nerdgirl

Lack of ammunition: Not that I see evidence of; Decrease of willing/unwilling fighters: Perhaps – "why" is the critical question, imho; ... and then-some – more than those two dynamics are at play. Shift in alliances (whether temporary or permanent) may very well be one factor. One could imagine a rationale strategy (if one were cynical) that the most effective way for Iraqis to get American troops out of Iraq (‘their country’) is first to get the AQ-affiliated insurgents out … or at least make them less visible. It’s an extreme & simplified version of telling the ‘boss’ what he wants to hear, so that he’ll go away. It’s also not without historical precedence, e.g., behavior of lesser states of the former Soviet Union and behavior of those who surrounded Saddam Hussayn. I'm more concerned with the penultimate end - action against AQ-affiliates, than with the eventual other end (decrease in the level and type of US troop activity in Iraq). If motivation to the latter gets Iraqis to do the former – yeah! As we all know, Hussayn was a brutal, oppressive dictator; he was not, however, a radical Islamist enforcing their own interpretation of Sharia law. For example, in Anbar province, AQ-affiliated insurgents began trying to enforce their ‘law’ over tribal ‘law,’ including the execution of at least a couple minor tribal leaders (sheiks) or sons of sheiks, which angered many of the local leaders. What conclusion can one come to when some other force is considered “brutal” compared to Hussayn and his ruling Baathist party? This seems to have been an equal or close to equal factor in the apparent stabilization of Anbar and willingness to assist the both the Iraqi Army and US Marines as the ‘surge’, imo. These are not some incredibly novel observations on my part; Col David Galula, in Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice, argued that “insurgencies are revolutionary wars” whose outcome is determined by control of and support from the populace. His experience was in Algeria. I don’t know if I can imagine how weary the Iraqi people are of war/insurgency/oppression. Or some other reasons, such as the -- Single biggest contributing factor, imo: “Balkanization” Shi’a and Sunni ethnic groups, the Kurds were already relatively centralized in the north, via internal displacement and exodus by almost 4M, i.e., ~15% of the population; (specific citations herein) -- Avoiding the most serious issues: the central Iraqi government has not resolved the most contentious issue -- distribution of oil revenues -- among the many yet to be addressed -- Increase in number and capability of Iraqi Army and police, as should be hoped/expected given the amount of US taxpayer $$$ and considerable effort of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, along with federal civilians and contracted personal. To quote Lt Gen Odierno (2nd paragraph from the link Marc posted originally in this thread

In my sheltered existence (or lack of exposure to pop culture), I had no idea what that meant. “Googling” the phrase didn't provide much clarification initially: Murderous Indonesian Florists ... dang, tough flower peddlers (?), Exotic purple Malaysian wild flowers … slightly Georgia O’Keefe-esque-looking, which apparently isn’t too far off: one species is also known as the Clitoria flower (also in pink).

