Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Having failed to break the US political deadlock, greens are now looking to the US military to intervene in domestic politics, to save us all from the carbon demon.
The Only Force That Can Beat Climate Change Is the U.S. Army
America’s military is the only institution that can break the partisan deadlock on the worst threat the nation faces.
BY ANATOL LIEVEN | JANUARY 9, 2018, 12:45 PM
The precise extent of human-induced climate change is unclear, but the basic science is unequivocal, as is the danger it poses to the United States. This threat comes from the direct impact of climate change on agricultural production and sea levels but equally importantly from the huge waves of migration that climate change is likely to cause, on a scale that even the world’s richest states and societies will be unable either to prevent or accommodate.
…
This is because the most promising avenue to convince conservative American voters and to generate genuinely serious action in the United States against climate change would be to firmly establish the link between global warming and critical issues of national security. The threat should be obvious, but even before Donald Trump took office, the security elites in the United States and other major countries had not yet really integrated it into their thinking. Thus the vast majority of reporting and analysis of security issues in the Persian Gulf relates to classical security threats: the future of the Iran nuclear deal, the geopolitical and religious rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the Saudi-led boycott of Qatar, and so on.
…
But the case for a security role is a vital one. Only security establishments and national militaries have the capacity to mobilize resources on the scale required. Only they can make the link between the threat of climate change and patriotic duty and convince ordinary voters that the sacrifices required are necessary for the future safety of their countries.
Integrating security into this debate would also bring with it a better understanding of how to address the risks involved. Climate change deniers such as the Heartland Institute are apt to call for absolute scientific certainty about climate change — a guarantee that any action will come far too late. On the other hand, some activists falsely assert absolute certainty about detailed future impacts — a certainty that simply cannot be justified scientifically.
…
One of the impediments until now to approaching this issue rationally has been that the issue of climate change has become miserably entwined with the cultural-political divide now splitting American society. In recent years, all too many conservative Americans have begun to deny climate change not on the basis of evidence or debate but because their cultural allegiance rules it out. “We aren’t the kind of people who believe in climate change.”
This is where the role of the U.S. military is so crucial. It is the one American institution that retains the confidence and respect of the great majority of Americans from both political parties. It is also an institution whose culture depends on a sober and realistic appreciation of threats and which can talk to conservative patriotic Americans with conviction and in a style they can understand. No “citizen of the world” will ever persuade a Republican voter to vote against his or her immediate interests. A U.S. soldier talking about threats to America would have no problem doing so.
…
The internal divisions in U.S. society and politics concerning climate change are obviously serious barriers to the security establishment’s playing a bigger role — as witnessed by the Trump administration’s NSS.
However, the sheer scale of the threat to the security of the country means that the U.S. military has an institutional and patriotic duty to instruct Americans concerning this threat, just as it has influenced them in the past on other threats falling within the military’s sphere of competence. Incidentally, this also involves education on the likely security consequences of mass migration, a subject on which liberals are as irrational in their way as conservatives are concerning climate change.
…
The second relates to the role of patriotism and nationalism in America. At present, climate change has been turned — quite unnecessarily — into an issue that divides Americans rather than unites themAt present, climate change has been turned — quite unnecessarily — into an issue that divides Americans rather than unites them. Nationalism is the only force in the United States and elsewhere that can motivate the masses to make sacrifices in the struggle against climate change not on behalf of abstract ideas of planetary responsibility but on behalf of a commitment to the future of their countries. This involvement of patriotism is vital, both because the economic sacrifices required will indeed be very considerable and because they will have to be made by present generations on behalf of future ones.
The military can play a key part in mobilizing these feelings and turning this struggle into one that unites Americans and reduces the divisions and hatred that are beginning to pose a threat not only to the working of the U.S. political system but even the long-term survival of U.S. democracy. Without this engagement, successful action against climate change will be impossible, and the consequences for the United States and the world will be disastrous.
Read more: http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/09/the-only-force-that-can-beat-climate-change-is-the-u-s-army/
I suggest one of the main reasons the US military enjoys the respect and support of the US people is because of the long upheld US military tradition of serving the Constitution rather than any particular political cause, a tradition of NOT intervening unnecessarily in US domestic politics.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“a tradition of NOT intervening unnecessarily in US domestic politics.”
