“You may fly over a land forever; you may bomb it, atomize it, pulverize it and wipe it clean of life - but if you desire to defend it, protect it and keep it for civilization, you must do this on the ground, the way the Roman legions did, by putting your young men into the mud.” Those words were written by my friend T.R. Fehrenbach in his definitive work on the Korean War, “This Kind of War: A Study in Unpreparedness.” I have often turned to Ted’s insights when reviewing the mission and structure of our military. His observation of the importance of “boots on the ground” is incisive and has served our efforts well. During the World Wars and later, during the Cold War, the importance of an American military presence in Europe and Asia was critical. Our struggle to uproot Nazi totalitarianism and dispel Communism called for a strong, physical presence abroad. But today, we face a different kind of enemy: terrorism. An enemy with no borders, no uniforms, no respect for the traditional rules of war, and more importantly, no respect for human life. It is an enemy that showed us on September 11, 2001, that the greatest battle of our generation will not be fought in one country or even a single continent. It is a global battle that requires a renewed, sharpened strategy, a changed and relevant force structure, and demands we take a close look at how we position our military at home and abroad.As Chair of the Senate Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee I oversee the allocation of federal funds for our military installations worldwide. It is an important role, which requires an in depth understanding of our force alignment and the facilities and infrastructure necessary to support it. In recent years, I have become increasingly concerned with the Pentagon’s tendency to shut down U.S. bases in an effort to modernize, consolidate and make our Armed Forces more efficient. Bases in Germany and Korea, while relevant to a Cold War strategy, must be considered for closure first before bases in Louisiana, California and Texas face possible reductions or shut down as part of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC). In past BRAC rounds some stateside closures have been conducted hastily, and the military has only later realized their mistake costing millions of tax payer dollars, displacing soldiers and their families, and wreaking havoc on the local economies. Another growing concern is the increased restrictions being placed on our training capabilities abroad. In some areas our ability to fly helicopters at night, conduct live-fire exercises, or move vehicles over the countryside during war preparation has been severely limited. Not only do some bases fail to meet our national security needs; in some cases, the host countries are openly antagonistic toward our troops.Last year I enacted an Overseas Basing Commission, responsible for a comprehensive study of U.S. military facilities abroad that will help defense policy makers arrive at more informed decisions. The panel’s charge is to review the existing base structure and location, as well as assess whether our infrastructure is in place to meet current and future missions.This July, the Commission held its first public meeting in Washington, the first of a series of meetings, which will culminate in a report to the president and Congress later this year. At the meeting the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) presented its study on the costs of and options for changing the Army’s overseas basing structure. CBO documented potentially significant savings in many areas, such as moving units home from Germany, where it costs about $1 billion annually to maintain forces, and from Korea. Locating forces in Poland, Bulgaria or Romania was also recommended, as was consolidating the many bases and outposts in Korea.If, as has been suggested in the media, the Pentagon returns 29,000 soldiers from Germany – approximately two divisions – we would save $400-$575 million annually and give our troops far better training capabilities and opportunities. And Texas is well poised to benefit from returning troops. Analysts suggest that Fort Bliss in El Paso or Fort Hood in Killeen could accommodate soldiers transferring from overseas. The review is long overdue, but timely. With the 2005 BRAC rapidly approaching, we must know exactly what our troop commitments need to be internationally before we limit or close any bases here at home. I’m pleased the Commission’s work is now underway. At year’s end it will provide conclusions and recommendations to help us make sound decisions about our overseas basing structure. By taking a comprehensive look at our force structure, we can more effectively place our boots on the right ground at the right time to combat the new threats we face in the 21st century.