Defeating ISIS

The War on Western Civilization—————————–

                A commentary 

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

As if there weren’t enough issues on which to disagree, the suicide bombings in Brussels, the capital of Belgium and the European Union, as well as the site of the headquarters of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), have refocused the presidential candidates on the continuing and growing threat of radical Islamic terrorism. They also demonstrated the vulnerability of European countries with their relatively open boarders and large Muslim communities to such attacks.

 

Once again, fear of more attacks on American soil has become the principal concern of voters prompting the candidates to vie with each other as to who best can keep us safe. As usual, the voices of those who speak the loudest and demand the harshest, swiftest response command the most attention from the media, drowning out the voices of experienced military leaders who realize that defeating Islamic State and other radical Islamic terrorist organizations will be a long and difficult process.

 

When it comes to war, however, Americans do not want to hear about anything long and difficult so they tend to gravitate toward those who promise swift victory. They will be disappointed. What would constitute that victory and how would we recognize it when we achieved it? One thing is certain. The West is not winning the war against terrorism. We are merely surviving it, waiting for the next attack which we know will come, followed by the next. We will build our makeshift memorials, light our candles and pray for the victims. We will vow to not succumb to fear, else the terrorist win. But we do fear and free people should not have to live in fear.

 

The primary responsibility of a president as commander-in-chief is to protect the citizens he governs. The buck stops with him. But this president cannot even bring himself to call the threat against us by what it is: radical, religious-inspired, Islamic terrorism directed against western values, other religions, especially Christianity and Judaism and Americans in particular.  His strategy is to deal with this assault against the West as a police matter and he speaks of bringing those who wage war against innocent civilians as if they were common criminals who must be brought to justice. They are not common criminals. They are savages who torture and behead and treat women as property. His strategy is to contain the threat, not to defeat the enemy. He believes that it is enough to be “on the right side of history”. But that history will show that he abdicated America’s leadership role in this deadly clash of cultures.

 

His is not a formula for success. We cannot contain this threat. As we have seen, it simply grows and reproduces, sending new generations of recruits forth to practice jihad. You cannot win this war by persuasion, or slogans, or by lighting candles and holding vigils while we wait for the next attack. It is not enough to maintain the moral high ground. In real wars, it matters less how you fought the fight than whether or not you won. And we will not win until we treat this as a real war and defeat the enemy, using enough lethal force that will finally convince him that not only can he not defeat us, or substitute his values for western values, but continued attacks against our people will result in massive attacks against his.

 

Donald Trump and Ted Cruz talk tough. Mr. Trump says he will make short work of ISIS and he won’t hold back on very harsh interrogation methods. Sen. Cruz has said he would carpet bomb Islamic State until the desert sands glow. These are not strategies. They are campaign slogans. Trump is right about one thing, though. America isn’t winning anymore.

 

So what is President Obama’s new strategy for winning after Paris, San Bernardino and Brussels? The old one obviously isn’t working. Pin-prick airstrikes aren’t enough to defeat this threat. Neither are occasional drone assassinations of terrorist leaders. New ones quickly take their place. Nor is diplomacy a strategy. You cannot negotiate with this kind of evil. You must destroy it. But the current rules of engagement virtually prohibit collateral harm to civilians even though they shelter and support the terrorists among them. We have never won an actual war without causing collateral harm to civilians. It’s an unfortunate consequence of war. So much for the pious (and historically inaccurate) notion that “that’s not who we are”.

 

If you don’t have a strategy, Mr. President, don’t panic. Here’s a suggestion. Summon your senior uniformed military advisors and order them to present you, quickly, as their new number one military priority, with a plan for eliminating, not containing, Islamic State using lethal force. Then give them the support and the rules of engagement they ask for to successfully carry out that plan. If we don’t have the stomach or the courage to defend our values and way of life, then we had better become reconciled to losing them.

March 24, 2016

 

The Party’s Over

A Party in Disarray————————————-

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                The Grand Old Party is self-destructing. It is defeating itself even before it faces off against the other party in the main event this fall to determine who will occupy the most powerful office in the world. And it is blowing a golden opportunity to recapture the White House and get the economy moving again. Moreover, because its brand has been tarnished by the ugly campaigns for the nomination, the divisions within the party and the dismal performance of its favored candidates, it may even manage to lose control of the Senate.