Intervening in foreign countries is quite OK.
“…convince ordinary voters that the sacrifices required…” huh… sorry, sacrifices? Nobody mentioned sacrifices before, soldier. Thought this was supposed to be a bloodless war. What losses have you failed to anticipate or explain that are required as part of this war on climate catastrophe?
The green meme on green power had been betterment, no sacrifice. The lie is starting to unravel.
Oath of Enlistment for enlisted personnel.
“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
Oath of Commissioned Officers:
“I, _____, having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
Notice that both swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, or IOW the people. Not a government or flag but the people!
Don’t know how it is now but back in the early 80’s a survey was taken by a significant segment of the US Army enlisted and officers asking about taking what would be unlawful orders under that oath. The majority of young soldiers on their first enlistment tended to say they would follow the orders given. The majority of longer term soldiers/NCOs said they would not follow orders that were clearly unlawful. The pattern was the same for officers with Jr. Officers being more likely to follow the orders of the superiors without question.
“I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States”
What do they do when the President has been the main domestic enemy for 8 of the last 9 years ??
His orders are subject to evaluation for lawfulness under the Constitution. As many a president, most prominently probably Abraham Lincoln learned, having the power to issue an order is not the same as having the power to enforce it.
The military have a large intelligence organisation that is familiar with separating fact from disinformation; it also has numerous assets to collect unadjusted data. If it were to deploy a significant portion of this to study climate change it would rapidly conclude that the climate change alarmists are the domestic enemies it is sworn to protect the constitution from.
Thank the lord for the gift of president Trump, I cannot see this happening for at least the next 8 years minimum and then some I hope.
The reality is that, based on the paleoclimate record, the work done with modeling, and the physics of the climate system, the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is really zero. We have been experiencing weather cycles that are part of the current climate but are not a matter of climate change. The climate change we have been experiencing is so small that it requires a network of sophisticated instrumentation decades to detect it. Extreme weather events including droughts are part of the current climate. Even if we could somehow change our current climate we do not know how to change it in order to decrease extreme weather events. The best we can do is better prepare ourselves for the extreme weather events that have been going on for eons. This is the message that people should be getting but combat troops are not the best ones to be conveying this message to the general public.
I suspect the Greens would be happy with an organisation that wore runes on their collars to make sure the prole tow the line with respect to climate change.
The political left – a constituency that ordinarily loathes the military – having successfully compromised the mission and strength of the US military in the pursuit of feminist and LGBT, etc., purity, now wants further to compromise the US military’s mission and strength in the pursuit of solving a non-problem by means that would be mutinous and well as requiring all those who serve to violate theirs oaths and violate the Constitution.
The left’s success in their corruption/destruction/perversion of mainstream religious denominations, and their success with selective (and erroneous) application of Biblical citations, have given them reason to be optimistic with this new notion from Lieven.
The real enemy is the Big Brother state.
https://youtu.be/N_jGOKYHxaQ
The year 2022 just 4 years to go.
That’s why, at this point, the proposal will go no where. What’s chilling is the mindset behind the proposal.
And if you see what a state police force can do because they don’t like people to peacefully vote in a referendum…….
https://youtu.be/bBUJNbLa4ko
https://youtu.be/FtUSHrzzRGg
just imagine what military could do.
Of course this is just the spanish sh..h… we live in a ‘civilized’ EU country.
The problem we saw with the so called “referendum” was its illegal nature, and the intent to follow it up with a coup de etat, which would put several million Spaniards in grave danger due to the anarchy and potential for separatist violence, which could even degenerate into terrorism. Thus the state invoked Article 155 of the Spanish constitution, and called for elections, in which the three separatist parties failed to win a majority of the popular vote. 🙂
You are part of the problem to defend a fascist state. We just wanted the same as the Basques but the state said No No No . Ok than we separate. You don’t like us so goodbye. And yes espanistan would have a BIG problem.
https://youtu.be/DsftEhipbRM
The military’s expertise is in hurting people and breaking things.
‘America’s military is the only institution that can break the partisan deadlock on the worst threat the nation faces.’
That sounds like a threat to me. Personally.
