« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The Military is Not the Place for Green Social Engineering

By: Daniel Horowitz (Diary)  |  November 28th, 2012 at 02:50 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Morale for our soldiers is the lowest it’s been in decades.  Instead of providing our troops with the best equipment and a decisive mission, we are sullying them with egregious rules of engagement, the homosexual agenda, sensitivity training, and other social engineering activities.  There is one more burden that Obama has added to their list of problems; green energy mobiles!

One of the most preposterous aspects of the sequester is that it randomly cuts the Pentagon’s budget across the board, treating naval ships and green energy programs equally.  As Tom Coburn noted in his recent report on the Defense budget, “Department of Everything,” there are numerous wasteful programs within the DOD.  Most prominently, Coburn discovered that the DOD ran 116 green energy initiatives in 2010, more than the EPA or the Department of [Green] Energy.  Specifically, the Navy and the Air Force have been investing in fueling their fleets with biofuels.  All branches have been co-opted into using “green building codes.”

So not only have we foisted the expensive and impotent green regime on domestic activity, we have tied our national security to the success of the failed green regime.  Hey, why not take the E15 fuel on the road to Afghanistan and damage the tanks of our combat vehicles, all the while fleecing the taxpayers with the gratuitous cost?

Earlier this year, Senators Inhofe and McCain inserted two amendments into the committee draft of the FY 2013 Defense Authorization Bill.  One would limit funds for purchasing biofuels if the costs exceed those of normal fuels; the other would bar the DOD from engaging in green venture socialism by supporting construction of biofuels refineries.

That’s a pretty reasonable expectation for the role of our military, right?

Throughout this week, the Senate will consider amendments to the DOD authorization bill (S. 3254).  Mark Udall (D-CO) offered an amendment earlier this afternoon that will reinstate the biofuels programs.  The Senate voted 62-37 to reinstate the green programs.

Can’t we leave the green energy boondoggle out of the military?

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

Tags: , , , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • westcoastpatriette

    Yes, agenda…spelled a g e n d a…agenda.

    Did you know this is not a site to debate liberals? You missed a left turn on your way to the KOS, so please turn around and go someplace where people care what leftists think.

  • westcoastpatriette

    This isn’t a site for Obama apologists. No one’s listening.

  • westcoastpatriette

    How dare you compare the color of someone’s skin with moral debauchery. Only a blind coward could stoop so low.

  • gmat

    “Morale for our soldiers is the lowest it’s been in decades.”

    The work you cited describes the results of a survey which only has a seven year history, So I’m confused by the “lowest…in decades” part.

    As to “low morale” itself, while more than 70% in this study disagree, actively or passively, that the army is going in the right direction, “90 percent are committed to their team or immediate work group,
    83 percent are satisfied with their career in the Army, and 85 percent
    agree they directly impact the success of their unit.”

  • Viet71

    Here’s my take: When I served as an Army LT (1970-72), there were plenty of gays in the army as well as society generally. Same percentages as today I’d bet.

    But no one cared. Why? Because homosexuality wasn’t an issue.

    Today homosexuality is an issue in the military because gays have forced it to become an issue.

    If you lay an issue on the table, you better be prepared to defend it against both fair and unfair attacks.

    The U.S. military can benefit from the service of gays. I have no doubt. But disruption in the ranks is intolerable for a commander. Best IMO that homosexuality become a COMPLETE non-issue in the military — as it was in 1970.

    IOW, keep it to yourself.

  • Bill S

    I think you’ll find that the African-American community disagrees with you on the nature of homosexual rights as a “civil rights” issue. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-08-03-gay-marriage-civil-rights_n.htm

  • avgjo

    I won’t address you idiocy in comparing skin color to sexual deviancy. WCP did a fine job of that already.
    Just curious, what absolute basis (God, philosophy, etc) do you have for calling anti-homosexuality views ‘close minded (sic), bigoted’?

  • Melody Warbington

    Homosexuality is a choice and is sinful behavior as is adultery and fornication, all of which can be forgiven.

    See https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1443-the-plague-of-perversion and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Jude 7 and Romans 1:26-27. And please don’t revert to the argument that Jesus himself didn’t condemn it.

    From http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1627:

    Finally, it must be considered that Jesus did, in fact, speak against
    homosexuality. On numerous occasions, Jesus condemned the sins of
    adultery (Matthew 19:18), sexual immorality (Matthew 19:9) and
    fornication (Matthew 15:19). These terms describe any type of sexual
    intercourse that is not within the confines of a marriage ordained by
    God. Jesus then proceeded to define exactly what God views as a morally
    permissible marriage. He stated:

    Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them
    male and female, and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father
    and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one
    flesh”? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what
    God has joined together, let not man separate (Matthew 19:4-6).

