Rob Simmons: SUBASE Savior or Liability?

Cross-posted from Noonz Wire...

If you peruse the news articles regarding the potential closing of SUBASE New London (Groton, CT) as recommended by the BRAC committee, you will find many well-thought-out arguments from people who want to keep the base right where it is. If you poke around the blogosphere, you'll happen upon excellent commentary that compellingly argues for keeping Groton open as well.

Sadly, Congressman Rob Simmons (R-2, CT), whose district is home to the base, is not one of the people making rational arguments. In fact, reading the latest comments from Simmons is enough to lead one to wonder if he is fast becoming an albatross around the necks of those working to save it.

If SUBASE New London is closed, some of the submarines homeported there could be relocated to Naval Station Norfolk in Virginia. Last week, Simmons visited Norfolk on a fact-finding mission intended to help him bolster his position that closing Groton is a terrible idea. This sort of due diligence is welcomed and expected. Simmons is the congressman representing the people who live and work on and around the base. Advocating for those people and the base that is the economic backbone of his district is his job.

Unfortunately, Simmons' advocacy requires him to open his mouth and address the media, and this is where things get dicey. Via an AP wire story carried in papers all over the state today, here's what Congressman Simmons had to say after visiting Norfolk:

"Do we want to create a bigger target for terrorists? Do we want another Pearl Harbor?"

Stop.

He did not just intimate that moving additional subs down to Norfolk would be a catalyst for a modern Pearl Harbor-style attack did he?

Simmons said Saturday that a shift of manpower and boats to an already congested Norfolk base could create "a massive Pearl Harbor" and make Virginia a target for terrorists.

Wow. I guess he really did say that. Someone in Simmons' office needs to control him, because that statement is alarmist and irresponsible.

Norfolk is already home to sixty-one vessels, five of which are nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. It is already a massive base, and, by extension, a potential terror target. The Pentagon knows that, and any rational thinking human being could come to that conclusion. Potentially adding more subs to what is already stationed there is not going to change this at all.

Invoking Pearl Harbor here is outright pandering. Frankly, I think that this attempt to exploit people's fears of a terror strike and memories of the attack on Pearl Harbor does far more to discredit Simmons' efforts to save the base than anything else.

More from Simmons:

Simmons called Norfolk a "fabulous naval station" but very congested. Additionally, Norfolk would have to build more piers, barracks and other facilities to accommodate the new arrivals.

"This is something that would cost millions and millions," he said. "Where would the savings be?"

Ugh, my 2-year-old is swift enough to see the "fabulous naval station" line for what it is: a meaningless platitude. And as a civilian, hearing the Congressman talk about how Norfolk is "congested" elicits a resounding "DUH!" from me. It's a large naval station. I would expect it to be busy and congested.

Bringing up cost is totally fair here, but Simmons is now officially all over the map.

"It'll be a terrorist Pearl Harbor." "It's too crowded." "It's too expensive."

Too many themes, Congressman. Pick the strongest one and ride it. This buckshot approach is not effective.

The Norfolk base's focus is on building and maintaining the Navy's surface fleet and not on submarines, Simmons said.

Norfolk is home to twelve submarines (11 SSNs and 1 SSGN). While it isn't a "perfect" setup like Groton, with Electric Boat essentially next door, this statement from Simmons is ridiculous on its face. You cannot go visit a naval station that is already homeport to twelve subs and then make a statement implying that it is not submarine-appropriate. Come on.

"The submarine is lost" among aircraft carriers and destroyers, he said.

You've got to be kidding me.

Rob Simmons basically said that because the submarines are among larger surface vessels, they are somehow at a disadvantage. What is that supposed to mean? That they're ignored in favor of the other ships? Did Simmons speak to any of the submarine crews in Norfolk? Because I'm sure they'd reassure him that their boats are well taken care of, thank you very much.

Rob Simmons needs to present clear, concise, and compelling reasons why Groton must be kept open. Based on the statements he made after his trip to Norfolk, I fear he may not be up to that task.

The clock is ticking, Congressman. Please get it together.

Update: Pigboatsailor rebuts several of my points in excellent fashion in the comments section below.

Alas, I am coming at this from a complete outsider's POV, and as PBS demonstrates, I am probably emphasising some things too much, and missing the point in some other areas where I should be giving more credit. I am genuinely thankful for the critique, because in the end, I want Rob Simmons to be one of the victors here, and guidance such as that found in the comment can only assist me in making more cogent arguments in support of the save the base efforts

Groton is, in a word, irreplaceable. There are too many intangibles surrounding it that give it such enormous value.

More over at my place, where I have additional updates to the original post and another comment thread going.

posted by Alex Nunez @ 12:03 AM