Air Force general heading to Alaska
by Sam Friedman / sfriedman@newsminer.com
Feb 10, 2012 | 16187 views | 18 18 comments | 5 5 recommendations | email to a friend | print
• UPDATED at 12:15 p.m.: Gen. Norton Schwartz's visit will include a closed meeting Saturday, Feb. 18, with about 10 Interior leaders, said Jim Dodson, president of the Fairbanks Economic Development Corp."He's going to tell us why they're going to do what there going to do," he said.

FAIRBANKS — The U.S. Air Force chief of staff will be in Alaska next week on a visit scheduled prior to the announcement that Eielson Air Force Base’s F-16 fighter planes are to be moved to the Anchorage area, leading to calls from the state’s congressional delegation that he discuss the move while in the state.

Gen. Norton Schwartz will visit the state in 10 days, according to a statement from Alaska’s congressional delegation, whose three members met with Schwartz on Thursday in Washington.

Details of Schwartz’s Alaska trip were not immediately available, although he will attend a Feb. 17 gala in Anchorage to salute the military.

Delegation members invited Schwartz to visit Fairbanks to discuss the F-16s while he is in the state, said Max Croes, a spokesman for Democrat Sen. Mark Begich. It was not immediately clear if Schwartz will come to the area.

Of Thursday’s meeting with Schwartz, Rep. Don Young, Republican, said he was “pleased with the candidness” of the session.

“The Air Force has indicated that this decision was made to make Eielson more efficient, and while that may be true, I would rather not move a squadron but instead work toward lowering energy costs and making it cheaper to operate the base,” Young said in a written statement.

“I think that it is critically important that Gen. Schwartz hear from the Alaskans on the ground who will be affected the most by this decision,” he said. “That is why I requested that he not only set foot in Alaska, but visit Fairbanks and speak to the people there as soon as he can.”

Schwartz is quite familiar with Alaska. He was commander of the Air Force’s Alaska Command, the Alaska North American Aerospace Defense Command Region and the 11th Air Force at Elmendorf from September 2000 to October 2002.

Alaska’s lawmakers said they hope Schwartz will talk with Alaskans about the F-16 plan.

The Air Force proposed moving the F-16s last week as one of several cost-cutting measures that would also include retiring more than 200 planes from across the Air Force this year, including four C-130 transports in Anchorage.

Eielson’s 21-plane F-16 Aggressor squadron is used for training and is the principal active duty force at Eielson.

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski remained skeptical of the Air Force’s plan.

“It was good to hear Gen. Schwartz say he believes America still needs Eielson Air Force Base, and that it should play a significant role as America’s military shifts its future focus to the Pacific Rim,” she said in a joint statement with Young and Begich. “But I still feel like Alaskans and I have seen this movie before — and we saw how it ended in 2005.”

It was in 2005 that then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and military leaders proposed removing all active-duty aircraft and personnel from Eielson, leaving only a small Alaska National Guard refueling wing. The move, along with others across the nation, were part of a lengthy downsizing process that eventually involved the Base Closure and Realignment Commission, an independent panel created by Congress and given authority in base closings so as to reduce the role of politics in the process. The panel, after a hearing in Fairbanks that filled the Carlson Center, ultimately disagreed with the Defense Department and said some aircraft — the squadron of F-16s — should remain at Eielson.

Begich said Alaskans concerned about Eielson should make their case.

“I made one thing clear to Gen. Schwartz, the Alaska Delegation is not backing down,” he said. “I look forward to the general’s upcoming trip and hope Alaskans will take the opportunity to share their thoughts with him in 10 days.”

Contact staff writer Sam Friedman at 459-7545.
Comments
(18)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
grouchyolman
|
February 10, 2012
So when I ask fellow Alaskans what they would do if Eielson does get closed they reply, "We'll go back to being Alaskans." What the heck does that even mean?

Ask yourself if out of 100 customers walked into your business and bought something, then suddenly one day only 70 percent of those customers came in would your business not suffer? The reality is closed stores, business moving out and finally someone shuts off the lights in Fairbanks. That is the reality of closed bases with no back up plan.
FairbanksOptimist
|
February 10, 2012
There are 10 Interior Leaders? Hmmmm...actually I don't think of the folks who will likely be attending this get together as a leader. Is Jim Dobson an Interior Leader? I think of him more as a guy who gets paid a lot of money for ... well I guess that's the question...what does he do?