    By defining marriage as between one male and one female, Jesus
    effectively condemned all other arrangements, including but not limited
    to one man and two women, one woman and two men, three men and one
    woman, three men and three women, one man and one man, one woman and one animal, etc. You can see the overwhelming logic of such. For Jesus to have to explicitly condemn every assortment of genders and numbers would be absurd. When He defined marriage between one man and one woman, He clearly showed that such an arrangement is the only one authorized by God.

  • streiff

    having an inclination towards murder or pedophilia is also different that acting on the impulse. I’m not sure what point you are making or what research you are relying on for the rather exotic statement of “many, many homosexual priests and clergy.”

  • streiff

    We started losing in Afghanistan. Coincidence? I think not.

  • runner12

    LOL! Fewer deaths? FEWER deaths at our embassies? That is such a cherry-picking type statement, I am embarrased for you. You forgot to add that the first US Ambassador to be killed in 40 years happened on O’s watch. And we are losing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    DADT was a common-sense, rational position drafted and enacted by Clinton, a Democrat President. It simply stated that it was best if the issue was kept private and not blazoned to the wide-world. It never excluded those who were gay from serving. Any person who is not an idealogue could see the common sense in DADT.

  • Dave_A

    @redstate-a3a96311e8ca0f97aaa43a068bde1d88:disqus

    I believe the Pope (especially this one) disagrees with that statement…

    While some ‘mainline’ Protestant churches (Methodists, some Lutherans, and Episcopal) have liberalized their theology on the subject….

    (Not Catholic, but I do somewhat follow the goings-on – mainly because on political issues there is a good bit of alignment between the non-denominational/evangelical community & the Catholic Church – moreso than with our ‘mainline’ anscestors)….

  • rolandlind

    I read an article about it several years ago, and have since seen several studies. Wikipedia has them nicely summarized here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Roman_Catholic_priests

  • rolandlind

    Sure, but objective disorder is a long way from “moral debauchery”

  • Ingen Angiven

    A lot of conservatives aren’t homophobic.

  • zen29

    Like most people, I’m not buying the “Morale is lowest in decades” part at all. Quite the opposite from what my friends tell me.

    But the larger point of your argument Mr. Horowitz doesn’t make sense. The most complicated part of any military operation is logistical supplies, especially fuel. During World War II for example, on the top of the list for the invasion of Europe was seizing Balkan and Iranian oilfields from the Axis, and negotiating for Saudi Arabian oil. The results were obvious: by the end of the war, our vehicles had gas to drive and the Nazis’s simply didn’t.

    If the military can dramatically reduce the logistical demand for energy and fuel, it just as dramatically simplifies the supply line problem. How many American soldiers died in Iraq and Afghanistan escorting JP-8 convoys? Imagine if instead, every Army vehicle being based around fuel cells or batteries charged solar or some kind of semi-portable nuclear generator? Or far closer than that, doubling engine efficiency ans slashing fuel costs?

    I see it as something simple: taking a big step closer to the fighting force that doesn’t need to be refueled… the exact same motivation behind the first nuclear aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines and nuclear cruisers. There is a phrase for that: strategic advantage.

    Imagine if we had to fight, lets say Iran or China. Imagine if they had to refuel two to four times more often than our vehicles did. Think of what that would do logistically for us and how much faster our forces could move free of that particular supply line.

    “Green venture socialism?”. Let’s go back to 2003 and ask General Tommy Franks if he would have liked to have had super efficient and biofueled Tanks and Bradleys instead of his Reagan Era heavy armor. I’m sure he would have jumped for joy at the thought of halving how much gas the “tip of the spear” needed.

  • http://brainshavings.com OhioCoastie

    Are you unfamiliar with the clear teaching of the Bible when it comes to homosexual conduct? Go reacquaint yourself with Romans 1, for starters.

  • streiff

    “phobic” means fear. I have yet to meet anyone who was afraid of homosexuals. Being opposed to a “intrinsically disordered” (to quote my Church) lifestyle is neither fear nor bigotry. It is common sense.

  • streiff

    wow, this is really cutting edge science. Don’t know now I could have missed it.

  • trutexan

    I work on an Air Force installation and I get a chuckle every time the suggestion box that is specifically for sensitivity and green suggestions goes missing off the wall. There are 9 of them in the building I work in and there always seems to be a blank spot where the box is supposed to be. And the email that was sent to all emploring folks to leave them be was hilarious. A subtle message from the peasants to the heirarchy of what they can do with their social engineering initiatives.

