“Climate change can act as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world, and it presents significant national security challenges for the United States. Accordingly, it is appropriate to start now to help mitigate the severity of some of these emergent challenges. The decision to act should be made soon in order to plan prudently for the nation’s security. The increasing risks from climate change should be addressed now because they will almost certainly get worse if we delay”.

The statement above was not made by some tree-hugger, not by some Hollywood “liberal”, nor by some climate scientists (who the naysayers claim have some kind of biased “agenda”).

The statement above was issued today by eleven retired three-star and four-star U.S. admirals and generals who were brought together too provide advice, expertise and perspective on the impact of climate change.

The former military men released their report, “National Security and the Threat of Climate Change,” which explores how projected climate change serves as a threat multiplier to U.S. national security, especially in already fragile regions. The military experts conclude that projected climate change would likely exacerbate conditions that lead to failed states : the types of places that can serve as the breeding grounds for extremism and terrorism.

The report includes several formal findings:

• Projected climate change poses a serious threat to America’s national security.
• Climate change acts as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world.
• Projected climate change will add to tensions even in stable regions of the world.
• Climate change, national security and energy dependence are a related set of global challenges.

The report also made several specific recommendations:

• The national security consequences of climate change should be fully integrated into national security and national defense strategies.
• The U.S. should commit to a stronger national and international role to help stabilize climate changes at levels that will avoid significant disruption to global security and stability.
• The U.S. should commit to global partnerships that help less developed nations build the capacity and resiliency to better manage climate impacts.
• The Department of Defense should enhance its operational capability by accelerating the adoption of improved business processes and innovative technologies that result in improved U.S. combat power through energy efficiency.
• DoD should conduct an assessment of the impact on US military installations worldwide of rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and other possible climate change impacts over the next thirty to forty years.

President Bush is inadvertently drawing attention to the huge amounts of money directed to military spending in the United States.

Mr. Bush is claiming that Congress’ attempts to limit the length of the Iraq war by placing language to such effect in the $124 Billion supplemental bills will hurt American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What Mr. Bush fails to acknowledge is:

1. That HE would be the one to halt the supplemental funding process by carrying out his threatened veto.
2. That the military budget for Fiscal Year 2007 is $481 Billion dollars not counting Iraq war funding.
3. That the above $481 Billion in the normal defense appropriations alredy included about $70 billion for Iraq war related expenses
4. That the U.S. has already spent over $414 billion on the Iraq war
5. That the $124 Billion emergency supplemental funding for the war is in addition to the $414 billion already spent on the Iraq war and is in addition to the $489 Billion dollar FY military budget
   
6. That the Congressional Research Service has indicated that the Pentagon can get along just fine without the additional money through July by juggling other accounts in its half-trillion-dollar budget.
7. That last year facing the same deadlines, the Republican Congress didn’t get around to approving a supplemental $94.4 billion in war-fighting money until June without hectoring by the White House

So let’s take this a step further. Could there possibly be any FAT in the Pentagon’s almost half trillion dollar budget for this year?

Well we see in the spreadsheet for the U.S. Budget that there are some interesting categories that could be looked at.

How about the $73 Billion dollars that is supposed to be spent this year on Research and Development?

How about the $84 Billion dollars that is supposed to be spent this year on Procurement? Do we actually need all the aircraft and missiles that may be in the budget that could perhaps have been more suited to a conflict with the former Soviet Union?

How about the almost $13 Billion dollars that is supposed to be spent this year on Military Construction? Didn’t the BRAC commission just a short time ago propose to close a bunch of U.S. military bases?

The cartoon below is a few years old. We now spend 56% of the Federal Budget on military expenditures (see pie chart above). But the cartoon gives you a good idea about the enormity of money our government spends on the military relative to all of our other pressing domestic and international needs.