The U.S. military is being tested by the many fires it is trying to put out abroad. These crises pull assets from the country’s network of hundreds of foreign bases, more than 170,000 troops deployed internationally and mutual defense treaties with upwards of 50 countries.
But amid these global missions, the military is increasingly burdened by its responsibility for extinguishing literal fires across the U.S.
The U.S. armed forces have engaged in domestic wildfire suppression for over a century, but as climate change and historical forestry malpractices increase the frequency and intensity of wildfires, the military’s role in fire response has ballooned.
On average, the U.S. has experienced 100 more large wildfires per year since 2015, and the risk of large fires has doubled over the last two decades. At the same time, National Guard deployments to fight wildfires expanded more than tenfold. Even more concerningly, there has been growing usage of active-duty units as firefighters.
For example, hundreds of mechanized infantrymen engaged in fire suppression in California in 2021, and army engineers have been dispatched to fires in Washington and other western states over the last decade. A recent report by the Progressive Policy Institute, where one of us works in energy and environmental policy, outlines the difficulties posed by military commitments to firefighting and details potential solutions.
The use of the armed forces as wildland firefighters poses an underappreciated threat to U.S. force posture. Soldiers who respond to wildfires are unavailable for training, deployments or other traditional military missions, often for extended periods. Furthermore, some of the most beneficial military units for wildfire suppression are often highly valued for their warfighting capabilities.
According to Erin Sikorsky, a former member of the National Intelligence Council and director of the Center for Climate and Security, “many of those same troops are the ones that would be called upon in case of a conflict,” so “there would be a challenge there if they were being deployed at the levels they have been in recent years domestically and needed on the front lines.”
Conversely, firefighters who have come to depend on military units cannot always mount an adequate response in their absence. Oregon’s ability to respond to large wildfires in 2020 was constrained by its National Guard helicopters’ deployment to Afghanistan.
These examples are not evidence of firefighting ineptitude; rather, they showcase the dangers of over-reliance on the armed forces to suppress wildfires. If the U.S. simultaneously faced a major war and a severe fire season, it would lack the resources to address both tasks adequately.
Many of the platforms that the National Guard and Reserve forces deploy are extraordinarily important for firefighting, especially C-130s equipped with the Modular Airborne Fire Fighting System, logistical units and engineers. These capabilities may not be worth duplicating when constrained budgets are already struggling to meet commitments.
Ideally, the U.S. Forest Service and state firefighting agencies would be able to acquire retired military systems, drastically reducing costs. A retired Blackhawk helicopter used for firefighting can cost a fraction of a new and similarly capable Sikorsky S-70M Firehawk at a price tag of as high as $25 million.
However, given limited funding, there is a persistent demand to use U.S. military platforms for wildfire response. This requires the Department of Defense to identify which platforms can serve a dual purpose, and craft contingencies for fighting wildfires during a major, resource-intensive conflict.
This type of planning is extensively done by the Department of Defense, but to avoid an outcome where the U.S. is being ravaged by wildfires while the country is fighting a potentially existential war, we must coordinate with the National Interagency Fire Center, FEMA, the Department of the Interior and other essential agencies.
The most critical shortfall in U.S. wildfire response is a perennial shortage of dedicated firefighting resources. Perpetual underinvestment in the Forest Service has inhibited its ability to address worsening wildfires and forced it to devote a larger share of its budget to fire response, detracting from resources used for fire prevention and other duties.
The agency is also facing significant budget cuts that will further reduce its ability to respond to wildfires. To reduce reliance on military units, the budgets of the Forest Service, the Department of the Interior and regional firefighting agencies should be bolstered to expand their firefighting forces, provide fair pay and enhance partnerships with private contractors.
Expanding security challenges abroad and intensifying wildfires at home demand that the United States craft a more sustainable strategy that will safeguard both military readiness and forests. This requires that the U.S. consider reducing its role as a global firefighter and prioritize fighting the fires at home.
Evan Cooper is a research analyst in the Stimson Center’s Reimagining U.S. Grand Strategy program. Alec Evans is an energy policy fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute.
