EDITORIAL
A carrier at Pearl? Intriguing possibility

It's back: talk of the Navy moving an aircraft carrier — and perhaps many of the ships that would accompany it at sea — to a permanent station at Pearl Harbor.

The talk is coming from some pretty steady sources: Sen. Dan Inouye and Rep. Ed Case say it's serious. Gov. Linda Lingle has been in talks with the Navy about what the move would take. The Navy Times says an Atlantic Fleet admiral was asked to identify assets that might be shifted to the Pacific, but it's not clear whether a carrier was part of that discussion. Adm. Thomas Fargo, commander of Pacific forces, says the speculation is premature; no decision has been made.

The Navy now has an even dozen carriers, half in the Atlantic, half in the Pacific.

We're intrigued because we've heard this kind of talk before. Back in 1998, the Navy had a long list of reasons why basing a carrier at Pearl would be a terrible idea:

The harbor isn't deep enough; the piers and maintenance facilities are inadequate; Barbers Point Naval Air Station, now Kalaeloa, was deemed inadequate to accommodate the carrier's 75 aircraft; the carrier would still have to steam back and forth to the West Coast several times a year to pick up aircraft and for training — which the Navy said couldn't be done here.

These concerns, or many of them, remain today. Civilian use at Kalaeloa may be a new objection. What may have changed, however, is strategic thinking on the part of the Navy and the Bush administration. A perceived imperative to move forces closer to potential trouble spots in Asia might trump such practical objections.

That thinking may still be evolving and has yet to be discussed fully in public and in Congress. There have been many reports of sweeping plans to realign U.S. forces in the Pacific, including talk about pulling troops out of Korea and Okinawa.

It helps to remember that Hawai'i is six steaming days closer to trouble in Asia than the West Coast, and that Guam, which also wants the carrier group, is even closer. Hawai'i probably would get the nod over Guam on infrastructure and amenities.

Although basing of a carrier group at Pearl would be a huge economic boost to this state, we're not sure O'ahu could handle it. The island must gauge the environmental impact on housing, parking and a whole new elementary school in an already congested area. The impact may need to be assessed in light of possible assignment of a new Stryker brigade to Schofield Barracks, which would bring its own set of economic benefits and environmental impacts.

Another hurdle to moving a carrier here would be the fierce objections of the politicians representing locations that would be losing the carrier.

We've always felt that Washington underestimates the importance and challenge of Asia to the nation. Whether the Bush administration's evolving doctrine puts a stronger focus on Asia remains to be seen.

What's important about discussion of basing changes is that it not be sidetracked by issues that can be resolved or allowed to degenerate into a fight over "pork."

The nation's legitimate defense needs must be the bottom line.