Follow us on social

Honduras-2

US military must renew its mission to meet climate-charged global crisis

It's time to prepare our well-resourced, capable forces for saving the world, not destroying it.

Analysis | Global Crises

The report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released on 28 February is an eye-opener, posing a "now or never" challenge to staving off the catastrophic effects of man-made warming.

It is also glaringly obvious that the lion's share of what is detailed in the report will fall to the U.S. military to deal with. And the more a negligent civilian leadership — both at the national and local levels — delays serious action to adapt to and ameliorate climate change, the more this reality will be exacerbated.

Whether it’s sea level rise, unprecedented drought, extreme weather events, devastating and wide-ranging fires, dwindling fresh water supplies, food scarcity, multiple pandemics, or massive human migrations (particularly from the Global South), or any number of these occurring simultaneously or synergistically, the hand-writing is on the wall.

Other countries' militaries are for the most part either too small or too ill-equipped and ill-trained to deal with such challenges. The U.S. military is not only resourced and trained; it is the only military with unparalleled global reach. The ships, the planes, wheeled vehicles, water distribution systems, satellite communication networks, and, most of all, the ability to deploy far from its shores, all reside chiefly in America's military forces.

All Americans should be grateful that the leaders of their military services, unlike many of their civilian leaders, are not burying their heads in the sand and looking the other way. All of the services have climate change strategies. But none of these strategies — yet — contemplates the devastation and work that confronts the military, and sooner rather than later. The new IPCC report is loaded with examples.

Simply looking at water and food — "the staples of life" — demonstrates how daunting the challenges are. Look at Syria today for an early example. 

From 2007 to 2010, Syria experienced the worst multi-year drought in its history. This was on top of two previous multi-year droughts that themselves were devastating, particularly to Syrian agriculture. Before the droughts, Syria was a net exporter of wheat; after the third drought, Syria had to purchase wheat on the world market — and usually at very high prices. We all know what followed  — a bitter 11-year civil war from which the country has yet to emerge.

Meanwhile, the water and food situation grows increasingly desperate, as it does all across the Levant where aridity is the worst it's been in a thousand years.

The recent much-praised agreement between Israel and Jordan to trade solar-generated energy for water is an example of the sort of state-to-state cooperation the region will require to reduce some of the risk, but it still falls far short of what is needed. All across northern Africa and much of the way south, east, and west from there is similarly hurting as ground water is depleted, crops and livestock are starved for water and food, and conditions worsen every day. The ongoing Ukraine crisis has highlighted some of the challenge. 

Because of the ongoing war, Ukraine, a key food exporter, especially to the Levant and North Africa — has had to curb some exports. Lebanon was receiving more than 50 percent of its wheat from Ukraine. No longer. On top of such dramatic changes, food prices are at a 10-year high and will likely rise further. Worse perhaps, fertilizer prices have skyrocketed as high as 205 percent above pre-war levels. Both Russia and China have begun to limit exports of fertilizer, fearing each might not have sufficient amounts for their own agricultural sectors.

And U.S. sanctions on Belarus have increased the global price of potash, a key ingredient in fertilizer. These price increases are wreaking havoc on the food security of critical regions in the Global South that are already increasingly challenged by climate change’s impact on their food and water supplies that, in turn, is promoting transnational migration.

The Ukraine crisis also provoked some remarkably courageous comments from the IPCC heads of delegation from both Ukraine and Russia under the circumstances. Oleg Anisimov, the Russian representative, said: "Let me present an apology on behalf of all Russians not able to prevent this conflict....[I] fail to find any justification for the attack on Ukraine.” And Svitlana Krakovska, his Ukrainian counterpart, said: "Human-induced climate change and the war on Ukraine have the same roots — fossil fuels and our dependence on them."

As climate change begins seriously to threaten American — indeed global — security, the only large and capable military forces readily available will be those of the United States. Within less than a generation, emergency delivery of food and water, as in Somalia in 1993, will be essential to stop massive starvation and total state collapse. 

