The Enemy Among Us

An Enemy in our Midst—————————————-

                A commentary 

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

It’s properly called radical Islamic terrorism. That’s what it really is, Mr. President, so it behooves the nominal leader of the fight against it to drop the political correctness and call it what it really is. It is not just a political talking point, nor is to do so an indictment of an entire religion or the peace-loving Muslims who practice it and who recoil at the monstrous acts being committed in its name which no merciful God could possibly condone.

 

The horrific massacre at a gay nightclub in Orlando was the latest example of this terrorism. It was perpetrated by the American-born son of Muslim immigrants from Afghanistan, which, like many Muslim nations, produces and exports radical Islamic terrorists in abundance. It would be helpful in fighting the so-called war on terrorism if the commander-in-chief, who is responsible for protecting us against such threats, could display a little more candor in describing the primary source of this threat and the motives behind it  Most of the perpetrators are young Muslim men, many born in this country of Muslim immigrants, who have become radicalized either by radical imams, or by Islamic State propaganda, or revulsion over Western values and freedoms, or by feelings of isolation and rejection, or any or all of the above.

 

Mr. Obama seems not to accept that there is a religious component to this terrorism. While not all hate crimes and terrorist attacks in the West have been committed by Muslims, most have in the post-9/11 era. Terrorism has once again displaced concerns about the economy as the public’s chief concern. Political correctness and fear of offending people or Muslim allies cannot be permitted to obscure or understate the danger we are facing in the Western world or hamper actions which could keep our people safer. The principal threat is not from Christians, Jews or Hindu extremists or from those of any other major religion, but from Muslim extremists with a distorted view of their religion. And it is a threat made more serious by the reluctance of many good, peace-loving Muslims to speak up or come forward to authorities if they observe others voicing threats or displaying sympathy for Islamic State or hatred of America.

 

Is this to suggest that we should engage in more profiling and wider use of intrusive surveillance tools and intelligence? Of course it does. It is a matter of saving lives. Is this not a war? Is radical Islamic terrorism not an existential threat to our citizens? How many more tragedies like Orlando and San Bernardino are we willing to endure before public anger demands even harsher measures including the restrictions on Muslim Immigrants that Donald Trump has proposed?

 

What more, besides accurately describing the threat and from whence most of it comes, can the government do to protect Americans? One suggestion of merit came from The Wall Street Journal’s lead editorial the day after the Orlando jihad. The FBI should deploy more sting operations when they suspect a person or persons of planning terrorism. The left may reflexively attack such tactics as entrapment, but if we are really at war with terrorism and put the safety of our citizens above political correctness, we will do what we have to in order to protect as many lives as we can. Most Americans will accept some intrusions on their privacy and freedoms if they feel it necessary for the greater safety.

 

Omar Nir Seddique Mateen, who was heard shouting “Allahu Akbar” as he slaughtered innocents, was twice previously questioned by the FBI as a potential risk because of threatening and suspicious statements he had made indicating sympathy toward jihadists. Both times he was deemed no threat. We have to do better than that. A sting operation perhaps could have prevented the carnage. The FBI, to its credit, has prevented many terrorist attacks, but too many have fallen through the crack. We must not accept this as the new normal.

 

***

In my previous column (Violent Anti-Trump Protests Will Backfire), I misquoted a prominent Democratic advisor as once saying, “Never let a good riot go to waste.” The original quotation, attributed to Winston Churchill, was “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” The prominent Democratic advisor I was referring to was Rahm Emmanuel, now mayor of Chicago. I regret the error and am grateful to my friend Ron Mandelbaum for calling it to my attention.

June 23, 2016

 

Violent Anti-Trump Protests Will Backfire———————————–

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

 

One of the most disturbing aspects of what has been an exceptionally disturbing and ugly nominating campaign season has been the violent attacks on Trump supporters at rallies in Albuquerque, San Diego, San Jose and elsewhere. A picture is said to be worth a thousand words and the pictures that filled TV screens and graced the front pages of newspapers around the world said it all. They showed attendees emerging from Trump rallies being attacked by thugs, in more than one instance with police watching serenely.

 

When asked why police failed to intervene forcefully early enough to protect people and property, one San Jose official replied that authorities didn’t want to provoke more violence. That is a disgraceful capitulation to mob violence. When authorities are afraid to act in response to violence for fear of provoking more, we surrender to it and are on our way to losing the battle against the forces of violence on our streets.

 

The pictures showed Mexican flags being waved and American flags being burned. Reflect on that for a while; a foreign flag being waved at an American political event while Old Glory is disrespected and burned. What is happening in this country? As a matter of fact, that’s one of the questions Donald Trump is asking. Protestors jumped on cars, smashed tail lights, destroyed a police car, threw rocks at police and used such filthy language that most of the sound in the TV coverage had to be bleeped out.

