Compounding this disastrous situation, with all the instability and challenges we face throughout the world, our once-proud and uncontested military forces have also been subjected to debilitating social engineering directives. This is being done under the mantle of “diversity.” These include the removal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”; forcing women into all combat roles, including our Special Forces and Navy SEALs; and the integration of “transgender” personnel into the military. None of these directives enhance readiness or capability. Of course, the restricted Rules of Engagement our soldiers are forced to observe is another factor leading to the destruction of our military capability and effectiveness, as well as adding to the unnecessary loss of military lives.
The net effect has been to not only undermine the moral fiber of our military, but to adversely affect unit integrity, cohesiveness and most importantly, the “will to win.” We most recently saw an example of this with the capture of our two 47-foot heavily armed Riverine Command Boats in the Persian Gulf on Jan. 12 by two lightly armed Iranian center console craft. “Humiliation” describes it best. This was the darkest day for the U.S. Navy since the North Korean capture of the USS Pueblo.
Another directive that will adversely affect combat readiness and effectiveness is the recent Executive Order 13653, which directs all government agencies, including the Department of Defense, to prepare for the “impacts of climatic change.” The department last issued a broad directive on climate change in July 2015. President Obama has once again declared that climate change is our No. 1 national security threat. There is no doubt Russia, China, Iran and ISIS will certainly reinforce that view.
Consequently, the Pentagon has ordered all commanders down to the tactical unit level to incorporate “climate change” into every aspect of military operations, including combat, intelligence and surveillance, exercises, testing, procurement and whole hosts of other related areas, which are ill-defined. Mind-boggling.
The undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics wrote the directive, which was approved by the Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert O. Work. It is understood that this directive provides numerous orders to service secretaries and the Joint Chiefs of Staff on how the strategy to counter climate change is to be incorporated into current war plans, operational plans and operation orders. What the secretary should have already known is that our operational planners always factor in climate and prevailing seasonal weather conditions, including all aspects of terrain. The single objective is winning — not satisfying some faculty-lounge, ill-conceived logic on debatable climate change.
Further, the directive orders a new layer of bureaucracy to include a wide array of “climate change boards, councils, and working groups” to ensure climate change is integrated into all programs, plan and policies. With the bloated bureaucracy we already have, we certainly cannot afford another one, particularly with the tight budget crisis we have.
Let’s face facts: military planners and operators must deal in reality. That reality is based on how to “win” wars with the least possible loss of life and protect this great nation’s security. Factoring “climate change” into our operational plans and orders makes no sense and is only going to add another layer of confusion and distraction from the principal objective of “winning.”
The claim by climate change proponents that there will be more frequent or severe weather events requiring substantial involvement by Department of Defense units is not supported by the U.N.’s most recent global warming predictions. Nonetheless, our military forces have shown over many decades that they are ready and capable to respond to any humanitarian crisis. There is no military in the world better than that of the United States for “projecting humanity.” Fortunately, even though diminished, we still have the capability to project power.
The climate change proponents are cut from the same cloth as the social engineers who have never served in the military and never will, and who will never bear any of the responsibilities of the negative impact they have forced on our military forces. They particularly ignore the unnecessary military casualties suffered as a result of these ill-conceived directives. The Joint Chiefs of Staff should continue to take a strong position against these debilitating directives, which adversely affect our military forces’ readiness and capabilities. Nothing less is acceptable.
This column was originally published at The Washington Times website.