thus far he seems largely to have done the former.

Who's gonna argue with Adm Crowe? Gen McPeak? Or Gen Clark? Gen Shelton, who was working for Edwards.

These guys have gravitas and creds.

I am sure they can make the case just on Groton. But there are others, too. The AF base in SD (Ellington?) was a key SAC base that ran the planes that flew the DEW line. I'm not sure we still fly the DEW line, but the base is our only one that's both big and in the center along the Canadian border. Not that Canada's the threat, but shit from Eurasia can fly over the pole.

Then there's the very special case of Portsmouth on the Maine/New Hampshire border. That's one of the oldest (if not THE oldest) Navy base we have. If for no other reason than our national heritage it should stay open. It is truly a part of who we are.

However, I can’t help but feel that these base closings are political and will be used to shore up support for the 2006 elections. Additionally, the list provides blackmail to anybody serving the targeted districts to get on-board with the fourth Reich juggernaut.

Likewise, I agree that discussing this matter with Republican goons, the matter should be framed by national security. And besides, why should taxpayers pay to build and support new bases overseas while further contributing to the cost of mothballing and reducing our defense at home? This almost reads like a bad example from a Risk or Age of Empires strategy guide.

All I know is that logic doesn’t work on these people. You can best reach them with greed, God or fuck the gays.

...... and GI Joe.

They love GI Joe. They love to play GI Joe. They love to dress up GI Joe in his latest togs (so long as it excludes body armor and armor for the underside of GI Joe's Hummer).

No ... they'll listen when you just say to your pal Harry ..... "Hey Harry, what's this I hear about them (don't say 'Bush' ... the word makes their bash radar antenna go on red alert) wanting to close Groton (or whatever base you wanna discuss)? Don't we need nuke boats anymore? You know, Harry, there's all those loose nukes all over Eastyern Europe. Hell, even North Korea's got 'em. Maybe Iran, too. How can we get by without the nuke boats, Harry?"

What's Harry gunna say?

Nuttin'

Not a fucking thing.

I'd like to be optomistic and I am about a lot of things, but after everything that has gone down, I think people don't like to analyze the situation clearly. They love worshiping Bush and don't want to see what is going on.

They'll listen cuz its shit that interests them. Really.

on his show tonight and when he overlaid a red state/blue state map to show which states would be losing the most it showed clearly that the northeastern states would be losing the most. And as we all know they voted for Kerry.

Well as we discussed this, another poster said we should watch this closely as he felt Bush would use these base closings on up coming votes for John Bolton, SS and the judges he wants.

One of the largest bases selected to close is Groton in Conn.(Joe Lieberman's state). He's been so chummy with shrub, we might need to watch him...if he trades his votes to keep this base...

This is something we will need to keep a close eye on.