Good link for some other stuff. Thanks,
John

"Yofuri" wrote in message
...
"It is estimated that ..." and "a 1998 report indicated that ..." are
probably as close as you'll get:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ility/brac.htm

Rick

"John Carrier" wrote in message
...
Actually the 2 year delay passed the house as part of the 2005 defense
authorization bill just today. The Senate might not like it. It could
die
in conference committee. It could be vetoed (several administration
reps,
including Rummie, say they will "recommend" veto ... of course the Pres
is
silent so far, maintaining his maneuvering room).

I personally think that any normally introspective SecDef would take a
good
hard look at what the meaning of "transformational" might be post 9/11,
but
I don't think introspection is in Mr. R's vocabulary. That good hard
look
might well be reason to delay the BRAC a bit.

The mantra of the BRAC faithful is that we have 25% excess
infrastructure
in
DoD. Anyone have a source on that number (not a sound bite, but real
data
from real analysis)?

R / John

"fudog50" wrote in message
news
In previous posts months ago,,,,,
I tried to shed light on the entire BRAC fiasco,,,
From "anonomous sources", the whole process is currently being
frontloaded with base closures and realignments overseas. Currently
and in the very soon future, the only overseas sea duty will be rota
and misawa.
By doing these realignments the Navy can show they already
saved as much money as any base closures stateside.
More importantly, the announcement was just made this week
that all BRAC processes are on a 2 year recess, or, "time out".
Yes chicken little,,,the sky is not falling.