Women and the Draft

Women and the Draft: Inclusiveness vs. Common Sense

By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

 

                In 1978, while commanding a guided missile cruiser deployed to the Middle East, I wrote an essay for the Naval Institute Proceedings expressing the then-controversial view that any qualified woman should be allowed to fill any officer or enlisted billet in my or any navy ship. Indeed, they should be allowed to serve in any operational billet in the armed forces short of hand-to-hand combat, I said. The essay won me an author of the year award but also a lot of criticism from some superiors and peers for a recommendation that would profoundly change the all-male seagoing and aviation navy culture.

                The rest, as they say, is history and today women serve proudly and capably in non-traditional, operational roles including combat and, probably soon, special forces. With two daughters and a grand-daughter, I remain an ardent advocate for removing barriers to women who wish to serve in any role for which they are qualified, including combat. But let’s be clear about some implications.

                There are very different levels of combat. In air or sea combat, for instance, you are not likely to be engaged in hand-to-hand, direct combat with an enemy. Indeed, you may be miles away from him in battle. In ground combat, on the other hand, you may be up close and personal to him. It’s one thing to fight an enemy from afar. It’s quite another to fight him face to face, say, with bayonets in a fight to the death.

                There are undoubtedly some women who are physically and emotionally prepared for this type of battlefield warfare but they are probably a small minority. For most, it would be a very unnatural experience with which our culture has not prepared them to deal. In my view, they should not be forced into this role because of some misguided notion of inclusiveness or fairness.

                Ground combat is dirty, savage and terrifying, involving lengthy periods in the field under unimaginably horrible conditions with no toilet facilities or privacy. It is very different from aerial or shipboard combat. Would you be comfortable with the idea of your daughter, grand-daughter, wife or mother being drafted and involuntarily assigned to a ground combat role? This could happen if women should be required to register for the draft, as some propose, and compulsory military service were re-instituted.

                If a woman wants to volunteer for such an assignment and meets the qualifications, she should, by all means, be allowed to so serve. Women have as much right as men to suffer and die or be wounded or maimed in the service of their country. And I don’t buy the argument that it would destroy the male warrior culture. That culture is changing anyway and today’s youth don’t really seem to have much problem with change that promotes equality. But I am concerned about forcing young women into a role for which they may not be emotionally prepared; essentially an intensely violent, aggressive one for which most men tend to be better suited than most women.

                This debate came about because of the recent decision to open up all combat assignments to qualified women (over the strenuous objections of many military leaders). The decision raised the question of whether or not women should be required to register for the draft, as men are, now that combat assignments are open to them. Many argue that women should not be allowed a double standard and that fairness dictates that they should now face the same draft requirements as men. This would be a triumph of inclusiveness and political correctness over common sense and military requirements.

                The entire debate may, in any event, be moot. We are not likely to re-institute compulsory military service. The all-volunteer service concept, in effect now for nearly half a century, has produced a highly-professional force. There has been no shortage of volunteers; indeed, there has usually been a surplus. The services are far more technically complex today and the eligibility standards for military service are now so high that probably less than half of the draft age population would qualify. Moreover, the services would have to be significantly restructured to even accommodate and train large numbers of draftees. At present there is no foreseeable need for massive ground forces to fight large-scale expeditionary wars. While there will always be a potential need for some boots on the ground, they will likely be largely limited to training, logistical and special forces. If volunteers should prove insufficient in some future emergency, male draftees could easily satisfy the shortfalls. If, in some dire future emergency, more military personnel were needed, the issue could be revisited.

                Requiring women to register for the draft now, just because men are, would do nothing to enhance military readiness which is the only reason for a draft in the first place and it would force many women into a role that most of them are not, by nature or socialization, suited for.

February 29, 2016

 

(Kelly, a resident of Coronado, is a retired Navy Captain who commanded three San Diego-based ships and a naval laboratory. He writes on military and defense issues. This piece originally appeared in the Feb.21, 2016 edition of The San Diego Union Tribune.)

