The Fire This Time
If a terrorist had set fire to Southern California and displaced 500,000 people, President Bush would schedule an "address to the nation" in which he pledged to spare no expense in confronting this new tactic in the so-called Global War on Terror (GWOT). But since it's just a human-assisted natural disaster, we can probably count on him to do too little, too late. The federal response won't be as blatantly irresponsible as his administration was in the case of Hurricane Katrina (there are PR issues to consider, after all), but it is likely to be grossly inadequate nonetheless.
What if climate change, outbreaks of disease, entrenched poverty, and other threats to human life were treated as security issues? Would it help or hurt efforts to address these challenges?
A "security shift" of this sort would certainly hold out hope for increasing the resources devoted to non-military threats. Foreign Policy in Focus, a project of the Institute for Policy Studies, suggests just such a move in an April 2007 report on "A Unified Security Budget for the United States." The report calls for a shift of $56 billion from military spending to non-military tools of security -- an illustrative figure which could be increased over time if the concept of an overarching security budget were taken seriously by the Congress and the next president.
A new vision of what constitutes security is certainly long overdue. Traditional military threats just don't exist on a scale that justifies anything like current levels of military spending.
Fighting Al Qaeda with traditional military forces is like trying to kill a swarm of mosquitos with a sledge hammer. Since this is the main mission that is used to justify current U.S. military spending -- which could exceed $700 billion next year -- there is ample room for cutting back.
Yes, there's Iraq of course, but it is the continuation of that conflict that poses the greatest threat to U.S. interests. A quick pull-out could save $150 to $200 billion per year.
Although China looms in the background, the reality is that at the moment it is more of a market than a menace, and skillful diplomacy should be able to keep it that way for the foreseeable future.
Iran spends about one percent of what the U.S. spends on its military. Even if it went all out Tehran could not acquire a nuclear bomb for five to ten years or more.
North Korea is in negotiations that could lead to a rollback of its nuclear program, Libya has abandoned its nuclear and chemical weapons programs, and Cuba and Venezuela are at most annoyances, not major threats.
In short, as Colin Powell said at the end of the Cold War, the United States is "running out of enemies" that pose any direct and meaningful threat to U.S. lives or U.S. interests. The new enemies are climate change, nuclear proliferation, HIV-AIDs, and other non-traditional threats to human existence. Combatting them will require unprecedented global cooperation, not a quest for new countries to attack.
While the above-mentioned arguments support the idea of treating climate change and related disasters like hurricanes, floods, fires, and drought as security issues and assigning them corresponding priority in allocating government resources, there are also dangers in promoting this way of framing the issues.
Most notably, we can depend on the Pentagon to define fighting climate change as one of its priority issues and address it with some of its traditional methods. This approach could range from using its existing planes and boats for evacuation missions to preparing for "stability operations" in countries torn asunder by fights over resources made scarce by the impacts of global warming.
The Defense Department is already looking towards the development of oil shale -- which produces even a greater carbon footprint than regular petroleum products -- as a future fuel for aircraft and combat vehicles. Depending on how much they invest in this process, the Pentagon could skew commercial energy markets in this direction as well.
In short, the national security impact of global warming could end up being just another way of keeping the military-industrial complex up and running in the style to which it has become accustomed.
But this isn't the only possible outcome. A group of retired generals and admirals has collaborated under the auspices of the CNA Corporation to issue a report on "National Security and the Threat of Climate Change," which spends considerably more time discussing generalized solutions to the climate challenge than it does to defining narrow military missions for fighting it. Alongside a shift in funding from military spending to disaster prevention and relief efforts, this broader approach could lead to a situation in which the fires and hurricanes of the future are handled with the focus and resources needed to save as many lives and limit as much disruption as possible.
Comments (22)
I wonder if there's a psychology involved with the status of our military and defense, versus the general public's support for armed conflict.
When I first read this statement "Traditional military threats just don't exist on a scale that justifies anything like current levels of military spending," my initial thought was that whenever we have a draw-down in military spending and resource, we always have to ramp them back up quickly and painfully for the populace during a time of conflict.
But then, I began to think of the history of our armed conflicts. It seems to me that when we have not had the large military budgets, resources, bases, etc., the United States tends to rally rather quickly and move into war production. And we tend to win those wars / conflicts.
Yet, on the other hand, think about when our military and defense were well established either through rollover from a previous conflict (Korea, Vietnam) or through appeasement to the military-industrial complex (Iraq). There were no sacrifices from the general public (sans the blood of the youth), there were no diversions from commerce to war production. And, we've either lost or withdrawn from those conflicts.
