Sometimes, politicians simply need to keep their mouths shut -- particularly when it comes to the future of a $5.6 billion industry in South Carolina.

One year from now, the federal Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission will make recommendations on downsizing the nation's military bases. By some estimates, they could recommend closing or restructuring as many bases in 2005 as they closed in four previous rounds.

In that span from 1988 to 1995, the Department of Defense closed 97 facilities and realigned more than 80 others for a savings of $16.7 billion through 2001. Since then, the country has realized about $7 billion annually in savings from having fewer facilities.

With more than 50,000 people directly employed by the military in the Beaufort, Charleston, Columbia and Sumter areas, next year's announcement will have major impacts. An installation or two might close. Or none in the state will close and will, in fact, grow due to other closures.

What's important to know is the federal government has a process to keep politicians from fiddling with which bases will close. Base closure decisions will be made primarily on a facility's military value, although the bipartisan commission also will take several other factors into account.

If South Carolina learned anything from the 1993 round of closings, it learned there were no sacred cows and that politicians didn't really affect base closure decisions. You might recall the military closed two major facilities, the Charleston Navy Base and Naval Shipyard, in spite of the fact that the state was home to the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee (Sen. Strom Thurmond), the chairman of the House Armed Services Com-mittee (Rep. Floyd Spence) and a member of the Senate Defense Appropriations subcommittee (Sen. Fritz Hollings).

With all of that power and decades of experience, they couldn't save the Charleston facilities. Now with Thurmond and Spence gone and with Hollings retiring, why in the world do other, less-experienced state leaders think they can make a difference?

It's because politicians are politicians. They want people to think they can do something about it. They want to create a dynamic so that if our bases remain open, they can take credit. And if any bases are closed, they can act like they tried to do something.

That's the only way to explain recent comments by Gov. Mark Sanford and U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C.

Last Monday, Sanford said Shaw Air Force Base was of concern because it was "the spot with the brightest light on it." In February, The Post and Courier reported Wilson thought South Carolina would be immune to future base closings because it had done its fair share and its bases had high value.

But both comments were irresponsible. Both politicians -- and any others who are tempted -- should muzzle similar future musings.

Why? Because they violate basic rules of introductory public relations. With the world wired through the Internet, their comments surely were read by folks in the Pentagon who deal with base closure. If our politicians discuss concerns or display arrogance, somebody at the Pentagon will take notice and potentially use it against the state.

In addition, by suggesting Sumter might face closure, the governor created a huge headache for economic development officials there. Executives considering an industrial move to Sumter now might pause. Instead of being excited by a vibrant area of the state, they may wonder whether the $600 million of business generated by the base will be there in the future.

If politicians really want to do something to help South Carolina's bases, they can provide Beaufort, Charleston, Columbia and Sumter with more than the measly $50,000 each received to support efforts to fight the closure process. Instead, they should pump millions into these efforts to let professionals tell the great stories each community offers.

So instead of putting their feet in their mouths, they need to put their money where their mouths are.