Warmfighting: New Strategic Document Requirements [Dems: DOD strategy must include Climate Change]

In this week’s Senate debate on the defense authorization bill, Iraq, immigration, and other amendments will likely receive the most attention. However, one small but significant provision, which has mostly escaped public scrutiny and was also included in the House version, has the ambitious intent to transform the language the government uses to discuss climate change. Section 931 requires that the Department of Defense (DOD) incorporate climate change into the primary legislatively-required strategy documents: the National Security Strategy, the National Defense Strategy, and the Quadrennial Defense Review.

Although on its face it appears to be just another pesky but harmless study requirement, the section has triggered quiet grumblings from some Republicans, annoyed at how Democrats are attempting by fiat to declare global warming a national security issue.[1] With no cynical purpose here, it seems clear that a central intent of the provision is to transform the rhetoric of climate change. National security remains a potent political justification for any issue, and its association with climate change may work to counteract negative environmentalist stereotypes.

Although the title of the section indicates that incorporating climate change into these documents is an exclusive task of DOD, the provision requires that the overall National Security Strategy, which emerges from the National Security Council, gives guidance to military planners to:

“assess the risks of projected climate change to current and future missions of the armed forces”; “update defense plans based on these assessments, including working with allies and partners to incorporate climate mitigation strategies, capacity building, and relevant research and development”; and “develop the capabilities needed to reduce future impacts.”

Arguably most intrusively, the requirements force writers to use the “mid-range projections” of the fourth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. “Mid-range” is not specifically defined and could mean various middle scenarios of energy use or temperature increases. While clearly intending to prevent the executive from simply dismissing the threat by indicting the science, the requirements are still rather presumptuous.

The authors of the next Quadrennial Defense Review (scheduled to be completed with the next administration in 2009-2010) are tasked to “examine the capabilities of the armed forces to respond to the consequences of climate change, in particular, preparedness for natural disasters from extreme weather events and other missions the armed forces may be asked to support.” As precedent, advocates of this threat language point to the existing 2006 National Security Strategy, which already includes in its list of national security threats: “environmental destruction, whether caused by human behavior or cataclysmic mega-disasters such as floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, or tsunamis…” Albeit somewhat simplistic analysis, global warming can be seen as triggering a greater quantity and magnitude of environment threats already defined as security issues. Customary in the National Security Strategy through the George H. W. Bush and Clinton years, the George W. Bush administration removed environmental threat language from the 2002 document. The intense focus on natural disasters after Katrina and the 2004 tsunami in Southeast Asia may have prompted the 2006 reinsertion.[2]

The political and presumptuous manner of these requirements may seem to beg for DOD not to take them seriously. Still, the response may be surprising. For one, there is enormous respect at the Pentagon for Office of Net Assessment Director Andrew Marshall[3], who in 2003 received a great deal of attention after sponsoring a commissioned report that gave a dramatic picture of security threat scenarios in a world of runaway warming. In processing the requirements, department writers may return to his advocacy and strategic products. Also, in April 2007, the Center for Naval Analyses released a major report entitled National Security and the Threat of Climate Change, which was advised by 11 esteemed military generals and admirals.[4] Similar to the 9/11 Commission members, these individuals may become a lobbying force to connect climate change and national security.[5] Even if Pentagon analysts conclude that the requirements are largely political, they may genuinely wrestle with the issue out of respect for the figures who have attempted to forward it.

In addition, the requirement “to incorporate climate mitigation strategies” may give political backing to fuel efficiency projects long attractive to the Pentagon. Facing high fuel prices and the vulnerability produced by fuel supply lines in Iraq, the military has already begun efforts to make many of its vehicles more energy efficient.[6] If these programs can gain more funding through the label “climate mitigation,” the Pentagon will raise no complaints.

The Iraq experience and a generational shift in the military have already led to many institutional changes necessary to accompany a strategy that emphasizes responding to natural disasters.[7] The military now realizes that it must improve its ability to operate in different deployed environments, in contact with local populations. Many military officers were pleased at the effectiveness of the 2004-2005 tsunami humanitarian mission, and they may be increasingly receptive to strategies that emphasize such missions over preventive war.[8] The substantial use of active-duty forces after Katrina demonstrated that the military will inevitably be called to deal with disasters.

The greatest frustration may come from the White House. Although the provision identifies requirements for the secretary of defense, the National Security Strategy actually emerges from the National Security Council and is traditionally signed by the president. While DOD has significant input on the document and contributes substantially to particular sections, the provision’s specific inclusion of the National Security Strategy over other reports may indicate a desire to compel Bush to sign a major report acknowledging the threat of “climate change.” Although this “annual” report no longer seems to receive substantial annual revisions[9], it is possible that Bush may want to revise the 2006 strategy. Or, the language in the provision could also be read as requiring a new report in 2008 that would incorporate the issue.

While the general National Security Strategy reporting requirements come from a congressional statute, the determination of which specific threats are included has been traditionally left to the president and the National Security Council. In May, in a "Statement of Administration Position” (SAP), the administration included the global warming language as one issue that could lead to a veto.[10] The SAP states: “This section sets a harmful precedent. The content of these products should not be reflected in law, particularly in a manner that impinges on the flexibility of national security professionals and policy officials to determine the most appropriate subjects for these strategy documents.”

