Fighter Protection for Montana?

The Missoulian doesn't think we need a fighter base in Montana and, therefore, suggests that the efforts to retain MANG are nothing more than pork politics. They point out that "they're inclined to trust the Pentagon to decide how to manage military resources." I can agree with that.

But, rather than make their point and move on, they keep going. First, they argue that Senator Baucus "strains credibility" when he argues that moving the bases will leave Montana "without military protection." Does anyone really think that military bases are located primarily to afford military protection for the base's locale? If so, are they somehow arguing that Iowa is somehow more susceptible to attack than Montana?

They go on to discuss the fact that Governor Schweitzer says we have "premium air space," or what the Pentagon refers to as air assets. They argue that there's "not a shortage of airspace." That's just not true, or at least not the whole story. They are correct that there is airspace all over the world (Gosh, the world is literally covered with airspace!) but when you consider open airways in close vicinity to existing facilities, we do excel.

Look, are we fighting to keep MANG because we don't want to lose jobs? Duhh. Is that the most appropriate factor on which to make the decisions? No.

But there is more to locating these units than looking for states that 'need military protection.' I suggest the Missoulian go back and read a bit more about our future fighting force, and the notion of training as you deploy. Then they can take another stab at it.