IBJNews

Mission change for Atterbury may mean new jobs

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indiana military institution that has been a training site for thousands of deploying troops is getting a new name and a new peacetime mission.

Camp Atterbury, near Edinburgh, about 40 miles south of Indianapolis, was built in 1941 for World War II but saw its training role expand dramatically in 2003 when it was activated as a mobilization site for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The facility has since deployed more than 175,000 service members and civilians.

The installation will soon be known as Atterbury-Muscatatuck or the Atterbury-Muscatatuck training site, garrison commander Col. Ivan Denton told the Daily Journal of Franklin.

The new name will help integrate the facility with the Muscatatuck Urban Training Center in southern Indiana. The former state hospital has been transformed into a city-like setting where soldiers from around the world come for realistic urban training.

The changes come as the site shifts its mission from war preparation to peacetime training. The post that once prepared 20,000 soldiers for combat each year is expected to see just 5,000 this year following the end of U.S. combat operations in Iraq and the scheduled withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan. The post doesn't expect to mobilize any service members next year — the first time that would happen in a decade.

The installation will be deactivated as mobilization site next year and will focus on training National Guard units from Indiana, northern Kentucky, western Ohio and eastern Illinois. Camp Atterbury also will continue to stage homeland security and NATO-led training exercises and train defense contractors and employees of the State Department and Department of Defense.

Denton said the post will continue to seek growth opportunities. He noted that it currently employs eight people who work to protect U.S. computer networks but someday could add hundreds of jobs in that field if Camp Atterbury begins training soldiers for cyber warfare or serves as a home base for service members who'd work to prevent hackers and cyber attacks.

"Our thought is that if they're going to do training somewhere in the United States, they can do it here cheaper and more effectively," he said.

Tying the installation to Muscatatuck makes sense on many levels, military officials say.

Denton said the two facilities already were under the same command and deeply intertwined in their operations.

During large training exercises, for example, military units often stage at Camp Atterbury and then train at Muscatatuck. They sometimes take helicopters from Muscatatuck back to Camp Atterbury during simulated medical evacuations to field hospitals. Atterbury often serves as the command post while soldiers go room to room hunting for the enemy or rescuing dummies from rubble at Muscatatuck, the training site near Butlerville.

"The two are really one and the same, and that's what we're trying to show," said Maj. Lisa Kopczynski, Camp Atterbury's spokeswoman.

Denton said treating the locations as a single facility could help preserve federal funding for training, staffing and facilities. The absence of deploying and returning soldiers will mean a sizable cut in federal funding and a reduction of 500 military and civilian jobs at the post.

Last year, Camp Atterbury and Muscatatuck received about $460 million in mostly federal funds to pay for salaries and benefits, supplies, training exercises and construction, Denton said. This year, that funding is projected to be cut by nearly a fourth to about $350 million.

Denton said he expects the cuts to be temporary and that the post could rehire as many as 200 of the service members and contractors by the end of 2013.

He said Camp Atterbury has an advantage over other training facilities because it's in the middle of the country and has the infrastructure for a wide variety of training.

Despite its shifting mission, Camp Atterbury could still serve as a mobilization site in the future, Denton said — but on a much smaller scale.

"If they needed to mobilize 1,000 or 3,000 soldiers, we could do that," he said. "It doesn't have to be all or nothing with the size."

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Those of you yelling to deport them all should at least understand that the law allows minors (if not from a bordering country) to argue for asylum. If you don't like the law, you can petition Congress to change it. But you can't blindly scream that they all need to be deported now, unless you want your government to just decide which laws to follow and which to ignore.

  2. 52,000 children in a country with a population of nearly 300 million is decimal dust or a nano-amount of people that can be easily absorbed. In addition, the flow of children from central American countries is decreasing. BL - the country can easily absorb these children while at the same time trying to discourage more children from coming. There is tension between economic concerns and the values of Judeo-Christian believers. But, I cannot see how the economic argument can stand up against the values of the believers, which most people in this country espouse (but perhaps don't practice). The Governor, who is an alleged religious man and a family man, seems to favor the economic argument; I do not see how his position is tenable under the circumstances. Yes, this is a complicated situation made worse by politics but....these are helpless children without parents and many want to simply "ship" them back to who knows where. Where are our Hoosier hearts? I thought the term Hoosier was synonymous with hospitable.

  3. Illegal aliens. Not undocumented workers (too young anyway). I note that this article never uses the word illegal and calls them immigrants. Being married to a naturalized citizen, these people are criminals and need to be deported as soon as humanly possible. The border needs to be closed NOW.

  4. Send them back NOW.

  5. deport now

ADVERTISEMENT