›March 7, 2014 // By Kate Diamond
Earlier this week, the Department of Defense released its first Quadrennial Defense Review since fiscal cliffs, shutdowns, and spending cuts hit the federal government. Not surprisingly, “austerity” shows up in almost every chapter of the report. What shows up even more? Climate change. For the second QDR in a row, the Pentagon has called out climate change as a “significant challenge for the United States and the world at large.”
›November 14, 2013 // By ECSP Staff
Super Typhoon Haiyan left the central Philippines in ruins, with a staggering death toll that could climb well above 10,000. The U.S. military is leading the international response to the devastation, along with international aid agencies. The Pentagon has dispatched an aircraft carrier and five other Navy ships, plus a separate group of at least 90 marines and specially trained humanitarian relief teams to the area.
›“We are, what I would call, very non-linear thinkers,” said U.S. Navy Captain Wayne Porter about the white paper he co-authored with U.S. Marine Colonel Mark Mykelby, “A National Security Narrative,” launched by Woodrow Wilson Center President Jane Harman at the Center in April. “We’re almost incapable of restricting ourselves to defense and security in isolation from a much larger perspective,” he told Dialogue TV.
“I think maybe that’s why Admiral Mullen has kept me around – I can offer a perspective that maybe he wouldn’t get from conventional strategists or from conventional planners,” said Porter, who served three out of four tours with the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as a special assistant for strategy.
Dialogue host John Milewski sat down with Captain Porter and Robert Litwak, director of International Security Studies and vice president for programs at the Wilson Center, for a discussion about the white paper – published under the pseudonym “Mr. Y” (echoing George Kennan’s seminal “X” article) – and its contention that the United States should move away from an outmoded Cold War-era model of containment, deterrence, and control towards a “strategy of sustainability.”
The narrative has been well received, Porter said: “I think there is an appreciation that it’s a very complex strategic environment that we live in now and that maybe we need to re-look at all of the tools that we could use as a nation to pursue our enduring national interest.”
Inflection Points in History
“The timing of such conversations is cyclical,” said Litwak. “The original ‘X’ article emerged from the end of the Second World War and the advent of the Soviet threat, which required a new conception of international relations that Kennan articulated, as well as the National Security Act of 1947 to line up the U.S. government with this new environment.”
There have also been periods of concern about American decline. “I think what one sees in the current era are both of those trends coming together,” Litwak said:
The system is changing – it’s a debatable proposition that the United States is in decline – but we see in the international system rising powers, notably China, as well as transnational trends that are beyond the sovereign control of any single state, which have called into question the nature of the international system…as well as a sense that…there’s something qualitatively different about this recession than the typical economic, cyclical recession and that has to do with the domestic sources of American strength.These conditions, as well as the source of argument – coming from the military – combined to give particular resonance to the piece, Litwak said.
The Information/Globalization Age
“I think the thing that has changed materially to us is that the information age has brought about an awareness that our environment is completely interconnected,” Porter said. “There’s a complexity to this that can’t be analyzed linearly, that has to have new tools applied.”
“I’d honestly characterize it as significant as the Enlightenment in the 1600s,” he said.
“Certainly we’ve thought in silos and debates have been too often compartmentalized,” Litwak said. “One of the strengths of this piece is that it is truly synthetic – working across the continuum of instruments of power – and talks in a really powerful way about how hard power…has its place, but that the non-military dimensions of American power have been neglected.”
But, Porter said, it’s important to focus on being proactive, rather than reactive:
The thing that bothered us most about the strategies that we see every day in our jobs on our side of the river and across the river is that they are almost universally based on anticipating and countering known risk and threat, and our sense is that we have entered an age in which we need to overcome that sense of fear and seize the opportunity to shape the environment of the future as opposed to simply being resilient to it.As Litwak points out, Secretaries Gates (now former) and Clinton – in the form of the Quadrennial Defense Review, Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, and numerous speaking engagements – have both called for closer integration between State and Defense, more resources for non-military levers of power, and more holistic concepts of security. But unfortunately the greater integration called for in these documents remains unrealized.