 

The Decline of Decorum

The Death of Decorum———————————-

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                No Republican who watched last week’s GOP debate could help but be embarrassed. Unless, that is, we’ve fallen to such depths of decorum that we are now beyond embarrassment. I’ve become convinced that of the five remaining candidates, only Gov. John Kaisich and Dr. Ben Carson are actually in control of their mouths and emotions. Neither freshman senator seems ready for prime time. As for Donald Trump, I would advise him to stick to his day jobs as an entertainer and developer of real estate.

 

That the Donald, an egotistical, crude blowhard, could now be the overwhelming favorite to be the last Republican left standing at the end of this food fight, is a truly sad reflection on the intelligence and maturity of a very large number of voters and their infatuation with TV celebrities and vulgar comics. I get it that they’re angry over the economy, dead-end jobs, wage stagnation, student debt, etc., but what makes them think that Mr. Trump can solve these problems? What exactly are his plans for transforming things other than to keep saying he will make great deals and things will be terrific. How exactly will he go about making America great again? Business success by itself does not necessarily translate into ability to govern and manage a vast, complex and entrenched government bureaucracy.

 

Of the five left standing, Ohio’s John Kaisich, governor of a large, swing state that Republicans need to win and a proven leader with experience in Congress, is, in my view, by far the most qualified. He may be somewhat lacking in charisma and youthful good looks, but both are highly over-rated in predicting success in positions of great responsibility. Unfortunately, many voters make their choices based almost entirely on these superficial criteria.

 

Can you really imagine a president Trump with his finger on the nuclear trigger? Can you imagine him conducting brinkmanship in some future crisis like, say, the Cuban missile crisis, when we came perilously close to nuclear war? I can’t. No one knows what a Trump presidency would look like, probably not even Donald himself. But I’ll say this about a Trump candidacy. It would be highly entertaining to watch him debating Hillary Clinton. Liberal Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson has warned Hillary to “be ready to rumble” against Trump. “Refusing to descend to his level is a grave mistake,” he wrote. “You have to get down and dirty, get under his skin, call him names to beat Trump. You have to go after him just as viciously as he goes after you.” Well, that should make for an enlightened, intelligent campaign for the most powerful office on earth.

 

Trump won easily in Nevada, collecting more votes than Sens. Rubio and Cruz combined and winning in every category including Evangelical Christians which Cruz was supposed to win.  Trump’s campaign was apparently helped immensely by Pope Francis who was enticed by reporters into wading into American politics by suggesting that the candidate’s stands on immigration and building walls made him “not Christian”. So much for the “Who am I to judge?” words previously applied to homosexuals and same-sex marriages.

 

The Pope, of course, has every right to express opinions on anything he wishes including American elections, the economy, the evils of capitalism or the merits of socialism but in venturing beyond religious guidance he opens wide the door to criticism. Many Christians, including Catholics, are fed up with uncontrolled borders and illegals sneaking across them with all the problems that brings. They don’t think that breaking our laws is very Christian, either. The Pontiff later said, when asked by reporters if Christians should vote against candidates who favored stricter immigration policies, they should vote in accordance with a well-formed conscience. My well-formed conscience tells me that the pope should not weigh in on American politics except, of course on purely religious matters such as sanctity of life and religious freedom.

 

Then there is the law of unintended consequences. Many non-Catholics still remain suspicious of Catholic candidates, fearing that they may be overly influenced by Vatican views. This suspicion almost certainly resulted in more Evangelical Christian votes for Trump.

 

If Americans are forced to choose between Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton, we may just have to build another wall, this one on the northern border to keep many of them from fleeing to Canada.

February 28, 2016

 

A Movement Based on Emotion

A Movement Based on Emotion, Not Facts————————————–
A commentary
By J. F. Kelly, Jr.
In many urban areas, violent crime is again on the rise. In New York, for instance, violent crime rose, as predicted, after Mayor Bill deBlasio ended the so-called stop and frisk policy which allowed police to stop, interrogate and search people suspected of illegally carrying weapons. In the wake of widely-publicized police shootings of unarmed black men, police, especially white policemen, are reportedly more reluctant to confront black suspects out of a justifiable fear that they will be accused of racial profiling or using excessive force. This reluctance or hesitation has made a dangerous and difficult job more dangerous, not only for police, but for the public they are sworn to protect.

