The Army vs. Alexis Hutchinson

There's been a lot of attention paid to the case of Spc. Alexis Hutchinson, a single mother who resisted deployment to Afghanistan because she had no child care. Much of this writing has slammed the Army for threatening to court-martial Hutchinson. Instead, the Army instead demoted her to private, gave her an "other-than-honorable discharge" and took away her benefits.

I almost fear wading into this mess, but I've found a lot of progressive writing about the case deeply problematic. In general, the left has slammed the Army for prosecuting Hutchinson. The Army clearly deserves a share of blame here, but I don't think it's one-sided. Ultimately, the military serves a function. It's quite clear when soldiers sign up that they will likely be moved around the world. This is a stated part of Hutchinson's job. We hope it's not Afghanistan or some other war zone she and other single parents in the military are assigned to, but it happens.

So what is the Army to do? Can the military create multiple standards for how it deploys soldiers depending on the soldier's family situation? Is that tenable at all? I tend to think it would create logistical nightmares, divisions within the ranks, and at least the possibility for people who don't want to go to risky places to use these loopholes in the favor.

On the other hand, it's clear the military needs to think through these situations more clearly. There are about 10,000 single parents on duty overseas. Using Hutchinson's case to crush their dissent is unlikely to work and doesn't solve any problems. Rather, it seems the military needs a more concrete policy. Should it allow single parents to serve at all? Should parents be allowed to take their children with them, particularly in cases where an alternative caretaker is not a good option? Should the military run schools and childcare in relatively safe places so children could be in closer contact with their parents? I'm sure the military would balk at these ideas, but I think they should also take them seriously.

As a nation, we have huge problems collectivizing childcare among us. Conservatives attacked Hillary Clinton when she said it takes a village to raise a child, but of course she is correct. If we had national childcare policies, with good, safe, and loving options for children, perhaps we could deploy their parents overseas without these problems. Lacking that though, and since Americans seem adverse to any kind of social planning, regardless of the proven massive benefits it has brought in Europe, we are likely to see more families suffer in this way.

QDR and Climate Change

Rob has a series of excellent posts up about the Quadrennial Defense Review and why progressives should care. I highly recommend them. I'd like to build on his work for a brief discussion of climate change and the QDR. For the first time, the QDR includes a section on climate change and defense policy.

That the new QDR even discusses climate change is a big step. The 2006 version, written during the Rumsfeld years, couldn't care less. That edition was all about fighting the never ending war on terror and acquiring new toys. Thankfully, the Gates Department of Defense has moved to more serious policy analysis.

And what of the QDR's first foray into thinking about climate change? It's quite mixed. DoD rightfully recognizes the threat rising sea levels provide to their own facilities. The entire Navy infrastructure faces a serious threat. The United States has such a long coastline that rising sea levels will likely force the nation to spend trillions of dollars either relocating facilities or keeping the ocean out.

The QDR does a less effective job thinking about how climate change will affect U.S. military involvement around the world. The military seems inordinately concerned with climate change and the Arctic. The thawing north will open up unexploited resources to the nations with Arctic boundaries. Corporations and governments are salivating. Plus, open Arctic waters means the U.S. and Russian navies will frequently be in close quarters.

While I can see the potential for conflict in an ice-free Arctic, the DoD doesn't seem to grasp the far more profound ways that climate change will likely affect U.S. military operations. Maybe I am too optimistic in thinking the Russians and Americans will come to a mutually profitable way to split Arctic resources, along with the Canadians and Scandinavian nations. But I think the significantly bigger issue is the massive geopolitical stability climate change could create around the world. The QDR only notes that the military needs to help other militaries prepare for natural disasters and notes that climate change could exacerbate already existing instabilities.

That's all true, but one short paragraph in the QDR barely touches the surface of what the U.S. military may face. Take Bangladesh. This low-laying, overpopulated and impoverished nation sits on the Indian Ocean, laced by major rivers filled with melted snow from the Himalayas. Under the best of circumstances, floods are a fact of life here. But rising sea levels combined with the likelihood of extreme typhoons has led many people to project 50 million climate change refugees from this one nation alone. Where are they going to go? India probably, since it's unlikely Myanmar will be welcoming. If Bangladesh destabilizes, how will the subcontinent and Southeast Asia more broadly respond? How will 50 million Muslims affect already shaky Hindu-Muslim relations within India? What will Pakistan do? This seems like precisely the kind of thing for which DoD should plan.

Talking about climate change and resource scarcity in the abstract is fine, but how will the military deal with real problems. For example, what happens if the Middle East enters a prolonged drought, Turkey impounds most of the water in the Tigris and Euphrates, and Iraq and Syria go thirsty? What will happen to this already unstable region? The QDR might not be the place to explain the details of these situations, but it seems fairly clear from the document that the military is still considering climate change as an abstract problem of the future.

Finally, the QDR commits the military to saving energy. This is fine and all, but slightly better fuel efficiency is hardly going to eliminate the military's contribution to climate change. Plus, in the face of a country almost completely unwilling to take the radical steps necessary to stablilize the climate, these minor actions won't make any difference in the long run.  The military also talks a lot about energy security. That's certainly a worthy goal, particularly if that energy comes from renewable sources, but the U.S. is unlikely to achieve energy independence any time in our lifetimes.