Dialogue is an award-winning co-production of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and MHz Networks that explores the world of ideas through conversations with renowned public figures, scholars, journalists, and authors. The show is also available throughout the United States on MHz Networks, via broadcast and cable affiliates, as well as via DirecTV and WorldTV (G19) satellite.
Find out where to watch Dialogue where you live via MHz Networks. You can send questions or comments on the program to firstname.lastname@example.org.
›Quadrennial Development and Diplomacy Review (QDDR), the first of its kind, was recently released by the State Department and USAID in an attempt to redefine the scope and mission of U.S. foreign policy in the 21st century. Breaking away from the Cold War structures of hard international security and an exclusive focus on state-level diplomacy, the QDDR recognizes that U.S. interests are best served by a more comprehensive approach to international relations. The men and women who already work with the U.S. government possess valuable expertise that should be leveraged to tackle emerging threats and opportunities. As in the U.S. Department of Defense’s (DOD) 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), issues not previously recognized as “high politics,” such as environmental change and energy security, are recognized as underlying the security and well-being of the United States and its allies. Only by addressing emerging threats to stability such as these in advance and from the ground up can the State Department and USAID engage multilateral diplomacy.
An Integrated Approach to Security
The QDDR is a commendable step toward improving U.S. policies abroad. By giving increased recognition to human security to include energy, health, the environment, non-proliferation, terrorism, and cyber-security, the United States can increase its strategic capacity for foresight and action, rather than reacting to world events after they occur. From a military perspective, such changes are welcome and will likely assist DOD efforts to provide security in critical regions. DOD has already been working closely with USAID in reconstruction efforts, not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but also previously in Bosnia and other regions. The DOD shift to provincial reconstruction teams (PRTs) reflected a similar recognition that approaches to security needed to be comprehensive and could not be accomplished without interagency and local engagement. DOD has likewise acknowledged the strategic importance of emerging risks, involving reorganization of traditional authorities at times. The recent creation of the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) included both military and civilian authorities in the command hierarchy, allowing agencies like USAID to be involved in addressing security-as-development in Africa.
Yet as pointed out previously by Fred Burkle, the government must still clarify the relative roles played by DOD, USAID, and State in foreign development policies. The United States risks over-militarizing foreign relations if too much funding and expertise are drawn out of USAID and related agencies, placing additional burdens on DOD and perhaps diverting attention from the military’s primary skills and mission priorities. The development of PRTs and policies like Focused District Development (FDD) are improvements in DOD capacity but also responses to earlier political failures to employ the expertise of State and USAID in the lead-up to foreign engagements. Recognition of this need is a first step, but more is needed, as events of the past 10 years have actually strengthened organizational stovepiping.
The Challenges Ahead
The QDDR lays out some organizational changes that should take place in order for its priorities to be realized. Other experts, such as Anthony Cordesman, have already commented on the organizational difficulties of achieving goals expressed in the QDDR. Among these concerns are institutional biases against functional bureaus in favor of regional desks and how to leverage additional resources in the current political climate. At the risk of repeating similar arguments, it is worth mentioning the primacy of organizational change to allow cross-department and cross-national information sharing among experts. The complex challenges that the QDDR correctly identifies require new forms of discussions in order for actionable information to be available for State and USAID, as translation of global problems cannot be accomplished by regional or functional teams alone. Environmental issues, for example, are both closely tied to energy and commercial activities, as well as having regionally specific impacts that can only be foreseen by those with on-the-ground experience.
The ability to translate complex global issues into workable information poses three significant challenges to State and USAID:
- Relevant bureaus and agencies must be able to work across organizational lines, an immense difficulty when so much of Beltway culture is determined by stovepiped structures. History is unfortunately replete with examples of where foresight intelligence was available but could not be communicated to the proper agency or authorities. The QDDR addresses interagency cooperation, but often, wider communication beyond executive agencies is necessary.
