WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Army plans to cut 2,600 troops at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage and another 75 at Fort Wainwright in Fairbanks as part of its ongoing effort to shed 40,000 soldiers nationwide, according to Alaska's congressional delegation, which was briefed by Defense Department officials Wednesday.
Traditionally, a state's congressional delegation gets advance notice of such decisions. The official Army announcement will come Thursday afternoon in Washington, D.C.
The Army has been evaluating where to cut 40,000 troops, and concerns have been voiced in Anchorage and Washington, D.C., in recent weeks, that the Army will eliminate the 4,000-strong 4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne) of the 25th Infantry Division, stationed at JBER.
In a statement issued Wednesday, Anchorage Mayor Ethan Berkowitz quoted an Army announcement as saying the full brigade would not be axed and some 1,000 soldiers among its battalions would remain. But even if some parts of the brigade continue, the cuts would reduce the Army's strength in Anchorage to levels not seen since the 1990s, when a mobile, light-infantry division was split between Fort Richardson and Fort Wainwright in Fairbanks.
"Along with thousands of Alaskans, I find this decision devastating, far beyond what it means to our state economy, but what it means to America's defense," Alaska U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, said in a prepared statement. "It is staggering that the Obama administration is making such shortsighted decisions and ignoring the emerging threat before our noses presented by Russia, China and North Korea."
Murkowski challenged past statements by Army officials that the force reductions stem from congressionally driven budget cuts. Instead, she asserted, "Congress resolved any budgetary issues that would have made force reductions necessary."
"It's really easy to lay total blame on budget," Murkowski said in an interview. "But I think there was a decision made today as it relates to Fort Richardson that is more short-term in nature, in the sense that it allows for more resources to be deployed elsewhere, but it puts at risk or it jeopardizes our military capability and stretch in the Pacific at a time when we don't want to weaken our strength in that region."
In her conversation Wednesday with Gen. Daniel Allyn, the Army's vice chief of staff, he emphasized the cuts would remove only two-thirds of the 4th Brigade Combat Team, preserving paratrooper capabilities for the Pacific and Alaska, Murkowski said, but she expressed concern about the possibilities.
"I don't know how you could possibly cut it by two-thirds and have the capability that you need," she said.
The military has said that once made, the decision on troop cuts is final. Nevertheless, the Alaska congressional delegation, Berkowitz and Alaska Gov. Bill Walker pledged to push for a reversal of the decision, or at least a path forward for the military in Alaska.
"I am extremely frustrated with today's decision. But I take some solace that the U.S. Army left the door open to reversing this decision by not eliminating a full brigade from Alaska," Sen. Dan Sullivan of Alaska said.
Sullivan, also a Republican, said the decision "was obviously made without a full understanding of the geostrategic importance of Alaska's troops to our national security."
The Army is "removing the most Arctic-capable troops we have" at a time of "heightened threat levels in the Arctic," Sullivan said. "To me this is more bean counting than strategic thinking."
When he spoke to Defense officials Wednesday afternoon, "they kind of broadened the aperture of their decision" to say that, "essentially, literally almost every other major installation in the country has already taken cuts," Sullivan said.
"In these times of growing global threats, especially in the Asia-Pacific and Arctic regions, the Army should be increasing its presence in Alaska – not cutting it by more than 2,600 soldiers," said Republican Rep. Don Young of Alaska.
Berkowitz, who heard the news from Murkowski on Wednesday, said he's hoping to find ways to support affected troops and their families. The impact of the Army's plans on civilian employees was not clear Wednesday.
Alaska's congressional delegation has been pressing Army officials for years on the value of Alaska as a home to the Army, particularly given new attention to the Pacific theater and in the Arctic.
But the message didn't appear to hit home.
Walker spoke with Army Secretary John McHugh late Tuesday to make one last push to keep the cuts from hitting Alaska, Walker said.
"I am deeply concerned about the potential threat to the safety of Alaska and the United States in light of the U.S. Army's decision to significantly draw down the number of troops in our state," Gov.Walker said. "Given Alaska's proximity to Russia, which is increasing its presence in the Arctic, we are the nation's first line of defense," Walker said.
"The Secretary of Defense told me he wants a robust Arctic defense in the near future, the Army Chief of Staff testified on the need to maintain a strong military presence in Alaska, and this decision undercuts their clearly enunciated priorities," Murkowski said.
Upon hearing the news Wednesday morning, Berkowitz said he called the Defense Department's Office of Economic Adjustment. The director there hadn't heard about the specific troop cuts yet.
Berkowitz said he hoped Defense will conduct an economic analysis that could lead to community assistance in conjunction with the cuts.
The soldiers facing the Army's cuts "are people who are in the community. These are friends and neighbors. You have the social impacts as well as economic impacts," Berkowitz said.
"Anchorage is resilient," he said. "I just wanted to make sure that the decisions we make, we make on quality information."
Lt. Gen (Ret.) Guy C. Swan III, vice president at the U.S. Association of the Army, said there "is no doubt that communities will suffer under these reductions," which will bring the Army from 490,000 to 450,000 soldiers and reduce civilian staff nationwide.
Swan noted things "could get even worse" if budget sequestration continues, and the Army drops to 420,000 soldiers by 2020.
"Our hope is that the announcement of these reductions will be enough to change course, but that is an open question at this point," Swan said.
Correction: An earlier version of this story misspelled the last name of Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Guy C. Swan.