Another viable corollary (conclusion) based on the munitions and IED information is that if there were chemical or biological weapons that the insurgents would have recovered them and used them. The lack of use of traditional CW or BW agents is something of ex post facto argument against the assertion that Hussayn reconstituted his weapons programs btw Gulf War I and OIF. I.e., If Big AQ or Little AQ (networked affiliates) had a capability to escalate, I see nothing to suggest they would not use it. Do you have evidence otherwise? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Please show me the place where you got the information that says there are two million dead from the so called "civil war" in Iraq. I suspect that it's a reference to the study published in the British medical journal Lancet last year: "Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey" by epidemiologists from John Hopkins University School of Public Health. That study estimated that close to 650,000 Iraqis had been killed between March 2003 and 2006 due to violence associated with war (i.e., from Coalition forces, insurgents, IEDs, air strikes, etc). The values are higher than any other count of which I am aware. For example, Iraq Body Count, which relies on cross-referenced reports of specific fatalities, indicates 78,690 - 85,711 violent Iraqi deaths since 2003. And the JHU fatality estimate values have been much disputed/dismissed in the public press & political arena. While I'm only an 'unauthorized armchair epidemiologist,' the sampling and analysis method (statistics) appears robust to me; and more importantly, has not been successfully challenged by folks who do epidemiology and health statistics for a living. The most resounding criticisms relate the the sampling methodology. It's such a *huge* number ... particularly in comparison to all other estimates (including the official Iraqi Ministry of Health, the UN, and WHO) ... that one kind of has to go 'huh'? Initial skepticism is warranted ... but the study and its estimate do seem to hold up to scrutiny. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Something bordering on bizarre blatantly stolen from Wired Danger Room. “Al-Qaeda wants your questions” “Al-Qaeda sympathisers have been asked to send in their questions for the terror network's second in command, which he will then answer in an online interview next month. “The bizarre stunt was announced in a new video [available at http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22935702-2,00.html] posted on the internet in which al-Qaeda's number two, Ayman al-Zawahri, mocked yeterday's British handover of security in southern Iraq to local forces as a sign that insurgents are gaining the upper hand.. ”The websites invited readers to send in questions during the next month for Zawahri to answer in an "open interview." How the interview would work was not immediately clear.” From Intel Center: “As-Sahab Foundation for Islamic Media, in coordination with Al-Fajr Center, is pleased to announce the organizing of an open meeting with Shaykh Ayman al-Zawahiri, in which he will reply to questions directed to him by individuals, organizations and all information media outlets. Anyone wishing to direct a question to him should send it to one of the sites which will be specified for collection of questions during a period of one month commencing from the release of this announcement. Please try to keep the question brief and focused. Organizations and media outlets are requested to give their name at the end of the question, and we request the brothers supervising the collection of questions to transmit them as is without any changes or alteration, whether they be friendly or hostile. As-Sahab will do its best to publish the reply of Shaykh Ayman al-Zawahiri to as many questions at possible at the nearest possible opportunity, with Allah's help and guidance.” As surreal as the whole thing is … I’m also wondering about the motivation and what does it say – if anything – regarding al-Zawahiri’s perception of vulnerabilty? Is this desperation ... or indication that Al Qa'eda feels confident in their ability to evade US/allies? Is this an effort to legitimize al-Zawahiri to Muslims around the world, i.e, public relations AQ-style? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

From this weekend’s Wall Street Journal’s Op-Eds: "Would Reagan survive in today's GOP?" “The Republican race looks--at the moment--to be determined primarily by one thing, the question of religious faith. In my lifetime faith has been a significant issue in presidential politics, but not the sole determinative one. Is that changing? If it is, it is not progress. “Christian conservatives have been rising, most recently, for 30 years in national politics, since they helped elect Jimmy Carter. They care about the religious faith of their leaders, and their interest is legitimate. Faith is a shaping force. Lincoln got grilled on it. But there is a sense in Iowa now that faith has been heightened as a determining factor in how to vote, that such things as executive ability, professional history, temperament, character, political philosophy and professed stands are secondary, tertiary. “But they are not, and cannot be. They are central. Things seem to be getting out of kilter, with the emphasis shifting too far. “The great question: Does it make Mr. Huckabee, does it seal his rise, that he has acted in such a manner? Or does it damage him? Republicans on the ground in Iowa and elsewhere will decide that. And in the deciding they may be deciding more than one man's future. They may be deciding if Republicans are becoming a different kind of party. “I wonder if our old friend Ronald Reagan could rise in this party, this environment. Not a regular churchgoer, said he experienced God riding his horse at the ranch, divorced, relaxed about the faiths of his friends and aides, or about its absence. He was a believing Christian, but he spent his adulthood in relativist Hollywood, and had a father who belonged to what some saw, and even see, as the Catholic cult. I'm just not sure he'd be pure enough to make it in this party. I'm not sure he'd be considered good enough.”

