/PRNewswire/ -- Family Security Matters' Contributing Editor, Lt. Col. James G. Zumwalt, has called on the Obama administration to clearly identify what he terms "the greatest threat in history to our democracy." He further identifies clearly that threat to be the one "posed by Islamic extremism."
Lt. Col. Zumwalt, author of "Bare Feet, Iron Will - Stories from the Other Side of Vietnam's Battlefields," strongly believes that earlier generations of free societies were able to recognize, understand and defeat earlier threats to their existence posed by Nazism and Communism because those threats were made clear to them. But, the threat posed by Islamism to America remains obfuscated by a President unwilling to call it what it is. He states the irony of the president's position when he says, "Obfuscating a threat seeking the destruction of our way of life shows unbelievable naivete by our President, underscored by a determined unwillingness to call Islamists 'the enemy' at the same time he freely attaches such a label to his political opponents."
In comparison, Lt. Col. Zumwalt points to the utter failure of South Korea's President Kim Dae Jung's "Sunshine Policy" which sought a soft policy of political and economic interaction with Pyongyang, thinking it would reap more benefit. Under cover of that policy, Pyongyang—using other assets it garnered under the policy and the millions of dollars paid by the South in 2000—aggressively pursued its nuclear arms program, and other aggressions which culminated in the sinking of a destroyer and artillery attack on a South Korean island. The Sunshine Program was abandoned in 2008 under the new presidency of Lee Myung-bak.
Similarly, while acts/plots of domestic terrorism by Islamists in the U.S. were low between 2001 and 2008, the number had doubled by 2009, a time during which this administration removed all reference to "Islam," "Islamic extremism" and "jihad" so as not to risk offending moderate Muslims.
Carol Taber, president of FamilySecurityMatters.org , where Lt. Col. Zumwalt's article "Obfuscating the National Security Threat" appears said, "The threat posed by Islamism to America remains obfuscated by a political leadership unwilling to call it what it is. Thank God some of our other leaders, such as Lt. Col. Zumwalt, do not lack that courage."
Showing posts with label america. Show all posts
Showing posts with label america. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Monday, September 27, 2010
Libertarians say Republicans owe apology, not pledge, to America
In response to the recent Republican "Pledge to America," Libertarian Party executive director Wes Benedict released the following statement:
Instead of a "Pledge to America," the Republicans should have written an "Apology to America." It should have gone something like this:
"We're sorry, America. Sorry we grew the federal government budget from $1.7 trillion to over $3 trillion. Sorry we added $5 trillion to the federal debt. Sorry we doubled the size of the Department of Education. Sorry we started two incredibly costly foreign wars. Sorry we supported the absurd and costly TARP bailouts. Sorry we created a huge and costly new Medicare entitlement. Sorry we did nothing to end the costly and destructive War on Drugs. Sorry we did nothing to reform the federal government's near-prohibition on immigration. But hey, at least we helped you by shifting a lot of your tax burden onto your children and grandchildren."
There are so many lies, distortions, hypocrisies, and idiocy in this document that it's hard to know where to start.
It is deeply insulting to see the Republicans refer to "America's founding values" on their cover. The Republican Party has no understanding whatsoever of America's founding values. They have proven and re-proven that for decades.
The document talks a lot about "tax cuts." Unfortunately, the Republican "tax cut" proposals would really do nothing to cut taxes. All their proposals achieve is to defer taxes, pushing the burden onto our children and grandchildren. The only real way to cut taxes is to cut government spending, and the Republican document does almost nothing in that regard.
The Republicans say they want to "roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels." In other words, to re-create the situation near the end of the Bush administration, after Republicans had massively increased federal spending on almost everything.
Republicans must love it when Democrats expand government, because it gives them the opportunity to propose small "cuts," while still ending up with huge government.
One shocking aspect of the document is that it actually includes subtle Republican proposals to increase government spending.
The Republicans offer no plan whatsoever to reduce military spending, America's foreign wars and nation building, or our military defense of rich foriegn nations. On the contrary, the Republicans apparently want to increase military spending, promising to "provide the resources, authority, and support our deployed military requires, fully fund missile defense, and enforce sanctions against Iran."
The Republicans also appear to want to increase government spending on border control. They say "We will ensure that the Border Patrol has the tools and authorities to establish operational control at the border," a costly proposition.
Furthermore, as expected, the document complains about "massive Medicare cuts," implying that Republicans want to make sure Medicare is kept gigantic.
The bulk of federal spending is in three places: Social Security, Medicare, and the military. The Republicans propose absolutely nothing to reduce spending on these three things, or even to slow down their growth.
There must be a typo in the document where it says "Undeterred by dismal results, Washington Democrats continue to double-down on their job-killing policies." That probably should read "Washington Democrats continue to double-down on Republican job-killing policies."
The best way to restore American prosperity would be to implement the straightforward 28 planks of the Libertarian Party platform, or even just follow the Constitution. I mean the actual Constitution, not the Republican re-write that allows for every federal government program imaginable.
I suppose the one positive aspect of the document is that it finally dispels any illusion that Republicans want to shrink government in any meaningful way.
Apparently the Republicans are hoping they can "fool some of the people all of the time." The Libertarian Party is ready to point out Republican lies and hypocrisy to American voters, and we hope that Americans who actually want small and constitutional government, not just hypocrisy and worthless rhetoric, will vote Libertarian this November.
The Libertarian Party has 21 candidates for U.S. Senate and 170 candidates for U.S. House in the upcoming November 2010 elections.
Instead of a "Pledge to America," the Republicans should have written an "Apology to America." It should have gone something like this:
"We're sorry, America. Sorry we grew the federal government budget from $1.7 trillion to over $3 trillion. Sorry we added $5 trillion to the federal debt. Sorry we doubled the size of the Department of Education. Sorry we started two incredibly costly foreign wars. Sorry we supported the absurd and costly TARP bailouts. Sorry we created a huge and costly new Medicare entitlement. Sorry we did nothing to end the costly and destructive War on Drugs. Sorry we did nothing to reform the federal government's near-prohibition on immigration. But hey, at least we helped you by shifting a lot of your tax burden onto your children and grandchildren."
There are so many lies, distortions, hypocrisies, and idiocy in this document that it's hard to know where to start.
It is deeply insulting to see the Republicans refer to "America's founding values" on their cover. The Republican Party has no understanding whatsoever of America's founding values. They have proven and re-proven that for decades.
The document talks a lot about "tax cuts." Unfortunately, the Republican "tax cut" proposals would really do nothing to cut taxes. All their proposals achieve is to defer taxes, pushing the burden onto our children and grandchildren. The only real way to cut taxes is to cut government spending, and the Republican document does almost nothing in that regard.
The Republicans say they want to "roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels." In other words, to re-create the situation near the end of the Bush administration, after Republicans had massively increased federal spending on almost everything.
Republicans must love it when Democrats expand government, because it gives them the opportunity to propose small "cuts," while still ending up with huge government.
One shocking aspect of the document is that it actually includes subtle Republican proposals to increase government spending.
The Republicans offer no plan whatsoever to reduce military spending, America's foreign wars and nation building, or our military defense of rich foriegn nations. On the contrary, the Republicans apparently want to increase military spending, promising to "provide the resources, authority, and support our deployed military requires, fully fund missile defense, and enforce sanctions against Iran."
The Republicans also appear to want to increase government spending on border control. They say "We will ensure that the Border Patrol has the tools and authorities to establish operational control at the border," a costly proposition.
Furthermore, as expected, the document complains about "massive Medicare cuts," implying that Republicans want to make sure Medicare is kept gigantic.
The bulk of federal spending is in three places: Social Security, Medicare, and the military. The Republicans propose absolutely nothing to reduce spending on these three things, or even to slow down their growth.
There must be a typo in the document where it says "Undeterred by dismal results, Washington Democrats continue to double-down on their job-killing policies." That probably should read "Washington Democrats continue to double-down on Republican job-killing policies."
The best way to restore American prosperity would be to implement the straightforward 28 planks of the Libertarian Party platform, or even just follow the Constitution. I mean the actual Constitution, not the Republican re-write that allows for every federal government program imaginable.
I suppose the one positive aspect of the document is that it finally dispels any illusion that Republicans want to shrink government in any meaningful way.
Apparently the Republicans are hoping they can "fool some of the people all of the time." The Libertarian Party is ready to point out Republican lies and hypocrisy to American voters, and we hope that Americans who actually want small and constitutional government, not just hypocrisy and worthless rhetoric, will vote Libertarian this November.
The Libertarian Party has 21 candidates for U.S. Senate and 170 candidates for U.S. House in the upcoming November 2010 elections.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
63% of Likely Voters Want ObamaCare Repealed; Revere America's National Petition Drive at www.revereamerica.org Gives Them a Powerful Way to Make Their Voices Heard
/PRNewswire/ -- With a new poll by Rasmussen showing that 63% of likely voters want to repeal ObamaCare, the American people have an unparalleled opportunity to make their voices heard by signing Revere America's national petition to repeal and replace the government takeover of healthcare. The petition is available at www.revereamerica.org as part of Revere America's national petition drive to collect the names and signatures of at least one million Americans who want to repeal and replace ObamaCare.
Revere America Chairman Governor George Pataki said:
"Rasmussen's new poll shows beyond any doubt the depth of opposition to the government takeover of healthcare. But it's not enough to just tell a pollster that you oppose ObamaCare and hope that out of touch politicians in Washington will pay attention.
"That's why I urge everyone who opposes this dangerously liberal law to sign Revere America's national petition to repeal and replace ObamaCare at www.revereamerica.org. Together, we can deliver a powerful message that Washington won't soon forget and won't be able to ignore."
Revere America Chairman Governor George Pataki said:
"Rasmussen's new poll shows beyond any doubt the depth of opposition to the government takeover of healthcare. But it's not enough to just tell a pollster that you oppose ObamaCare and hope that out of touch politicians in Washington will pay attention.
"That's why I urge everyone who opposes this dangerously liberal law to sign Revere America's national petition to repeal and replace ObamaCare at www.revereamerica.org. Together, we can deliver a powerful message that Washington won't soon forget and won't be able to ignore."
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Liberals Examine Immigration Reform
/PRNewswire/ -- Progressives for Immigration Reform has released a new policy brief: "The Economic Impacts of Mass Immigration into the United States and the Proper Progressive Response." The publication was authored by Philip Cafaro, an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Colorado State University with a long history of progressive political activism. This study examines the impact that uncontrolled immigration has on America's poor and argues that Democrats need to address their plight rather than swelling their ranks by importing less-skilled, low-wage foreign labor. The article reveals that current immigration policies widen income inequalities and concentrate immigration's harms upon those Americans least able to afford them.
Among the article's key findings:
-- Increased immigration has swamped American labor markets with
less-skilled, less-educated workers, driving down wages for
working-class Americans.
-- Government data show that when adjusted for inflation, average wages
in some industries with high numbers of foreign workers are 45% lower
than in 1980.
-- Among the biggest economic losers of current high levels of
immigration are poor Americans, ethnic minorities, and older
immigrants. There is no evidence of a labor shortage at the lower end
of the labor market.
-- Current immigration policies further economic inequality in the United
States.
"In today's economic environment when many Americans are suffering from unemployment, job displacement and stagnant or declining wages, liberals should strive to set immigration at levels that work FOR America's poorest citizens, rather than against them," says Professor Cafaro. "Although the United States is a wealthy nation that can and should do its best to help the world's poor, basic fairness requires that we address the needs of America's poor before increasing the economic and wage competition they already face."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Among the article's key findings:
-- Increased immigration has swamped American labor markets with
less-skilled, less-educated workers, driving down wages for
working-class Americans.
-- Government data show that when adjusted for inflation, average wages
in some industries with high numbers of foreign workers are 45% lower
than in 1980.
-- Among the biggest economic losers of current high levels of
immigration are poor Americans, ethnic minorities, and older
immigrants. There is no evidence of a labor shortage at the lower end
of the labor market.
-- Current immigration policies further economic inequality in the United
States.
"In today's economic environment when many Americans are suffering from unemployment, job displacement and stagnant or declining wages, liberals should strive to set immigration at levels that work FOR America's poorest citizens, rather than against them," says Professor Cafaro. "Although the United States is a wealthy nation that can and should do its best to help the world's poor, basic fairness requires that we address the needs of America's poor before increasing the economic and wage competition they already face."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Thursday, July 2, 2009
'Rasmussen Poll Confirms Americans Fear Obama Gun Control Agenda' - CCRKBA
/PRNewswire/ -- A new Rasmussen poll reveals that 57 percent of American citizens believe gun sales are up over the past several months because of widespread fears that the government will tighten restrictions on gun ownership.
"The poll results confirm what we've been saying," noted Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. "American citizens are fearful that the Obama administration and a Democrat-controlled Congress will pass new laws to further erode the individual right to own firearms. This concern was further enhanced by yesterday's ruling in Minnesota that far left anti-gunner Al Franken should be seated as a U.S. Senator representing that state, giving Democrats a 60-member majority."
The Rasmussen telephone survey found that only 23 percent of the respondents believe gun sales have risen due to concerns about rising crime. Twenty-one percent are not sure. The poll also revealed that 63 percent of male Americans and 51 percent of women believe gun sales are linked to concerns about new gun control schemes. Another finding is that 65 percent of Republicans and 66 percent of those not affiliated with either major political party think booming gun sales are connected to fears about increased government restrictions.
"Americans realize that despite all of the campaign rhetoric, Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are waiting for the right moment to spring new gun control measures," Gottlieb stated. "There is little doubt they would like to renew the ban on semiautomatic sport-utility rifles, place limits on the number of firearms someone may purchase, and maybe institute some kind of licensing and registration scheme, as Pelosi hinted during an appearance on ABC's Good Morning America. Wherever these measures have been tried on the local level, they have invariably failed to prevent or reduce violent crime. The Clinton gun ban failed. One-gun-a-month schemes have failed.
"How many times do you have to fail at something before you reach the inescapable conclusion that your plan isn't going to work?" he questioned. "The Rasmussen poll affirms that Americans are waking up to the Obama-Pelosi agenda, and they are stocking up for what they think is an inevitable attack on gun rights."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
"The poll results confirm what we've been saying," noted Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. "American citizens are fearful that the Obama administration and a Democrat-controlled Congress will pass new laws to further erode the individual right to own firearms. This concern was further enhanced by yesterday's ruling in Minnesota that far left anti-gunner Al Franken should be seated as a U.S. Senator representing that state, giving Democrats a 60-member majority."
The Rasmussen telephone survey found that only 23 percent of the respondents believe gun sales have risen due to concerns about rising crime. Twenty-one percent are not sure. The poll also revealed that 63 percent of male Americans and 51 percent of women believe gun sales are linked to concerns about new gun control schemes. Another finding is that 65 percent of Republicans and 66 percent of those not affiliated with either major political party think booming gun sales are connected to fears about increased government restrictions.
"Americans realize that despite all of the campaign rhetoric, Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are waiting for the right moment to spring new gun control measures," Gottlieb stated. "There is little doubt they would like to renew the ban on semiautomatic sport-utility rifles, place limits on the number of firearms someone may purchase, and maybe institute some kind of licensing and registration scheme, as Pelosi hinted during an appearance on ABC's Good Morning America. Wherever these measures have been tried on the local level, they have invariably failed to prevent or reduce violent crime. The Clinton gun ban failed. One-gun-a-month schemes have failed.
"How many times do you have to fail at something before you reach the inescapable conclusion that your plan isn't going to work?" he questioned. "The Rasmussen poll affirms that Americans are waking up to the Obama-Pelosi agenda, and they are stocking up for what they think is an inevitable attack on gun rights."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Monday, May 18, 2009
New Report From Top Military Leaders Finds Current US Energy Policy Poses Serious Threat to National Security
/PRNewswire/ -- America's energy posture constitutes a serious and urgent threat to national security -- militarily, diplomatically and economically, according to a blue-ribbon panel of top-ranking retired admirals and generals. In a report released today entitled "Powering America's Defense: Energy and the Risks to National Security" the military leaders warn that continuing business as usual is perilous and recommend immediate action to address the nation's long-term energy profile. By addressing its own security needs, the Department of Defense can help lead the transformation of U.S. energy use as an innovation incubator for new energy technologies.
Moving beyond recent studies on the dangers of imported oil, this new report finds that fossil fuels, as well as the nation's fragile electric grid, pose significant security threats to military mission and the country, and are "exploitable by those who wish to do us harm." Issued by the Military Advisory Board (MAB) of CNA, a nonprofit research organization, the report identifies a series of "converging risks" associated with future energy choices, and concludes "diversifying our energy sources and moving away from fossil fuels where possible is critical to our future energy security."
"It's a sobering but honest, and necessary assessment," said MAB chairman General Charles F. "Chuck" Wald, USAF (Ret.). "As military planners and as responsible public servants we cannot turn a blind eye to the dangerous realities of our energy situation. The current recession is no excuse for inaction. If we don't address the fossil fuel issue now, we will see more price volatility, with steeper spikes and shorter cycles between spikes. We are already paying a penalty for not looking into the future."
"There is a relationship between the major challenges we're facing. Energy, security, economics, climate change - these things are connected," former U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gordon R. Sullivan said in the report.
Due to the destabilizing nature of increasingly scarce resources, the impacts of energy demand and climate change are likely to increasingly drive military missions in this century, according to the report. The first priority for the new Administration, the MAB recommends, is to clearly and fully integrate energy security and climate change goals into national security and military planning.
"Increasing demand for, and dwindling supplies of, fossil fuels will lead to instability. In addition, the effects of global climate change will pose serious threats to water supplies and agricultural production, leading to intense competition for essentials," said MAB member Vice Admiral (ret.) Dennis McGinn, former commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, and deputy chief of Naval Operations, Warfare Requirements and Programs. "The U.S. cannot assume that we will be untouched by these conflicts. We have to understand how these conflicts could play out, and prepare for them."
The MAB, which produced the landmark 2007 report "National Security and the Threat of Climate Change" is comprised of retired 2, 3- and 4-star flag and general officers from the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. The board includes a former Army Chief of Staff, commanders of U.S. forces in global regions, a former shuttle astronaut and NASA administrator, and experts in energy, planning, deployment, procurement and logistics.
The 2007 report found that climate change constitutes a "threat multiplier" because projected impacts will exacerbate existing security risks. Building on the 2007 report, the new report states, "Our approach to energy and our approach to climate change have profound impacts on each other - and both have impacts on our national security."
National security risks resulting from the current U.S. energy posture identified in the report include:
-- U.S. dependence on oil - not just foreign oil - weakens international
leverage, undermines foreign policy and leaves us vulnerable to
unstable or hostile regimes.
-- Inefficient use of and over reliance on oil burdens the military,
reduces combat effectiveness, and exacts a huge price tag - in dollars
and lives.
-- U.S. dependency on fossil fuels undermines economic stability critical
to national security.
-- A fragile domestic electric grid makes US military installations, and
their critical infrastructure, unnecessarily vulnerable to incident,
whether deliberate or accidental.
Looking forward, the report identifies the following converging risks associated with future energy choices:
-- The market for fossil fuels will be shaped by finite supplies and
increasing demand. Continuing our heavy reliance on these fuels is a
security risk.
-- Regulatory frameworks driven by climate change concerns will increase
the costs - both economic and geopolitical - of using carbon-based
fuels.
-- Insecurity driven by ongoing climate change has the potential to add
significantly to the mission burden of the U.S. military in fragile
regions of the world.
"In our view, confronting these converging risks is critical to ensuring America's secure energy future," the report states. "Consistency with our emerging climate policies should shape our energy and national security planning; we should not pursue energy options inconsistent with our national response to climate change."
The Military Advisory Board calls on the Department of Defense (DoD) to take a leadership role - for government and the nation - in transforming America's energy posture. "By addressing its own energy security needs," the report finds "DoD can stimulate the market for new energy technologies and vehicle efficiencies."
The Military Advisory Board outlines "A Roadmap for Energy Security" to help focus DoD's investments in a strategic manner in order to mitigate its highest energy-related risks and optimize fiscal resources through a series of priorities.
-- Priority 1: Energy security and climate change goals should be clearly
integrated into national security and military planning processes.
-- Priority 2: DoD should design and deploy systems to reduce the burden
that inefficient energy use places on our troops as they engage
overseas.
-- Priority 3: DoD should understand its use of energy at all levels of
operations. DoD should know its carbon bootprint.
-- Priority 4: DoD should transform its use of energy at installations
through aggressive pursuit of energy efficiency, smart grid
technologies, and electrification of its vehicle fleet.
-- Priority 5: DoD should expand the adoption of distributed and
renewable energy generation at its installations.
-- Priority 6: DoD should transform its long-term operational energy
posture through investments in low-carbon liquid fuels that satisfy
military performance requirements.
"Confronting this challenge is paramount for the military; to achieve the endstate, we must have a national approach," the report states. Securing America's energy future will require the active and consistent participation of governments at all levels, as well as that of all Americans, according to the report.
Moving beyond recent studies on the dangers of imported oil, this new report finds that fossil fuels, as well as the nation's fragile electric grid, pose significant security threats to military mission and the country, and are "exploitable by those who wish to do us harm." Issued by the Military Advisory Board (MAB) of CNA, a nonprofit research organization, the report identifies a series of "converging risks" associated with future energy choices, and concludes "diversifying our energy sources and moving away from fossil fuels where possible is critical to our future energy security."
"It's a sobering but honest, and necessary assessment," said MAB chairman General Charles F. "Chuck" Wald, USAF (Ret.). "As military planners and as responsible public servants we cannot turn a blind eye to the dangerous realities of our energy situation. The current recession is no excuse for inaction. If we don't address the fossil fuel issue now, we will see more price volatility, with steeper spikes and shorter cycles between spikes. We are already paying a penalty for not looking into the future."
"There is a relationship between the major challenges we're facing. Energy, security, economics, climate change - these things are connected," former U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gordon R. Sullivan said in the report.
Due to the destabilizing nature of increasingly scarce resources, the impacts of energy demand and climate change are likely to increasingly drive military missions in this century, according to the report. The first priority for the new Administration, the MAB recommends, is to clearly and fully integrate energy security and climate change goals into national security and military planning.
"Increasing demand for, and dwindling supplies of, fossil fuels will lead to instability. In addition, the effects of global climate change will pose serious threats to water supplies and agricultural production, leading to intense competition for essentials," said MAB member Vice Admiral (ret.) Dennis McGinn, former commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, and deputy chief of Naval Operations, Warfare Requirements and Programs. "The U.S. cannot assume that we will be untouched by these conflicts. We have to understand how these conflicts could play out, and prepare for them."
The MAB, which produced the landmark 2007 report "National Security and the Threat of Climate Change" is comprised of retired 2, 3- and 4-star flag and general officers from the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. The board includes a former Army Chief of Staff, commanders of U.S. forces in global regions, a former shuttle astronaut and NASA administrator, and experts in energy, planning, deployment, procurement and logistics.
The 2007 report found that climate change constitutes a "threat multiplier" because projected impacts will exacerbate existing security risks. Building on the 2007 report, the new report states, "Our approach to energy and our approach to climate change have profound impacts on each other - and both have impacts on our national security."
National security risks resulting from the current U.S. energy posture identified in the report include:
-- U.S. dependence on oil - not just foreign oil - weakens international
leverage, undermines foreign policy and leaves us vulnerable to
unstable or hostile regimes.
-- Inefficient use of and over reliance on oil burdens the military,
reduces combat effectiveness, and exacts a huge price tag - in dollars
and lives.
-- U.S. dependency on fossil fuels undermines economic stability critical
to national security.
-- A fragile domestic electric grid makes US military installations, and
their critical infrastructure, unnecessarily vulnerable to incident,
whether deliberate or accidental.
Looking forward, the report identifies the following converging risks associated with future energy choices:
-- The market for fossil fuels will be shaped by finite supplies and
increasing demand. Continuing our heavy reliance on these fuels is a
security risk.
-- Regulatory frameworks driven by climate change concerns will increase
the costs - both economic and geopolitical - of using carbon-based
fuels.
-- Insecurity driven by ongoing climate change has the potential to add
significantly to the mission burden of the U.S. military in fragile
regions of the world.
"In our view, confronting these converging risks is critical to ensuring America's secure energy future," the report states. "Consistency with our emerging climate policies should shape our energy and national security planning; we should not pursue energy options inconsistent with our national response to climate change."
The Military Advisory Board calls on the Department of Defense (DoD) to take a leadership role - for government and the nation - in transforming America's energy posture. "By addressing its own energy security needs," the report finds "DoD can stimulate the market for new energy technologies and vehicle efficiencies."
The Military Advisory Board outlines "A Roadmap for Energy Security" to help focus DoD's investments in a strategic manner in order to mitigate its highest energy-related risks and optimize fiscal resources through a series of priorities.
-- Priority 1: Energy security and climate change goals should be clearly
integrated into national security and military planning processes.
-- Priority 2: DoD should design and deploy systems to reduce the burden
that inefficient energy use places on our troops as they engage
overseas.
-- Priority 3: DoD should understand its use of energy at all levels of
operations. DoD should know its carbon bootprint.
-- Priority 4: DoD should transform its use of energy at installations
through aggressive pursuit of energy efficiency, smart grid
technologies, and electrification of its vehicle fleet.
-- Priority 5: DoD should expand the adoption of distributed and
renewable energy generation at its installations.
-- Priority 6: DoD should transform its long-term operational energy
posture through investments in low-carbon liquid fuels that satisfy
military performance requirements.
"Confronting this challenge is paramount for the military; to achieve the endstate, we must have a national approach," the report states. Securing America's energy future will require the active and consistent participation of governments at all levels, as well as that of all Americans, according to the report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)