Manoeuvring Early?

This morning the New York Times ran an article outlining some of the potentially catastrophic effects of climate change on national security. The article begins by stating that:

The changing global climate will pose profound strategic challenges to the United States in coming decades, raising the prospect of military intervention to deal with the effects of violent storms, drought, mass migration and pandemics.

The concerns raised here are both real and imminent. Since 9/11, political scientists have concurred that 'new security' challenges such as the environment, terrorism and disease constitute a much greater threat to the western world than traditional war. One only has to look at recent outbreaks of swine flu as well as terrorist attacks in Britain, Spain and the U.S to see that this is true. Meanwhile, there has not been a single 'hot' war between developed countries since 1945. This makes it all the more surprising that the Pentagon and U.S intelligence agencies are only now taking their first look at the potential implications of climate change for national security.

A recent report by the U.S National Intelligence Council, 'Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World' predicted that by 2025, the scarcity of natural resources such as clean water, food and oil will be a potential cause for war. Furthermore, dwindling domestic supplies of oil in the U.S make this problem particularly poignant in America. So why has it taken the Pentagon until now to commission any reports on the topic and what has finally prompted them to?

The first question can be answered by the Bush administration's obsession (bordering on fetish) for all wars Middle East, as well as their confidence (bordering on arrogance) that America was unchallengable militarily. 9/11, however, was a watershed moment in exposing this idea as a fallacy. National Security, it appears, can no longer be secured by tanks and war planes, we needed a new way of conceptualising it. Whilst President Obama has been stuck with the continuation of Iraq and Afghanistan, he is not tarnished by either the fetishes or the arrogance of his predecessor and has shown his ability to think ahead in commissioning this report. It's findings might just give 'new security' issues the spotlight they deserve.

The second question may have a little more to do with politics. The World Future Energy Summit takes place in January 2010 and president Obama has so far been unable to force Congress to act on many, if any, of the issues which will be discussed. One sure-fire way to get their attention: tie the issue into the national security debate. Neither the timing nor the findings of the report could have played any better for the Obama administration (which is probably why they commissioned it) who will be loathed to once again bow down to European leadership on environmentalism at the summit.

Now the debate has been brought front and centre, it's time to see if Obama is willing to show the kind of leadership which has been lacking in his push for healthcare reform. If he does, it may just set the wheels in motion for many of his other policy priorities to be legislated on.

ADJB