This focus is nonsense, as retired Army general Scales said to Congress:
The common spark for all wars is jealousy and greed amplified by centuries-long animosities and political ambitions. The catalyst for war is the ignorance of leaders that leads them to misjudge. Humans start wars believing they will be profitable, short, glorious and bloodless. These truths never change. None are affected in the least by air temperature.
But the myth of climate change as an inducement to war continues to curry favor among Washington elites.
The idea that global warming has caused the Syria war, for example, is nonsense based on the simple facts that we've been in a pause for about 19 years and that Syria's average temperature has gone up 2 degrees Fahrenheit since 1900.
And what about, as that post notes, Syrian government policy that contributed to exacerbating the effects of drought?
Even if you can say that weather contributed to the war, a not unreasonable position, you have to ask why in Syria the reaction to drought is sectarian slaughter when in California or other places the reaction is different?
But what the heck. What else does our military have to do but combat climate change? Things have gotten better since then, right?
So I guess compelling the military to focus on climate change as a national security threat is more like adding more injury to injury.