On the other hand, since Bush has already signaled at the latest APEC summit and elsewhere that he may be willing to change his tune on emissions reductions, it is not implausible that he might choose to embrace national security rhetoric to help temper his legacy on the issue.[11] With major businesses increasingly hoping to tackle the climate issue before the unknown of a new administration, such rhetoric might provide the President political cover.[12] Even if this is not the approach the administration takes, with all of the controversies surrounding the defense authorization bill, it seems unlikely that this provision would ultimately be crucial to a potential veto.

In the debate over the parallel requirement in the intelligence bill, which is worded similarly, Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., bristled that the United States has other government agencies that should be left to worry about “bugs and bunnies.” Wary of potential charges that the provision would waste the military’s resources during a time of war, the Senate version reads that DOD should implement these requirements in “a manner that does not have a negative impact on national security.” With the House intelligence bill, a largely party-line vote led to the defeat of a Hoekstra-sponsored amendment to remove the entire section. As of now, however, a major stir over the defense provision seems unlikely in the Senate. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., who raised the greatest stink in the Armed Services committee, has no intent to raise the issue in the general debate.[13]

Unless a political entrepreneur pounces on the language of section 931, its political liability is likely to remain slight. Altogether, the debate has been remarkable tranquil; discussing global warming as a national security problem appears to be uniquely low-risk. Although the length and substance of analysis that will be provided in these required reports remain to be seen, the lack of political controversy signals a new approach for successful engagement of the climate change issue.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] “House Backs National Intelligence Estimate For Climate Change,” Defense Daily, May 27, 2007.

[2] Alan McGowan, “The Environment and National Security,” Environment, June 1, 2007.

[3] “Pentagon Report Plans For Climate Catastrophe,” The Providence Journal, March 3, 2004.

[5] “Green issues, synthetic fuels emerge in Defense Bill,” Aerospace Daily & Defense Report, May 16, 2007, p. 1.

[7] James Traub, “Making Sense of the Mission,” New York Times, April 11, 2004, p. 32.

[8] Nicholas Kristof, “Aid Workers With Guns,” New York Times, March 4, 2007, p. 13.

[9] Peter Baker, “Bush to Restate Terror Strategy,” Washington Post, March 16, 2006, p. A01.

[10] “White House Opposes Addressing Climate Change in Defense Strategy,” Inside the Navy, May 20, 2007.

[11] “Bush G-8 Agreement May Aid Greenhouse Gas Provision In Defense Bill,” Defense Environment Alert, June 26, 2007; “Defense Bill Contains Unprecedented Call for Climate Change Studies,” Defense Environment Alert, May 15, 2007.

[12] “Unlikely Allies Advance Global Warming Policy,” Boston Globe, August 22, 2007.

Safer bullets, that's the ticket.

Idiots!
Idiots!
Idiots!
Idiots!

Freaking' idiots!

Has someone sent alQaeda the memo?
They need to switch to greener IEDs and other explosives...

Idiots!
Idiots!
Idiots!
Idiots!

Freaking' idiots!

Section 931 requires that the Department of Defense (DOD) incorporate climate change into the primary legislatively-required strategy documents: the National Security Strategy, the National Defense Strategy, and the Quadrennial Defense Review.

Regardless of which individual, in or out of government thought of this idea, whoever introduced it into the bill needs to be identified!
I'm serious.

It's straight-jacket extreme ridicule time!

Any, and I mean any legislation or treaty that contains the terms "Global Warming" and/or "Climate Change" is a steaming pile of B.S. It's fear-mongering, power-grabbing B.S.

To say nothing of insane, absurd, irrational and has no place in the world of growups.

This may be a good time to repeat my feelings about war. Any war. I have felt this way since the end of the Bush41 Gulf war, and certainly at the beginning of the Bush43 Gulf war.

I would refuse to serve if called; I would urge my sons not to serve. I would challenge my government to shoot me, rather than force me to fight with the current "rules of engagement", set by "men"(?) who are not fighting alongside me.

You think the current anti-war sentiment is bad?
You haven't seen anything yet!

Nothing to do with whether I think the war is necessary, perhaps unavoidable, but when the "concern" is for the enemy and public opinion, rather than winning quickly and decisively, count me out! Fight to win, no rules, or surrender.

how Democrats are attempting by fiat to declare global warming a national security issue.[1] With no cynical purpose here, it seems clear that a central intent of the provision is to transform the rhetoric of climate change. National security remains a potent political justification for any issue, and its association with climate change may work to counteract negative environmentalist stereotypes.

This, apparently has been ongoing for a while now, silently, like cancer.

Had the American people known this sooner, the outrage would be deafening. Now, that it is beginning to leak out, things should get interesting.

That this would be entertained for even a milisecond, is mind-boggling.
It doesn't matter if it is symbolic, it is evil, cowardly, approaching treasonous.

Trading real, young American lives for pompous posturing based on a mostly discredited theory is unacceptable. Ever. Dammit!

The most powerful nation on earth, with the most powerful and awesome weapons, is no better than the weakest, if it not willing to use them.

Someone has "overplayed" her hand. Big time!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.