I do so sincerely hope that you’re correct. I’m not sure that I accept the necessity of re-supplying munitions from external actors. Considering that the GAO estimated some 600,000 tons (“and possibly millions” according to SecDef Gates) of unsecured munitions became available after the initial invasion in 2003, I don’t foresee a scarcity any time soon. In March 2007, SecDef Gates said: “fundamentally, the entire country was one big ammo dump” (quoted from official DoD transcript: http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3911) He went on to acknowledge the difficulty of the task of securing those munitions: "We're doing our best to try and find them but, given the expanse of the country and all the other tasks that the military is trying to carry out there, it's a huge task." Beyond the civil war/insurgency, there’s another HUGE problem – those unsecured munitions are being used for the IEDS have caused over 64% of US soldier, sailor, airmen, and marine deaths. There’s also the 190,000 weapons that the US taxpayers paid for that are unaccounted for, including “110,000 AK-47 rifles, 80,000 pistols, 135,000 items of body armor and 115,000 helmets reported as issued to Iraqi forces as of September 22, 2005." More in “Stabilizing Iraq: DOD Cannot Ensure That U.S.-Funded. Equipment Has Reached Iraqi Security Forces.” Some of which have been alleged by Turkish officials to now by in the possession and use of PKK. Nonetheless, there have been reports of insurgents in Iraq getting weapons from the usual suspects. In international arms trade that doesn’t mean Iran; it means Eastern Europe (i.e., “New Europe”) and Africa. Low level insurgencies don’t require the quantity and kind of munitions that traditional “Fulda Gap”-style conflicts or US forces in Vietnam did. As far as WMDs “in reserve,” I don’t see any such indication. If you do, I would be very interested in the sources. Documents recovered in Afghanistan indicated that Big AQ considers that chemical and radiological agents tactical weapons (versus bio and nuclear as strategic). Reportedly the Al-Abud network in Iraq tried unsuccessfully to make nerve and blister agents (see Comprehensive Report by the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD: Iraq's Chemical Warfare Program; CIA: Washington, D.C., 30 September 2004). The Al-Abud network was formed late 2003 in response to OIF by the Jaysh Muhammed (JM). They recruited an “inexperienced Baghdad chemist” who was unsuccessful in initial attempts to produce tabun [dumb choice, imo; hardest G-agent to make, speculate choice based on available precursors] and the vesicant nitrogen mustard [again, kinda a big ‘huh?’ imo]. Precursors were obtained from “chemical suk district” and “farmers” who looted state companies. Initial attempts to produce traditional agents were unsuccessful, so the insurgents/terrorists shifted to improvised agents – unspecified formula “napalm,” which was to be filled into conventional mortars obtained from JM contacts. and sodium fluoride acetate, [aka “Compound 1080,” which is a *very* water-soluble and toxic rodenticide]. Between Oct 2006 and June 2007, there were at least 15 incidents of use of chlorine gas. It became a “signature tactic” for insurgents in AQ-linked groups in Al Anbar province. While the majority of civilian fatalities were due to concussive and blast injuries from accompanying improvised explosives, more 65 US service members were sickened during the 3 Jun 07 chlorine-IED attack in Diyala. Overall an estimated 300 US service members have affected in some manner (no deaths/no severe casualties). Intent/impact has been to (1) terrorize civilians and (2) complicate military operations; it’s become a ‘forced multiplier.” A third, probably unintended, consequence has been outbreaks of cholera across Iraq due to polluted drinking water (which may end up killing more people than the chlorine-IEDs). There was also the “al Mobtakhar” device (generation of HCN or CNCl) and the April 2004 AQ-affiliated Jordanian stash intercepted w/large amounts of sodium azide (potential to make another improvised choking agent). If Big AQ or Little AQ (networked affiliates) had it, I see nothing to suggest they would not use it. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

