BRAC
BRAC is a terrible idea. First, we don't need any loss of jobs at a time when the economy is delicate and the internal Commies are just waiting to pounce on this point. Second and more important, it's just fantastically idiotic to remove military facilities in the middle of a war.

I'll allow that some rearrangement was needed in the early '90s. We were focused mainly on halting a Russki land advance through Berlin, which was somewhat less likely after Germany was re-united and became our enemy again.

But Rumsfeld is fixated on leanness to the point of anorexia. Every time he looks in a mirror he says "We're still too fat! Need to eat less! Need to vomit more!"

No, no, no, no, no.

Military operations are BY DEFINITION wasteful and fat.

The best military is 100% inefficient: when we "waste" huge amounts on fortification and soldiers without ever needing to use them, we know our defense is adequate.

We spent the last 60 years building up muscles and bones in the form of troops and bases. The troops are, of course, "renewable", but the bases aren't. Each base we lose means less flexibility, not more. An existing set of buildings and equipment, even if obsolete, is ready to use immediately for some purpose, even if only to store things in a protected perimeter.

You might say: Oh, we can just buy a few square miles where we need it. That was true in 1940, before the state-sponsored terrorist organization named EPA took control of all US property transactions, and before historical preservation, endangered species, wetland preservation, hidden asbestos, groundwater leakage, aquifer protection, Superfund, brownfield racial effects ... I'm sure you can name a dozen more.

Because of all that bullshit, a sane property owner will take great pains
to hold onto every square inch of improved land. Lose it, and it's gone forever. In many cases it can't even be taken over by non-military users, because of the tyrannical restrictions in the above list. So it just rots.
  ¶ 3:13 PM