07.28.2014  |   | Subscribe  | Contact us

All News & Blogs

E-mail Alerts

Protect and defend or fight global warming?


Date published: 6/5/2014

Protect and defend or fight global warming?

President Obama told West Point graduates on May 27 about a new role for our armed forces: protecting the world against climate change (global warming).

He said: "That spirit of cooperation must energize the global effort to combat climate change--a creeping national security crisis that will help shape your time in uniform, as we're called on to respond to refugee flows, natural disasters and conflicts over water and food. That's why, next year, I intend to make sure America is out front in a global framework to preserve our planet."

I laughed, thinking I misunderstood. Then I realized I heard correctly, and I wanted to cry.

I can imagine the thoughts of graduating cadets aspiring to serve their country, after that message from the commander in chief of our armed forces.

Does their top commander expect them to clean up global climate messes instead of safeguarding us? What ever happened to "protecting and defending" our nation?

Though Obama swore to uphold our Constitution at his swearing-in ceremony six years ago, it is no secret he complains bitterly that it and our founding principles get in his way.

Even for [believers in] global warming, and the melting of the ice cap in Antarctica, the new role may be a bit much.

Turning our military into a force of global rescuers is unconstitutional and impractical. In what way is this madcap idea upholding our national interests?

What about the impact on existing international organizations dedicated to and trained for such missions? What about the thousands of global rescue jobs that will be co-opted by our soldiers?

This policy will be costly, is unconstitutional and de-structures our armed forces.

Marit Gutierrez

Fredericksburg