 
The irony is that African-Americans, who comprise a majority of the victims in high-crime urban areas, are now in even greater danger of becoming victims. As is often the case, (mostly) well-intentioned movements against aggressive police tactics have made matters worse for the general population including black supporters of the movement. The Black Lives Matter movement is a prime example and, as Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute, has written in The Wall Street Journal, it is a campaign based largely on myths.

 
It is a perhaps politically inconvenient truth but undeniable fact that young, black men and juveniles committed a disproportionate share of the robberies (52%) and murders (57%) in the 75 largest U.S. counties in the year 2009, for example, according to Bureau of Justice statistics. This is despite the fact that they made up less than 10% of the population. A seldom-mentioned fact is that these statistics are almost entirely comprised of young, black males from single-parent families without a live-in father, not blacks in general. Also, according to FBI data, police officers are killed by blacks at a rate two and one-half times greater than the rate at which blacks are killed by police. Proper risk assessment by police should dictate that these statistics should be taken into account as they go about their duties. Instead, they are largely ignored, especially by the media.

 
Of course, black lives matter. All lives matter. The homicide rate among young African-American males is indeed tragic and cries out for a solution. But it must be a solution based on facts, not emotion. In 2014, there were 6,095 black homicides reported compared with 5,397 for whites, including Hispanics. But as everyone knows, or should know, nearly all of the black homicide deaths were black-on black murders and only a tiny percentage attributable to police shootings. In fact the 2015 statistics indicate that the number of white and Hispanic victims of police shootings as a percentage of the total white and Hispanic U.S. population was seven times higher than that for blacks. Incidentally, a 2015 study cited by MacDonald found that black officers in the New York Police Department were more than three times more likely to fire their weapons than white officers at a crime scene involving gunfire.

 
It is said that statistics can be assembled to support almost any argument and the point here is not to suggest that there have not been cases of unjustifiable use of force against unarmed blacks (and those of other races). But the statistics do not support the case that it is an anything approaching an epidemic. Any legitimate cause or movement needs to be supported by facts, not just emotion, so that the public can consider the data and form opinions regarding proper corrective actions. Appealing to raw emotion and ignoring the facts is a form of demagoguery. This is exactly what both Democratic candidates for president appear guilty of. One Ad by the Clinton Campaign quotes the candidate as saying “Too many encounters with law enforcement end up tragically” and “We have to face up to the hard truth of injustice and systematic racism.” A tweet by Sen. Bernie Sanders said, “As president, let me be clear that no one will fight harder to end racism and reform our broken criminal justice system than I will.”

 
By all means, let’s be clear. The primary purpose of such statements is to pander to African-Americans and keep their votes safely in the Democratic column. The problems they allude to are not supported by statistics. The energy devoted to the Black Lives Matter movement would be far better spent dealing with the real problem, to wit: black-on-black crime committed by young, mostly unemployed black males raised in homes without a father. The problem is not so much a broken criminal justice system as it is broken black families without a live-in father to model acceptable adult male behavior. Unfortunately, few politicians have the guts to point this out this politically-incorrect fact if it might cost them votes.

 
February 21, 2016

The Great Divide

The Polarization Continues—————————————

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

Vermont, with a population only about half that of the city of San Diego, is the nation’s second smallest state by population. It has produced, however, two of the most liberal politicians in recent U.S history, Howard Dean and Bernie Sanders. Perhaps it’s something in the maple syrup.

Sen. Bernie Sanders won the New Hampshire primary as expected, hailing as he does from neighboring Vermont just across the Connecticut River which meanders down through ultra-liberal Massachusetts to the south, home of ultra-liberal darling, Sen. Elizabeth Warren. It continues down through terminally-liberal Connecticut, my home state, flowing out to Long Island Sound. Even the fish there are liberal. Perhaps it’s something in the water that makes New England so liberal.

Sanders calls himself a Democratic Socialist. Forget the Democratic part. It just lends a measure of respectability. Bernie is a revolutionary who would radically change not just the government, but the entire country as well. While most politicians look for ways to save Social Security from bankruptcy, Mr. Sanders wants to increase benefits for everyone. Instead of fixing the problems with Obamacare, he wants to go way beyond Obamacare by eliminating healthcare insurance companies and just having the government pay for everything. Mr. Sanders also wants free tuition at all public colleges and universities. Let good, old Uncle Sam pick up the tab for that, too.