So, it seems to me that when we are forced to readjust ourselves as a nation from commerce to a war footing, we not only do it quickly, but we seem to generate better outcomes for our conflicts.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity
Where everybody knows your name...
unless you use a pseudonym
October 24, 2007 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Plus, it's more in line with the Constitution, which did not envision standing armies, but the raising of them - as needed.
October 24, 2007 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mmm... I'm not so sure that's necessarily accurate, although it's definitely not a settled argument.
One of the main reasons for the Constitution to be created was that the Articles of Confederation did not allow for the central government to provide funds for standing armies and navies. Shay's Rebellion showed the Articles' weaknesses on this point.
Madison was a firm believer of standing armies, as were most of the delegates. It was a few delegates, including Elbridge Gerry and Luther Martin, who wanted a cap on the number of soldiers in a standing army (3000). This idea was rejected by the states unanimously. The Convention included the clause for two year funding limitation for the armies as a compromise.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity
Where everybody knows your name...
unless you use a pseudonym
October 24, 2007 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
As Mr. Hartung well knows, the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System ( our current network of interstates that was financed and built with public money) was established on excactly that point by Eisenhower- that it was in the defense interests of the country to have that level of infrastructure.
I don't recall the Defense department laying any cement for the project, (although there may have been cooperation on where the roads went). Why would the Defense department need to be involved in many of those other national security priorities? As a bureaucratic entity? As a procurement entity? As a contracting entity? If Iraq and Afghanistan are indicative of their prowess in that regard, well, good luck gettin' that body armor, soldier.
My biggest problem at this point (with the current bunch of fascist corporatizers in power) declaring ANYTHING strategically defensive in nature is that Halliburton (or the next corporate welfare cheat) would benefit so greatly that when the bridges started to buckle from shoddy construction, the roads crumbled from substandard concrete, or the oil shale refinery spewed toxic smoke, the taxpayers would have to pay to do it all over again.
Then you're talkin' real money......
Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran
October 24, 2007 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
This lede brought to mind a question I've asked before;
Suppose there was a terrorist attack inside the U. S., but one not as large as 9/11, perhaps a refinery explosion, a train wreck, a chemical company fire, or, maybe even the forest fires in Calif; would we know it was terrorists? Would the Bush gang come on TV and tell us?
Would they cede the PR advantage of "we haven't been attacked since 9/11"?
October 24, 2007 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Probably not in the case of the fire threat...it's too easy to let the "global warming nuts" attribute it, even if it was a cigarette-fused book of matches....
Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran
October 24, 2007 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Would they cede the PR advantage of "we haven't been attacked since 9/11"?
PR advantage? They are MASTERS! When the California Congressman got up and FINALLY called Bush out for his niggardly ways with SCHIP while blowing money and bodies on his war ---> who won? Bush! With whose help? Nancy Pelosi and her band of merry milquetoasts. Finally a word of truth spoken and they guy is forced to apologize! At least they didn't take him to Gitmo.
That said...
Considering the mileage they have gotten from the 911 attack about which they were warned in advance and ignored it (except of course the avoidance of commercial airlines around that time by high officials, such as Ashcroft), I have no doubt they would spin another attack as being the fault of the Democratic Congress.
Jan
October 24, 2007 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a reflection.
First I heard on the news that Californian firefighters were being distracted evacuating people who had not heeded the evacuation request, and, therefor were unable to fight the fire.
Later I heard that 1500 Natinal Guard had been called up, after the event.
Now where's the coordination in that?
With something this big going on and 500,000+ evacuating, wouldn't some level of call up been prudent.
Or are they underequipped and over-stressed to the point of being called only as last resort?
So, yes, we could lower overall military expenditure substantially while making sure the National Guard is capable, competent and available, and for emergencies, able to help neighbors.
Lastly, shouldn't the US only have to fight the wars it needs to fight, not trillion dollar boondoggles at god-only-knows what human cost some psycopathic preznit chooses to fight?
October 24, 2007 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jan,
I called Pete Stark's DC office, and, in a polite way, expressed my strong disappointment in his apologizing. I told them Stark simply reinforced the opinion that Dems were wimps. I also siad the wimp factor is why they are held in such low regard in the polls.
October 24, 2007 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The situation out here is indeed grim. There are really only so many resources available for such a vast disaster area and no one I know expects much from Bush or his cronies in the gutted FEMA to be of much use. Thankfully many people here are already reaching out in various ways to help (both individuals and businesses). In addition, given the current weather conditions and the difficult areas in which many of these fires are located, there's very little that can be done right now in terms of stopping the fires. Aid in the form of shelter, food and water are obviously priority at this time. Add to this situation the fact that many of these areas have been over developed in treacherous locations which only invites this type of disaster and the lump moves a little further up in your throat. It's similar to people who live on flood plains although obviously one has no water and the other has too much. But in both cases we find populations establishing themselves and growing enormously despite the geographic location's limitations and dangers.
