GOP Death Wish

Are Republicans Delusional?—————————————-

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

 

As I was driving home the evening of the Benghazi hearings, I listened to a conservative radio talk show host gloating with a call-in guest over how Rep. Trey Gowdy’s House committee skewered Hillary Rodham Clinton over her role as Secretary of State during the Benghazi disaster, seemingly convinced it had destroyed her presidential election hopes. Later that evening, I watched some of the proceedings, including the squabbling among the committee members as Clinton calmly watched, poised and even appearing somewhat amused. It appeared to me that it was the committee members who displayed incompetence and that Clinton emerged the winner, if there could ever be a winner in such a sorry matter.

Americans should be outraged by Benghazi but outrage has a very short shelf life among Americans these days. Their concentration span, especially among young Americans, seems limited and they are quick to forgive and forget when it comes to celebrities like the Clintons. Look at how quickly they forgave Bill for his indiscretions. For one thing, they are rather used to scandals at this point.” Time to move on” is the prevailing sentiment, especially among the progressives. As Mrs. Clinton earlier said, “At this point, what difference does it make?”  That expression, once regarded as callous, doesn’t seem quite so shrill and uncaring to many voters, now that Hillary is running to be the first female president.

Republicans are delusional if they believe that Hillary Clinton is going to be easily defeated. She emerged from the Benghazi hearings energized and stronger, appearing ready to face the more serious charges related to her use of a private server to conduct sensitive and classified State Department business. Her only serious contender for the nomination, Vermont’s Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, has already given her a pass on that, saying the public is sick and tired of hearing about Hillary’s emails. In truth, a large percentage of the voting public, comfortable with big government and the entitlement programs which benefit them, probably don’t even care and would vote for a jackass if it were the only Democrat running.

Meanwhile, the bizarre process of selecting presidential nominees drags on. Lacking an electable opponent, it will be a cakewalk for Mrs. Clinton. She just has to act poised and presidential. For Republicans, however, it will be a bar fight which will punish each of the candidates and provide ammunition for Clinton in the presidential debates next year. Two of the most qualified candidates, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry have already dropped out. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Ohio’s Gov. John Kaisich, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Louisiana’s Gov. Bobby Jindal can’t seem to develop the necessary traction in spite of successful terms as governors which I still believe is a better qualification for the presidency than service in the Congress. Kaisich actually has both levels of experience. But so great is the anger among right ring Republicans against so-called establishment politicians that two political novices who lack any experience in governing or international relations are still leading a still-crowded field. One, a real estate tycoon and TV celebrity is given to making outrageous statements. Can you image him as president of the United States? Please. The other is a likeable, intelligent retired neurosurgeon who would probably make a great Surgeon General. Exactly what qualifies either of these two to occupy the most powerful office on earth?

The GOP must have a death wish. Presented with their best chance at regaining the presidency by facing a deeply-flawed candidate, they remain riven by intra-party squabbling and bifurcated along ideological lines. A House Speaker, John Boehner, second in line to the president, is forced from office by opposition from those in his own party who apparently don’t realize that you have to control both the Congress and the White House to actually effect transformational change. A successor, Paul Ryan, who said he didn’t really want the job, has to be coaxed into taking it for the sake of the party, after the heir apparent, Kevin McCarthy of California stupidly responded to a Sean Hannity question by taking credit for the Benghazi hearings in order to damage the Clinton campaign.

If the Republicans cannot coalesce around an electable candidate soon and avoid damaging attacks on each other meanwhile, they will deserve to lose. We the public, however, deserve better.

October 27, 2015

The South China Sea Is Not China’s

The South China Sea Does Not Belong to China———————-

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

China has claimed sovereignty over approximately 1.35 million square miles of international waters known as the South China Sea, through which passes over half of the world’s seaborne commerce. It is the connecting body of water between the Pacific and Indian Oceans and it is bordered by, in addition to China, Taiwan, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia and Vietnam. It no more belongs to China than the Sea of Japan belongs to Japan, the Gulf of Mexico belongs to Mexico or the Arabian Sea belongs to the Arabs. Like them, the South China Sea is an international body of water on which any vessel from any nation may navigate without permission from anyone as has been the case throughout recorded history.

The nations bordering this sea exercise sovereignty only over the ocean area within twelve miles of their coastlines. Vessels, including warships may even transit through these territorial seas in accordance with the internationally-recognized right of innocent passage so long as they are proceeding directly from point to point and do not engage in military or other prohibited activities.  Littoral nations also enjoy certain rights within their exclusive economic zones but not the right to exclude shipping. China, in fact, recently exercised its own right of innocent passage by sending several warships through Alaska’s Aleutian Islands without notification to or protest from the United States.

