The likely outcome? Our security climate will worsen.
One image I will not soon forget from the recent State of the Union were the grim faces on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Though it may be the tradition of our military to be stoic during such occasions, the latest order probably adds to their troubles considerably:
A new directive issued by Pentagon leaders mandates that the agency work to “assess and manage risks associated with the impacts of climate change,” according to a copy of the Jan. 14 directive issued by Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work.
As the Obama administration focuses on a larger effort to push its climate change agenda, the Pentagon will now “address the impacts of climate change.” This includes engaging in “deliberate preparation, close cooperation, and coordinated planning” to “improve climate preparedness and resilience,” according to the directive.
I have long challenged the bad science and baseless assertions of eco-activists. However, I turned to military history expert Barry C. Jacobsen for his opinion about how chasing after “climate change preparedness” would impact what actually should be the top priority for the Pentagon: Military preparedness.
It’s reasons like this that make gauging our military strength vis-à-vis our competitors around the globe, based on how much we spend v.s. what they spend, an inaccurate measure. The Chinese and Russians don’t burden their military budgets with [items] like this. When the Pentagon has to spend time and money on such nonsense, it makes all of us less safe and our nation less secure. This is time and money that should be spent on training, salaries, retaining our personnel, and upgrading our weapon’s systems.
Climate change may, or may not be man-made. We may, or may not, be able to do something to alter whatever changes in the climate are coming. But that isn’t the issue. Whatever the Pentagon does, it won’t change that. There mission is not to stop global climate change (and predictions of dire consequences in the next 60 years). It is to prepare to fight or deter America’s enemies. That mission is their only mission. This takes time and money away from that mission.
We have just lost 12 Marines in a tragic helicopter class. A plane aiding in the search for those was reportedly hit with a laser, forcing it to alter its course. Will be have the money and resources to track down what went wrong with the helicopter and who is responsible for the laser hit on the rescue craft?
The Obama administration has diverted the mission of pretty much every agency, and there have been significant consequences. As an example, the EPA is the regulating bodies leading the charge against climate change.
The state of New Mexico is now suing the agency, because of its involvement with the Animas River Spill.
New Mexico plans to sue the federal government and the owners of two Colorado mines that were the source of a massive spill last year that contaminated rivers in three Western states, officials said Thursday.
The New Mexico Environment Department said it filed a notice of its intention to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over the spill, becoming the first to do so.
On the other hand, the EPA and the bureaucrats who delayed taking meaningful action after learning about the scope of the problem in Flint remain silent and continue to fly low under the media radar.
The EPA, the agency that is most relevant to the environment, is so burdened with its bureaucracy and rules that it can no longer fight pollution effectively. If the EPA isn’t meeting its original mission goals in this mad battle against climate change, then how can out military be expected to do so?
Why should our military be diverted from its primary task: Defending our country and its citizens from its enemies?
In one year, we will be getting a new Commander-in-Chief. Hopefully, the new one will be more interested in having the Pentagon focus on our security climate.
(Featured Image: EKAI Center video).