TO: U.S. Department of Defense
Dear Pentagon,
Boy, can you feel the heat coming your way from Alaska? As we're sure you know from the avalanche of hearings, research trips and phone calls since early February, plenty of Alaskans, including we The Concerned, are worried about what your restructuring plans mean for the future of the Fairbanks area.
Your most immediate plans call for moving the entire squadron of F-16s from Eielson Air Force Base to Anchorage's Elmendorf in 2013. As if Anchorage didn't already gloat over the more plentiful restaurant options it has compared to the Golden Heart, if your plans come to fruition, it'll also have one more aggressor squadron. Fairbanks may never hear the end of it.
Prodding an already tense interstate rivalry isn't the worst of it. Actual people will be affected. According to many accounts, Eielson is estimated to lose 600 of its personnel, both military and civilian, in the coming F-16 reorganization. According to officials in Anchorage, Elmendorf will gain 125 new personnel directly from the squadron's move. But it gets worse for the Interior. As we understand it, you have plans on the table to move about 1,500 jobs out of Eielson over the next few years. All that after announcing this year that 220 civilian jobs would be getting the axe there in a separate cut.
Community leaders in Fairbanks and North Pole are freaked out because they think they can read a whole bunch of writing on the wall (in triplicate of course). They fear all these new proposed cuts are just a prelude to shutting down Eielson during the next round of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) commission evaluations. And you must admit, that does seem plausible.
If Eielson disappeared, it would devastate the town, say leaders. By the calculations of the Fairbanks Economic Development Corp. (FEDC), Eielson reportedly provides an estimated $289 million annually to the Fairbanks-area economy. Taken together, FEDC says Eielson and Fort Wainwright provide an estimated 35 percent of the economy, constitute the single largest employer in the area, and offer jobs near the top end of the wage scale.
And Alaska's congressional delegation is concerned that, as with a previous proposal under the BRAC process, moving the squadron won't actually save as much money as you think it will. Next month, an Air Force team will head to Alaska to conduct a complete study of how much the move will -- or won't -- save.
Frankly, we're very concerned they have to do such a thing. We don't want to be armchair generals here, but wasn't that already examined? Who knows, maybe you just picked a small base on the edge of the Arctic and figured no one would miss it? We just figured such a cost accounting would be part of any restructuring plan, especially since its stated goal is to save money.
Whatever the reason for the trip, be sure to count it as part of the total moving bill. It's only fair.
And speaking of fair, it might also be time to examine whether or not Fort Wainwright could bear a few cuts, too. Troops stationed there haven't spent very much time there in the last decade. They've been deployed a few times, as you may recall. Right now they're preparing to come home again from overseas, but there's plenty of room for them at Fort Richardson.
Even though we're worried about losing Eielson, we can understand your decision. After all, we figure you generally have good reasons for what you do, and probably lots and lots of paperwork to back it up. It even makes a little bit of sense to flee Fairbanks in these days of skyrocketing energy costs. Energy costs are, after all, are higher in Fairbanks than in Anchorage. According to demographic data, Anchorage has been accepting cost-of-living refugees from the rest of the state for years, so why should the Air Force be any different.
We know that whatever happens, everything will work out, perhaps for the better. Alaskans, especially Interior Alaskans, are resourceful. If Eielson disappears, Fairbanks will be forced to develop other options. Like, who knows, maybe fostering entrepreneurialism or cooking something up with its world-class Arctic and sub-Arctic university. If any number of gaslines ever get built, maybe the town could even branch out into manufacturing plastics.
We're mainly concerned that your move will be taken as more proof that the most efficient, cost-effective thing for Alaska is if everyone lived in and around Anchorage (or directly on top of a North Slope natural gas well). Maybe the Air Force, if indeed Eielson is slated for closure, is just getting in on the ground floor and staking out a spot before a huge Southcentral megalopolis really gets going. From Houston to Hope! Like a futuristic, large-scale Whittier!
We know there's nothing more pointless than asking, or even begging, the Pentagon to do anything, but we can feel the sun's heat again, and it's making us a little more outrageous than usual.
In the upcoming accounting, could you at least consider the strategic value of having a significant base near the increasingly active Arctic? The world is planning to send more and more commercial traffic through the Bering Strait. As every other Arctic nation is trying to find ways to increase its profile in the region, the U.S. is pulling back. The Eielson sanction is just another example of that baffling trend. Moving one squadron of training fighters might seem insignificant, but it sends a big message.
Good luck out there,
The Concerned