Today I am currently reading a rather timely article @ the NYT Magazine site called The Future Is Drying Up. It's an ominous look at the dwindling water supplies (specifically here in the west) and the archaic infrastructure and ownership rights that make dealing with this problem a daunting task to say the least. Not only does no one know what to do or say about the problem, no one knows who to even say it to. This water shortage is a catastrophe looming on the horizon for many of us here in the west yet it receives far too little attention in my opinion. The impact of this will not only be to things such as fresh drinking water, lovely lawns and clean cars but also to the largest consumer of our piped-in water - agriculture. So when all of us who current live out here in the desert of the west run out of water there will surely be an economic collapse. It will also have a devastating impact on regional food supplies . What happens then? The fallout from this will be felt across the nation and not just by the people whom Glen Beck compassionately referred to as "those that hate America". This all may be a little bit of an off tangent to the fire directly but I personally made the connection because I thought about how will we fight these kinds of fires in the future with no water? But then again, with no water there will likely be no people, homes, stadiums or other signs of civilization to protect from those future flames. Just sand, scrub brush and the sea.
October 24, 2007 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I stand corrected.
October 24, 2007 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't want our army on the ground here, I want them training to fight. I want our National Guard here, with all their equipment, in the states they work in. They know how to fly cargo planes just fine.
October 24, 2007 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is absolutely no doubt the Democrats have lost the war. The only question is whether they will also be responsible for losing the upcoming conflict with Iran.
October 24, 2007 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't all the security fol-de-rol around Bush flying in to inspect the damage just complicate the efforts of the emergency workers? Every time he shows up somewhere, the secret service has to sanitize the zone, usually disrupting anyone in the vicinity. His foreign visits certainly screw things up for the natives.
But, as we know, with the Bushies, it's all about managing perceptions, not actually showing competence and helping.
October 25, 2007 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't Bush severely criticized for not going to New Orleans after Katrina rather than just flying over on the way back to Washington? I suspect his enemies would have made the same charges if he had not gone to California.
October 25, 2007 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
It wasn't so much that he didn't pyhsically go to New Orleans, it was that he stayed in the West doing fund raisers.
October 25, 2007 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
IIRC, Bush was criticized for visiting Florida after Hurricane Charley in 2004, because of his visit disrupting relief work.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Is est vicis muto probo.
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity
Where everybody knows your name...
unless you use a pseudonym
October 25, 2007 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent points, and not tangential at all, really. The article you cited also looks interesting. For others who might want to read it, here is the link.
"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." ~~ Abraham Maslow
October 25, 2007 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heard on Randi Rhodes, from a firefighter out west---nobody that has been on fire teams for a long time has the slightest doubt that at least the local climate is different than any in their experience. The assumption is warming has shortened their winters and reduced their snowmelt.
As to planning for future security threats, it hasn't actually been useful to date, but you have to try, I guess.
I'd say the best planning would be to position the US as:
1) Actually trying to stop emitting CO2, and
2) Working overtly to help, through no-strings aid, poorer countries ameliorate climate effects.
In other words, since we can't easily predict where enemies might appear, why don't we stop making enemies and start making more friends?
October 25, 2007 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Every time he shows up somewhere, the secret service has to sanitize the zone, usually disrupting anyone in the vicinity. His foreign visits certainly screw things up for the natives.
When Bush visited the Mayans in Guatamala they turned that tables on that, and exorcized their village of evil influences after he had left. :)
October 25, 2007 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
We could take a lesson from the Mayans, who were ALL more educated that our "chimp in chief:"
It will take decades to sanitize ourselves from the disgusting infection that the Cheney/Bush adminstration has done to our society, our lives, and those of our young people. Bush is clue-less because he is a pathological narcissist. He is a hateful bastard.
OK -- El Camp -- show how I am wrong!
Jan
October 25, 2007 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Occasionally...just maybe...the spin works the other way? Many programs during the Eisenhower era were moved through a Congress reluctant to fund any "socialist" public programs by tacking the magic word "defense" on it. My college education was financed in part by the NDEA...the National Defense Education Act...though what a B.A. in Music and a Ph. D. in American Studies has to do with defense, I have no idea.
One could also mention programs like "Food for Peace". (I guess I just did). :-)
aMike
October 26, 2007 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink