Tough Talk on Terrorism

Trump Talks Tougher on Terrorism————————

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                Security from terrorist attacks has again risen to the top of the list of Americans’ greatest concerns, thanks to the bombings in New York and New Jersey by a radicalized Afghan-American and the stabbing spree in a Minnesota mall by a Somali-American. That concern could well influence the outcome of our presidential election. Polls indicate that potential voters believe that Republicans in general and Donald Trump in particular would be more aggressive in combatting terrorism at home than Democrats.

 

Mr. Trump said that current efforts to combat terrorism at home and abroad are insufficient. He’s right. He blamed President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, who served as Obama’s Secretary of State during a period marked by increasing turbulence in the Middle East, the Arab Spring and the rise of Islamic State, the collapse of Libya, the sacking of our consulate in Benghazi and the murder of our ambassador and three other Americans. Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton said that anti-Muslim rhetoric by Mr. Trump is “giving aid and comfort” to Islamic State and that the United States is up to the challenge of combatting terrorism on its shores. It may be up to combatting it but is it up to actually defeating it? If it is, than why aren’t we? We’ve been at it for quite a while now and we don’t appear to be winning.

 

Mrs. Clinton says that she has a detailed plan to meet the challenge. So what is it and has she shared this good news with the president? And whose shores are we defeating it on? Islamic State, while losing ground in Iraq and Syria, has expanded operations in Yemen, Libya and elsewhere and is actively recruiting “soldiers of Islam” in America, Europe and elsewhere, urging them to rise up and kill westerners.

 

Mr. Trump speaks frankly and bluntly regarding terrorism and the need to decisively defeat it with overwhelming force. Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand, speaks in platitudes, laced with political correctness. To hear her talk, one might get the impression that terrorist attacks like the recent bombings and stabbings and those that preceded them have nothing whatever to do with Islam. But they have everything to do with Islam, albeit a radicalized version of it. The terrorists that target primarily non-Muslims are murdering them in the name of Allah, the same God worshipped by peaceful Muslims. If that makes peace-loving Muslims uncomfortable, it should, because it is religiously-inspired terrorism. It would be most helpful in conducting this fight against terrorism, if our leaders could actually call it what it is: a war between the forces of radical Islam and non-Muslims in general and the West in particular.

 

It would also be helpful if they realized that this war cannot be won if we continue to prosecute it as a police action dealing with a crime wave. Whatever we may choose to call it, the forces of radical Islam believe that they are at war with us and they have no problem defining their enemy in religious terms. It’s Christians, Jews and other non-Muslims. So if it’s to be fought as a real war, then let’s formally declare war on Islamic State and treat those “soldiers of Islam” committing acts of terrorism on our shores as enemy combatants, not common criminals. No more Miranda warnings before interrogation. No lawyering up. No more talk of closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. Try terrorists by military tribunal rather than show-cased civilian trials dragging on for years.

 

I don’t believe that Donald Trump is trying to turn this issue, of vital concern to Americans, into a war on Islam as Mrs. Clinton alleges, but neither is he afraid to risk offending the open borders crowd by speaking frankly on what needs to be done to reduce the terrorism threat to Americans which is one of the most urgent priorities of the next president. And one thing that must be done immediately is to get a handle on immigration. America can no longer be a refuge for everyone fleeing violence and poverty around the world. There are other ways to help them and we should. One way, of course, would be to eliminate the evil forces that turned them into refugees in the first place and, meanwhile, to establish safe zones for them.

 

We have had case after case of Muslim immigrants or the sons of Muslim immigrants becoming radicalized because of social media propaganda and recruiting efforts and perceived grievances against America. How many more ticking time bombs are there out there among us? Our immigration policies must now be refocused primarily on what’s best for America, not what’s best for the world’s growing refugee population. A moratorium on immigration from countries known to breed terrorists would not be unreasonable, given the threat and our very limited ability to screen them. We need a president who will place America’s interests first and who understands that the paramount responsibility of a chief of state is to protect his own citizens.

September 29, 2016

 

 

How Did This Happen?

How Did It Come to This?

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

The next president of the United States will not only be the oldest or second-oldest ever elected to that office but also the most unpopular. How could this happen? Aren’t American voters smarter than that?

 

Apparently not. We are human, after all, and we sometimes let our emotions overcome wisdom and common sense. This was one of those times. It couldn’t have come at a worse time because this is the most important election in my lifetime and I’ve seen quite a few.

 

Hillary Clinton is the Democrats’ choice in spite of being disliked and distrusted by about half of the potential voters. She won her party’s nomination in spite of her failures as Secretary of State, notably regarding the Benghazi fiasco, her security breaches, the conflicts of interest concerning the Clinton Foundation and her well-documented history of lying. She won at least partly because she is supported by President Barack Obama who now finds time to campaign for her and who regards her as essential to preserving his legacy. She won also because her only serious rival for the nomination was a formerly little-known socialist with radical economic ideas who, nevertheless, gave her a real battle. And she won also because the Democratic establishment decreed that it was time for a female president and that it was finally her turn, having served faithfully in the cabinet of the man who defeated her for the nomination in 2008.

 

But how did the politically-inexperienced, bombastic, egotistical and even less-liked Donald Trump end up on top of the GOP ticket when at least half a dozen of his rivals for the nomination had a better chance of defeating the highly-vulnerable Clinton? How did Trump manage to dispatch so easily such steady, experienced hands as John Kasich and Jeb Bush?

 

The short answer is that at least half of American adults are fed up with the status quo. They feel it isn’t working for them or for their country which they feel is heading in the wrong direction. The other half doesn’t even pay income taxes and has no skin in the game. Or, as Mitt Romney put it, less charitably, 47% of Americans are on the dole. They are, naturally, quite satisfied with the status quo, which Mrs. Clinton represents.

 

The dissatisfied half wants change and they want it now, which, with all its uncertainties, Donald Trump represents. They are tired of promises by professional politicians who, they believe, will say or do anything to win votes and attain or retain power. They gave Republicans a solid majority in Congress only to see little accomplished. They are tired of gridlock in Washington and increasingly fearful of spiraling federal debt which threatens the future of their children and grand-children. They lament the loss of American prestige and influence in the world while China and Russia gain influence and power.

 

They are fed up with illegal immigration and porous borders and politicians who do little or nothing about it while talking about the need for immigration reform and a path to citizenship. They want our borders respected and our laws enforced and are tired of being called racists when they demand these things.

 

They are tired of welfare fraud and abuse and dysfunctional government bureaucracies like the VA, Homeland Security and the Department of Education. They are tired of crime and violence and substandard schools in their communities while the ruling classes live in gated communities and send their children to private schools. They are tired of having the police demonized and watching politicians shamelessly patronizing minorities for their votes. They are tired of politicians who think that they are above the law and that the law applies only to the little people.  They are fed up with the radical environmental activists who make it nearly impossible to build anything. They have had it with the ever-lengthening reach of the federal government into local affairs and with the growing list of restrictions on doing business in America. They are disgusted with the current crop of college students that require safe spaces and trigger warnings, less they encounter some idea that offends their tender sensibilities. They are, probably more than anything else, sick of political correctness.

 

They are fed up with other aspects of the status quo as well, but you catch the drift. Trump is their candidate because he speaks his mind and sometimes theirs. Nobody knows what a Trump presidency would bring but they are certain that it would bring change. They are equally certain that a Clinton presidency will not. Whether their candidate wins or loses, the dissatisfied half of America and the anger they feel will not go away and politicians will ignore it at their peril.

 

September 21, 2016

 

 

Fifteen Years After 9/11

Are We Safer Since 9/11?——————————-

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                September 11, 2016 marked the fifteenth anniversary of the horrendous attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon by militants linked to the terrorist group al-Qaeda. Over 3000 people died including more than 400 first responders. The attack shocked Americans who had largely paid lip service to the war on terrorism and resulted in major federal initiatives designed to provide them greater protection including increased surveillance and airport security. But have such measures made Americans safer today?

 

In spite of that increased airport security, recent tests have demonstrated that weapons and explosives still can be smuggled aboard aircraft. Weapons are readily available throughout America and it is a matter of debate as to whether that makes us more or less safe. Bomb-making materials are still cheap and readily available as are instructions for assembling explosive devices. The aversion of most Americans toward profiling and intrusions into their privacy or communications still hampers some efforts to track and confront persons of suspicion.

 

The Patriot Act, signed into law by President George W. Bush and extended by President Barack Obama, extended the power of the FBI to search private records without a court order. The Department of Homeland Security was created and the Border Patrol greatly expanded. The response to 9/11 largely defined the Bush presidency. We launched wars on Afghanistan and Iraq with mixed results and mixed opinions as to whether or not they made America safer. Osama bin Laden, considered the mastermind behind 9/11, was eventually hunted down and killed by U.S. forces in 2011.

 

Today, however, we have new threats and new enemies. Islamic State has displaced al Qaeda as the principal sponsor of terrorist attacks against the West. Europe bore the brunt of these but the United States has not been spared, with attacks in Ft. Hood, Boston, San Bernardino and Orlando. Islamic State controls large swaths of territory in Syria and Iraq and has extended operations to Yemen, Libya, Somalia and elsewhere. It seeks to create a caliphate and successfully recruits disaffected Muslims living in western nations. Islamic State messages on social media urge Muslims in the United States to rise up and kill Americans by any means at their disposal.

 

Domestically, our porous borders create security issues. A representative of the U. S. Southern Command, Army Col. Lisa Garcia, was recently quoted in the media as saying, “Networks that specialize in smuggling individuals from regions of terrorist concern, mainly the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, the Middle East and East Africa, are indeed a concern to (the Southern Command) and inter-agency security partners who support our country’s national security.” She reported that a total of 331,000 migrants entered through our southwest border in 2015 and that an estimated 30,000 were from countries of terrorist concern.

 

We have little or no idea where these people are now or whether or not they bear any ill will against America or sympathize with terrorist causes. This is a major cause for concern. Of equal concern is American citizens or people living here legally or who overstay visas who may become radicalized as a result of perceived disrespect or discrimination, lack of employment opportunity, inability to adjust, revulsion over what they perceive as America’s permissive culture or who are enraged over the deaths of Muslims in the Middle East at the hands of western military forces.

 

There are countless soft targets in this country including churches, hospitals, schools and entertainment venues that are difficult or nearly impossible to protect. Our electrical grid, water supplies and other utility networks are extremely vulnerable. A successful attempt to hack into and shut down a large portion of the electrical grid, for example, could paralyze large regions, causing food and fuel shortages and creating panic.

 

Thanks to our intelligence networks and greater vigilance, authorities have prevented hundreds of attacks in various stages of planning. But they cannot stop them all. Terrorists will continue to exploit our open and tolerant society in the future. Most Americans refuse to live in fear and will not surrender their freedoms or way of life, so it would be unrealistic to conclude that we are safer now than we were fifteen years ago. Our best defense, then, is to stay alert, report truly suspicious behavior, watch for signs of radicalization or angry anti-U.S. speech and be willing to accept some inconveniences and intrusions on privacy for the sake of greater overall safety. We should also continue to pressure our leaders to do a better job of determining who is entering the country, how they enter and why.

 

(Kelly, a resident of Coronado, is a retired Navy Captain and bank executive who writes on defense issues.)

 

(This article appeared originally in the San Diego Union-Tribune.)

The Obama Foreign Policy

Choosing the Next Commander-in-Chief—————————–

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

The feckless foreign policies of President Barack Obama have resulted in a sharp decline in America’s influence, prestige and respect throughout much of the world. Faith in America’s leadership and reliability as an ally is markedly less today than it was eight years ago. Mr. Obama’s final trip to Asia provided more symptoms of the decline.

 

It began with a rocky reception in China and a silly but symbolic flap over which stairway to use in descending from Air Force One. The most powerful leader in the world was forced to use a service stairway, making a less than grand entrance. An angry and profane outburst from the Philippines president, Rodrigo Duterte, caused Mr. Obama to cancel a meeting to discuss, among other things, aggressive Chinese actions in the economic zone of our former colony. The summit of ten leaders of the Southeastern Asia Nations declined to join in a U.S.-led criticism of China’s refusal to accept an international court ruling rejecting China’s claims of sovereignty and island-building in the South China Sea, handing Beijing a diplomatic victory. China will now feel more empowered to continue colonizing and militarizing that huge, vital body of water though which over half of the world’s seaborne commerce passes.

 

Duterte’s tirade, for which he later apologized, was no doubt at least partly a result of constant hectoring by Obama’s state department over civil rights violations in the conduct of Duterte’s efforts to defeat domestic Islamic terrorists. Duterte said that the U.S. had no standing to make such criticisms given this country’s early treatment of Filipinos under our colonial rule. That he would risk a closer alliance with the U.S. while China is seeking to militarize the nearby Scarborough Shoals is especially concerning. He now seems more inclined to enter into direct negotiations with Beijing and to offer concessions in return for Chinese investment and economic aid.

 

Nr. Obama’s long-sought Trans-Pacific Partnership, which China opposes, faces heavy opposition in Congress and is opposed by both U.S. presidential contenders. Its failure would be another major victory for Beijing, a severe blow to what’s left of Obama’s foreign policy agenda and a deep disappointment to Japan, America’s principal partner in Obama’s pivot to the Pacific, as well as to other East Asia allies concerned about growing Chinese dominance in the region and beyond.

 

China continues to rebuff U.S. pleas to deter its ally, North Korea, from conducting nuclear and ballistic missile tests and threatening its neighbors and the United States. Beloved Leader Kim Jong Un saluted Mr. Obama’s Far East visit by conducting another nuclear test. After eight years, it should be apparent, even to Mr. Obama, that diplomacy isn’t working on him.

 

But diplomacy is all that Mr. Obama has to offer anymore, even in response to provocations. Iran is already in violation of details of the nuclear agreement. It also continues to be the largest state sponsor of international terrorism, undoubtedly using funds freed up by the nuclear agreement and other U.S.-provided funds to help finance it. Its leaders still chant “Death to Americans” and vow the destruction of Israel. Its vessels harass U.S. warships in international waters on a now-regular basis. We respond by blowing whistles at them, taking evasive action and issuing strong protests.

 

While America’s prestige and ability to influence events declines, China’s and Russia’s increases. America is valued now more as a market for exports than as an ally. Meanwhile, Mr. Obama treats the war on terrorism as a police action and frets about such trivia as closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, insisting that it is a “recruitment tool that clouds and sours our relations with other countries”, as if the cloudy and sour relationship didn’t go much, much deeper. Teddy Roosevelt’s policy of speaking softly and carrying a big stick has much merit. Mr. Obama has perfected the first part of it, but if he’s carrying a big stick, he’s keeping it well-hidden. Diplomacy, to be effective, must be backed by military power and the willingness to use it in defense of a nation’s vital interests must be credible. After numerous threats, ultimatums and lines in the sand ignored, his credibility is now dubious at best.

 

His successor will soon be tested. The two who would succeed him auditioned for the job in a recent so-called Commander-in-Chief Forum on TV. The results were less than reassuring. Donald Trump opened by revealing that his secret plan to defeat Islamic State quickly turns out to be a plan to convene his generals and ask for their plan. These are presumably mostly the same generals who he believes have “been reduced to rubble.” Or maybe he means different generals. I can just picture it now. “Good morning, gentlemen. You’re all fired. Have your reliefs provide me with a plan to defeat ISIS quickly. Meanwhile, I have a wall to build. ” This is what you get when you nominate a TV reality show host who hasn’t a clue as to how government works or, for that matter, much of anything else besides making great deals and firing people.

 

Mrs. Clinton was no better. She continued the pathetic rationalization of her use of a private server to conduct official State Department business and her repeated lying about it. She struggled to answer a question from a vet as to why she shouldn’t be held to the same security standards as service members who have been punished for lessor breaches of security. She vowed never to send troops to Syria, although thousands are already there, and in violation of the policy of never letting your adversaries know what’s off the table in terms of options.

 

I don’t know what will happen after this election, but one thing, at least, is clear to me. Neither of these two is qualified to be commander-in- chief of the armed forces of the United States.

September 13, 2016

Leniency for the Lieutenant

Regarding Leniency for the Lieutenant———————————–

                A commentary

                  By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

The San Diego Union-Tribune’s Jeanette Steele, writing in the August 22^nd edition, reported on Navy Lt. David Nartker’s appeal of his non-judicial punishment (NJP) regarding his role in the January incident involving the capture of the two 49-foot Riverine boats that he was in charge of. The boats were proceeding from Kuwait to Bahrain when they were apprehended by members of the Iranian military in what appeared to be fishing vessels in Iranian territorial waters in the vicinity of Farsi Island. Ms. Steele invited readers to share their opinions as to whether Lt. Nartker deserved punishment for a judgment call which she said “it could be argued, paid off”.

By way of disclosure, I am not a lawyer although, as a commanding officer, I have presided over many NJPs, Judge Advocate Manual (JAGMAN) investigations and courts-martial. Nartker should not be tried in the court of public opinion.  A poll of readers, most of whom could not be expected to be familiar with Navy Regulations, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the rules of engagement in effect or the details of the Navy’s investigation into the matter, would serve no useful purpose and, in any event could not be considered by naval authorities reviewing his appeal.

An argument that the lieutenant’s decisions paid off would be specious. As I wrote in a Jan. 28^th op-ed in that nwspaper, this incident was a major embarrassment for the United States as well as the U.S. Navy and not the diplomatic triumph that Secretary of State (and former Riverine skipper who once served under me), John Kerry, claimed, referring to the subsequent release, unharmed, of the boats and crews on the eve of the much-sought, but controversial, nuclear agreement with Iran. Pictures of our sailors kneeling, hands clasped behind their heads, weapons piled on the deck was the very picture of humiliating surrender. The lieutenant’s apology was improper and unauthorized. As the senior (and only) unrestricted line officer present, his responsibility was crystal clear: to resist capture by any means possible including evasion while he had the means to resist.

Lt. Natker reportedly said, ”If I had decided to start a firefight, I know a lot of my guys would be dead…I didn’t want to start a war with Iran, either…that would get people killed. My thought…was that no one had to die for a misunderstanding.” But these were not his decisions to make and he had no way of knowing whether or not a lot of people would be killed or that his defensive actions would start a war. It is unlikely that the Iranians were anxious to start a war on the eve of the nuclear agreement which they regarded as a diplomatic victory. In any event, his duty was to resist surrendering his vessels and crews while they had the means to resist in the absence of rules of engagement that prevented him from doing so.

.   The boats reportedly strayed into Iranian waters as a result of an unauthorized departure from the original track, taken because they were running late for a refueling rendezvous with a Coast Guard vessel. One of the boats reportedly had mechanical problems. If they strayed into Iranian territorial waters by accident and were not engaged in provocative actions, the Iranians should have offered assistance, if needed and requested, and then escorted them out of their territorial waters. This is common maritime practice. The Iranian actions in humiliating the crews, seizing U.S. property and demanding an apology as a condition of release were outrageous and, in fact, called for an apology on their part.

Reportedly, an enlisted man at the controls of the lieutenant’s boat disobeyed a direct legal order to accelerate and steer away from the Iranians. He reportedly said in response to the order, “We are not moving.” If true, that sailor probably should have been awarded a general court-martial. But that does not absolve Lt. Nartker of his responsibility as the officer in charge.

Three senior officers in the chain of command have been relieved of duty over this incident and their careers are for all practical purposes, ruined. Properly so, since planning for this potentially risky transit did not meet Navy standards. Given the circumstances, and based only on what we know, Lt. Nartker appears fortunate to have gotten off with NJP. If he considers the punishment unjust, perhaps he should request trial by court-martial where he can plead his case aided by legal counsel. In any event, his career, too, is all but over. With authority comes responsibility and at sea it comes very early.

September 5, 2016