US Army Reverses Course on Museum Closures

Share this link on Facebook

Share this page on X (Twitter)

Share this link on LinkedIn

Share this page on Reddit

Email a link to this page

The US Army has paused plans to consolidate its museum network from 41 museums to 12 amid public outcry and criticism from Congress.

The number of United States Army museums won’t be lowered this year, at least not until a more formal plan has been laid out to US lawmakers—marking a major reversal of a policy that could have led to a dramatic reduction in the number of military museums.

Last June, the United States Army Center of Military History announced that it had begun consolidating and reducing the number of museums devoted to the service branch. Under the reduction plan, the Army Museum Enterprise (AME) would consolidate the number of its museums located throughout the country and abroad from 41 museums at 29 locations to just 12 museums and four training support facilities overall.

“In the current AME, a substantial maintenance backlog and insufficient staffing prevent our museums from reaching their fullest potential as educational and historical resources,” the Center of Military History explained in a post on Facebook. “These challenges also pose a significant risk to our ability to care for the Army’s priceless artifact collection, which is one of the world’s largest.”

The Army’s Vast Museum Network

Each branch of the US Armed Forces operates multiple formal museums devoted to their history and purpose. The US Army has the largest museum network of any of the service branches, with 45 museum facilities spread across bases across the country, as Task & Purpose reported. The Army also has “nearly 100 buildings and warehouses,” both in the United States and overseas.

“Army museums include several large, heavily visited facilities at major bases, like the National Museum of the United States Army at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, and the National Infantry Museum at Fort Benning, Georgia,” Task & Purpose wrote. Those two museums are among the most heavily attended military museums in the United States, with around 500,000 and 300,000 respective annual visitors. A third major museum, the US Army Museum of Hawaii, receives some 100,000 visitors per year.

Task & Purpose noted that there were also many smaller and lesser-known institutions as part of the museum system, such as the US Army Transportation Museum at Fort Eustis, Virginia (~65,000 visitors per year). Fort Lee, Virginia, is also home to the lesser-known Quartermaster Museum and Ordnance Training Support Facility, which receives around 70,000 visitors per year; roughly 17,000 of these are Army quartermasters who visit the facility as part of their training.

Several factors had been considered in consolidating the museums. Chief among them was the number of visitors and the costs to maintain the facilities. Many museums devoted to the history of the United States Army are housed in old buildings that are desperately in need of repair. Some have leaky roofs, and others have outdated HVAC systems—which not only impact tourists’ experience, but are also far from ideal for climate-sensitive exhibits.

In other cases, museums were established by former base commanders with a passion for the past, but withered away after those commanders retired. Similarly, even before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, US Army bases were difficult to access for security reasons, making military museums located there difficult to access for outside visitors.

Congress Wants to Preserve the Military Museum System

In last year’s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), passed in December, Congress directed each branch of the US military to establish a formal “museum system” overseeing its museum facilities.

For the US Navy and Air Force, the NDAA provided a specific list of museums it wished to keep open—including the Navy’s 11 current museums and the National Museum of the US Air Force at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.

For the Army, however the NDAA did not strictly provide guidance on how it should operate their museums; it simply called on the Army to create a roster of museums, and designated those that have any “historical significance to Army operations, technology, or personnel; public accessibility and educational outreach programs; and alignment with the mission of the Army to preserve its heritage.” It also required the Army to provide a plan for where the exhibits at a closed museum would be transferred to in the event of closure.

Last month, after lawmakers voiced concerns that the number of museums devoted to the history of the US Army would be cut, the service reversed course, indicating it would keep all facilities open while evaluating its next steps.

The Army is also planning to conduct outreach to local groups that could take over any of the museums in a public-private partnership, Task & Purpose wrote. It noted that several large museums have already adopted a public-private model or will do so in the future. This includes the Tennessee Wings of Liberty Museum at Fort Campbell near the Kentucky–Tennessee border, and the National Museum of the Marine Corps in Triangle, Virginia.

This effort could ensure that the story of the US Army and the other services isn’t simply told at one large museum outside of Washington, DC, but at bases, posts, and other facilities throughout the country.

About the Author: Peter Suciu

Peter Suciu has contributed to dozens of newspapers, magazines and websites over a 30-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a contributing writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. He is based in Michigan. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

© The National Interest