The next war will be a green war

To hell with our defense capabilities.  The Obama administration wants the Pentagon to prioritize climate change in all military actions.

Citing "actionable science" (whatever the hell that means), the president is directing our warriors to create an entirely new layer of bureaucracy to oversee the effort to beat back global warming.

Yes, but will the military still be able to beat back a real enemy?

Washington Times:

The Pentagon is ordering the top brass to incorporate climate change into virtually everything they do, from testing weapons to training troops to war planning to joint exercises with allies.

A new directive’s theme: The U.S. Armed Forces must show “resilience” and beat back the threat based on “actionable science.”

It says the military will not be able to maintain effectiveness unless the directive is followed. It orders the establishment of a new layer of bureaucracy — a wide array of “climate change boards, councils and working groups” to infuse climate change into “programs, plans and policies.”

The Pentagon defines resilience to climate change as: “Ability to anticipate, prepare for, and adapt to changing conditions and withstand, respond to, and recover rapidly from disruptions.”

To four-star generals and admirals, among them the regional combatant commanders who plan and fight the nation’s wars, the directive tells them: “Incorporate climate change impacts into plans and operations and integrate DoD guidance and analysis in Combatant Command planning to address climate change-related risks and opportunities across the full range of military operations, including steady-state campaign planning and operations and contingency planning.”

The directive, “Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience,” is in line with President Obama’s view that global warming is the country’s foremost national security threat, or close to it. Mr. Obama says there is no debate on the existence of man-made global warming and its ensuing climate change. Supporters of this viewpoint label as “deniers” any scientists who disagree.

Billions of dollars spent on a new bureaucracy to make sure the military takes into account the "impact" of climate change on our war-fighting capability.  This is yet another example of the military being used as a social science lab rather than an organization whose primary purpose is to protect the country.  If there was a ghost of a chance that climate change would impact vehicle and weapons maintenance, for instance, or alter tactical attack plans, it might be necessary for our military to take global warming into account.

But since there's no sign that any of that will occur anytime soon, the administration's decision to militarize climate change has more to do with politics than reality.

To hell with our defense capabilities.  The Obama administration wants the Pentagon to prioritize climate change in all military actions.

Citing "actionable science" (whatever the hell that means), the president is directing our warriors to create an entirely new layer of bureaucracy to oversee the effort to beat back global warming.

Yes, but will the military still be able to beat back a real enemy?

Washington Times:

The Pentagon is ordering the top brass to incorporate climate change into virtually everything they do, from testing weapons to training troops to war planning to joint exercises with allies.

A new directive’s theme: The U.S. Armed Forces must show “resilience” and beat back the threat based on “actionable science.”

It says the military will not be able to maintain effectiveness unless the directive is followed. It orders the establishment of a new layer of bureaucracy — a wide array of “climate change boards, councils and working groups” to infuse climate change into “programs, plans and policies.”

The Pentagon defines resilience to climate change as: “Ability to anticipate, prepare for, and adapt to changing conditions and withstand, respond to, and recover rapidly from disruptions.”

To four-star generals and admirals, among them the regional combatant commanders who plan and fight the nation’s wars, the directive tells them: “Incorporate climate change impacts into plans and operations and integrate DoD guidance and analysis in Combatant Command planning to address climate change-related risks and opportunities across the full range of military operations, including steady-state campaign planning and operations and contingency planning.”

The directive, “Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience,” is in line with President Obama’s view that global warming is the country’s foremost national security threat, or close to it. Mr. Obama says there is no debate on the existence of man-made global warming and its ensuing climate change. Supporters of this viewpoint label as “deniers” any scientists who disagree.

Billions of dollars spent on a new bureaucracy to make sure the military takes into account the "impact" of climate change on our war-fighting capability.  This is yet another example of the military being used as a social science lab rather than an organization whose primary purpose is to protect the country.  If there was a ghost of a chance that climate change would impact vehicle and weapons maintenance, for instance, or alter tactical attack plans, it might be necessary for our military to take global warming into account.

But since there's no sign that any of that will occur anytime soon, the administration's decision to militarize climate change has more to do with politics than reality.