  • gmat

    That’s how my son described it to me. After he finished his inbitial training, he joined a cavalry unit in Germany that was training hard for deployment. Then they went to Afghanistan and worked hard for a year.

    When they came back and settled in at their base in Germany, with another deployment unlikely, everything became all about which unit could do the chickenshit stuff better. So he chose to get out and work at his trade as a civilian contractor.

  • celador2

    We do not need an inefficient costly green enenrgy program in military. One campaign issue I can see for 2014 is military green is a dud and a deadly dud.

  • athanor

    Oh, how dare someone express a different point of view. What do they think the comment section is for? Don’t they realize that disagreement is only acceptable on liberal websites?
    It’s also disturbing that the primary point of the post was objecting to the military desire to be able to maintain supply channels in the future, but almost all the comments are about “teh gays”.

  • tibbstaichou

    i have a nagging suspicion that the primary reason as to why Rome fell was because her gay soldiers wanted more fluff and feathers on their shiny shields and armor.

    wont be long for the american soldiers if the gay have their way…. lol

  • brojohn2

    Another waste of time/energy and money. We should expect this kind of treatment from the Obama Administration, it falls right in with the destruction of the economy. If you are going to destroy our nation, this is the way to do it. Let us get rid of these expensive and less effecient projects and go back to what we know works. Gas/Diesel/Nuclear power.

  • westcoastpatriette

    The comment section is not for debating liberals or tolerating their snide, condescending commentary. Go read the site rules. This is a site for conservative political activists not drive-by snipers from the left.

  • gmat

    “There is one more burden that Obama has added to their list of problems; green energy mobiles!”

    What are “green energy mobiles”? I’m assuming “mobiles” means battery-powered electronic devices that are carried by soldiers. Are the batteries recharged by renewable energy devices, or what, exactly?

    I have heard of a new power solution that the 173rd Airborne is being trained on, where the soldier carries one battery for all his electronics (and one spare), and significantly lightens his combat load.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/amywestervelt/2012/02/14/how-the-military-uses-green-tech-to-save-soldiers-lives/

  • buffy123

    You are correct. No one but extreme right-wingers is listening to this site. The real Patriots, myself included, are looking for solutions to our national problems, not to mud-throwing, “terrible-three” antics, by those who swallow the “Redstate” propaganda.

  • Jack_Savage

    And yet here you are. Interesting.
    And for curiousity, before you go, how long will it take the government to burn through all the money you are going to confiscate to “solve our national problems?”
    As far as I am concerned, the main national problem we have is Barack Obama, and the people like you who worship him.

  • jpkoch

    Do you really believe that green biodiesel is any cheaper than normal fossil fuel diesel? Have you considered the kind of supply chain problems that are created by staging these boutique fuels? And the DOD was looking at fuel costs when they began these green initiatives. Initially, they were doing their part to fight Climate Change (fomerly known as AGW). The added logistical and administrative costs of going “Green” have far outweighed any savings. That was the point of McCain’s budget changes.
    So, we’ve reached a point where we will save DOD green energy programs but slash combat effectiveness. Makes sense if you are a Progressive.

  • jpkoch

    I think people should read Alistaire Horn’s classic, To Lose a Battle. It’s a historical work which details the history of Germany and especually France from 1919- June 1940. France didn’t lose in 1940 because its morale was poor (actually the morale of its elite mechanized units was quite high); it didn’t lose because of poor obsolete equipment (in most cases its equipment was better than Germany’s); it didn’t lose because it was out numbered (the combined might of the Allies was either on par with Germany or higher in every category). It didn’t lose because the quality of its equipment was poor (the French tanks were superior in most cases, as was its standard infantry and heavy weapons).

    France lost because half its citizens didn’t believe the Republic was worth fighting for. Its military leadership wasn’t immuned from this internal strife. Senior military officers were in many cases just a reflection of the general population. Most were political bureaucrats, administrative officers, and political appointees with little martial will. While France had plenty of brigade commanders who were more than competent and willing to fight (think of DeGaulle); France had a shortage of divisional, Corp, and Army Group commanders that could fight a modern war. DeGaulle would have never made it to corps commander due to politics.

    The lesson here is that a nation can easily lose a war (and its freedom) if a large minority of its people hate the very nature of its society. The Left is filled with such people. Whether we speak of race, gender, or class, it is not to far to say that at least 25% of our population wants this nation “transformed” in the same way that French Communists and Nationalists once wanted France transformed.

  • citizenkh

    So what about the bio jet fuel which is made out of pig fat? Shouldn’t that also be listed as a deterrent to certain countries?

  • galt57

    Of course I know our coutry needs to maintain a competent defence; we have enemies. But I’m gay and never got my copy of the “Radical Homosexual Agenda.”(TM) Might it be as imaginary as the Elders of Zion?

