Save Thune! The White House might be a little more sympathetic to the junior senator from South Dakota

National Review, July 4, 2005 by R. Andrew Newman

As a game of political chicken shapes up between freshman U.S. senator John Thune and the White House, the biggest casualty could be President Bush's agenda.

With strong backing from the national GOP and the president, Thune defeated Tom Daschle, the Democrats' number-one man in the Senate, in a race that saw South Dakota become one of the nation's most contentious political battlegrounds. Thune and his supporters were able to out Daschle as the liberal obstructionist he really was--as opposed to the moderate he played on the county-fair circuit. Daschle's charade didn't always work, but he could at least trumpet his seniority and position as minority leader to voters concerned about preserving Ellsworth Air Force Base in Rapid City. Thune countered that a GOP senator with friendly ties to President Bush would be in a better position to keep the base--South Dakota's second-largest employer--from closing its gates permanently.

Not one year from the election, Thune finds himself in the worst position he could imagine. Those friendly ties didn't stay the Pentagon's hand, and Ellsworth has been marked for closure. Democrats are saying that Thune couldn't deliver the goods when it mattered. Daschle himself chimed in with an I-told-you-so, and took credit for saving the base ten years ago: "It was clearly my relationship with President Clinton," he told a Sioux Falls television station. "I had to go to him directly and ask him to take it off the list, and fortunately, because I was the Democratic leader, he was kind enough to do that. It's a little harder this time."

Ellsworth has an estimated economic impact of $278 million and an annual payroll of $161 million. "Some folks wonder why I'm so worked up," Thune says. "They say, 'Thune, it's only an airbase.' Everyone familiar with western South Dakota knows full well that the economy of the area and Ellsworth are nearly one and the same." The state's congressional delegation, regardless of party affiliation, understands the base's importance, and Gov. Mike Rounds has added two positions to his staff: One will coordinate efforts to save Ellsworth and the 6,700 jobs that will be lost if it closes; the other will see what can be done with the base in the event it is shuttered.

Although it is natural for a state, especially a sparsely populated rural state, to want to hang on to such an economic engine, local politics cannot stand in the way if national security dictates that the base must close. But in this case, the Base Realignment and Closure Commission has some legitimate reasons to consider a reprieve for Ellsworth.

The Department of Defense scored bases on a set of criteria that included current and future mission capabilities, cost of operation, environmental impact, and economic impact on surrounding communities. According to the Pentagon report, Dyess Air Force Base in Texas nudged out Ellsworth in the scoring, 56.7 to 50.8. Ellsworth ranked higher in such areas as hangars and runways, which isn't surprising given that the Department of Defense has pumped $140 million into the base's infrastructure in the past ten years. Ellsworth is also less expensive to operate. Dyess, however, earned better marks for current and future mission capabilities (based on such things as geography, weather, and access to training grounds), a criterion that was weighted more heavily than the others.

Are the "operational efficiencies" that would follow from closing Ellsworth really enough to justify moving its 29 B-1B bombers south? The Pentagon estimates that closing the base would save $1.8 billion over 20 years. Cost should be an issue, but not to the detriment of national security. Although the B-1B fleet used to fly from five bases, today it's split between the South Dakota and Texas sites. "Moving our bombers from two bases to one would put us in an incredibly vulnerable position," says Thune, who has introduced legislation to slow the base-closing process. "We don't want to put all our eggs in one basket. What if there's a tornado or, heaven forbid, an attack?"

The B-52 fleet hasn't been similarly consolidated; and while the B-2 stealth bombers are stationed at one U.S. base, there are only 21 of them. "We have 60 combat-ready B-1Bs--easily enough to constitute two squadrons in two bases," Thune says. The Pentagon has argued that, since the Soviet threat has passed, there's no longer a pressing need to have bomber bases scattered throughout the country. Jack Spencer of the Heritage Foundation agrees, saying, "The Cold War is over, and I don't feel we need to worry about al-Qaeda nuking our one and only B-1B base. The B-1B now only has a conventional role, and even if we were in a Cold War scenario ... a conventional long-range-strike bomber facility would be on our adversary's list of things to get, but I don't think it would be on their primary-target list."

Thune wonders, however, whether the Defense Department is focusing too much on the current terrorist threat and not enough on what the nation might face in even five or ten years. The senator has also questioned why the domestic list of base closures was made before the Quadrennial Defense Review and the restructuring of overseas bases were completed.