This editorial first ran in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner:
Anyone doubting the devastating effect of the plan to move Eielson Air Force Base’s F-16 fighter jets to the Anchorage area should read the Air Force’s recent announcement of public meetings to consider the idea.
The plan would transfer the 18th Aggressor Squadron — consisting of 18 “assigned” F-16s and three back-ups — from Eielson Air Force Base, just southeast of North Pole, to Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, just north of downtown Anchorage.
“This proposed relocation includes removing 623 military personnel from EAFB, transferring approximately 542 positions to JBER, and eliminating 81 positions,” the notice in the Federal Register summarized.
But that’s not all.
“The Air Force proposes to reduce military and civilian authorizations at EAFB appropriate to the command structure required for the remaining operations,” the notice continued. “Current planning estimates call for an end-state of approximately 769 appropriated funds personnel at EAFB after FY15 (559 military and 210 civilian personnel).”
Today the base is host to almost 1,900 Air Force active duty personnel. (That doesn’t include National Guard personnel.) Does this proposal mean that, within two years, Eielson’s Air Force personnel numbers could be cut by almost three-quarters? That’s stunning.
The Air Force is holding public meetings this week in Fairbanks about the plan. The meetings are designed to help the Air Force set the scope of issues to be addressed in an environmental impact statement it will prepare to describe the move.
The Air Force wants analysis of two scenarios in which Eielson would continue to host two annual training exercises. In one scenario, the F-16s would be located at Eielson for the duration of the exercises. In the other, the F-16s would fly through the area but not stop regularly at Eielson. The Air Force will also analyze the impacts of a “no action alternative,” meaning the F-16s would stay.
The meetings this week are not intended to air the full range of pros and cons offered by the move. They are designed to find out what sorts of issues the environmental impact statement should address.
That doesn’t mean the discussion should be limited to such things as pollution or wildlife, though. “Environmental impacts,” in this context, can and should include the proposal’s potentially wide range of social, economic and strategic effects here and in Anchorage.
Moving the F-16s and eliminating three-quarters of Eielson’s personnel would certainly have enormous impacts upon the Fairbanks area and its military.
Comments (7)
Add commentEielson needs to be renamed to: Pork Central
for the issue at Eielson and the movement to JBER has an ongoing theme: the local economy. The theme repeats itself in every story over the move. Eielson is a pork haven for Fairbanks.
National Defense has little to do with the move. It the growing military budget and a need to make changes that at least hold down the growth in that part of the budget. Yes the money hungry locals talk about the strategic need to keep Eielson as is. Yet they use the same rationals that have been bantered about in every base change: the possible maybe, what if, could happen lines of justification. Apparently we must rely on tactics and strategies that were developed in the 40s and 50's rather than making the transition to newer technology with superior capabilities.
Eielson like so many other bases is a cash cow for the local economy. It, like so many other bases around the world, needs to be evaluated in terms of military necessity and not how it supports the locals.
The Trough
Fairbanks is 'ground zero' for the tea party in Alaska. All those Joe Miller types demanding less government, leaner government...well, they're going to get what they've been shouting for. And now listen to them whine.
The U.S. spends more on its military than the next 15 countries...combined. And most of those other 15 are close allies. Military spending is the big hog at the discretionary budget trough - it simply must go on a diet. We'll never make headway on our deficit if we don't reduce military spending.
This move, as I understand it, is to help make the Air Force more efficient. An even more efficient move would be to assess how many F16 squadrons we actually need - maybe decommissioning is a better option than relocating?
Nothing in the editorial
Nothing in the editorial about any effects on military readiness. Just all about the cash from uncle sam. The last time I looked the government was broke. Time to save money where we can.
Nothing in the editorial
Nothing in the editorial about any effects on military readiness. Just all about the cash from uncle sam. The last time I looked the government was broke. Time to save money where we can.
Lot of tough choices the MUST be made
Cuts at Eielson will no doubt be unpopular with those making a living from the facility. Unfortunately, it is not up to the US Govt to provide jobs! It is the job of Congress to make tough decisions and balance the stinking budget for once.
Lot of tough choices the MUST be made
Cuts at Eielson will no doubt be unpopular with those making a living from the facility. Unfortunately, it is not up to the US Govt to provide jobs! It is the job of Congress to make tough decisions and balance the stinking budget for once.