The military-base-closing plan announced last week by the Pentagon portends a summer of anxiety as affected states and communities lobby for their installations to be removed from the scale-down.

But the bottom line remains: The final version of the list must reflect military need and reality, rather than who has the greatest political clout.

A federal base-closing commission that will evaluate the proposal this summer has a big job ahead of it, while acknowledging from the get-go that those within the Pentagon who drew up the plan aren't infallible. There is no guarantee at this juncture that everything currently included in the plan is in the nation's best interests and that nothing in the plan is tainted by politics.

Like the commission, members of Congress also have the important responsibility of evaluating what the plan envisions overall in terms of military efficiency and long-term betterment of the nation's security, regardless of the adverse effects on their particular legislative district or state.

That's easier said than done; politics won't divorce itself from the issue.

However, the military needs of today in a world confronted with terrorism aren't the same as what existed during the Cold War and World War II. During the Cold War, the prospect of mutual nuclear destruction was a deterrent for the world's two superpowers - and both sides valued life.

That "life" mind-set doesn't embrace today's terrorist element, as evidenced by the attacks on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, and the difficult, deadly missions America's military forces have encountered in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The world of the 21st century also is faced with troubling uncertainties regarding China, North Korea, Iran and other potential powder kegs. All of those factors must be weighed in deciding the fate of what the Pentagon is proposing.

Some federal lawmakers have been through such an exercise before - those who helped weigh base-closings and downsizings in 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995. And, some lawmakers with strong political clout were, for better or worse, able to save their military installations.

But during those earlier exercises, the nation wasn't faced with the burgeoning budget deficits of today or the hundreds of billions of dollars being directed toward the Iraq and Afghanistan missions.

The economic pain that states and communities will endure as the result of the upcoming base closings and downsizings are in part directly related to the financial scope of those overseas operations. But the potential savings represent but a fraction of the cost of those operations.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld says the current plan, if carried out as proposed, would save $48.8 billion over 20 years. President George W. Bush has sought nearly double that amount on more than one occasion for the Iraq war and rebuilding effort, and there is no end in sight regarding the need for future appropriations.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon estimates recurring annual savings of $7.3 billion from the previous four rounds of base closings combined - also a small number when compared with what is being spent in Iraq alone.

The proposed closings and downsizings would occur over six years, starting next year.

By Sept. 8, the new base-closing commission must submit its recommendations to Bush and must accept or reject the list in its entirety. Congress then has to accept or reject the report, also with no changes allowed.

Anticipate a three-months-long frenzy by lawmakers, communities and their hired lobbyists to convince the commission that their facilities should not be closed or consolidated. Also, anticipate much behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing by lawmakers.

Military need must be at the top of the agenda, but don't look for politics to be far from the top.