All of which raises the question of how to pay for all these freebies, estimated to cost at least $17 trillion over a decade. Medical care for all alone would cost nearly $1.5 trillion per year. Mr. Sanders says he would pay for that with a new 6.2% payroll tax on employers and a 2.2% income tax increase for all taxpayers except high earners who would see the top tax rate soar past 50%. Free tuition would be paid for by a new tax on financial transactions. In other words, spread the wealth around by soaking the affluent and the job and wealth creators and to hell with the damage to the economy.

For a nation whose debt is soon to exceed $20 trillion and which adds to it every year with deficit spending, this would saddle the economy with so much debt that the interest on it annually would consume most of the budget, leaving little for discretionary spending, including defense. This is the product of a man who believes that wealth is obscene and must be taken from those who earn and create it and given to those who didn’t. It would also increase the size of government by at least a third.  Government would become not only the largest employer, but perhaps soon the only employer. This is as contrary to American traditions as it gets. Barack Obama wants us to be more like Sweden. Bernie Sanders apparently wants us to be more like Cuba.

Who supports this kind of madness? Why, hordes of young people, especially college students dissatisfied with their earning prospects and student debt, jealous of those with wealth and taught by their liberal professors that Wall Street is corrupt and the government owes them a living whether or not they have anything useful to contribute to society. But they are not alone. A Boston Globe survey found that 31% of Democrats said that the term “socialist” described them. Just over half of those between ages 17 and 34 said that the term fit them. It’s 11:00 p.m. Do you know where your college age children are on the political scale? Most of us were liberals in college but I don’t remember any socialists.

In response to the Sanders surge, Hillary Clinton has moved even further to the left than Barack Obama. Meanwhile, Republicans appear to be moving further to the right. According to a poll published in the Wall Street Journal, 46% of Democrats now regard themselves as very liberal or somewhat liberal while 62% of Republicans see themselves as very conservative or somewhat conservative. The polarization of Americans continues, dividing voters into two hostile camps. This may help explain some of the popularity of Donald Trump, who says, essentially, a pox on both your camps.

February 10, 2016

Navy Incident Off Iran Coast

Surrender Should Not Have Been an Option——————————-

1. F. Kelly, Jr

                As of this writing, it’s been two weeks since two U. S. Navy Riverine Command Boats were captured inside Iranian territorial waters with ten sailors on board and one junior commissioned officer in charge. The crew members were released the following day after an apology by one of the Americans, presumably the junior officer.

The incident occurred just as the Obama Administration’s nuclear agreement with Iran was about to take effect, prompting frantic efforts by Secretary of State John Kerry to obtain the release of the boats and crew members and to avoid jeopardizing the much-sought but controversial agreement. The boats and crew members were released to the nearby guided missile cruiser, USS Anzio, and the event was hailed by the administration as a diplomatic triumph. It was nothing of the sort. It was another embarrassment to the world’s most powerful nation and its mighty navy, raising many questions regarding how and why this happened.

The relatively heavily-armed 49-foot Riverine boats were captured by what appeared to be fishing boats manned by armed, uniformed men. Our sailors were photographed in a kneeling position, their hands clasped behind their heads and their weapons on the decks. It was the very image of surrender, an image not compatible with our navy’s traditions.

Any vessel which strays into another nation’s territorial waters without displaying hostile intent should, if disabled, be rendered assistance, not captured and humiliated at gunpoint or, worse case, be directed to depart at once. Perhaps a warning would be appropriate. But this is Iran we are dealing with and they, of course, will seize any opportunity to embarrass the Great Satan. They succeeded. All the more reason why answers are needed as to how these boats ended up in Iran’s territorial waters.

Initial news accounts speculated that one of the boats had mechanical problems. A later report said that a navigation error may have been the cause. The Iranians reportedly said, however, that there was no apparent mechanical problem or navigation equipment malfunction. So what happened?

The Riverine boats were transiting in daylight from Kuwait in the Persian Gulf to Bahrain to the southeast. How did they get so close to the Iranian coast? Why didn’t they just remain in visual sight of the Saudi Arabian coast? What kind of voyage planning and risk assessment preceded this operation? Were all the potential risks taken into account and contingency plans developed? The Aircraft Carrier Harry S. Truman and the Aegis Cruiser Anzio were in the area. Did they even know about this transit? Was air and surface support laid on? Did the boats call for assistance? Did the rules of engagement prohibit our crews from armed resistance if threatened with capture or harassed?

