The Army manufactured a basing problem to justify new base funding

Evidence

In other words, the split basing of the 173rd appears to be a “problem” created by the Army itself, years into the planning for a new base, and just when the Army needed a justification for funding. — David Vine, Base Nation_ How U.S. Military Bases…, 771

Categorization

Category: Causal Relationships

• SEED: This is a perfect worked example for how large institutions manufacture justification narratives after committing to a project — an essay angle on strategic self-deception in military budgeting.
• XREF: Connects to the Diego Garcia ‘communications facility’ case below, and to general institutional-convergence literature on how bureaucratic goal displacement works.

Related

• The military manufactures operational justifications after projects are already chosen. (similarity 0.87)
• The Army created the split-basing problem it used to justify a new base. (similarity 0.87)
• The Navy disguised a major base as a $17.8 million communications facility (similarity 0.80)
• The split-basing problem justifying Vicenza expansion was self-inflicted (similarity 0.80)
• Even pro-base analysts describe Pentagon construction as an unbounded bureaucratic machine (similarity 0.80)
• MilCon funding acts as a slippery slope toward far larger base expenditures. (similarity 0.79)
• The Army abandoned a base’s stated purpose after spending most of the construction funds (similarity 0.79)
• The Army redirected troops to keep Grafenwoehr visibly occupied and justify its funding (similarity 0.79)