- Even when communication channels exist, problems tend to be defined in unique ways by various experts, and few common frames of reference are available to tackle complex global risks without overly simplifying them. Droughts may be defined as a food security issue by one agency, an environmental resource issue by another, and an energy security risk by a third; all three with ready solutions that only fit their own office’s perception of causes and effects (which may contradict the others).
- Rules of secrecy and classification often prevent sharing information, even when it comes from open-source channels, or prevent U.S. government officials from engaging with foreign nationals who possess key data or local knowledge. These are hurdles far larger than the State Department itself, but without recognition they may discourage the operation of functional bureaus or provide false evidence to detractors that cross-cutting issues are not worth addressing.
Be sure to check out the other entries in The New Security Beat’s full series of analyses on the first QDDR.
Chad M. Briggs is the Minerva Chair of Energy and Environmental Security for the Air University, USAF, and a principal consultant with GlobalInt. His comments do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Air Force or the Department of Defense.
Sources: Center for Strategic and International Studies, Foreign Policy, The New York Times, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. State Department.
Photo Credit: “091012-F-7498H-173,” courtesy of flickr user isafmedia.
›May 6, 2010 // By Schuyler NullAs the crippled Deepwater Horizon oil rig continues to spew an estimated 210,000 gallons of crude oil a day into the Gulf of Mexico, the Department of Defense has been asked to bring its considerable resources to bear on what has become an increasingly more common mission – disaster relief.
British Petroleum has requested specialized military imaging software and remote operating systems that are unavailable on the commercial market in order to help track and contain the spill.
In addition, the Coast Guard has been coordinating efforts to burn off oil collecting on the ocean’s surface and thousands of National Guard units have been ordered to the Gulf coast to help erect barriers in a bid to halt what President Obama called “a massive and potentially unprecedented environmental disaster,” as the oil slick creeps towards the coast.
As shown by these calls and the ongoing earthquake relief effort in Haiti, the military’s ability to respond to large-scale, catastrophic natural (and manmade) disasters is currently considered unmatched. The first Air National Guard aircraft was on the ground in Haiti 23 hours after the earthquake first struck, and DOD’s Transportation Command was able to begin supporting USAID relief efforts almost immediately. The Department of Defense also spearheaded American relief efforts after the 2004 tsunami and played a critical role in providing aid and security in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.
The Pentagon’s four-year strategic doctrine, the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), released earlier this year, predicts that such humanitarian missions will become a more common occurrence for America’s military, as the world grapples with the destabilizing effects of climate change, population growth, and competition over finite energy resources. Some experts see this expansion of the military’s portfolio as an essential part of a “hearts and minds” strategy, while others are critical of the military’s ability to navigate the difficulties of long-term reconstruction.
The QDR also highlights DOD’s efforts to reduce the need for oil – and thus deepwater oil rigs – in the first place.
The DOD as a whole is the largest consumer of energy in the United States, consuming a million gallons of petroleum every three days. In accordance with the QDR, Pentagon leaders have set an ambitious goal of procuring at least 25 percent of the military’s non-tactical energy requirement from renewable sources by 2025. The Air Force – by far the Pentagon’s largest consumer of petroleum – would like to acquire half of its domestic jet fuel requirement from alternative fuels by 2016 and successfully flight-tested a F/A-18 “Green Hornet” on Earth Day, using a blend of camelina oil and jet fuel.
At a speech at Andrews Air Force Base in March, President Obama lauded these efforts as key steps to moving beyond a petroleum-dependant economy. However, at the same event, he announced the expansion of off-shore drilling, in what some saw as a political bone thrown to conservatives. Since the Deepwater Horizon incident, the administration announced a temporary moratorium until the causes of the rig explosion and wellhead collapse have been investigated.
