Opinion Pete Hegseth’s Climate Change ‘Crap’ - The secretary of defense chooses to ignore a major national security threat.

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Mark Hertling
Mar 13, 2025

1742050242159.png
U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth leaves the weekly Republican Senate policy luncheon at the U.S. Capitol on March 11, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE PETE HEGSETH said Sunday that the DoD “does not do climate change crap,” implying the department should focus solely on training and war-fighting, and anything else is a distraction. While it may be a pithy soundbite, it reflects a dangerous blind spot—and contradicts a fundamental strategic principle.

Many people in the military, possibly even Hegseth himself, are familiar with Sun Tzu’s famous statement: “If you know the enemy and know yourself, your victory will not stand in doubt.” Many fewer remember the following lines: “if you know Heaven and know Earth, you may make your victory complete.” Perhaps Sun Tzu was speaking metaphorically, but the rest of The Art of War is supremely practical, and any good soldier knows that terrain and weather—and, yes, climate—can be key allies or stern enemies.

As a combat commander in Iraq during the 2007 “surge,” I experienced firsthand how climatic conditions can disrupt operations. I had planned a ten-day operation involving a U.S. task force, and special operations forces, and five Iraqi Army divisions in northern Iraq. As we were about to kick off, we were hit by severe dust and sandstorms—“shamals” and “haboobs”—intensified by prolonged drought. (It was just about the same time that the National Intelligence Council was working on its first ever report on climate change, which found a likelihood of “increase of heat waves and droughts (both in frequency and intensity).” These storms canceled air operations, grounded reconnaissance platforms, blinded intelligence collectors, delayed maneuvers, and severely degraded communications. It became clear to everyone in our command: climate change wasn’t background noise—it was an operational variable. The weather forced us to delay a major tactical operation against our enemy for weeks; the climate made it more likely that more such operations would be delayed or canceled in the future.

That’s just one example—there are plenty of others from every service, domain, and combatant command to illustrate why climate change is a strategic issue that demands the attention of the secretary of defense. Sea level rise, storm surges, and extreme weather events increasingly threaten mission-critical infrastructure. Naval Station Norfolk—the world’s largest naval base—now experiences frequent tidal flooding that disrupts operations and damages infrastructure. Other key installations like Pearl Harbor, San Diego, and Key West face similar vulnerabilities. In 2018, Tyndall Air Force Base suffered $4 billion in hurricane-related damage.

Melting Arctic Sea ice is opening new transit routes and fueling geopolitical competition. Russia has militarized its Arctic coastline, and China has declared itself a “near-Arctic power”—a term it invented, since it doesn’t actually border the Arctic. During my time as Commander of U.S. Army Europe, our NATO allies—especially Canada, Norway, as well as Sweden and Finland, which have since joined the alliance— had expanded cold-weather training, exercises, and operations in their armies and navies. The Arctic has warmed nearly four times as fast as the rest of the planet in recent decades, and as it gets warmer, it becomes a more viable theater of military competition. Not surprisingly, our allies have modernized their Arctic fleets and the ability of their armies to thrive in cold-weather environments. Mirroring their efforts, our Marines and Army incorporated similar exercises.The president himself, at least momentarily, seemed to recognize the effects of climate change when he made the surprise—and apparently misleading—announcement of the purchase of “about 40 big icebreakers.” At the same time, the Defense Department canceled a training exercise in Sweden. It’s challenging to determine the logic.

Climate change is driving instability across the globe. When crops fail or water runs dry, populations move, and crises follow. Climate-driven migration is already destabilizing regions across Central America, the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia. Commanders at Southern Command and Africa Command have repeatedly testified that environmental degradation is a primary driver of insecurity. The 2024 Annual Threat Assessment by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence found that “the accelerating effects of climate change are placing more of the world’s population, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, at greater risk from extreme weather, food and water insecurity, and humanitarian disasters, fueling migration flows and increasing the risks of future pandemics as pathogens exploit the changing environment.” The secretary of defense normally listens to combatant commanders for input into the National Defense Strategy, but Hegseth seems to be precluding one of the major threats.