A lengthy naval career has taught me to be cautious about speculating over causal factors and blame regarding maritime accidents or incidents until investigations are complete and all facts known. But this major embarrassment raises many serious questions regarding competence and judgment that demand answers and openness. If one of the boats had mechanical problems, why didn’t the other take it in tow? If there was a problem with navigation equipment on one boat, it is most unlikely that the other would have such a problem. Why didn’t the crews resist being captured? These are high-speed, highly-maneuverable vessels. Why didn’t they at least make a run for international waters? Even in the unlikely event of gyro casualties in both boats, couldn’t they figure out how to head south or east in daylight?

There are valuable lessons to be learned from every accident or incident to prevent repeating them. But for lessons to be learned, the results of investigations need to be made available. This was not a minor incident that will soon be forgotten or a triumph of diplomacy that our boats and crews were released. It is a major embarrassment and the taxpayers who foot the bill for our Navy need to know how and why this happened and what is being done to keep it from happening again.

(This column appeared in the Jan. 28 edition of The San Diego Union-Tribune.)

January 31, 2016

               

               

Caucuses Draw Cat Calls

Caucuses Draw Critical Comments from Cats—————–

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

As my wife and I sat watching the early returns from the Iowa caucuses, we were joined by our family cats, Mimi and Mewsetta. “Don’t you ever watch anything but the news, politics or football?” Mimi asked. I replied that I also watch Masterpiece Theatre, old movies, Antiques Roadshow, baseball in season and your occasional Seinfeld rerun.

“This is sooo boring,” mewed Mewsetta. “Couldn’t we watch Garfield cartoons tonight?

“The Iowa caucuses are important,” I said. “It’s the start of the presidential primaries and I want to watch as much coverage as possible.” “What a waste of time,” said Mimi. “Why can’t you just read about it in the newspapers tomorrow? What’s a caucus anyway?”

I replied that a caucus is a gathering of members of a political party for the purpose of selecting delegates to that party’s presidential convention. “How does it work? Mimi asked. I explained that it was very complicated and difficult enough for humans to understand, let alone cats. “Try me,” Mimi snarled.

“Well,” I explained, “party members meet at various places throughout the state and listen to speeches by the candidates or their representatives. Then they break into separate groups according to which candidate they support. Everyone gets to see who is supporting whom, so a lot of dirty looks are exchanged. Somebody counts the number of people in each group. If a group has less than 15% of the total number of people present, they get no refreshments and are asked to leave the building and their candidate gets no delegates.

“That seems rather rude,” sniffed Mewsetta. “I though every person had a right to vote.”

I explained that they do in the general election but that in actuality people don’t elect the president, the electoral college does. I said that we we’re getting way ahead of ourselves and I was trying to explain how the Iowa caucuses work.

“This is complicated,” said Mewsetta, rolling on her back. “I told you it was,” I said. “Go on,” said Mimi. “What happens next?”

“After counting the people in each group, the delegates are apportioned accordingly. The largest group gets to go through the dessert line first and the candidate with the most delegates is pronounced the winner. In the event of a tie, the Democrats decide the winner by a coin toss. If it’s heads, Hillary Clinton wins.”

“What if it’s tails?” Mewsetta asked. “It won’t be tails,” I replied. “Hillary provides the coin.”

“How do the Republicans break a tie?’ asked Mimi.

“The two leading candidates meet in the center of the room and pretend they like each other. They shake hands and go to a neutral corner and come out fighting at the bell. The last one standing wins.

“Are you serious? Mimi demanded, incredulously.

“Of course not,” I deadpanned.

“Give me one good reason why we should ever listen to you,” snarled Mimi.

“Because you’re cats and you rely on us for food and shelter,” I replied. “Would you like me to explain how the electoral college works?”

“Spare us please!” snarled Mimi.

“My head hurts and I’m bored,” whined Mewsetta. “Could we just watch cartoons now?”

“No,” I said, “but the Donald is about to speak.”

February 3, 2016