Climate change is the single most dangerous issue affecting the United States military? 

So says John Kirby, retired rear admiral in the United States Navy, serving as coordinator for strategic communications at the National Security Council in the White House.

Hmm — let's take a closer look at this.

It's a driver of actual missions, because climate change creates instability, which creates insecurity in some places. And you can end up — the fighting in Syria started, really, as a result of a drought.

Despite many attempts to link the Syrian Civil War to climate change, a critical look shows otherwise.  The State Department and even the U.N. assert that climate change is the progenitor of this war, through the mechanism of the "multi-year drought" driving "climate-change migration" to the urban areas, resulting in civil dissatisfaction with the government, and thus the protests, which resulted in the heavy-handed governmental response, and thereby, the war.  At best, a bit of a stretch.

First, statistics show that there was a rainfall deficit, but only in 2008, and not during the entire 2006–2011 period, and the drought was localized to the northern "breadbasket" area of Syria. 

Secondly, the migration of farmers to the cities was driven by an inability to earn a living by farming.  This was due to two factors: the government rescinding fuel subsidies on the fuel used for operating the irrigation pumps and transporting the produce to market, making it too costly to run a farming operation, and the termination of a micro-loan program assisting small farmers.

Further, migration to urban areas occurred in the north of Syria, affecting the three largest cities in that area.  The protests that began the violence, and subsequent civil war, occurred in Daraa, in the southern part of Syria.

John Kirby's next point: "And so, there's — there's a — it can actually drive military missions and force the military to become involved in places and at times where they wouldn't have had to otherwise." 

Well, I'm not sure that much needs to said about the U.S. military being where they shouldn't be, when they shouldn't be, but I sincerely doubt that climate, of any kind, has anything to do with that.

Next, Kirby stated that climate change impacts the U.S. military's readiness, "because our — our troops, our sailors, our Marines, our airmen, our Coast Guardsmen are being called out for — to respond to natural disasters, which are getting worse because of climate change." 

I don't have a problem with helping suffering people in times of great tragedy.  However, the larger question of climate change involvement in catastrophic weather events requires another discussion.  Further, I would hope the military has the savvy to not overextend our military infrastructure — but maybe not?

Kirby then stated that said climate change can "affect our infrastructure," causing military bases, such as "Norfolk Naval Base, to spend millions of dollars to try to improve their infrastructure because of rising sea levels." 

Hmm, has anyone noticed that Norfolk, Virginia is being flooded and falling into the sea?  No, I didn't think so.

Lastly, he added, "So it has an impact on our infrastructure.  It has an impact on our readiness, because you — and you're seeing it now, even in the wildfires, where so many National Guardsmen are being called out. ... And — and God love them for that, but they're — those are important tasks and missions, but it takes away from other tasks and missions when it comes to defending the United States."

Would that be the wildfires where the climate activists are currently protesting to prevent scientifically proven burn maintenance that the rest of the world uses to manage forests, from taking place?  I thought so.

"Other tasks and missions."  Might that be writing more guidelines on the correct pronouns with which to address our strong and brave soldiers, or, perhaps, designing more flight uniforms for pregnant fighter jet pilots?

Image: National Archives.