Climate shocks also create domestic demands on U.S. forces. The DoD is increasingly deploying National Guard and active-duty units to the southern border in response to political and climate-driven migration. Those missions will continue to compete for manpower and resources with military support to disaster relief operations. National Guard troops are increasingly asked to respond to out-of-control wildfires, severe hurricanes, and repeated once-in-a-century floods—missions that strain personnel and divert readiness. In 2023 alone, U.S. troops responded to record-breaking floods in Vermont, massive wildfires in California and Hawaii, and major hurricanes in the east and southeast. The disaster-related demands increased in 2024 and are expected to grow even larger in the future.

Facts matter. Running the Department of Defense requires strategic foresight based on critical analysis and force requirement assessments, not uninformed ideology or political soundbites for the base. Sun Tzu’s wisdom holds: We must know the enemy, know ourselves, and know the heaven and the earth. Today’s terrain includes rising seas, melting ice, extreme weather, shifting populations, and new demands on the force. Climate change is not a distant future threat—it’s shaping tomorrow’s battlefields, on land, sea and in the air, right now. To ignore it—or worse, dismiss it as “crap”—is not conservatism. It’s strategic malpractice.

Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling (Ret.) (@MarkHertling) was commander of U.S. Army Europe from 2011 to 2012. He also commanded 1st Armored Division in Germany and Multinational Division-North during the surge in Iraq from 2007 to 2009.

Source (Archive)
 
Thing is, woke bullshit in the military (e.g. trannies) is usually championed by generals. From what I've heard, you need to have a politician's attitude and beliefs to get the highest ranks in the military. Hopefully that's no longer the case.

That's true, and also why colonels and their equivalent are disproportionatly revolutionaries. It's the highest you can get in the military on merit.
 
That's true, and also why colonels and their equivalent are disproportionatly revolutionaries. It's the highest you can get in the military on merit.
No, there are still a few generals who get there on merit. Have seen some colonels who were not there on merit at all, but rather 'affirmative action'.
 
Mark Hertling was responsible for dumbing down and weakening physical fitness requirements in the army during the Obama administration. He believed that pushing soldiers physically was wrong and that proper rest during military operations is essential to prevent injuries to soldiers.

He is also all-in on the Ukraine war. Any end to the war short of total Ukrainian victory (even a cease fire) is a crime against humanity. He is also all-in on every bit of neoconservative foreign policy. But when there were reports of underperformance of US tanks in Ukraine by Ukrainians, he said that it was all "BS" and those dumb Ukrainian soldiers obviously don't know what they are talking about. He also just loves Israel and the IDF in a simping submissive kind of way.

He is a man who loves to talk about how "good" and "moral" he personally is. And as a "moral" person, he moved on retirement in the military into a senior executive position in a health care company.

He is a real poster child for everything wrong in military leadership during the Obama years.
 
Yes. YES. The job of the military is to break things and kill people. That is all.
Ok. What about the supply lines? Logistics? What about the impact that weather has on transportation? Urban pacification and restructuring? Communication with locals to ensure safety of soldiers? Repair of equipment? Procurement of equipment? Standards for training? Handling the standards for food so that our soldiers get proper nutrition? What about the handling of mail? Liaison with local foreign political officials to manage issues at American military bases?

Not even the most crayon loving jarhead would think that the only thing the military should care about is to just kill people. No, the military should ensure that our soldiers can operate at peak efficiency. That means factoring in, studying, and adapting to all possible issues which could threaten that efficiency.
 
Ok. What about the supply lines? Logistics? What about the impact that weather has on transportation? Urban pacification and restructuring? Communication with locals to ensure safety of soldiers? Repair of equipment? Procurement of equipment? Standards for training? Handling the standards for food so that our soldiers get proper nutrition? What about the handling of mail? Liaison with local foreign political officials to manage issues at American military bases?