 

The Republican field has been narrowed to three but the ugliness continues. Although Donald Trump leads in delegates, he still must win over half those remaining to reach the 1,237 necessary to win the nomination, a difficult task, given that he has yet to win 50% of the vote in any of the primaries. There is a good chance, therefore, that the nominee will be decided at the Republican convention in Cleveland.

 

The so-called party establishment, dismayed by the success of the Trump campaign and the failure of establishment candidates like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, are apparently pinning their hopes on the strong possibility that no candidate will come to the convention with 1,237 delegates in his pocket and that delegates will then coalesce around a “suitable” candidate like Ohio’s Gov. John Kaisich or perhaps House Speaker Paul Ryan. This, of course, would greatly displease Mr. Trump and his emotional supporters who seem to feel that the candidate with the most delegates or the most state primary victories should be anointed at the convention.

 

But here’s news for them. That isn’t the way it works under the nomination process and convention rules. The purpose of a political party is not to anoint someone who simply thinks he deserves the nomination. Rather, it is to select a candidate who has the best chance of winning against the other party’s candidate and who can carry his fellow party candidates into office on his coat tails. Trump and his Trumpeters may not like this but that’s how it works.

 

Mr. Trump has suggested, in his less-than-subtle manner, that there may be riots if he is denied the nomination in spite of having the most delegates going into the convention. So the candidate, famous for ugly remarks, promises even more ugliness if he doesn’t win. He is sounding more and more like a banana republic strongman seeking the reins of power. Is this what politics has sunk to in America?

 

No matter how many state primaries or caucuses a candidate wins, if he cannot win half the delegates (1,237), he has not earned the nomination under the rules and the party has every right to question whether or not he can win in November. This is not a new concept. There have been other contested conventions in the past. There are also those who say that if no declared candidate has won the required number of delegates, the party should seek another candidate like, for example, Speaker Ryan, the party’s 2012 VP nominee. Most polls show that Mr. Trump would not be the party’s strongest candidate, that is, the one most likely to win against Mrs. Clinton. Most polls, in fact, show him losing to Clinton while most show Gov. Kaisich beating her.

 

Under the somewhat convoluted nominating rules prevailing in the various states, some delegates are pledged to support a candidate only in the first round of voting at the convention. Some are pledged for more than one round. Some are not pledged at all. The point is, if the nomination is decided at a contested convention, almost anything can happen. The Donald needs to get used to that reality. He also needs to consider that if the polls are right and he can’t beat Clinton as the Republican Party standard bearer, he certainly couldn’t beat her if he runs as an independent and he would waste a lot of his own money in a futile effort. Finally, he needs to cut out that irresponsible and inflammatory talk about riots and demonstrations if he loses, all of which is further evidence, if any more were needed, that he is more of a rabble-rouser than a unifier and leader.

March 18, 2016

 

The Debt Crisis

A Crisis Too Long Ignored——————————————-

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                While Donald Trump continues to promise to make America great again by making terrific deals, the two Democratic contenders compete with one another to see who can promise Americans the most benefits. Large numbers of Americans, particularly young adults and displaced or under-employed workers, and especially those among the 44% who pay no income taxes at all, are demanding a bigger share of the pie and an end to income inequality. They seem mostly motivated by what’s in it for them, not necessarily what’s best for the country. Were John F. Kennedy’s request to “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask rather what you can do for your country” put to them today, the answer would probably be “Are you serious?”

 

All but forgotten in the campaign frenzy and trading of insults, at least until Sen. Marco Rubio mentioned it in the Mar. 10 GOP debate, is the national debt, soon to exceed $20 trillion and destined to spiral out of control under a Sanders or Clinton administration and probably a Republican one as well since neither party has demonstrated the ability to live within a budget for very long. But if Mr. Trump is serious about making America great again, he’d better learn in a hurry because America is living on credit and racking up a debt that is becoming unsustainable.

 

At near zero interest rates, the debt has been manageable but what happens when interest rates rise as they inevitably will. When this happens and borrowing to finance government operations becomes much more expensive, service on the debt will crowd out most discretionary spending on things like infrastructure and defense, both of which are already in serious need of rebuilding. Skimping on infrastructure like roads, bridges and transportation and failing to maintain and modernize the armed forces will erode America’s position as a superpower and eventually turn us into a second tier nation. Anyone who thinks it can’t happen should re-read history. A good place to start might be “The Decline and Fall of the Great Powers”, by Yale’s Prof. Paul Kennedy.

