Posted On: Saturday, Jan. 29 2005 12:00 AM
By Debbie Stevenson
Killeen Daily Herald
A spokesman for Fort Hood’s lobby group on Friday said the post and its communities should not be concerned about claims this week that the Army’s largest installation may be overcrowded.
Bill Parry, executive director for the Heart of Texas Defense Alliance in Killeen, was responding to an article in this week’s Army Times that suggested Fort Hood was now over strength with the addition of the 4th Infantry Division’s fourth maneuver brigade. The article stated that Fort Hood was now stocked with six heavy brigade units of action, three for the 1st Cavalry Division and three for the 4th Infantry.
“With the map showing that Fort Hood can only accommodate five units of action, it looks like one will have to find a new home,” the report stated.
In the report, the writer noted the conclusions were drawn from overlaying maps of what has been announced and capacity reports and then reading between the lines. Not factored into the conclusion about Fort Hood, Parry said, was the approval by Congress of an additional 30,000 troops to the Army’s ranks and the eventual return of up to 70,000 troops from overseas installations.
That’s 100,000 troops that the Army has to find a home for, he said.
“I don’t think Fort Hood’s got a doggone thing to worry about,” Parry said. “If you’re a maneuver installation, as long as you’ve got your act together, you’ve got nothing to worry about.”
Fort Hood spokesman Dan Hassett was quoted by the Army Times, which is published by the civilian media chain Gannett, that discussions were ongoing about how to accommodate the brigades once both divisions are back at Fort Hood.
Currently, the 1st Cavalry has been in Baghdad, Iraq, since late March. The 4th Infantry returned from Iraq in April and began its transformation process after the Army’s July announcement that added 4,000 troops to its ranks through the maneuver brigade and another 1,000 with an aviation brigade. The 4th Infantry is scheduled to begin returning to Iraq later this year.
The new units raised Fort Hood’s troop strength to 47,000. However, III Corps commander Lt. Gen. Thomas Metz has said the post can accommodate 50,000. Based on that assessment, the area’s communities have been lobbying for the remaining 3,000 personnel under the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Commission.
“Five thousand doesn’t exactly give us that, so we can take some more and we will continue to ask for more until the folks at Fort Hood tell us otherwise,” said retired Lt. Gen. Pete Taylor, the defense alliance’s volunteer chairman, after the July announcement.
Hassett told the Herald had not seen the maps referred to in the Army Times and was not commenting in his response about the suggestion that the post is “overstrengthed.”
“Those kind of discussions go on way higher than us and it wouldn’t be appropriate for us to discuss it,” Hassett said.
Fort Bliss, with its massive training area, was heavily favored in the Army Times article to receive more brigades, possibly up to two divisions worth. Parry shot down the idea, noting the post simply does not have the infrastructure to accommodate them. Parry said the top criteria the commission will use to decide each installations fate is its military value, which includes the ability to accommodate the troops and their families, train them and rapidly deploy them.
“Tell me, is there one place in the U.S. Army that’s better able to do that than Fort Hood?” Parry asked.
“The answer is ‘ no’”, Fort Hood’s former garrison commander said. “I think we’re in good shape.”
The realignment and closure commission is not scheduled to receive the Pentagon’s recommendations until May 16. It then has until Sept. 8 to form its own report and recommendations for the president, who must either accept or reject the proposal in its entirety. If accepted, Congress has 45 days to reject the recommendations in their entirety before they become binding on the Defense Department.
The past four rounds of the realignment and closure commission shuttered 97 bases nationwide with an estimated savings of $13.5 billion. The upcoming 2005 round, urged by the Pentagon and mandated by Congress, is expected to target about 100 additional military facilities for an added savings of $6 billion a year.
Until the May announcement, the Pentagon has been keeping the lid on the politically sensitive process, but has hinted it could have a “tsunami” effect on some communities.
“We’ll all have the big scoop on May 16,” Parry said.