Medical care will be needed as well. But soon, such early and interim steps will give way to extremely serious decision-making in Washington. For example, as its own Americas portion of the Global South suffers ever more seriously the effects of the climate crisis, millions will try to relocate. The border challenges of today, as overwhelming as they may see, may only be a harbinger of much worse to come. Every southern U.S. state, even the states with only water borders, will likely have to deploy its National Guard. Active military forces will follow.

America must get moving now, not dither and doubt. The U.S. military's risk factor equation is around 60-65 percent. That is, if the chance of disaster is that high, you buy insurance, the best policy you can afford. The risk with the climate crisis is human existence and the risk factor is at least 70-plus percent. Ask yourself what you would do. 

These recommendations in no way constitute an advocacy for more overseas bases for the U.S. military, a supplemental to its already-over-the-top budget, or an increase in its overall numbers. In fact, these recommendations absolutely eschew even more stupid, endless wars that detract from attention to genuine national security challenges such as that presented by the changing climate.

The military knows it's coming, just as many in 1938 and 1939 knew a massive war in Europe was coming and that it would eventually envelop America. We did something — almost too late, but not quite. This time the risk is far, far greater. We owe it to our military to get moving. Indeed, we owe it to the human race.


Rescued Hondurans receive immediate medical care assessment from US military during hurricane relief efforts by Joint Task Force-Bravo, Nov. 13, 2020. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Elijaih Tiggs)
Analysis | Global Crises
Trump Vance Rubio
Top image credit: President Donald Trump meets with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance before a call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Monday, August 18, 2025, in the Oval Office. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The roots of Trump's wars on terror trace back to 9/11

Global Crises

The U.S. military recently launched a plainly illegal strike on a small civilian Venezuelan boat that President Trump claims was a successful hit on “narcoterrorists.” Vice President JD Vance responded to allegations that the strike was a war crime by saying, “I don’t give a shit what you call it,” insisting this was the “highest and best use of the military.”

This is only the latest troubling development in the Trump administration’s attempt to repurpose “War on Terror” mechanisms to use the military against cartels and to expedite his much vaunted mass deportation campaign, which he says is necessary because of an "invasion" at the border.

keep readingShow less
President Trump with reporters
Top photo credit: President Donald Trump speaks with members of the media at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland on Sunday, September 7, 2025. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Is Israel forcing Trump to be the capitulator in chief?

Middle East

President Donald Trump told reporters outside a Washington restaurant Tuesday evening that he is deeply displeased with Israel’s bombardment of Qatar, a close U.S. partner in the Persian Gulf that, at Washington’s request, has hosted Hamas’s political leadership since 2012.

“I am not thrilled about it. I am not thrilled about the whole situation,” Trump said, denying that Israel had given him advance notice. “I was very unhappy about it, very unhappy about every aspect of it,” he continued. “We’ve got to get the hostages back. But I was very unhappy with the way that went down.”

keep readingShow less
Europe Ukraine
Top image credit: German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, Volodymyr Zelenskyi, President of Ukraine, Keir Starmer, Prime Minister of the UK, and Donald Tusk, Prime Minister of Poland, emerge from St. Mary's Palace for a press conference as part of the Coalition of the Willing meeting in Kiev, May 10 2025, Kay Nietfeld/dpa via Reuters Connect

Is Europe deliberately sabotaging Ukraine War negotiations?

Europe

After last week’s meeting of the “coalition of the willing” in Paris, 26 countries have supposedly agreed to contribute — in some fashion — to a military force that would be deployed on Ukrainian soil after hostilities have concluded.

Three weeks prior, at the Anchorage leaders’ summit press conference, Russian President Vladimir Putin noted that Ukraine’s security should be ensured as part of any negotiated settlement. But Russian officials have continued to reiterate that this cannot take the form of Western combat forces stationed in Ukraine. In the wake of last week’s meeting, Putin has upped the ante by declaring that any such troops would be legitimate targets for the Russian military.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.