That depends. In this area, I am personally inclined to be more patient and more comfortable with hurdles than Congress (reflecting their constituents, perhaps … or not?) and than was reflected/implied/hoped for in President Bush’s and the VP’s rhetoric pre-and immediately-post execution of OIF. Remember the short-lived change from “GWOT” to “the Long War”? CPA handed off control to Iraqis in June 2004. Over three years later, how much has been accomplished? Not that I’m endorsing it in any way: dictatorships can be a *very* stable governments. Representative and parliamentary democracies are comparably messy and subject to change (that’s one more reason for a strong military corps and a robust civil service that extends beyond a single administration … or two or three). How long do *you* think it should take? When should the Iraqis be compelled to take responsibility for their own government? (A corollary of that argument is frequently put worth with regard to cutting/slashing/eliminating domestic assistance programs.) There’s also an isolationist argument (definitely more John Bolton than nerdgirl) that says that we should let the Iraqis to determine their own destiny and direct our energy to taking care of America. Otoh, should we just make Iraq the 51st state? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

The answer is at the end of the Universe, beyond redshift. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Exactly. I think it is intellectually dishonest and shows the true political side of the global environmental movement to single out the US as it does, constantly. Why harangue the countries that ARE doing something to get better and who will continue to get better, then let the bigger (IMO) polluters slide??? I think the US would take care of itself with all of our environmentalists here and the fact that we like to live healthy (for the most part). Why do we need to sign onto some international, politically motivated accords? Why not pester those that probably won't improve on their own and most likely don't even care to? Perhaps not surprisingly, I take a somewhat different lesson. Free market forces in the US did not want environmental regulation then … and many still don’t. Every once and a while the notion of eliminating the EPA as a cabinet level office arises. One lesson I take is that the globalized world of the 21st century is not likely to respond in a manner limiting pollution unless supranational bodies -- representing national interests -- act, e.g., through multilateral UN-based efforts, through bi- or tri-lateral efforts, through regional approaches (such as ASEAN), through free market pressure of environmentalism/green movement in business, or through international NGOs. How to balance forces to enable the good of free markets, particularly entrepeneurial capitalism, and limit bad, such as Chinese pollution of their own cities and sending lead-painted toys to the US, etc. is a challenge. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Nah. They've produced tangential threads ranging from interesting to very amusing! I must be very dense because the underlying strategic motivation is not evident to me. Look forward to enlightenment ... whether as photon, cation, or aerogel-like pumice. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Conur, & that is one of the issues I'm having with the Authorization Bill langauge, i.e., does climate change represent appropriate mission space for DoD. You bring up a legitimate interesting question/issue ... although both tangential to and larger than the original post, which is fine by me.

I'm guessing one of those is the SCOTUS case on gun ownership in DC, yes? What's the other? And why do see those two cases, whichever they are, having such a profound impact on the future of the US? I'm not trying to be snarky, and I'm reading your post as being genuinely sincere. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Dang, I was hoping there was chocolate on that line. Low-level internal violence? Yes. Rwanda-style civil war? No. “Why not?” is a reasonable question. One part of the answer: Iraq has an estimated population of 27.5M (according to 2007 CIA Factbook) Again from CIA estimates (others give significantly higher numbers, but trying to stay consistent and use most conservative estimates): “approximately two million Iraqis have fled the conflict in Iraq, with the majority taking refuge in Syria and Jordan, and lesser numbers to Egypt, Lebanon, Iran, and Turkey” I[nternally] D[isplaced] P[ersons]s: “1.9 million (2007)” So >7% of the population (or more) have voted with their feet and left. Another 7% of the population has relocated far enough to be internally displaced. There’s been a Balkanization by ethnic and religious lines, which I consider the single largest factor "why not." By comparison, the population of US is ~301M. To lose as >15% of the population, the US populations of Iowa, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Mississippi … or Illinois, Nebraska, Idaho, and Wyoming … or 3/4 New York State … or 2/5 California would have to move to Canada, Mexico, etc. (US populations number from US Census data) The current Iraqi government has also avoided the single most contentious issue: distribution of oil revenues. Failure to address the issue is one method to keep it from becoming contentious. Another factor "why not." Additionally, what’s the specific line in which insurgency passes over to civil war? Again, from the CIA Factbook: “an insurgency against the Government of Iraq and Coalition forces is primarily concentrated in Baghdad and in areas north, northeast, and west of the capital; the diverse, multigroup insurgency consists principally of Sunni Arabs whose only common denominator is a shared desire to oust the Coalition and end US influence in Iraq; a number of predominantly Shia militias, some associated with political parties, challenge governmental authority in Baghdad and southern Iraq.” If civil war is defined very narrowly (i.e., mass ethnic genocide, a la Rwanda) then that's semantics. The US, as far as I am aware, has not called the Janjaweed insurgent in Darfur a Sudanese civil war; although at one point the US State Dept did refer to pseudo-Maoists insurgents in Nepal as leading to a civil war if the US did not support the Nepali military with guns, equipment, etc. ---- ----- ----- ----- Flip it over – is there a robust, Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq? No. Is there some form of representative parliamentary democracy? If ya squint right, you can see one. If I was going anywhere other than a few Kurdish towns (e.g., Sulaymania) w/out US military (preferred) or PMC escort, even I would want a gun or two and knowledge/training how to use it! VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I view the kind of anecdotes Trent relates, which I have also observed in Asian states, to be testament to the success of the US environmental policy & regulatory legislation of the late 1960s and 1970s. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

