West Coast Welfare

Wonderland on the West Coast———————

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

It rained and snowed a lot in California this past winter. Therefore, according to fire authorities, the danger from wildfires will be especially high because of the lush foliage produced by the heavy precipitation. In the recent past, California was in the throes of a severe drought and precipitation was far below normal levels. Therefore, according to those same authorities, the danger from wildfires was especially high because of the dry foliage. In California, you see, you just can’t win. The danger from wildfires will be high whether it rains and snows or not.

 

Following one of the wettest winters on record, Gov. Jerry Brown proclaimed the drought to be over. That was small comfort to the farmers and the farm communities of California’s Central Valley, devastated both by years of drought and by the state’s water management policies. They were deprived of needed water by the wizards in Sacramento so that the delta smelt and salmon in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta could prosper. Be sure to try the delta smelt the next time you dine out at your favorite seafood restaurant.

 

Californians of the human variety, however, will not greatly benefit from the record rainfall year because most of the water will be flushed out to sea. Some seven million acre-feet of it, that the farmers and the heavily-populated areas in Southern California could use, is just flushed into San Francisco Bay each year. A 60-mile stretch of dry river bed along the San Joaquin River, from which fish have been absent for over half a century, is reportedly being restored at a cost of $1.7 billion in order to accommodate Chinook Salmon which will be transported there by truck. This may rank right up there with California’s bullet train from nowhere to nowhere.

 

Even if the winter rains were not being pumped out to sea to save some fish and please the green activists, there wouldn’t be enough storage capacity to save it for a rainy day, or rather for when it doesn’t rain at all, which is most of the time. California really doesn’t have a water shortage problem. It has a water storage and distribution problem. It has other problems, too.

 

So, as my relatives back east often ask me, “What else is new on the left coast?” Here’s what else is new. Sacramento’s liberal lawmakers are working on a bill to provide single-payer healthcare for all Californians which probably will include much of the state’s large illegal immigrant population. The single payer would be the Golden State which, of course, means you the taxpayer, already among the highest taxed in the nation.

 

The early estimate of the cost of Californiacare would be $400 billion. That’s $400,000,000,000. That figure almost certainly understates what the actual cost will be as people flock to “free” medical care and providers flee the state. Who will pay for this? Forget about soaking the state’s remaining billionaires, those, that is, that haven’t already moved away to tax-friendlier states. They’re already paying most of the taxes and there isn’t enough there anyway to pay for all this so that means higher taxes for us common folks, along with higher demand and less supply in terms of available healthcare services. The ultra-liberal state of Vermont already considered a single-payer plan but dropped it because of the projected cost.

 

If foolish enough to enact this legislation, and Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, the current favorite to succeed Gov. Brown, is running on a single-payer platform, the California Republic will become even less like the rest of the country and even more like the socialistic republics of Europe where cradle-to-grave care requires citizens to be taxed at over 50% of everything they earn just to sustain the welfare state, leaving precious little revenue left to pay for needed infrastructure or other discretionary items. In California, that would include water storage and distribution facilities. Welcome to the great welfare state of the west coast.

July 28, 2017

Deadly Ship Collision Raises Many Questions

When Ships Collide—————————————-

By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                The oceans are vast and there’s usually plenty of room for ships to pass safely so it’s understandable that civilians often wonder why they can’t keep from colliding. Most of the time, of course, they do. Considering the volume of shipping underway at a given time, carrying most of the world’s cargo, the overall maritime safety record is excellent and collisions involving navy ships are rare. Most collisions take place in heavily-travelled, restricted waters like straits or the approaches to major ports or other choke points.

 

The tragic collision between the guided missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald (DDG 62) and the container vessel ACX Crystal which resulted in the death of seven sailors happened in such a congested area, the southern approaches to Tokyo Wan. Tokyo Wan has a traffic separation scheme (TSS) which provides one-way traffic lanes to safely separate opposing traffic but the southern terminus to the TSS can be very busy with ships heading toward and coming from the busy ports of Yokohama and Tokyo. There, in the early morning hours, the huge bow of the fully-loaded, 29,000 -ton Crystal impacted the starboard (right) side of the destroyer, crushing part of its superstructure and causing flooding below the waterline in three compartments, including the berthing compartment in which the three sailor perished.

 

The crew, by all reports, worked heroically to save their ship from sinking as it limped with assistance back to its home port of Yokosuka, Japan. An investigation will determine the causal factors and liability. Meanwhile, armchair experts and journalists, lacking all the pertinent information that only a methodical investigation can provide, will be unable to resist speculation on the subject and demanding answers before all the findings are in. Those will eventually form the basis of a case study intended to provide lessons learned which may help avoid future accidents. The ship will be repaired and sail again but not the lost sailors.

 

The damage to the starboard side of the destroyer and the bow of the container ship suggests a crossing situation. The international rules for the prevention of collisions at sea specify that the vessel to starboard (the container ship) is the stand-on vessel and the other ship (the destroyer) is the give-way vessel and is required to stay out of the way of the stand-on vessel. The give-way ship’s actions are to be timely and deliberate so as to not introduce any doubt as to its intentions. The stand-on vessel is required to maintain course and speed until the risk of collision is deemed no longer to exist or until it becomes apparent that the actions of the give-way vessel alone are not sufficient to avoid a collision, in which case, it is required to take action by turning, slowing or stopping. But slowing or stopping is difficult and in some cases, virtually impossible for a large merchant ship. By contrast, destroyers are very maneuverable.

 

Judging from the images of the damage, it’s easy to conclude that the destroyer failed to give way and should be held at fault. But it is premature to jump to any conclusions until the investigation is completed. There may well be fault on both sides. Were bridge-to-bridge communications and whistle signals exchanged? Where proper lookouts maintained on both ships and did they perform properly? Did the container vessel take required action to avoid a collision when it became apparent that the destroyer was not?  Were bridge watch standers on both ships properly qualified? Were all written directives and orders followed including standing orders? Were collision warning and contact tracking systems properly employed? Were there other ships in the immediate vicinity that would have created a special situation under the rules? The list of questions is lengthy and so will be the investigation .No error, mistake or violation will be overlooked. Those at fault will pay a heavy price. None heavier, though, than the seven sailors who died when the bulbous underwater bow of the Crystal pierced and flooded their berthing compartment as they slept.

 

Most collisions at sea, over 50%, are a result of human error. Almost every one is characterized by a breakdown in communications and multiple violations of written directives and procedures. They are, therefore, preventable. Sailors deserve to know that when they climb into their bunks at night the ship is in the competent hands of a qualified Officer of the Deck and supporting personnel who are eternally vigilant, maintain situational awareness, are safety-focused, quick to call the captain to the bridge and who will always follow proper procedures. Safety cannot always be ensured in combat and there are always risks in going to sea, but no sailor should ever die because of preventable human error.

 

June 23, 2017

(Kelly, a resident of Coronado, is a retired Navy captain who commanded three San Diego-based ships and a naval laboratory. He teaches shiphandling, seamanship and navigation at the Naval Base, San Diego simulator facility. This Op-Ed was written for The San Diego Union-Tribune and appeared in the June 23, 2017 edition.)

 

 

 

 

 

Battle of Midway

The Battle that Turned the Tide in WWII——————————-

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                On June 4^th, 1942, just six months after its infamous attack on Pearl Harbor, the Imperial Japanese Navy launched an attack on Midway Island, a strategic outpost about 1300 miles to the west of Oahu and roughly halfway between Japan and the United States. The attacking force, under Adm. Isoruku Yamamoto, consisted principally of four carriers and their aircraft, two battleships, three cruisers and twelve destroyers. They were opposed by an American force of three carriers and their aircraft, eight cruisers and fifteen destroyers under the operational command of Rear Admirals Frank Jack Fletcher and Raymond Spruance. Each side had more than a dozen submarines in the area as well.

 

The Japanese hoped that by occupying Midway they would acquire a base for further attacks on American territory and forces and extend their own defensive perimeter further east in the Pacific. They also hoped to lure the American carriers, which had escaped the attack on Pearl Harbor, into a trap, inflicting a demoralizing defeat and further crippling the U.S. Pacific Fleet. Thanks to our intelligence and the skill and gallantry of American seamen and airmen, their plan didn’t work or the outcome of the war could have been different. Our Navy prevailed, sinking four carriers, one of their heavy cruisers and severely damaging another.  Over 3,000 Japanese were killed. Our losses included the carrier Yorktown, a destroyer, about 150 aircraft and 307 personnel. Significantly, the Japanese lost 248 aircraft and a large number of experienced pilots. It was a decisive defeat for the Japanese, one from which they never fully recovered. The war was far from over, of course,but it marked a turning point. America’s superior industrial capacity and military training capability produced a steady flow of ships, aircraft and trained personnel that would ensure its eventual victory.

 

The Battle of Midway followed by a month the Battle of the Coral Sea just east of Australia. It was another epic battle between aircraft carriers and their aircraft and it was significant in being the first naval engagement in which the opposing ships were not in visual range of each other. In terms of tonnage, the American losses exceeded those of the Japanese but it was considered a moral victory by the Americans because it ended further incursions by the Japanese into the Coral Sea area which would have threatened our Australian allies. The battle demonstrated the predominant role that naval aviation and aircraft carriers would play in WWII and future wars. That role is as vital today as it was then.

 

The U.S. Navy, because of its devastating firepower and unique mobility, is the military force most able to respond to crises and project power and presence anywhere around the globe. The aircraft carrier strike groups, along with Amphibious Strike Groups, are the centerpieces of that force.  When crises arise overseas, every president, hawk or dove, invariably asks, “Where is the nearest carrier group? How long will it take them to arrive in the area?”  Unfortunately, the answer today is often “Longer than we’d like, sir.” That’s because our carrier force of ten is stretched too thin to adequately cover all the world’s hot spots where American vital interests are involved.

 

There have always been critics of building more carriers, referring to them as increasingly vulnerable and obsolete. They are as wrong now as they were then. These 34+ knot ships, defended by missile defense- capable cruisers and destroyers and their own aircraft, are obviously far more mobile and survivable than fixed bases.

 

Carriers are sometimes described as 95,000 tons of American diplomacy. That’s because their very presence offshore can provide a visible warning to foes and reassurance to friends and can sometimes defuse conflicts. They provide our commander-in-chief with additional options. Our carriers are the envy of other maritime nations, including China and Russia, as evidenced by their attempts to produce carriers of their own that can match ours in capability. The day may indeed come when technology may reduce dependence on carriers but that day is not in the foreseeable future.  Until then, these powerful, mobile warships will remain essential to America’s role as the world’s preeminent naval power.

 

June 12, 2017

 

(Kelly, a retired Navy Captain who commanded three San Diego-based ships and a naval laboratory, is a freelance writer based in Coronado. This Op-ed originally appeared in the San Diego Union-Tribune.)

Trump’s Road Trip

Trump’s Triumphant Road Trip————————————

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

President Donald Trump’s first trip abroad of his young presidency went remarkably well except for a few minor glitches, to be expected given the president’s inexperience regarding matters of state. The liberal press, no doubt, was hoping for more negatives to write about. The administration’s decision to visit Saudi Arabia, Israel and Vatican City prior to the G-7 summit in Sicily and the NATO meeting in Brussels was an attempt to seek unity among three great religions, Islam, Judaism and Christianity, and urge them to join in common cause against international terrorism.

 

Mr. Trump seemed relaxed and suitably dignified most of the time except perhaps when he was pushing ahead of the prime minister of Montenegro during a photo op.  Oh, well; photos of Donald Trump are in high demand these days, especially if he is caught doing something he can be criticized for. On the other hand, most people couldn’t find Montenegro on a map or recognize its prime minister in a photo. Melania Trump was a lovely and graceful first lady, evoking memories of Jacqueline Kennedy on her first trip abroad as first lady. She showed a fine sense of protocol, in one instance, deftly pushing away the president’s hand as he tried to grasp hers during an arrival ceremony.

 

The first stop in Saudi Arabia signified a major change in U. S. policy in the Middle East, recognizing the importance of that Sunni Arab nation’s cooperation in fighting radical Islamic terrorism and containing Iran in its efforts to dominate the region.  It replaces the previous administration’s failed policy of appeasing Iran and buying time with a flawed nuclear agreement in the hope that it would modify its anti-American, anti-Western and anti-Israeli behavior.  It hasn’t.

 

The next stop in Israel was less productive. While Mr. Trump reiterated American support of the Middle East’s only democracy and exhibited his fondness for his friend Bibi Netanyahu, he declined to seize this opportunity to take the next step on his campaign promise (and the promise of previous U. S. administrations) to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. Worse, he signaled a desire to resurrect the moribund so-called peace process. This would be a fool’s errand, one which has been tried repeatedly in the past with a predictable lack of success, much wasted time and loss of American prestige.

 

What is it that gives American politicians the idea that we are the key to a two-state solution and that it is the essential key to peace in the muddled Middle East? If Israel were to cease to exist tomorrow there would still not be peace in the Middle East. There are still wars in Syria, Yemen, Libya and elsewhere. There is still the Sunni-Shite conflict.  Moreover, this is no time to try to broker another effort with Hamas in control of Gaza and a weakened Fatah Party in the West Bank. A two-state solution is not currently in Israel’s best interest and it’s not going to be until Palestinians fully accept Israel’s right to exist in peace permanently in the Middle East as a Jewish homeland. The timing for that is up to the two sides involved, not outsiders and certainly not the United States.

 

The European press described the Europe portion of the itinerary as disappointing. I believe, to the contrary, that it was productive. Mr. Trump told NATO members that they needed to pay their agreed share of NATO expenses and that American taxpayers were no longer going to be tasked to pay an inordinate share of the cost of defending Europe. Fair enough. European leaders also wanted a stronger American commitment regarding Russian aggression in the region. How about a greater European commitment?  The European Union, after all, has an economy about as large as ours with much more at risk. Unfortunately, their embrace of cradle-to-grave welfare leaves precious little left for defense. And why is that our problem?

 

Finally, the president chided Europeans on their lax immigration policies, past and present, which have not been accompanied by the necessary assimilation and acceptance of immigrants, resulting in the radicalization of many young Muslim immigrants, leading to repeated terror attacks. The former colonial powers of Europe, who once reveled in their vast overseas empires in Asia and Africa, are now dealing with the consequences of unlimited immigration from their troubled former colonies.

June 5, 2017

–

The Comey Comedy

vv

Concerning the Comey Comedy——————–

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

Although a registered Republican, I readily admit that the Trump Administration is thus far a train wreck, thanks mostly to the fact that an unqualified person with serious communications deficiencies was elected to the most powerful office on earth. It’s amateur hour nearly all the time in the Trump White House. But some of the blame surely belongs to Democratic leaders who simply won’t accept the election results, refuse to take on the role of the loyal opposition and are working diligently to facilitate that train wreck. For an example, witness their hysterical reaction to President Trump’s overdue decision to fire FBI Director James Comey.

 

While FBI directors are appointed to ten-year terms, they seldom serve that long. They serve at the pleasure of the president who can fire them for any reason or for no reason at all. The ten-year term limit was not established primarily to provide longevity or ensure a degree of independence from the political process, but rather to prevent another dynasty like J. Edgar Hoover’s nearly half century reign.

 

Does anyone seriously doubt that Hillary Clinton, had she won the election, would have replaced Comey, whom she blamed for her loss? Former President Barack Obama should have fired the grandstanding Comey for exceeding his authority in recommending against prosecuting Mrs. Clinton after first publicly detailing her extremely careless handling of classified material and use of a private server for conducting State Department business. And If Mr. Comey felt that Attorney General Loretta Lynch, to whom he reported at the time, would never prosecute her in spite of the evidence he presented, then the honorable thing for him to have done would have been to resign, especially in view of the highly inappropriate airport meeting between Lynch and Bill Clinton while the investigation of Hillary was in progress.

 

Mr. Comey’s eleventh hour announcement that the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s e-mail scandal was being re-opened on the eve of the election very likely did influence the outcome of the election as Mrs. Clinton claimed. She was far ahead in the polls until then. Although Mr. Trump, at the time, praised Comey for his courage in coming forward, one of his first actions as president should have been to replace the FBI director with a history of overstepping his authority. It should be remembered that the FBI is an investigative body, not a law enforcement agency. Decisions regarding prosecutions and law enforcement are the purview of the Justice Department to whom the FBI director reports. Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, Comey’s immediate reporting senior, makes a compelling case for why Comey had to go in his memo to the president.

 

The problem for Trump, of course, was in the timing and the now-typical contradictory and convoluted communications regarding the firing. Why now and not months before? Democrat leaders, ever eager to discredit this White House, pounced on this as evidence that Trump was trying to impede the investigation into possible collusion between the Trump election campaign and Russian attempts to influence the election. But if that were the case, this was an incredibly stupid way to proceed because he had to know that the precipitous firing would greatly increase the focus on that investigation, amplifying demands for additional congressional scrutiny and an independent investigator.

 

The notion, spread by the liberal media, that Mr. Comey is essential to this ongoing investigation or any other investigation, by the way, is ludicrous. The director is a manager and chief executive who receives periodic updates on investigations. He is not a lead investigator. He has his hands full just trying to manage this sprawling organization. As Sen. Susan Collins astutely observed, Mr. Trump only fired the director, not the entire FBI. Investigations don’t end because the top political appointee is replaced.

 

Not a shred of evidence has yet been made public linking the Trump election campaign with Russian agents. If there was any, it likely would have been leaked by now. There is an epidemic of leaks in the swamp that is Washington. This is a problem that the public should be more concerned about than the endless rehashing of whether or not Trump’s election victory was legitimate. As for Russian interference in foreign elections, this may come as a shock to the media, but many governments routinely attempt to influence foreign elections, probably none more often than our own.

 

Democrat activists and the never-Trump crowd need to finally accept the reality that he won for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that Mrs. Clinton was a deeply-flawed candidate who ran a boring and ineffective campaign. Rather than trying to destroy or de-legitimize the Trump presidency, they should focus on the coming elections and try to develop candidates who are competent. A failed Trump presidency will not be good for the country and that concern should transcend politics.

June 3, 2017