‘In recent years, all too many conservative Americans have begun to deny climate change not on the basis of evidence or debate but because their cultural allegiance rules it out.’
This false characterization exists only in his mind. But isn’t the military more conservative than the general population? He’s going to use conservatives to convince conservatives not to be conservative?
‘This is where the role of the U.S. military is so crucial. It is the one American institution that retains the confidence and respect of the great majority of Americans from both political parties.’
Profoundly ignorant . . . or a lie.
“Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.”
“The military’s expertise is in hurting people and breaking things.”
The US military with the help of our allies are exceptionally good at protecting our citizens and protecting property.
How do we fight the Milankovitch cycles and stop the ice ages?
I suppose we could flood the Qatara depression and other low lying areas with sea water, make sure Lake Chad and the Sea of Azov get more runoff and cover a larger area…things like that could help.
John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia —
The science has spoken.
Nuke both poles
http://www.biggiesboxers.com/wp-content/uploads/bfi_thumb/nuclear_atomic_explosion_missile-n4nzjeu39ddjkk6h3n4xu7g4eex3ru8gbdbr2j92ee.jpg
The desperation of the Greenie eco-fascists is becoming more and more evident every day, thanks to Trump. This absurd missive is a blatant and desperate appeal to “national security”. They desperately hope that by waving the US flag (irony much?) they can appeal to coservatives to come around to Climatism. It’s laughably desperate and absurd.
That’s the problem with big government solutions. Whatever can’t be cajoled by indoctrination can be imposed by force. The whole problem with climate change is the fact the models have failed to correctly make predictions. In science that’s called falsification, and the public knows about the failures. Hence, the solution is to impose an involuntary solution to an imaginary problem.
I needed to fix the first sentence, which reads:
“The precise extent of human-induced climate change is unclear, but the basic science is unequivocal, as is the danger it poses to the United States.”
To be scientifically accurate, it should read:
The precise extent of human-induced climate change is unclear, but the basic science is unequivocal, as are the amazing benefits we are poised to reap from the modest warming and CO2 fertilization, leading to global peace and stability.
There,,,fixed. Now the rest of the article becomes irrelevant. (sorry if someone has already made this very necessary correction.)
The precise mechanics of how the universe operates is unclear, but the basic science is unequivocal, as is the danger it poses to your reality. But for three easy payments of a lifetime of work, we can assure you that your reality will remain intact.
“The military can play a key part in mobilizing these feelings and turning this struggle into one that unites Americans and reduces the divisions and hatred that are beginning to pose a threat not only to the working of the U.S. political system but even the long-term survival of U.S. democracy.”
Yup, there’s nothing quite like military rule to promote unity and democracy. Fortunately, at least at this point, most military personnel are likely to be loyal supporters of Constitutional rights and liberty.
Yet the alarmists still insist it isn’t the thin edge of the wedge of totalitarianism. To my continued disbelief.
Yes Sir!
The science has spoken, Sir!
The science says fight the deŋiers. Sir!
Load up, environmentally friendly green ammo, we got a war to win!
Why the military? Wouldn’t it make more sense to implement a “Climate Gestapo”?
It would !
Or the green police.
https://youtu.be/Ky8x0ykF_tQ
“However, the sheer scale of the threat to the security of the country means that the U.S. military has an institutional and patriotic duty to instruct Americans concerning this threat, just as it has influenced them in the past on other threats falling within the military’s sphere of competence. Incidentally, this also involves education on the likely security consequences of mass migration, a subject on which liberals are as irrational in their way as conservatives are concerning climate change.”
First, war powers rest with Congress, and need to remain there (esp. in the case of the Middle East, in which Congress has given war powers to one President, and every President since has used it). The day Congress declares war on the Climate is the day they are removed from office.
Second, our country is said to be a “country of immigrants”, and this means that we– of all nations –understand the potential evils of mass migration better than any other. It has been our experience that there can be a very very fine line — in fact no difference at all — between mass migration and human trafficking. That is why the US outlawed migration from certain countries at various times in its history. People were being moved for the purpose of free or next-to-free labor. And that is not good for anyone, no matter what the Jesuits and the Pontifex Maximus in Rome may say.
