Services clash over 'joint basing' objective
Published Thursday May 17 2007
Defense officials are refereeing a control-and-culture clash between the Air Force and its sister services over a requirement to create 12 "joint bases" out of 25.

The 25 bases, it seems, already are run by their favorite service.

The mandate for joint bases is part of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure plan, which became law in November of that year. The Air Force is to manage six joint base sites, the Navy four and the Army two.

But the Air Force, which for decades has spent more proportionally on quality-of-life programs and facilities, is wringing its hands and, critics contend, dragging its feet over the prospect of giving the Army control of McChord Air Force Base, Wash., and the Navy control of Hickham Air Force Base, Hawaii; Bolling Air Force Base, Washington, D.C.; and Anderson Air Base in Guam.

Air Force officials argue, at every opportunity, that their bases alone are "fighting platforms" for their aircraft and therefore must be maintained in top form as the Navy strives to maintain its ships and the Army and Marine Corps sustain its deployed ground forces.

The Army, Navy and Marine Corps, on the other hand, are known to defer base maintenance from time to time when dollars are needed for other priorities. The Air Force fears that might occur under joint basing arrangements, reducing the quality of life and harming readiness at bases where the Air Force has lost control.

Under Base Realignment and Closure 2005, the Navy is to command jointly the Naval Station Pearl Harbor and Hickham Air Force Base; Naval Base Guam and Anderson Air Base; Naval Annex Anacostia in Washington, D.C., and Bolling Air Force Base; and Naval Station Norfolk, Va., and Fort Story. The Army is to manage jointly Fort Lewis, Wash., and McChord Air Force Base, and to do the same in northern Virginia with Fort Myer and nearby Henderson Hall for the Marine Corps.

The Air Force is to manage jointly Charleston AFB and Naval Weapons Station Charleston; McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey with Fort Dix and the Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst; Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland with embedded Naval Air Facility Washington; Elmendorf Air Force Base and Fort Richardson in Alaska; Lackland and Randolph Air Force Bases in San Antonio along with Fort Sam Houston; and Langley Air Force Base in Virginia with Fort Eustis.

Rep. Jim Saxton, R-N.J., a joint basing advocate, is losing patience with the Air Force, seeing its objections as bogging down Base Realignment and Closure. He warns that Congress might have to intervene.

Saxton pressed William C. Anderson, assistant secretary of the Air Force for installations, environment and logistics, to explain his service's resistance to joint basing during a recent hearing of the House armed services subcommittee on readiness.

The Air Force supports joint basing and knows it can produce efficiencies, Anderson said. If done right, he said, it can enhance qualify of life for members of all services. But the Air Force is fighting to have joint basing tested first at two or three sites.

"Our position is rather than pushing 12 bases into this at one time, potentially creating 12 sets of the same mistakes, that we go through a process by which we bring mistakes up in 'beta bases' ... learn from them, fix them and then push them out to the other bases much more quickly and effectively," Anderson said.

Under the draft implementation guidance, services slated to lose management of a base are to turn over the land as well as operating dollars to the new manager. The Air Force doesn't like either of those ideas. It prefers to view joint basing as a consumer-supplier relationship, said Anderson, with the new manager providing a range of services to a consumer base which continues to control its own real estate and budget.

"The natural tension between the bill payer and the individual who provides the service is the most effective manner (for) driving costs down and driving efficient delivery of service ... If you move it all to one party, that tension and pull between a purchaser and supplier gets lost," Anderson said.

Army and Navy counterparts told Saxton they reject that approach.

"If we're going to have a joint base, in our view, it ought to be truly a joint base," said Keith Eastin, assistant secretary of the Army for installations and environment. Where Army is to run "the show," he added, Air Force "ought to be giving up their TOA (total obligation authority) and they ought to be giving up their land."

B.J. Penn, assistant secretary of the Navy, agreed. He suggested the Air Force has little reason to worry. Penn said he once commanded Naval Air Station North Island, Calif., the largest in the Navy. He had tenants of 30 squadrons, three aircraft carriers, two cruisers and various other commands.

"I was landlord, and it was very easy," Penn said.

But other Air Force officials echoed the worries of their service at other hearings. Arthur J. Myers, director of Air Force services, warned that joint basing will "have a huge adverse effect" on base morale, welfare and recreation of civilian employees. They will face changes to their retirement, medical and other benefits if moved under the Army or Navy Morale Welfare and Recreation systems.

Again, Army and Navy counterparts assured lawmakers these challenges are being worked. At Fort Lewis and McChord Air Force Base, said Brig. Gen. Belinda Pinckney, commanding general of Army Family and Morale, Welfare and Recreation Command, the goal is "take the best of both worlds."

"Change is always hard, isn't it," said Rear Adm. Mark A. Handley, vice commander of Navy Installations Command. But under joint basing, he said, "most people are going to see an increase in standards across the board."

Ellie