 

Some pundits and politicians were quick to blame the violence on Trump himself, citing earlier instances of Trump encouraging his supporters to silence hecklers. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders denounced the violence but only after being pressed by journalists and after first blaming Trump for inspiring it by his rhetoric. This sort of response is an example of why ordinary people have a growing dislike of politicians. Instead of categorically condemning violence and criminal behavior, they instinctively seek a way to rationalize it and even spin it to their advantage.

 

As I and others have earlier written, these violent attacks on Trump supporters and the police, the display of the Mexican flag at Trump rallies and the burning of the American flag will surely backfire to Trump’s advantage. They may be all that is necessary to convince people who are undecided, including people who don’t like either candidate, to vote for Trump. Many Americans are horrified by the actions of these thugs and will feel sympathy for the person they are demonstrating against. That will translate into more votes for Trump. These actions will also discourage some peaceful anti-Trump protestors out of a fear of being associated with the violence.

 

The punks who engage in this kind of violence are generally too ignorant to understand that their actions are actually counter-productive to their cause which is to silence Trump and intimidate his supporters. They lack the intelligence or skill to participate productively in the political process so violence and profanity will always be their method. They cannot, for the most part, be reasoned with so they must be stopped by prompt police action. This happened in San Diego where police moved in promptly and efficiently when the violence began.

 

As this was written, another terrorist mass shooting by a radicalized Muslim U.S. citizen whose parents migrated from Afghanistan, was taking place, this time in a gay bar in Orlando, Florida. The gunman was previously twice questioned by the FBI and reportedly had pledged his allegiance to Islamic State. The 50 dead and 53 wounded at last count made it the largest mass shooting in America so far, raising increased anxiety among Americans regarding the ability of the government to protect them from radical Muslim terrorists, foreign and domestic. It will surely serve to reinforce Mr. Trump’s message that we are not doing nearly enough in this regard.

June 19, 2016

Trump Would Muzzle the Brass

Would Trump Muzzle the Military?—————————

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

Donald Trump’s malice toward the media is well known, thanks to the very media he maligns, but also somewhat puzzling because the constant free media coverage of his every act and utterance has helped propel his candidacy without overstressing his personal finances. And the more the media criticizes him, the more his popularity seems to grow. Maybe it’s all part of his game plan.

 

Much of the criticism, of course, is richly deserved and shared by much of the public. Still, the public relies on the media for news, including information regarding the state of their armed forces. They can’t always rely entirely on the political leadership to be fully candid about such information, especially if it reflects poorly on their own stewardship and funding priorities.

 

So it strikes me as passing strange that Mr. Trump says, as president, he would forbid senior military leaders to appear on television or to even speak to the “dishonest press”. During a May rally in Indiana, Trump was quoted as saying, “I don’t want our generals (and presumably our navy flag officers as well) on television. I would prohibit them. I don’t want them saying things like ‘Our nation has never been so ill-prepared’, even though it’s true. I don’t want the enemy knowing that.”

 

Really? Who, then, is better qualified and can be relied upon to make honest judgments about military readiness? Certainly not our elected officials, few of whom have any military service or any real understanding of the military for that matter. They were the ones who made the decisions to underfund the military and who gave us sequestration which is now raising havoc with training, readiness and planning. They have a vested interest in defending those decisions. If senior military leadership, when asked about the state of the forces under their command by an inquiring press, are not permitted to give candid responses or to speak at all, how will the taxpayers who foot the bill ever find out? And, by the way does Mr. Trump actually believe that the enemy, whoever he means by that, doesn’t already know a lot more than he does about the state of our military?

 

To be clear, this is not about civilian control of the military. That’s not even remotely in question here. When civilian authority gives an order, the military salutes smartly and carries it out to the best of its ability with whatever resources Congress has provided. But they shouldn’t be stopped from speaking out frankly, without disclosing classified information, of course, to persons not authorized to receive it, when questioned as to matters of military readiness.

 

Mr. Trump was also quoted as asking, ”You think Gen. George Patton or Gen. Douglas McArthur, do you think they’d be on television saying about how weak we are?”  As a matter of fact, I do. Actually, I can’t offhand think of two more outspoken military leaders in that regard. Does Mr. Trump read any history?

 

Donald Trump enjoys wide support among service members. A survey conducted by Navy Times showed him to be the preferred candidate over Hillary Clinton by a whopping 54% to 25% and over Bernie Sanders by 51% to 38%. But over half of those surveyed (52%) also said that a third party candidacy with retired Marine Gen. James Mattis heading an independent ticket would have a “positive influence on the race. Service members for the most part, don’t want their senior leaders muzzled. They expect them to speak out forcefully and candidly about readiness issues that affect their ability to get the job done and prevent unnecessary casualties. They also vote.

 

Trump, who has no military experience or close involvement with the military, once again displays discomfort regarding matters that a commander-in-chief of the armed forces should be comfortable with. He also continues to demonstrate his remarkable ability to alienate entire voter groups with ill-considered utterances at rallies.

June 12, 2016