In the end then, the QDR's approach to climate change is a good first step, but little more. Its focus on energy policy over thinking through the real international security problems climate change will cause reveals a continued lack of imagination on climate change. Still, the military, and particularly the Navy, has made important strides in the last four years; hopefully, the next QDR will build upon these early ideas and show that climate change is central to U.S. foreign policy rather than the afterthought it appears to be today.

Brazil and Spain Express Concern over Increase of U.S. Troops in Colombia

Brazil and Spain Express Concern Over Increase of U.S. Troops in Colombia
The recent agreement to put more U.S. troops in Colombia is raising concerns beyond just Venezuela:

Spain’s Miguel Angel Moratinos and Brazilian counterpart Celso Amorim expressed their reservations about the effects the military program could have at a press conference within the framework of the Spanish official’s visit to Brazil.

The two ministers also called for dialogue between Venezuela and Colombia and agreed to work “to avoid a spiral of misunderstandings” between those two countries.

This is a good diplomatic move that gives greater weight to regional concerns than Chavez's opposition alone could ever achieve. However, I don't know how much it will actually accomplish.

To be clear, I think the U.S.'s decision is a bad one, for a number of reasons. The "war on drugs" is pretty ineffective in its focus on the supply side rather than the demand side, and basing more troops in Colombia isn't going to solve this problem. What is more, it is clear that this will add to regional suspicion and tension in South America. While Obama's diplomatic efforts in the hemisphere thus far have been admirable in comparison to past administrations (dating to about, oh, 1848), the presence of more U.S. troops on any country's soil is a legitimate cause for concern, regardless of who is president of the United States. For these reasons, I think it's important that Brazil and Spain, who are far from antagonistic towards the U.S., raise these concerns. Again, I'm not sure it will result in any real change in the decision to move troops to Colombia when the Ecuadoran bases close (rather than, you know, having the troops actually come back to the U.S. when the bases close). But Brazil's and Spain's questions and objections should at least make the U.S. stop and take notice, and give the opposition to such a move much greater legitimacy than Chavez's opposition alone could accomplish.

And, on a side note, can we please stop referring to Daniel Ortega as part of some "leftist" "alliance?" Firstly, as I've noted before, these notions in the American media of "leftist alliances" in Latin America are false and lazy. Just because countries are friendly with each other, or from relatively similar political ideologies, does not mean they are some new axis, and American journalists' inability to look at Latin America with a view that is more complex than "leftist" is just shameful. Secondly, and more directly related to Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega has hardly been "leftist." If you want to refer to the Sandinistas as leftist, fine - it's still probably a lazy categorization on the part of the media, but at least it's fairly accurate. But when the actual major "leftist" political group in a country disowns the president as not representing leftist goals, ideals, and missions, could we at least respect that country's political spectrum, and agree that just because a leader isn't as "conservative" as America would like does not mean he/she's some radical "leftist" political force?

Herbicides and Their Effects on Vietnam Vets

I'm less than surprised to find that the herbicides, such as Agent Orange, used in Vietnam may be linked to Parkinson's disease, in addition to heart disease and cancer. Obviously, a further study into this connection should be a must, but I would be equally unsurprised to learn the government will do little about it. After all, it didn't seem to bother the government too much when we put troops way too close to atomic tests, and our recent treatment of veterans in the hospitals is just the most recent reminder that while many rhetorically "support our troops," in practice our treatment of veterans is one of the United States' biggest sources of shame.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

I wonder why Obama is backpedaling on the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Now seems like the perfect time to do it. Obama is extremely popular. Gays are making incredibly rapid progress toward equal rights. By most accounts, the military does not have the fight in it to mobilize against this. It's the right thing to do.

I don't even think it would cost him that much political capital--the people really opposed to this hate him anyway and while this might annoy some older voters, everyone recognizes that gay rights are not just a thing of the future, but of the present too.

Historical Image of the Day

U.S. Army recruiting advertisement directed at women, early 1970s

Historical Image of the Day

Gays protesting their exclusion from the military, San Francisco, CA, May 21, 1966

Historical Image of the Day

U.S. soldier, South Korea, 1968

Climate Change and National Security

Part of the struggle in dealing with climate change its intangible nature. It seems far away and it is not obvious what we can do about it. John Podesta and Peter Ogden provide useful insight into one small piece of the puzzle: how will the U.S. military respond to climate change? While this might seem like a low priority, climate change will so radically change every aspect of our lives that asking such questions now is a really good exercise.

I'm not sure how useful the actual policy points are. For instance, the authors suggest that traditional military operations will take place more often in violent storms. I doubt it. While climate change will lead to more great storms, in reality, they will still be relatively few at any one place on the earth. A greater problem will be drought, which affects a wide swath of area for a long time. I'm sure we are learning something out of Iraq on that. Maybe this will be the only useful thing to come out of the war.

An important larger question is what role will the military play in dealing with climate change related natural disasters. Will the U.S. military take on the role of evacuating people around the world in the face of rising waters, big hurricanes, etc. I tend to be skeptical. I believe the U.S. will be so overwhelmed in dealing with its own disasters that I don't really see us going into Bangladesh to help that nation for example, even though they will need help very badly.

Of course, by thinking about the relationship between the military and climate change, Podesta and Ogden also help focus the conversation on the role of the U.S. government more broadly in this disaster. By considering what will happen to U.S. naval bases that are inundated with rising sea waters, we will also have to think about our cities, industrial capability, and natural environment.

And I am not confident in the least that we will even begin to approach any real useful solutions until it is too late. But at least this is a start.