Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick

Dealing with Iran——————————

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

As the United States was emerging as a great power at the beginning of the last century, Theodore Roosevelt famously advised, “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” President Donald Trump could benefit by following both suggestions. Leaders of truly powerful nations do not have to resort to bluster, hyperbole, red lines or repeated threats as Mr. Trump often does. Also, our stick needs to be bigger to be more convincing, especially from a military standpoint. It may not be large enough to withstand repeated use without breaking.

In the current crisis with Iran, Mr. Trump has shown restraint on spite of pressure from hawks to launch a retaliatory strike. The stick he chooses to wield for now consists of economic  sanctions which are crippling the Iranian economy and raising discontent among the Iranian people. He is threatening more in response to the attack on the Saudi oil facility. U.S. intelligence determined that the drone and missile attack originated from western Iran in spite of Tehran’s denials and claims of responsibility by Houthi rebels in Yemen. Who would you be inclined to believe, U.S. intelligence or the mullahs?

 

The good news is that the U.S. is now energy independent, thanks to the fracking revolution, and Saudi production will be quickly restored, with minimum disruption to world oil supplies and a temporary spike in oil prices. The bad news is that Iran was testing the Trump Administration to see what they could get away with and will take the lack of a retaliatory strike as a sign of weakness. This makes it imperative that that Washington act quickly with harsher economic and diplomatic sanctions including restrictions on Iranian diplomats entering the U.S.

 

Also among the bad news is the fact that we were caught by surprise and neither the U.S. nor the Saudis were prepared to defend against or counter this attack. This leads us to the need for a bigger stick. Mr. Trump has increased defense spending but we still have a long way to go before we have the forces, especially naval and air forces, needed to protect our far-flung vital interests. He is sending additional military forces to the Middle East but the navy will struggle to maintain a carrier battle group in the Middle East while maintaining its other commitments with a force of only 10 CVNs. Persistent problems with the new Ford-class aircraft carriers won’t help.

 

As Mr. Trump has indicated, to the reported displeasure of the Saudis, we are under no obligation to fight Saudi Arabia’s regional wars for them or to defend their facilities. The Arab kingdom is rich enough to fight its own battles, although its performance in the endless war in Yemen raises questions of competence. Nor do we have a responsibility to ensure a continued supply of cheap Arab oil to Europe or China. We do, however, as a maritime power, have a vital interest in ensuring freedom of navigation, including the transport of that product. Threats by Iran to block vital access to the Persian Gulf by closing the Strait of Hormuz or continued harassment of shipping, could lead to conflict.

 

We know that Iran is the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism, largely carried out by its proxies. We know also that Iran is pledged to the destruction of Israel, our only democratic ally in the region. We know further that Iranian leaders start their day by chanting “Death to America” and refer to America as the great Satan. Iran seeks domination of the region and the acquisition of nuclear weapons, which we have pledged to prevent, not just delay, which is all that the flawed nuclear agreement would have achieved.

 

Unless crippling economic and diplomatic sanctions work to drastically change Iran’s behavior or provoke a successful revolution, we must be prepared for possible eventual conflict. The best way to prevent this is to be prepared for the worst and to have the forces necessary to convince an aggressor that an attack on our vital interests or on Americans would trigger a devastating response. No need, then, for bluster. Just speak softly and carry a big stick, which is really just another way of saying that the best defense is having a good offense.

October 13, 2019

Constraints on the Peacekeepers

Making It Harder to Protect and Serve—————

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

As part of Gov. Gavin Newsome’s campaign to turn the Golden State into the liberal capitol of America, he has signed into law a new measure which further restricts the ability of police to protect the public and themselves. The law, AB 392, which takes effect on Jan. 1, will prohibit law enforcement officers from using deadly force except when necessary to save their lives or the lives of others and only when they are in imminent danger and no other non-lethal alternative exists to de-escalate the situation.

 

So, in the seconds a police officer might have to make a life-or-death decision when confronted by a violent person, an officer must now spend critical seconds trying to determine if non-lethal alternatives exist that may or may not “de-escalate” a dangerous situation while his and other innocent lives hang in the balance. California can now boast of having the nation’s highest (and dumbest) restrictions on the use of deadly force by law enforcement officers. I doubt that you feel any safer because of this law, unless, of course, you intend to violently confront a police officer.

 

The previous standard which this law will replace allowed the use of deadly force when an officer had a “reasonable” fear of imminent harm. “Reasonable” is an important adjective here. We’re talking about a dangerous situation where a rapid response may be necessary to save lives and there isn’t much time for analysis. The new law is not “reasonable” because it puts an officer and perhaps those he is trying to protect at greater risk and implies that their lives are less valuable than that of a violent assailant.

 

Said Newsome as he signed the bill, “We are doing something today that stretches the boundaries of possibility and sends a message to people all across the country that they can do more and they can do better to meet this moment…” I’m not sure what all that blather means, but I suppose liberal politicians could do more harm, if they tried hard enough, perhaps by disarming police altogether and requiring them to enforce the law and protect lives purely by persuasion or maybe water pistols.

 

Assemblyperson Shirley Weber, who authored the bill, said that “this is the first step toward changing how policing is conducted in California.”  It will change, all right. It will add to the cost of training and retraining police officers and make it more difficult to recruit enough qualified young men and women willing to put their lives on the line while working under such constraints where their every move is second-guessed by clueless civilians and activists. And if this is merely the first step, one shudders to think what the next might be. Some law enforcement agencies are already experiencing recruitment problems. This law won’t help.

 

Just as laws restricting police use of force are increasing, respect for police authority continues to decline. In some communities, they are regarded not as protectors but as threats. Any police shooting of an “unarmed” person of color, for example, invariably seems to provoke outrage even before all the circumstances are known and regardless of whether or not the officers involved are cleared by investigators. They are commonly demonized and referred to as pigs. One wonders why any young man or woman with other career options would choose a law enforcement career under these conditions, especially in crime-infested, Democrat-governed cities where claims of police brutality become the first response to almost every incident of the use of force by law enforcement.

 

Meanwhile, in the wake of mass shootings by violent young men, there is widespread sentiment among liberals and the media to legislate stricter gun control measures. Most people, however, now realize, or should, that the police cannot be expected to protect them from violent criminals and, in most cases, can only respond after the fact. Continuing efforts by liberal politicians, who have failed utterly to protect their own citizens in the municipalities they govern, to hamstring law enforcement officers, will only increase public resistance to gun control measures. People know full well that municipalities that have the strictest gun control measures also have the highest murder rates and that violent criminals will continue to ignore gun control laws just as they always have.

October 5, 2019