Cleo Paskal, associate fellow for the Energy, Environment, and Development Programme at Chatham House, warns that without paying adequate attention to the potential effects of a changing environment on energy infrastructure projects of the future – like the kind of off-shore drilling proposed for the Gulf and Eastern seaboard – such disasters may occur more frequently.
In an interview with ECSP last fall, Paskal pointed out that off-shore oil and gas platforms in the Gulf of Mexico were a prime example of how a changing environment – such as increased storm frequency and strength – can impact existing infrastructure. “Katrina and Rita destroyed over 400 platforms, as well as refining capacity onshore. That creates a global spike in energy prices apart from having to rebuild the infrastructure.”
The Department of Defense has demonstrated – in policy, with the QDR, and in action – that it can marshal its considerable resources in the service of renewable energy and disaster relief. But given the scope of today’s climate and energy challenges, it will take much more to solve these problems.
Photo Credit: “Deepwater Horizon,” courtesy of flickr user U.S. Coast Guard. U.S. Air Force Tech. Sgt. Joe Torba of the 910th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron, which specializes in aerial spray, prepares to dispatch aircraft to a Gulf staging area.
›May 5, 2010 // By Schuyler NullReenergizing America’s Defense: How the Armed Forces Are Stepping Forward to Combat Climate Change and Improve the U.S. Energy Posture.
The military as a leader and catalyst for renewable energy was a key focus of the recently released Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), which for the first time included consideration of the effects of climate change and excessive energy consumption on military planning:
Assessments conducted by the intelligence community indicate that climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments. Climate change will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease and may spur or exacerbate mass migration.
According to the Pew report, the Department of Defense has set a goal of producing or procuring at least 25 percent of its non-tactical electric energy needs from renewable sources by 2025. Highlights of the service’s efforts include:
The Pew report offers a generally favorable appraisal of the military’s response to the “twin threats of energy dependence and climate change” and the progress made towards reaching federal energy mandates. However, the authors let slide that the overwhelming amount of DOD energy usage is tied to tactical consumption, which has been given inadequate attention thus far (consider that the senior Pentagon official overseeing tactical energy planning was only just appointed, although the position has existed since October 2008).
- The U.S. Navy’s “Great Green Fleet” carrier strike group, which will run entirely on alternative fuels and nuclear power by 2016;
- The construction of a 500-megawatt solar facility in Fort Irwin, California by the U.S. Army which will help the base reach ‘net-zero plus’ status;
- The goal of acquiring 50 percent of the U.S. Air Force’s aviation fuels from biofuel blends by 2016;
- The U.S. Marine Corps’ 10×10 campaign to develop a comprehensive energy strategy and meet ten goals aimed at reducing energy and water intensity and increasing the use of renewable electric energy by the end of 2010.
Interest in this field has grown quickly, as evidenced by the more than 400 people gathered at the launch of the latest report from the Center for New American Security (CNAS), Broadening Horizons: Climate Change and the U.S. Armed Forces – a big increase from the 50 or so at CNAS’ first natural security event in June 2008.
The CNAS study, much like the Pew report, breaks down the military’s efforts by service, but the study’s authors – including U.S. Navy Commander Herbert E. Carmen – thankfully provide more specific recommendations for what could be done better.
Based on research, interviews, and site visits, the study offers geographically specific recommendations for each of the Unified Commands, as well as seven broad recommendations for DOD as a whole:
“While we believe there is still much work ahead, there is a growing commitment to addressing energy and climate change within the DOD,” said USN Commander Carmen in the report:
- In light of its implications for the global commons, ensure that DOD is included in the emerging debate over geoengineering.
- Urge U.S. ratification of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea in order to provide global leadership and protect U.S. and DOD interests, especially in the context of an opening Arctic sea.
- Eliminate the divided command over the Arctic and assign U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) as the supported commander.
- The U.S. government should make an informed decision about constructing nuclear reactors on military bases and provide clear policy guidelines to DOD.