 

Exit polls have shown consistently that voters this season are placing more importance upon whether or not a candidate “shares my values” over whether or not that candidate can best deal with the economy, or foreign affairs, or terrorism or immigration or whether or not that candidate is even electable in November. So they would vote for a candidate who probably won’t win as long as he shares their values and feels their pain? This is indeed a strange election season.

 

With large numbers of voters, then, especially the young, the prevailing sentiment seems to be what’s in it for me, not what’s best for the country. Here’s what’s in it for them. A staggering debt, the interest on which will crush growth and destroy hopes for a standard of living that even approaches that of their parents and grandparents. And here’s what’s in it for the country. A debt crisis like we’ve never seen before, crippling the economy and inducing recession.

 

We need to get a handle on this national debt before it destroys us. And by that I don’t mean just reducing the annual deficit, that is, the rate at which we add to the debt. I mean no more deficits. I mean not just balancing the budget but reducing the principal each year by spending less than the revenue the government collects.

 

Of all the candidates still left standing as of this writing, the only one that has any experience at balancing a budget is Ohio’s Gov. John Kaisich. He did it as Chairman of the Budget Committee in Congress and he did it in Ohio. Fiscal management may not be as glamorous a skill as speech making, or the ability to shock and entertain during the debates while promising terrific things, but it’s a qualification the nation desperately needs in a president before it’s too late.

March 12, 2016

Time for a Third Party?

End of the Two-Party System?

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                We’re down to the final four. The quiet and dignified exit of the brilliant and gentlemanly neurosurgeon, Dr. Ben Carson, from the GOP nomination campaign scrum has narrowed the field to Donald Trump and the anti-Trump trio, none of whom seems willing to unite behind someone who can stop Trump from capturing the nomination and who could actually beat Hillary Clinton in November.

 

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who failed to deny Barack Obama a second term in 2012, summed up the case against Trump. He is a blowhard and a bully. He is vulgar and crude. He insults women and anyone else who disagrees with him. He refuses to provide details of his policies. He is uninformed on many issues, including foreign policy and military matters. He has no experience in government which his supporters seem to believe is an asset.

 

In a contest against Hillary Clinton, Trump would probably lose according to most polls. In my view, he would lose for two reasons. First, the demographics; Clinton would win at least 85% of the black vote, two-thirds of the Hispanic vote and at least 60% of the female vote. Most women are not going to pass on an opportunity to help elect the first female president in favor of a man who makes a habit of directing personal insults against women who disagree with him.

 

Second, when it comes down to a choice between a liberal politician with experience in government, who will continue to grow the government and entitlements, and who, although seriously flawed by the e-mail and Benghazi scandals, manages to keep her cool under duress and doesn’t resort to personal insults, vs. an uninhibited TV entertainer who made a fortune in real estate but whose credentials for the highest office in the land are about as impressive as a Trump University diploma, guess who most rational, risk adverse voters will chose? Mrs. Clinton would at least seem the lesser of two evils and a safer choice in a dangerous world. Better the status quo than the uncertainty that a Trump administration would bring.

 

I doubt the GOP will permit Mr. Trump to capture the party of Lincoln, but if he wins the nomination, the party establishment will almost certainly unite behind some independent candidate that better represents the party values. If Trump is denied the nomination though, many of his supporters will rebel and Trump will probably run as an independent, previous pledges to the contrary notwithstanding. Trump has no problem changing his mind or breaking promises. In either event, the Republican party brand will be seriously damaged.

 

I have little sympathy for the GOP which must have a death wish. Criticism of Mitt Romney during the 2012 primaries, notably by Newt Gingrich who referred to him as a vulture capitalist and Rick Santorum who repeatedly raised the war on women issue, provided valuable ammunition for the Obama campaign and damaged Romney’s candidacy. Republicans haven’t learned from that experience, apparently.  This should have been an easy win for them against the most flawed and vulnerable candidate in decades. Now they will very likely lose and they have only themselves to blame.

 

As previously noted in this space, Americans are deeply polarized and there is little indication this will change. Indeed, the split seems to widen daily. But there is a sizeable group of Americans in the middle, mostly independents, but also moderate members of both parties. The two-party system is failing us by providing only extreme choices. It is increasingly difficult for moderates to find a home in either major party. It may be time for a third party composed of moderate Americans who believe that compromise is essential to progress. The two-party system served us well for many years but lately not so much.

March 6, 2016