China’s claim to the vast South China Sea has no historical, legal or geographic basis. But the matter has become somewhat complicated now by China’s colonization of some of the Spratly Islands lying just west of the Philippines. Historically, when nations populate and develop uninhabited islands, their claims of sovereignty have become at least tacitly recognized, occupation being the better part of ownership. These islands are more than 700 miles from the Chinese mainland. Other nations in closer proximity to the Spratlys may protest the Chinese actions, but they lack the means to do much about it and the Chinese, having now invested heavily in creating many acres of new land and building military facilities in these islands are not about to give them up.

The U.S. Navy has, for some time, talked about testing the right of innocent passage within twelve miles of these Chinese-occupied islands and reefs but Beijing has warned against what it says would be a provocative Incursion into its territorial waters and reportedly the Obama Administration has withheld approval, as of this writing at least, apparently reluctant to provoke the Chinese. However, the longer we or other maritime nations delay in asserting these rights, the stronger the Chinese position becomes. This administration has become famous for its inability to act quickly enough to prevent a fait accompli.

China will not be dislodged from the Spratlys nor discouraged from building artificial islands there and militarizing them. The time for effective action to accomplish this has probably come and gone. But China’s claim of sovereignty over the South China Sea must not be allowed to stand and must be aggressively and repeatedly challenged. This will not be accomplished by speeches, or U.N. resolutions or by strong diplomatic protests. The United States and other maritime nations have a vital interest in keeping this strategic body of international waters open to unrestricted shipping and economic activities by constantly exercising these rights without securing permission from China or anyone else and by making it repeatedly and emphatically clear to Beijing that we will enforce freedom of the seas.

October 20, 2015

Nature Abhors a Vacuum: America’s Fading Leadeship Role

Nature Abhors a Vacuum——————————————-

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

 

Russia’s emergence as a power broker in the endless Middle East conflicts is just the latest in a stream of foreign policy setbacks for the Obama Administration, highlighting its retreat from world leadership during its seven years in power if, indeed, power is the proper term. It should have come as no surprise and yet everything seems to come as a surprise to this clueless administration. What did they expect? We dithered endlessly over what to do about the civil war in Syria, just as we equivocated over what to do in Libya, Egypt and other uprisings triggered by the Arab Spring revolt in Tunisia.

Regarding Syria, we declared that Bashar al Assad must go, apparently without much regard for who or what would take his place. At least there was stability under Assad’s rule. Look at the mess there now with millions displaced and seeking asylum in Europe. Mr. Obama drew his famous red line regarding Assad’s use of chemical weapons. When Assad ignored it, we did nothing but whine. We agonized endlessly over which rebel groups, if any, to support and how to support them. A program to train and equip a handful of vetted rebels was a costly and humiliating failure.

We stood idly by as Islamic State forces proceeded to implement their goal of establishing a caliphate across much of Syria and Iraq, undoing much of what we had accomplished in Iraq at a great cost in blood and treasure. We pretend to lead from behind but mostly do nothing but warn, threaten and preach to a world that is no longer listening to us. Mr. Obama has demonstrated by his inaction that the United States was withdrawing from a leadership role in the Middle East, creating a power vacuum. Leadership from behind is no leadership at all. Into that vacuum stepped Vladimir Putin, eager to reclaim Russia’s status as a great and influential power and quite willing to lead from up front where leaders belong.

Why are we surprised? What did we expect? Russia’s move into Syria was no less predictable than its actions in Crimea which used to be part of Russia and which hosts its Black Sea Fleet. Russia is, in effect, a Middle East power and Syria is an ally which hosts important Russian naval and air bases. Mr. Putin gave as his excuse for intervention, a need to combat terrorism, by which we assumed he meant Islamic State. Instead, Russian forces targeted anti-Assad rebels that we were supporting (well, sort of).

It should have come as no surprise that Putin would back his ally, the Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad, who Obama keeps insisting must go. But Russia’s support makes this much less likely and tilts the odds heavily in favor of Assad’s survival. It also creates a dangerous situation with U.S. and allied forces operating in proximity to each other but with conflicting missions.

Russia under Vladimir Putin is filling a leadership void in the Middle East that we created by abdicating that leadership role. The significance of this American retreat from leadership is not lost on either our friends or enemies. Iraq has indicated that it would welcome Russian intervention in that country. The United States, under President Barack Obama, is perceived as indecisive, unwilling to lead and unreliable as an ally. Why should anyone trust us when we don’t do what we say we will and issue threats that no one takes seriously anymore.

There is no simple answer in dealing with the mess that is the Middle East where tribal and religious rivalries and hatred portend continued strife. I certainly have no solution but it is the administration’s job to at least have a consistent approach and policy and to inform the American public on how it intends to deal with the greatest existential threat to American interests. That threat is not Russian revanchism. It is, rather, the forces of anti-western, anti-American Radical Islam that are dedicated to our destruction. Eventually, we will have to come to grips with the fact that they are at war with us and they will not be defeated by diplomacy or deterred by hollow threats or pin-prick air strikes..

October 14, 2015