- Congress and DOD should move away from the “cost avoidance” structure of current renewable energy, conservation, and efficiency practices in order to reward proactive commanders and encourage further investment.
- All of the services should improve their understanding of how climate change will effect their missions and capabilities; e.g. migration and water issues may impact Army missions, a melting Arctic, the Navy.
- The Air Force should fully integrate planning for both energy security and climate change into a single effort.
Indeed, in our conversation with officials in the Office of the Secretary of Defense for Policy, it was clear that, in developing the climate change and energy section of the 2010 QDR, the Department of Defense has developed a nascent, intellectual infrastructure of civilian and military professionals who will continue to study the national security implications of climate change, and, we hope, will continue to reevaluate climate change risks and opportunities as the science continues to evolve.A holistic view of national security that includes energy and environment, as well as demographic and development inputs, continues to gain traction as an important driver in DOD policy and planning.
Photo Credit: “Refueling at FOB Wright” courtesy of Flickr user The U.S. Army.
›March 30, 2010 // By Dan Asin“The Department of Defense is not the U.S. government lead for climate change, but we certainly can show leadership in this area,” Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy Amanda Dory recently told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center. “That’s true of energy as well.”
In the panel discussion “Climate Change and Energy in Defense Doctrine: The QDR and UK Defence Green Paper,” Dory was joined by Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti RN, the climate and energy security envoy for the U.K. Ministry of Defence and Foreign & Commonwealth Office, and DoD energy and environmental analysts Commander Esther J. McClure USN and Lt. Colonel Paul Schimpf USMC for a dialogue on climate change and energy, and their implications for U.K. and U.S. security analyses.
National Security and Climate Change
“We see climate change as a condition that has second-order effects that can contribute to conflict and instability,” Dory said. Quoting the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), she called climate change an “instability accelerant”—it does not spark conflict itself, but climate-related resource scarcity, shifts in agricultural productivity, and migration pressures can.
The threat of conflict is particularly strong in weak countries, where severe climate impacts could overwhelm limited state capacities. Morisetti, speaking about the UK Defence Green Paper and the country’s most recent Global Strategic Trends report, noted that many at-risk states already lie in current hotspots and along vital trade routes.
The panelists also raised concerns over the potential impacts of:
National Security and Energy
- Sea-level rise and extreme weather events on coastal infrastructure, including military and economic assets;
- Receding Arctic sea ice on trade, resource extraction, and sovereignty claims;
- Melting permafrost on energy infrastructure;
- New patterns of disease; and
- More intense, and perhaps more frequent, extreme weather events and demands for humanitarian and disaster relief missions.
As nations advance their efforts to mitigate climate change, defense forces will have to reduce emissions and pay more for traditional fuels, said Morisetti. In a carbon-constrained world, there will be competition for traditional fuels.
Beyond climate change, Dory said energy has the potential to be either an “asymmetric vulnerability” or a “force multiplier.” Energy-guzzling platforms are costly to operate, difficult to transport, and have long supply lines. As Amory Lovins said in his presentation at the Woodrow Wilson Center last fall, cutting down the number of costly and vulnerable fuel convoys, freeing troops for alternative missions, and procuring equipment with larger operational ranges can greatly enhance strategic courses of action.
On the home front, the integration of cyber-control systems and renewable energy supplies into the U.S. power grid is creating new vulnerabilities for military bases and headquarters in the United States. “We’re seeing variable renewable energy resources integrated into a brittle grid at the same time as we see people moving toward variable demand,” McClure said. “As a former chief engineer, I tell you that that equation doesn’t work out real well for very long.” Figuring out how to make energy supplies for domestic facilities more robust—either by improving the national energy grid, developing efficient off-grid generation capabilities at bases, or a combination of both—is a major concern identified in the QDR.