That’s the title of a recently published article from the Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) by 5 authors from Hong Kong, USA, China, and UK. Full text available at (free): http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/104/49/19214.pdf The authors found correlation of historical incidence of cooling climate periods across disparate geographical and cultural areas (i.e., Europe & China) and incidence of war. The hypothesis is that long-term climate change has significant direct effects in land-carrying capacity that increases the likelihood of armed conflicts and population declines, which seems kind of obvious to me ... but need to the data and analysis to "prove" it.

Yes, the DoD requires a tremendous amount of energy to execute its mission. You raise a completely valid regarding need for non-foreign energy sources and alternative energy. The military is critically dependent on sources of energy to move things and people. Fuel is a huge logistics burden. For every $10 / barrel increase in the cost of fuel, DoD operating costs increase roughly $1.3B in the year of execution – that’s the “so what, who cares?” for the taxpayer. While it is sometimes difficult to deconflict strategic energy resource issues (read: Middle East, Venezuela, Russia issues) that are driving from those directly related to responding to climate change (whether anthropogenic, natural, or combination), the former, however, is being addressed by the DoD. -- The strategic importance of energy resources was in the 2006 QDR. See page 28. -- The DoD Energy Task Force, chaired by the SecDef, “is charged with defining an investment roadmap for lowering DoD's fossil fuel requirements and for identifying alternate energy sources. The Task Force will integrate findings from ongoing studies to quantify and define a DoD investment roadmap that considers all aspects of the energy problem.” This covers: + Demand Reduction + Demand Reduction for Installations + Demand Reduction for Systems and Platforms + Supply Security + Supply Security for Installations + Supply Security for Systems and Platforms Army Energy Website Navy Energy Website Air Force Energy Website The Secretary of the Air Force has been an especially outspoken proponent publicly for the need to develop alternative energy sources. -- DoD S&T (through DDR&E/services and DARPA) funding for alternative energy from basic research through the acquisition process … I don’t have a good source for summary data, as DDR&E doesn’t break funding down in that manner. There’s DARPA’s Very High Efficiency Solar Cell (VHESC) program. Companies of which I am aware that have been funded applied research through procurement for alternative energy, include: + Iowa’s Power Film, Inc who have been funded by the Army for rechargeable “solar field shelter” materials; + Konarka who do nanoparticle-based flexible photovoltaics, which were deployed with SF teams in Afghanistan; and + Emcore, Could they do more? I strongly suspect YES! Is there a strong champion w/in DDR&E and the services for investing in alternative energy? I don’t know. -- Last year, there was the well-publicized, DoD-funded study (that may have been Congressionally-mandated) on “National Security and the Threat of Climate Change” by the Military Advisory Board and the Center for Naval Analysis (CAN) that was vetted through a panel of eleven retired three-star and four-star admirals and generals. “The eight-month study examines how potential climate change may impact our military and recommends steps the Pentagon and national security community should take to prepare for any changes and to help mitigate damage.” -- Since at least January 2005, Acquisitions, Technology, and Logistics (AT&L) has had an on-going program Energy: A Conversation About Our National Addiction on “the central role energy plays in achieving national and program goals.” Old website (via NPS): http://www.nps.edu/cebrowski/conversation.html (RIP Adm Cebrowski) New website (contractor maintained): http://www.energyconversation.org/cms/ (Click "About Us" tab for mention of sponsors). "Why is the DoD hosting this series? Just as the Defense Department played a critical role in forging the information revolution [e.g., ARPANET] in past decades, so can the Department play a similar critical role in fueling the energy revolution in coming decades? Why are you invited? Because there are positive and negative outcomes of decisions you make dependent upon your understanding of energy. We are all stakeholders in addressing the efficiency, conservation, secure sourcing, and cost reduction of energy. It is complicated with no easy answers. There are NO SILVER BULLETS. Come learn with us." Ken Kreig (formerly the Under Secretary) regularly participated in these, as did the head of PA&E. This is not just some nerdy, tree-huggers from northern California, the Pacific Northwest, or the People’s Republic of Cambridge/Boulder. I attended a little less than half of the discussions - fascinating meetings in a context that one might not expect. -- Program Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E) – which can have a huge impact on funding allocations – looked at costs related to energy needs in OIF & OEF. Those are just the ones of which I am aware … & climate change/alternative energy is not my main interest area. One could actually make a fairly strong case that the DoD is acting as the strongest driver to address issues related to climate change and alternative energy (!) ... Even in consideration of all that, which I completely suppport, it still does not convince me that addressing climate change in strategic defense planning across the DOTMLF should take precedence over SSTR or other defense issues. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

