If yesterday’s post wasn’t enough…
I received an email from a reader as follows:
I’m not yet decided on the airport issue, but it is persuasive that all of the region’s delegation is against the proposal. I really wonder if the argument that somehow not having the Marine Air Station here weakens national defense is really sound. The presupposition is that to relocate the base would therefore weaken us as a country, and I just find that a "stretch" of logic. Arguments that it might be expensive to relocate the base, or that we might be negatively impacted by the loss of this government facility may be sound, but that our national defense posture would suffer is just not convincing.
It just seems to me that the real issue is who needs the location the most, assuming that the existing airport will not meet our needs indefinitely. It’s a very complex matter with lots of considerations that "cut both ways." I just sincerely question the national defense argument.
Good points all. Actually, I can’t disagree. Perhaps I could have been clearer. My thought is at the electoral level, not necessarily the factual level, much of the voting public will view it as an either/or situation (airport vs. nat’l security), so that’s why the proposal may be doomed at the ballot box.
Even if passed, it may still go nowhere, especially with the feds standing in the way.
I would also argue that even for those understanding the unlikeliness of a weakening of national security, many will make a decision based on how they view the military’s vs. airport’s presence as an impact on the economy, not our defensive stature as a nation.
Either way, it is a large electoral hump to overcome in fairly pro-military SD County.
Most assuredly, the Marines will argue the national security scenario, especially given the West Coast’s (and Miramar’s) current location as the strategic hub of not only the Western United States, but also the entire Western Hemisphere. I’ve heard them make the argument, and it is pretty convincing.