Each panelist detailed ways to integrate climate change and energy in current and future planning, strategies, and operations:
Military-to-Military Cooperation: Cooperation around climate change and energy issues can build communication channels while helping both developed and developing country militaries learn to adapt. In many developing countries the military is “the only [organization] that [has] the infrastructure to do the necessary disaster planning and response,” said Schimpf. U.S. military experiences abroad can help inform both the DoD and civilians about best practices at home. Such initiatives to advance military-to-military environmental cooperation will build on previous DoD efforts over at least the past 20 years.
Force Planning & Acquisitions: The planning and acquisition process should incorporate energy performance, efficiency, and effectiveness, said Dory. In addition, Morisetti said, fuel forecasts must be properly priced. For example, under standard pricing methods, fossil fuels consume 2.5 percent of the UK military budget, but the figure jumps to 15 percent when using the fully burdened cost of fuel. Reducing the vulnerabilities of energy supply will be a key task of the Director of Operational Energy Plans and Programs, a new position mandated by Congress but yet to be confirmed.
Inter-agency Cooperation: “Climate change doesn’t recognize departmental boundaries, the same way it doesn’t recognize international boundaries,” Morisetti said. The DoD has been cooperating on climate change and energy issues with partners at the Department of State, Department of Energy, and elsewhere. Stovepiping within departments is also a problem. During their extensive consultations, the QDR team found that “there are a huge amount of practitioners within the DoD who are working on climate change issues,” said Schmipf. “However, it seems that everybody is in their own little foxhole, so to speak; there’s not a whole lot of coordination.”
R&D;: The security community can be a key contributor to energy research and development, either directly developing technologies itself, funding research elsewhere, or acting as a testing ground/early adopter for new products, said Schimpf.
Installation Vulnerability Assessments: Initial surveys of DoD installations were performed in the lead-up to the QDR, said McClure. More detailed efforts will identify which installations are vulnerable to what types of climate change, and what are the best ways to adapt.
›March 24, 2010 // By ECSP Staff“I believe right now that energy is a vulnerability and constraint on our deployed forces,” said Department of Defense nominee and CNAS Vice President Sharon Burke yesterday morning at her confirmation hearing before the Senate’s Armed Services Committee. She described the tremendous cost—in lives, capital, and operational flexibility—of meeting the current fuel needs of troops in Afghanistan. Leading DOD’s efforts to account for the “full cost and full burden of energy,” she said, will be one of her priorities if she is confirmed.
“The committee and Congress have shown an acute interest in operational energy by creating this position,” said Burke, who would be the first person to serve as Director of Operational Energy Plans and Programs (DOEPP). “Sharon Burke has a deep understanding of the energy and climate change challenges facing the Department of Defense,” according to Geoff Dabelko, director of the Wilson Center’s Environmental Change and Security Program. “She would be able to hit the ground running if confirmed.”
Burke said that previous Congressional and presidential mandates have pushed DOD to improve the energy posture of its domestic facilities. She hopes to achieve similar successes in the operational arena. While she was reluctant to privilege any single solution, she suggested that more efficient weapon platforms and tactical vehicles, alternative fuels, and better business and acquisition processes could all be part of the mixture.
In response to a question from Senator Chambliss (R-GA) about climate change, Burke said, “I think the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) does a very good job laying out the proper role of the military forces.” The Wilson Center recently hosted a panel discussion on the QDR and the UK Defence Green Paper, at which the speakers repeatedly referred to the future DOEPP.
The nomination hearing largely avoided any tension concerning climate science and mitigation policies, focusing instead on military operations and ensuring the maximum effectiveness of U.S. forces. “My top priority would be mission-effectiveness,” Burke said. E&E; News reports Burke is expected to be confirmed.
Photo: Sharon Burke courtesy CNAS.
Join the Conversation
- Eastern Europe’s Most Difficult Transition: Public Health and Demographic Policy, Two Decades after the Cold War Wednesday, August 20, 2014
- Underage: Addressing Reproductive Health and HIV in Married Adolescents Wednesday, July 30, 2014
- National Security and Climate Change: What Do We Need to Know? Tuesday, July 29, 2014