  • edintexas

    Imagination is an advantage in both tactical and strategic thinking. Imagining that a biofuel is an advantage when it is not is simply wishful thinking. Biofuel does not produce greater energy (BTU) in the diesel vehicles the military currently has. It is not in a great supply, while diesel fuel from oil is readily available. It is more expensive than diesel fuel from oil, thus use of biofuels is reducing the funds available for completing the mission, or adding to the national debt through deficit spending (which is also a threat to national security. While you are imagining, imagine a future conflict with the People’s Republic where they refuse to loan us the money to buy biofuels).

    Likewise, imagining that battery technology is where we wish it to be is not a strategic plan. Electric vehicles will not be useful to the military until the technology is such that it is 99.99% reliable AND provides performance in speed, power, range, “fuel” transportability/availability, “refueling time” and longevity at least equal to the internal combustion engine.

  • streiff

    too many facts there. The whole “Green Technology” thing is a religion. It has the elements of Fall from Grace (fossil fuels) and Redemption/Salvation (Green tech) down pat.

  • edintexas

    Ah yes, there is that distinction. Although I must point out that while (perhaps?) US Catholic Cardinals and Bishops have decided that thoughts of sinful behavior (without acting upon those thoughts) are not sins, that was not the teaching of the Church half a century and more ago (and I’m not at all sure that is the Church’s teaching today).

    The problem, as recent history has shown, is that some number of those homosexuals in the Church have incapable of being celibate (I’ll stipulate that there probably are heterosexual priests in the same situation). Surely, if priests are incapable of rejecting human sexual frailty, the congregants are even less capable of not acting.

  • edintexas

    Mea Culpa. I forgot I was responding to a troll. And a “green” troll at that.

  • papabear

    Fantasy and engineering are not bedfellows.

    Either cite 1 (yes, just 1) example of a biofuel that enables greater efficiency than the fuel it replaces (without reducing range or run time). Likewise, one example of combat ready solar energy that can charge anything larger than personal equipment. How about a battery that is competitive in energy storage with a similar size/weight fuel tank.

    The DOD is not funding any portable nuclear technology. You are in LALA land if you really believe that. The Greens HATE nuclear!!

    Existing diesel engines can approach 40% efficient. Stationary power plants can approach 60% efficient, but they are orders of magnitude greater in size, mass, complexity, and cost. Any energy conversion process that doubled diesel efficiency would immediately be adopted by the electric power industry.

    Any engine technology that doubled today’s engine efficiency would be revolutionary and would immediately be employed worldwide. There is NO chance that it would be exclusive to the military. There is also no chance that the military would develop this fantastic technology.

    How bout you try to make friends with a freshman physics book.

    Seriously.

  • illiterarechimp

    As an ecological officer (its an additional duty) in the 4th BDE 10th Mountain division in Fort Polk Louisiana I can say that the Army`s environmental program effectively protects our training areas while not effecting mission accomplismentor encuring huge costs.

    First off Environmental policies- as well as other policies such as OSHA – take a back seat in combat zones. Your musings about Afghanastan are baseless.

    Also- did you know that in that the Environmental program in Fort Polk PAYS FOR ITSELF? In dollars! Dollars earned from the sale of the many scrap metals we sell after use- and the cost savings of reusing things like coolant and oil!

    Yep! Pays for itself!

    I learned the eco program from a Tea Party Texan here at FT Polk – he and I could both appreciate the soundness of the DOD ECO policy you should too!

  • illiterarechimp

    so the airmen keep stealing a suggestion box… what message do they hope to send?

  • illiterarechimp

    Simply false. False see my comment above.

    Also – what makes sense to a conservative? Taking a swim in Love Lake NY or the Butte hole in Montana? Both of which are lethal. Er… love lake would have been lethal but Blue states clean up pollution.

    The Butte hole lake is so poisonous if a bird touches it it dies.

    Yeah makes perfect sense – destroy the Earth for money

  • illiterarechimp

    I left a comment here that soundly proved this article wrong (I am in 4th BDE 10th mountain and an eco officer – the Army ECO program pays for itself and doesn’t effect combat operations at all.)

    The comment appears to be missing.

    This is the conservative mind. A mind prone to authoritarianism. Surpress the voice that proves you wrong.

    Heil redstate.

    Oh, I got here by Googling red state the horror film. Red state is a horror film! What does that say.

  • Bill S

    Hey, dumbass – your comment is here. But thanks for letting us know that we don’t need you here. Bye.

  • Pingback: The Military is Not the Place for Green Social Engineering | Politics Dividing US