Also, during the mid-nineteenth century, migration shifted from the Northwestern European countries to the southern and eastern European countries, and this meant that there were many people coming from the Old World, who had no conception at all of free, republican forms of government. And they tended to become ghettoized, in cycles of poverty and separation. Now that we have a massive drug problem, and an expectation of welfare payments to people who come here, this will worsen the cycles of ghettoization and crime, drug use, and anomie. The inducements to come here must never be welfare and hand-outs, multi-cultural quotas, and lack of accountability to the laws of our land. The inducements to come here are to individuals, to come here legally, and for opportunities to better themselves materially, intellectually, and spiritually, under the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.
Among those migrants, one named Nikola Tesla came, with only change in his pockets.
http://www.infoniagara.com/attractions/falls_night_fireworks/images/falls_fireworks6.png
What is unknown yet allegedly proven beyond question…
Sounds like a sociopath warming up to their high/depression topics of the day.
ergo: the unknown unproven impacts to climate will;
• a) do something direct to agricultural production; assumption by the up/down fear monger is that all impacts are bad or destructive…
Which ignores better plant growth and increased yields.
• b) directly impact sea levels; again unstated impacts but a clear intimation people will not like the new sea levels.
• c) force huge waves of mass migrations; who/where from is still unknown.
• d) Then the coup de grâce of CAGW caused climate change is to become climate change the richest states, nations and societies are unable to prevent…
Just which rich state or society can prevent climate change today!?
I believe the proper British slang term for this type of thinking is called “completely mental!”. In any case, the author of that claim should really get some professional help, or seclusion.
Though, claim climate science authority and get a paid move to France is a possibility.
FWIW: for those who believe that there may just be a modicum of truth printed on the pages of Wikipedia, here is the entry for our quoted author, one Anatol Lieven:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatol_Lieven
Of course, in just speaking for myself, this Wikipedia entry is about exactly as I would expect for an author of such an anti-military big govt advocating article: a description of a self-anointed offish Euro-elitist.
PS: my apologies if this has already been referenced … as I did not read all of the comments.
Remember what Obama said in his last State of the Union speech:
Look, if anybody still wants to dispute the science around climate change, have at it. You will be pretty lonely, because you’ll be debating our military … and 200 nations around the world who agree it’s a problem and intend to solve it.
Now another SOB tells our military to “debate” the citizens!
And this new little SOB, Anatol Lieven, is:
a) a British author
b) an Orwell Prize winner – should it be called an Orwellian Prize now? and
c) a fellow of the notorious New America Foundation, which is best described as a Google’s lobbying arm, although other usual suspects are present as well: http://www.webcitation.org/6wTPrh9HB
All the while, the Greens ignore that the US military is the biggest polluter in the world, uses more resources than the vast majority of countries combines, and leaves the largest carbon footprint in the world.
Where are the Greens when it comes to Depleted Uranium? And why didn’t the Greens criticize Obama and HRC for destroying the $70 billion underground river built by Gaddafi to supply all of Africa with fresh drinking water? What about the illegal DU weapons that destroyed the fresh water aquifer used for this underground river? And where are the Greens when it comes to Fukushima?
Just useless Soros pawns who cannot think for themselves.
Kelly
You do know that all isotopes of an element are chemically the same?
You do know that uranium is ubiquitous in the earths crust?
You do know that U is found in all most all wells?
You do know that U is not particularly toxic and harmful levels are well established?
You do know that urine tests can identify if U is causing harm?
Finally Kelly you do know that you have not established that drinking water standards have been exceeded or anyone harmed by U?
Over the top rants lacking any scientific basis attacking the military is another reason the military can not defend over the top rants about climate.
Aside: How did I do with the debating tactic of asking stupid questions rather than presenting facts.
I’ve been hearing Greens whine about DU for decades. Like most other things they whine about, they haven’t a clue. Metallic uranium is not very toxic. It’s radiation levels are barely measurable.
Qaddafi built an underground river that was able to supply ALL of Africa? All the way down to S. Africa????
Would you care to give the coordinates for this imaginary river you are so concerned about?
DU is not illegal. DU cannot be used to destroy an acquifer. It’s real good at destroying armored vehicles, but that’s about it.
I’ve been hearing Greens whine about Fukushima since the accident happened, and once again, there is no reason for them to do so.