I would think you can pretty much put the closed sign on the gate after this meeting.
say_what64
|
February 10, 2012
I'm all for consolidating a lot of our military resources. Maintaining early warning systems and quick response capability is a must. We do have to remember that this isn't like it was some 60 years ago. We not only have missile interceptors but our aircraft can travel at Mach 3 plus! Things can happen much faster than they ever could before. Consolidation makes perfect economic sense with out interfering with tactical reality. What do our legislators know about any of this? Let the Generals do their jobs. That's why Congress gave them that commission! Is congress going to now rescind those commissions?
morym
|
February 10, 2012
“The Air Force has indicated that this decision was made to make Eielson more efficient, and while that may be true, I would rather not move a squadron but instead work toward lowering energy costs and making it cheaper to operate the base,” Young said in a written statement.

Ya think maybe you could include that happening for us civilians to?

islandliver
|
February 10, 2012
Well right after you make general in the Air Force you can apply to be at the Pentagon and be part of the decision makers.
AkChap
|
February 10, 2012
If the Air Force wants to move the fighters out as a prelude to closing Eielson, so be it.

But if they do close the base, then the Air Force should be forced to give up all training areas north of the Alaska Range too. Let them train over the North Pacific because they will not be welcome here.
islandliver
|
February 10, 2012
Remember the politicians who vote to keep Eilson open can just as easily vote to close it to get vote in their respective legislative body. I really don't believe relying on politicians is a good thing in the long run as sooner or latter they have to make a pay back for what support they get.
twain
|
February 10, 2012
This is a blatant attempt to strong arm the general. Having been commander of all air forces in alaska, to try and palm it off as he needs to talk to alaskans to be aware of whats happening on the ground here is a joke....a bad joke. Let the man do his job. We have to cut the bloated military budget. Its not an easy job for any general, but these politicians who are responsible for the 16 trillion debt in the first place needs to step aside and let the military decide where our best interests in national defense lies to accomadate these cuts and not keep bases open just for the local economy.
fmrfbksn
|
February 10, 2012
Since Eielson has more uncluttered airspace, less population under the noise umbrella and the the best runway in Alaska(no surrounding runway hazards), the Air Force should move as many jet fighters to Eielson, as the base will accomodate and downsize other bases. Moving the jets out of Eielson essentially closes the base, or at least makes it expendable.
Oh_please
|
February 10, 2012
Image and video hosting by TinyPic
Yota99714
|
February 12, 2012
Eielson itself is very small in terms of real estate. It's Alaska's MOA's as a whole which make the airspace valuable in terms of military operations and training.
teapartypatriot_2
|
February 10, 2012
The experts tell us that our $15 trillion national debt is going to get us into serious trouble if we don't do something about it. Since the over bloated defense budget is the main reason we have this debt I think it is only prudent that the defense department do what the rest of us have to do when we over extend. Eielson AFB, the F16's, and the accompanying air space should be auctioned to the highest bidder. It should bring in at least $500 billion and that money should be used to pay down our debt.

We can sit by with our normalcy bias and watch this nation go into bankruptcy. It will be catastrophic. Today we see people like Mitt Romney putting his money in foreign bank accounts to protect it from the coming collapse. We are also seeing China buying much more gold and some countries using gold for buying oil instead of the dollar. If the dollar loses its status as the world reserve currency our financial system will collapse. It is time for the Defense Dept to do its part.

OutSteese
|
February 10, 2012
The defense budget is not the main reason for the debt. It is welfare, medical care, and government pensions. If we stopped paying for Cadillac care for government employees and stopped paying people not to work, we could get out of trouble. At least the Constitution calls for the nations defense. It does not say you can forcibly take my tax money in an attempt to make life more "fair" or "equal". Here is a link that shows the main budget items and their costs. http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/budget_gs.php
teapartypatriot_2
|
February 10, 2012
OutSteese, We can cut defense spending but it is hard to stop feeding people. Do you see the difference? Also if the wealthy would pay their fair share of taxes that certainly would help. Self employed persons pay about 28 percent federal taxes while the top one percent pays an average of 17.1 percent according to the IRS.

The republicans will not make the rich pay their fair share and that is why they have got to go.
nuvukmiuq
|
February 10, 2012
The headline is misleading - it is indicative in the present tense, yet the General is coming next week...usually the headlines do not contain the errors.
just-saying
|
February 10, 2012
"He's going to tell us why they're going to do what there going to do," he said.

...what they're going to do...

.
akflatlander
|
February 10, 2012
Same thing is happening in other states, and the bases are getting more drones in place of the jets...
fairbanksfrank
|
February 10, 2012
You're obviously not a golfer.
Newsminer.com encourages a lively exchange of ideas regarding topics in the news. Users are solely responsible for the content. Comments are not pre-approved by News-Miner staff. Please keep it clean, respect others and use the 'report abuse' link when necessary. Read our full user's agreement.