While most climate change attention this week has been focused on the Bali discussions, back in DC the 2008 Defense Authorization Bill – in addition to $8B in Congressional additions – also directs the DoD to consider climate change in all strategic planning, e.g., National Security Strategy [which is actually a White House not a DoD document], National Defense Strategy, next Quadrennial Defense Review … but interestingly not the FY10-15 POM Process, which really drives funding priorities and budgets. I would not argue against the consideration of the geopolitical impact of climate change (particularly long term cooling) on international/intranational stability (e.g., disputes over scarce resources) nor argue against the evidence suggesting anthropogenic climate change is exceeding the rate of natural climate change. Specific prescription as part of strategic defense planning, however, strikes as unsettling/disconcerting/problematic. Where’s the prioritization? There's less in the bill on stability, security, transition, and reconstruction, which is a much larger strategic issue, im-ever-ho. And which part of DoD does climate change? There is no OSD Office of Climate Change or Deputy Assistant Secretary of Policy, although institutional limitations can be dealt with: there'll be a newly created "Special Assistant." At the same time, to quote Steve Forbes from this past week’s Forbes/Wolfe Nanotechnology Forum: “technology is the critical piece,” w/r/t dealing with energy and climate change. The 2008 President’s Budget Request (PBR), based on DoD input, requested less $ for basic research; the latest versions of the Appropriations Bill had small (~3%) increases. The Intelligence Authorization Act originally contained language, which would have required the Director of National Intelligence to submit a National Intelligence Estimate on the anticipated geopolitical effects of global climate change on the national security of the United States, which I support completely. (Actually the DNI has indicated that a climate change NIE is already being worked). VR/Marg ----- ----- ----- ------ HR 110-1585 SEC. 931. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONSIDERATION OF EFFECT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON DEPARTMENT FACILITIES, CAPABILITIES, AND MISSIONS. Section 118 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: (g) Consideration of Effect of Climate Change on Department Facilities, Capabilities, and Missions- (1) The first national security strategy and national defense strategy prepared after the date of the enactment of this subsection shall include guidance for military planners-- (A) to assess the risks of projected climate change to current and future missions of the armed forces; (B) to update defense plans based on these assessments, including working with allies and partners to incorporate climate mitigation strategies, capacity building, and relevant research and development; and (C) to develop the capabilities needed to reduce future impacts. (2) The first quadrennial defense review prepared after the date of the enactment of this subsection shall also examine the capabilities of the armed forces to respond to the consequences of climate change, in particular, preparedness for natural disasters from extreme weather events and other missions the armed forces may be asked to support inside the United States and overseas. (3) For planning purposes to comply with the requirements of this subsection, the Secretary of Defense shall use-- (A) the mid-range projections of the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; (B) subsequent mid-range consensus climate projections if more recent information is available when the next national security strategy, national defense strategy, or quadrennial defense review, as the case may be, is conducted; and (C) findings of appropriate and available estimations or studies of the anticipated strategic, social, political, and economic effects of global climate change and the implications of such effects on the national security of the United States. (4) The Secretary shall ensure that this subsection is implemented in a manner that does not have a negative impact on national security. (5) In this subsection, the term `national security strategy' means the annual national security strategy report of the President under section 108 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 404a).'. Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I'm hoping that was just a typo. It's 23 pairs of chromosomes - the 22 original autosomes + 2 sex chromosomes (XX or XY), for most humans. There are relatively rare conditions/diseases in which some people have additions or deletions. New phenomena, features & materials are discovered, yes ... and hypotheses and theories are revised (or completely abandoned, e.g., flat earth, Rutherford 'plum-pudding' atom model) but saying "facts change" is a little bit problematic in its simplicity. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Any medium should slow it, including Bose Einstein Condensates (BECs). This fabulous -- im-ever-ho -- physicist at Harvard, Lene Hau, used BECs to stop light, reported earlier this year in Nature: "Coherent control of optical information with matter wave dynamics." Btw: her research was sponsored by the Air Force (AFOSR).

