The Oklahoman: Oklahoma military installations enjoy welcome news, this time
The Oklahoman - Editorial Board
Members of Oklahoma’s congressional delegation had a somewhat muted response to the news that Fort Sill will gain from a pending military restructuring that will produce deep cuts in other installations. We share their ambivalence.
On the one hand, this is great news for Fort Sill and the Lawton area. The addition of 219 active-duty positions in the next two years will keep Fort Sill in a strong position going forward; its primary focus is on field artillery training and air defense artillery, or Fires.
As a Fort Sill official put it, adding an air defense and field artillery battalion “will help Fort Sill continue to lead the future of Fires for the Army into the 21st century.” Given the alternative, this is a tremendous shot in the arm.
That alternative included significant cuts, as will be seen at Army posts in Alaska (2,600 positions), Georgia (3,500), Texas (a total of 4,550 at two installations) and Kansas (675 at two installations). Indeed the office of U.S. Rep. Tom Cole, R-Moore, whose district includes Fort Sill, had helped Lawton-area officials prepare a report to the Army about the potential effect of the proposed reduction of about 6,800 personnel at the post. Fort Sill is home to about 10,000 active-duty and National Guard and Reserve troops and 5,000 civilian workers.
The flip side of the coin is that those other posts and their communities will feel the sting from these reductions. Additional cuts will be necessary if sequestration happens this fall. The Obama administration has previously insisted that half of all sequester cuts come from the defense budget.
The Army, which has trimmed 80,000 from its rolls since 2012, plans to reduce its active-duty force to 450,000, with most of the cuts to be implemented in fiscal years 2016 and 2017. Reducing Army personnel to that level won’t pose a significant risk to national security, according to Pentagon officials, but cutting any further very well could.
Thus the reaction of Cole, who said that while he was grateful Fort Sill wasn’t affected by the Army’s reductions, “I remain very concerned about the president’s military policy and continued determination to further cut those who volunteered to defend our nation.”
Likewise Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Tulsa, said he was pleased that none of Oklahoma’s military installations would be affected by the latest cuts. But the Army’s new cuts, in addition to reductions throughout the military in recent years due to sequestration, “puts into question our military’s capabilities to execute the requirements of our national security strategy.”
A longtime member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Inhofe has noted several times that Obama’s proposed defense budget last year would leave the United States with the smallest ground forces since 1940, the smallest fleet of ships in 100 years and the smallest tactical fighter force in Air Force history.
As long as sequestration remains a possibility, then further cuts are ahead throughout the military. The next time around, Oklahoma’s military installations might not be as fortunate as they’ve been thus far. Congressional leaders and President Obama need to find a better way to handle such a vital national interest.
Online:The Oklahoman