According to the Department of Army’s July Report to Congress, the U.S. Army plans to cut 40,000 soldiers by end of fiscal year (FY) 2017. The reductions were announced this summer, but the full report was recently made available as the result of a Freedom of Information Act request. This reduction comes on the heels of the 80,000 the Army had already cut since 2010. The Army’s report lists six bases that will be reduced by more than 1,000 soldiers: Fort Benning (Georgia), Fort Bliss (Texas), Fort Hood (Texas), Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (Alaska), Joint Base Lewis-McChord (Washington), and Schofield Barracks (Hawaii). But the impact of the troop reductions will be felt across the military.
The Army reports that the force reduction will not impact its ability to defend the U.S. from threats abroad. The Army also reported on general economic impacts to the local economies of the six bases. The Army specifically reported the impact to private sector jobs near the bases; however, the number of impacted federal contractors or federal civilian employees were not identified. The report also does not include any bases that are cutting less than 1,000 soldiers.
Better than BRAC?
Instead of implementing a round of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC), the Pentagon is achieving the necessary reduction in force, seemingly one slice at a time. Without more money in the budget, the Army cannot continue to operate without the cuts. While a BRAC could be more efficient, it has been Congress‘ least desired path.
Some argue that the slow bleed process is worse than biting the bullet with a BRAC. Uncertainty for the local economies is sometimes harder to deal with than a base closure. By the end of FY2017, the Army will have lost 120,000 soldiers, a 20 percent reduction in force. At some point, Congress will have to address our shrinking military and discuss base closures.
Congress may start to demand more data that supports the excess infrastructure claims. However, it comes down to the budget. No money in the budget means that the Army has to make cuts. Local economic struggles won’t be the game changer in stopping reduction in force or base closures. Global dangers to national security will change the coarse of action.