In what medium? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

This a frequently cited criticism of policy decisions in response to/based on/influenced by anthropengic climate change. Does anyone have an estimate of how much money the US federal govt has spent related to climate change? Someone/group has to have done this. Would appreciate values calculated by all 'sides.' (Unsure how to deconflict from efforts more designed to limit dependency on foreign imports of fossil fuels, which has foreign policy/strategic element.) I'm curious as to how those values compare to money invested on missile defense, which in its latest incarnation exceeds $130B; it's $107B for MDA alone, which does get the largest share. NB: (1) The last POM cycle projected additional $41.8B in costs through FY13; in July 2003, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that spending would have to double, i.e., to ~$20B per year, based on past performance problems and costs to maintain the program. (2) those costs do *not* include sustainment, upkeep, and other costs to the Services after program transitions, & (3) the $130B in costs are actual not projected/calculated/assumed. I would like to see the overall Defense budget rise, perhaps another 50% - 150%+ over what it is now - but not for missile defense; some of my additional reasoning/arguments here. How do the projected costs to address climate change compare? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

A temporary armistice proposal occurred to me: exchange the BF refugees migrating here for displaced SC folks there. May help return balance to the dz.com Force.

Hey, I resemble that remark! Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for the links. I've expressed my opinion on Congressional additions, "earmarks," here before - they're generally not useful and the Executive Agencies (generally) dislike them. In looking at the Heritage Foundation links, one thing I noticed was that they did not include any additions from the Defense Appropriations Bill, which usually has the single largest share of earmarks. From Taxpayers for Common Sense, "a non-partisan budget watchdog," Defense Spending Bill Earmarks Just Shy of $8 Billion "The final 2008 Defense bill contains 2,161 earmarks worth $7,913,250,000. This is a reduction of 19% in total number of earmarks from 2653 earmarks in 2007 and a 30% reduction from the $11,289,645,000 total." In looking closely at one DoD program, Congress took a $30M cut from the DoD's Chemical and Biological Defense Program (CBDP) core physical S&T program (i.e., detection, protection, decontamination, information systems) from what was requested in the PBR. Congress also cut $100M from the CBDP's medical countermeasures program, which will mostly impact therepeutics and diagnostics. But added over 50 earmarks. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying