Readers of this blog will quickly see that people are starting to take the national security dimensions of energy and climate change seriously.  I want to add to the discussion by trying to bring the issue closer to home.  Let me focus on three issues that are clear and present dangers from America’s current energy and climate policies.

First, there is the full cost of America’s oil dependence. As the global economy shows signs of recovery, the price of oil has quietly crept above $70 a barrel, a price far above the historic trend. Indeed, the recent collapse in investment in the oil sector means that oil prices could continue to rise. Follow the money: America is sending more than $500 billion a year overseas to oil-exporting countries. Most of those countries have autocratic political systems that are unprepared to handle that kind of financial influx. Oil money often turns into military spending and advanced weaponry, which in turn leads to civil and international war. Ironically, this costs America even more money in the long-run, as it spends billions on the military to try to maintain “stability” in oil-exporting regions.

Second, there is the full cost of doing nothing about climate change. The US Navy has hundreds of concrete piers around the world that are likely to be submerged by rising seawater, and the cost to replace them is estimated at $100 billion. Insurance companies will raise premiums for natural disasters. The government will spend millions developing early-warning systems and mitigation systems in light of more frequent hurricanes like Katrina and Gustav. These are just a few examples of the costs climate change will impose on the public. Whenever some pundit complains about the cost of environmental policies, remember the implicit price tag of doing nothing.

Third, there is the real but unquantifiable risk of catastrophic climate change. The single biggest risk is that the ocean currents will change, diverting the warm Gulf current from the North Atlantic and bringing a rapid ice age to Europe. If this sounds like the stuff of Hollywood, well, it is, but it is also a significant risk that has been highlighted by the UN International Panel on Climate Change. This risk is real, and it is a threat to the US military in two ways. First, chaos in Europe would threaten many of America’s most important allies, not to mention the thousands of US troops posted in Germany and elsewhere. Second, this sort of disruption in Europe would destabilize the US-Russia relationship in ways that are impossible to predict.

You don’t have to be a tree-hugger or a radical hawk to see energy and climate change as serious issues of US national security. It’s time to see these issues as a statesman would: from a bipartisan, long-term perspective. Obama’s move to increase the gas-mileage was a good first step, but more is needed. It will take decades to convert the capital stock of US power plants into cleaner, more efficient technology, even if the right policy incentives were put in place today. To make that happen, the US needs to see the issue not just as an environmental problem, but also a security imperative.

But have hope. Far-sighted politicians are starting to watch for the first moment when the words “carbon tax” become politically palatable. It will pay to be out front on this issue.

ASP board member Senator John Kerry has an op-ed on thedailybeast.com today that he describes as the intelligence briefing on the threat posed by climate change Americans need to read before it’s too late.

The case he makes is compelling.  Consider this:

Nowhere is the connection between climate and security more direct than in South Asia—home to al Qaeda. Scientists now warn that the Himalayan glaciers which supply fresh water to a billion people in the region could disappear completely by 2035. Think about what this means: Water from the Himalayans flows through India and Pakistan. India’s rivers are not only vital to its agriculture but are also critical to its religious practice. Pakistan, for its part, is heavily dependent on irrigated farming to avoid famine. At a moment when the U.S. government is scrambling to ratchet down tensions and preparing to invest billions of dollars to strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to deliver for its people—climate change could work so powerfully in the opposite direction.

Worldwide, climate change risks making the most volatile places even more combustible.

Pretty frightening stuff.

The comments to the Senator’s post are worrisome, however: a collection of naysayers and modern-day Nero’s who turn a willfully blind eye to both the scientific and national security communities.  Would they do the same if those experts were talking about a bio-weapon or a known threat from al Qaeda?  I doubt it.

The point is: climate change is a known threat–and there is definitely something we can do about it.  But we have to act and stop treating the science as something that is merely one person’s opinion.  This is an urgent threat–it’s time we started acting that way.

From the New York Times: Allied Officers Concerned by Lack of Afghan Forces

General Nicholson and others say that the long-term success of the operation hinges on the performance of the Afghan security forces, which will have to take over eventually from the American troops.

General Nicholson said the American force of almost 4,000 had been joined by about 400 effective Afghan soldiers.

“The net increase in Afghan security forces is zero” since the brigade arrived a few months ago, he said. The lack of Afghan forces “is absolutely our Achilles’ heel,” added Capt. Brian Huysman, commander of Company C of the First Battalion, Fifth Marines in Nawa.

Captain Huysman said the Afghan forces were critically important in establishing trust and communication with citizens. “We can’t read these people; we’re different,” he said. “They’re not going to tell us the truth. We’ll never get to build and transition” — the last phase of the operation — “unless we have the Afghans.”

As an operational matter, it seems to me that “hav[ing] the Afghans” ought to have been a prerequisite for the new offensive, rather than a vague aspiration.  Military operations should not be planned on the “Field of Dreams” principle that “if you built it they will come.”  The article does not provide enough details to know precisely where the breakdown occurred, but trying to impose security in Afghanistan with a 10-1 ratio of U.S. to Afghan troops is conceptually problematic.

Regardless of how this came to pass, it highlights a broader issue, which is that in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States has more expansive and ambitious goals than our local allies.  In both cases, we seek to establish durable, free polities, essentially democratic and capable of controlling their territory to such an extent that they can prevent threats to the United States from arising from their territory.  In contrast, our local allies want to establish a minimal level of security and maximize their own political position.

It is this gap between the goals of the parties that explains the disparity of effort rather than any fundamental issue of capabilities.  Saddam Hussein controlled Iraq with his poorly trained, ill-equipped forces.  The Taliban controlled 90% of Afghanistan with a poorly trained force of perhaps 30,000.  The fundamental issue is not training or numbers, it is about political goals.  At this point, we want more and better for Afghanistan than the Afghan government wants for itself.  As long as that is the case, the United States will continue to fight what is at best an uphill struggle.

Being in this position also eliminates any leverage that we may have in encouraging greater Afghan efforts.  In addition to more emphasis on providing security, we’d like to see the Afghan government rein in corruption.  But we have nothing to compel greater cooperation.  As long as we define our interests in such a way that we have a greater stake in Afghan stability than the Afghans, all we can do is plead for cooperation. We have no way to increase pressure.

Our situation towards the Afghan government is akin to historian A.J.P. Taylor’s description of the challenges faced by the French as they sought to coerce Germany after World War I: If we threaten to strangle them, they will threaten to die.

Latin America watchers have been transfixed over the past week with developments in Honduras.  At first glance, the issue is simple: a group of armed thugs overthrew a democratic regime.  This sort of military coup — which echoes the regimes of cliched colonels in sunglasses — was thought to have been relegated to the Latin American past. Indeed, the whole episode is absurd, and would be laughable if it weren’t for the very real use of violence by the new junta led by Roberto Micheletti.

The coup itself is not a fundamental challenge to U.S. foreign policy.  It ought to be forthrightly condemned.  The lack of legitimacy of the new regime is obvious, and as a consequence is unlikely to serve as a model or precedent for other efforts to subvert democracy.

The bigger challenge for the United States is the dynamic which led to the coup in the first place.  There is debate over whether Honduran President Zelaya’s effort to rewrite the constitution to allow him to run for another term served as a motivation or simply a pretext for the coup.  Al Giordano argues, for instance, that statements by the junta make clear that the attitude of the military is, “In other words, elections, if the people choose a government that is not right of center, will be ripped up by this gang of military thugs.”  But, even if we grant that the military’s motives were not pure, we have to address the question of whether the Chavez model of democratic authoritarianism is a threat.

Fundamentally, we have to be clear about what we mean by “democracy.”  It can’t just be majority rule.  It have to involve some respect for minority rights and for a durable process that will allow democracy to flourish in the long run.

The biggest threat to democracy in Latin America is not anachronistic coups by an absurd group of thugs, it is the internal subversion of democracy where democratic means are used to undermine democratic principles.

Chavez in Venezuela has clearly violated democratic norms.  He has used salami-slicing tactics to gradually increase him power and erode limits on his regime.  By use of intimidation, bribery, and demagoguery his has manipulated elections and referendums to enhance his position in defiance of the long-term stability of the state.  He has refused to accept defeats, and instead his pattern has been to insist on returning to the well, over and over, until he manages to cobble together a victory.  His aggregation of power has been ratchet-like, making his regime increasingly authoritarian.

There is no doubt that in Venezuela and elsewhere in Latin America, the legitimate aspirations of the population are being blocked by entrenched economic and political interests.  Finding a balance between creating political structures that are capable of implementing even a leftist agenda while still sustaining the underlying principles of democracy is a tricky process.

Condemning the Honduran coup is both easy and necessary.  But the Honduran coup is not the main challenge to democracy in the hemisphere.  The bigger challenge for the United States is finding a way to promote sustainable and responsive democracies that have robust safeguards against Chavez’s form of creeping authoritarianism.  Chavez himself is a clown and Venezuela no threat to the United States, but the appeal of his methods is insidious needs to be challenged.

In case you missed it, Paul Krugman had a brilliant column in the New York Times earlier this week about the reality of climate change and what the science is telling us.

A couple of paragraphs are especially worthy of attention:

The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists expected: ice caps are shrinking, arid zones spreading, at a terrifying rate. And according to a number of recent studies, catastrophe — a rise in temperature so large as to be almost unthinkable — can no longer be considered a mere possibility. It is, instead, the most likely outcome if we continue along our present course.

Thus researchers at M.I.T., who were previously predicting a temperature rise of a little more than 4 degrees by the end of this century, are now predicting a rise of more than 9 degrees. Why? Global greenhouse gas emissions are rising faster than expected; some mitigating factors, like absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans, are turning out to be weaker than hoped; and there’s growing evidence that climate change is self-reinforcing — that, for example, rising temperatures will cause some arctic tundra to defrost, releasing even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Temperature increases on the scale predicted by the M.I.T. researchers and others would create huge disruptions in our lives and our economy. As a recent authoritative U.S. government report points out, by the end of this century New Hampshire may well have the climate of North Carolina today, Illinois may have the climate of East Texas, and across the country extreme, deadly heat waves — the kind that traditionally occur only once in a generation — may become annual or biannual events.

In other words, we’re facing a clear and present danger to our way of life, perhaps even to civilization itself. How can anyone justify failing to act?

A “clear and present danger”–that’s a phrase we typically reserve for threats to our national security.  And so it is here.  Climate change, given the magnitude of its expected impacts, rises to that level.  It threatens lives, property, our economy, and–as Krugman rightly observes–our “way of life.”

That’s the classic definition of a national security threat.  More Americans need to understand this reality before it’s too late.

Former Representative Heather Wilson (R-NM) penned a column today for the Washington Post on cybersecurity and the rising need for investment in technologies and initiatives to combat new national security threats in cyberspace. She writes:

“Our cyber-defense capabilities must be inherently dynamic, with a close connection between system operators, intelligence analysts, and the researchers who can rapidly build and deploy tools to protect or restore vital capabilities.

Second, our intelligence on other countries’ cyber-capabilities must be strengthened. We have scores of trained experts who know the ins and outs of foreign radars and missile systems and almost none who are daily tracking cyberthreats in all their manifestations.”

In a paper published late last year by the American Security Project entitled “Defense Alternatives: Policing the New Global Commons,” ASP Adjunct Fellow Dr. James R. Blaker laid out the case for stronger defense systems in cyberspace as part of an argument for a shift in American military priorities:

“Policing space and cyberspace are less precedent-rich. But here the approach could involve similar agreements on screening out agreement-defined dangerous entities and denying access to these two commons. For example, dealing collaboratively with space and cyberspace could involve anti-satellite systems and ballistic missile defenses for policing space and virus screening technology for cyberspace.”

Read the entire report here, and be sure to check out ASP’s other papers in the “Defense Alternatives” series here.

The Wall Street Journal ran a short but thorough summary today on the ongoing situation in Somalia, with foreign insurgents apparently threatening to topple the remnants of the country’s already feeble government. The Journal’s Sarah Childress writes, from Nairobi:

“Somalia’s government requested immediate military assistance from regional powers over the weekend to help combat foreign fighters it says have ties to al Qaeda.

The government said it can’t on its own dispel the insurgents, who have more sophisticated training and weaponry than its own troops.

On Thursday, a bomb killed Somalia’s minister for national security and four other government officials. A day earlier, Mogadishu’s police chief was killed as government forces battled insurgents in the capital. More than 200 people have been killed in the past month due to fighting, the U.N. has said.”

ASP Senior Fellow Dr. Bernard I. Finel and co-author Christine Dehn noted in the “Are We Winning?” interim report that Somalia was a growing hot spot for Islamic terror, and has become “a safe haven for violent radicals with connections to anti-American terrorists.”

Read the entire Wall Street Journal article here, and the “Are We Winning?” interim report here for more information on these issues and other trends in global terror.

ASP Board member Senator John Kerry penned an op-ed in today’s New York Times about the Obama administration’s response to the Iranian elections, in which he urges caution on stronger rhetoric against the Iranian regime at the present time.

Here is an excerpt from the piece:

“Words are important. President Obama has made that clear in devising a new approach to Iran and the wider Muslim world…Returning to harsh criticism now would only erase this progress, empower hard-liners in Iran who want to see negotiations fail and undercut those who have risen up in support of a better relationship.”

From a different perspective, the following article from Monday’s Washington Post on Monday suggests that the President may be too subdued:

From the article:

“The cautious response illustrates the balance that the Obama administration is seeking between condemning what increasingly appears to be a fraudulent election and the likelihood that it will be dealing with Ahmadinejad after the dust settles.

The measured tone and approach stand in contrast to some of the Bush administration’s reactions to democratic challenges abroad… But the Obama administration’s subdued response also reflects the peculiar nature of Iran’s democracy, and what — if any — difference the winner of this presidential election signifies to U.S. policy interests in the region.”

The Administration of George W. Bush was close to an unmitigated disaster for the image of the United States abroad. His ill-informed, often offensive, and counter-productive public statements and policy preferences set back American national security dramatically. Trying to undo some of the damage of the Bush years is the reason that President Obama has be so willing to acknowledge past errors and call for a fresh start.

While this assessment remains controversial here, it is widely accepted abroad. But if it is the case that the United States ought to apologize for past misconduct – and indeed, it is a demonstration of strength, not weakness to acknowledge past mistakes – isn’t it also incumbent on other nations to do the same? Apology and open-minded self-criticism ought to be a two-way street.

In this context, what expectations should we have about the forthcoming Iranian elections?

The contest between Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and Mir Hussein Moussavi has been encouragingly open and lively. It may not quite be politics as we know, but it is undeniably a democratic process. Economic debates are at the core of the differences between the two candidates. But just as many Americans argued passionately that the election of John McCain would have served as a public endorsement for Bush-style policies, including on foreign affairs, the Iranian people need to understand that in the United States at least we would see the reelection of Ahmedinejad as a statement of support for his foreign policy posture – his oblique threats against Israel, his gleeful rejection of constraints on the Iranian nuclear program, and his constant America-baiting.

If the election of Obama was an important step in reclaiming American role in the world, then the rejection of Ahmedinejad has to be considered an important indicator of the preferences and worldview of the Iranian people.

Unfortunately, the punditry in the United States will likely break down along predictable partisan lines. Liberals will argue that an Ahmedinejad victory was a function of his populist economic policies, not a rejection of Obama’s efforts to reach out to the Iranian public. If, on the other hand, he is defeated, many will claim that Obama’s public diplomacy efforts were decisive. Conservatives will argue the reverse – namely that an Ahmedinejad victory marks the failure of Obama, but that his defeat was a consequence of economic factors and no reflection on Obama’s policies.

The Iranian election, as a consequence, are a wonderful opportunity to hold all to a higher standard – the Iranian public and American pundits alike. It is a fascinating moment, and it deserves clear-headed and fair-minded assessment.

Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, announced Friday that ASP Board Chairman and former Senator Gary Hart would serve as the Vice Chair of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC), a group appointed by the secretary and charged with advising her directly on the incredibly wide range of issues overseen by the cabinet-level department.

In response to the appointment, ASP President Vice Admiral Lee Gunn, USN (Ret.) released the following statement:

We congratulate ASP Board Chairman and former Senator Gary Hart on his appointment as Vice Chair of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC). His wealth of experience will undoubtedly prove invaluable to Secretary Napolitano as she seeks to address many of our most pressing national security issues.  Between his experience as a former Senator and a Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Chair of the Hart-Rudman Commission on National Security in the 21st Century, Co-chair of the Council on Foreign Relations’ task force on Homeland Security, as well as the Commission on U.S Policy Toward Russia, Senator Hart has proven himself to be visionary about the challenges facing the United States both at home and abroad. We look forward to continuing to work with Senator Hart to build a constructive national security dialogue and produce ideas that will elevate the debate on these vital issues.

All of us at ASP congratulate Senator Hart on his appointment and are certain that his expertise will prove invaluable to the department.