Not even the most crayon loving jarhead would think that the only thing the military should care about is to just kill people. No, the military should ensure that our soldiers can operate at peak efficiency. That means factoring in, studying, and adapting to all possible issues which could threaten that efficiency.
Cool, so uh... when was the last time the climate change pushers were actually right about any of that?
 
Ok. What about the supply lines? Logistics? What about the impact that weather has on transportation? Urban pacification and restructuring? Communication with locals to ensure safety of soldiers? Repair of equipment? Procurement of equipment? Standards for training? Handling the standards for food so that our soldiers get proper nutrition? What about the handling of mail? Liaison with local foreign political officials to manage issues at American military bases?

Not even the most crayon loving jarhead would think that the only thing the military should care about is to just kill people. No, the military should ensure that our soldiers can operate at peak efficiency. That means factoring in, studying, and adapting to all possible issues which could threaten that efficiency.
Retard, most of those things are subcategories of the main mission of the military. They are not separate or distinct from it.
"Urban pacification" is not a job for soldiers, unless it's a euphemism for "mass extermination". Policing is work for police, and soldiers are notoriously bad at it.
 
Ok. What about the supply lines? Logistics? What about the impact that weather has on transportation? Urban pacification and restructuring? Communication with locals to ensure safety of soldiers? Repair of equipment? Procurement of equipment? Standards for training? Handling the standards for food so that our soldiers get proper nutrition? What about the handling of mail? Liaison with local foreign political officials to manage issues at American military bases?

Not even the most crayon loving jarhead would think that the only thing the military should care about is to just kill people. No, the military should ensure that our soldiers can operate at peak efficiency. That means factoring in, studying, and adapting to all possible issues which could threaten that efficiency.
Pretty sure the US military has been studying and planning for the weather for, oh, 250 years or so
 
The Population Bomb was published in 1968. So, closer to sixty years.
Somehow? Paul Ehrlich still has a career despite not getting a single prediction right, it's fascinating how some people are just "right" in leftist circles even if they can't prove it.
 
Lol. Funny to think it was only a few months ago that you faggots were calling Trump the peace candidate.
I am unaware of anyone but retards saying that a general staff planning for hypothetical war scenarios is warmongering
ah, dredging up a century-old worst-case hypothetical to try and add legitimacy to Burger Jesus' verbal diarrhoea, patriot-brain move right there
It is the job of a general staff to come up with war plans regardless of whether the intent of the government is to go to war or not
 
Thing is, woke bullshit in the military (e.g. trannies) is usually championed by generals. From what I've heard, you need to have a politician's attitude and beliefs to get the highest ranks in the military. Hopefully that's no longer the case.
Nothing short of a proverbial and figurative Katyn Massacre on the active and retire officer corp is going to get them to get their priorities straight.
 
I am unaware of anyone but retards saying that a general staff planning for hypothetical war scenarios is warmongering

It is the job of a general staff to come up with war plans regardless of whether the intent of the government is to go to war or not
yes, plans to invade Greenland and Canada, very sane, very reasonable

I doubt he'll actually do it because frankly even Trump isn't this retarded but if he does it will be interesting to see how his cult spins it.
 
yes, plans to invade Greenland and Canada, very sane, very reasonable

I doubt he'll actually do it because frankly even Trump isn't this retarded but if he does it will be interesting to see how his cult spins it.
The opinion of someone seething on the internet flamebaiting as hard as he can doesn't matter to me or in the real world
 
A lot of people going to staff college all right their thesis on climate change and the coming conflicts that they believe will arise from it. It is basically a grift, and an easy thesis to shit out. It also really doesn't go anywhere and is just hypotheticals, that can never be proven. Also everyone feels really smart when they pat themselves on the back for writing something so lousy.
 
Back
Top Bottom