Protesting the Protesters

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                Canada, our cool neighbor to the north, has spent an uncharacteristic amount of time in the news lately, thanks to the demonstrations by hundreds of truck drivers protesting their government’s vaccine mandates. They have used their vehicles, including big rigs, to block traffic in Ottawa and shut down the busiest border crossing into the U.S., severely disrupting trade between our two countries and causing, among other things, a partial shutdown of auto assembly lines in Detroit because of a shortage of parts made in Canada, not to mention disrupting the lives of the good people of Canada’s capitol city.

                The noisy demonstrations quickly went viral and inspired demonstrators elsewhere in Canada and the world who were sympathetic to the truckers’ demands to cease vaccination requirements, demands which since have expanded to include broader criticisms of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his government, especially his handling of the protests. The protests have been at times noisy, messy, disruptive, especially to Ottawans, but, so far at least, not violent.

                Like many demonstrations which start off with the noblest of intentions, the so-called Freedom Convoy 2022 naturally has attracted some troublemakers with less than noble intentions. Canada’s public safety minister, Marco Mendicino, was quoted in the media as blaming a “very small, organized group that is driven by an ideology to overthrow the government through whatever means they wish to use” for driving this movement. He noted that police in Alberta seized a cache of firearms and a large quantity of ammunition from trucks that were part of a blockade blocking cross-border traffic into Montana. An organizer for the Ottawa protest group was quoted in the media as denying there was any plot to overthrow the government or commit violence.

                Last week, Mr. Trudeau finally reacted to the protest, which reportedly has paralyzed Canada’s capitol city of 934,243 for nearly three weeks, by invoking, for the first time in Canada’s history,  the Emergencies Act, granting his government extraordinary temporary powers, including the power to limit travel, prohibit public assembly, freeze bank accounts, impose fines, deploy the military for law enforcement and require companies to render essential services including requiring towing companies to remove trucks blocking traffic. “This is not a peaceful protest,” said Mr. Trudeau.

                Criticism of Mr. Trudeau was swift. Critics included the premiers of Canadian border provinces including Quebec, Alberta and Saskatchewan, but with the notable exception of Ontario wherein Ottawa lies and whose citizens are fed up with the demonstrations which have turned their city upside down and disrupted their lives. Said Ontario’s Premier Doug Ford, “I’ll support the federal government and any proposals they have to bring law and order back to our province. “Who can blame him?” you might ask. Well, the usual suspects, including some of the perpetually angry conservative commentators on talk radio who lamented Canada’s slide toward a dictatorship. The richest man in the world, for another, who was quoted as comparing Trudeau to Hitler. Really?

                Meanwhile, Ottawa’s police chief resigned following criticism of his failure to take timely action against the protests. He described the situation as an unprecedented crisis. The chair of the Ottawa Police Service Board said that the protesters had turned the city into a street party. Trucks were blocking streets and interfering with traffic and business. On weekends the demonstrations swelled as others joined in. Barbeques added to the festive atmosphere and there were even bouncy castles for the kids. Great fun for the protesters. Not so much for the residents, business owners and public services providers.

                There are lessons to be learned from all this. First. Demonstrations can quickly get out of hand and organizers often don’t have a clue regarding how to keep it from happening. They should, nevertheless, be held partly accountable for the cost and consequences. Second, civil disobedience was a proper and effective tool in the struggle for civil rights but it should not be used for every grievance against the government. Government policy should not be dictated by street demonstrators. Third, the right to peaceful assembly is a cherished right in democracies like ours and Canada’s but demonstrations which intrude on the lives of peaceful citizens have a very short shelf life. Freedom of speech does not include the right to disrupt their access and freedom. Finally, demonstrations are greatly overrated in terms of their effectiveness in changing public attitudes. They usually lose more supporters than they win over. They may make the participants feel like they are accomplishing something constructive but there are more effective ways to promote a cause than inconveniencing people that just want to live in peace and go about their business of making a living.

                The demonstrations are largely over as of this writing but they lasted far too long. We are told that a serious shortage of truck drivers is a principal cause of supply chain problems which are contributing to rising inflation. There was no shortage of them in Ottawa, however. It would have been  helpful if all those truckers demonstrating in Canada had just been satisfied with making their point about government overreach after a few days of demonstrating, got vaccinated and returned to work doing what they do best.

February 24, 2022

Wake-up Call at the Winter Olympics

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                A lot happened at the Beijing Winter Olympics and it wasn’t all taking place on the ice and slopes. While western leaders largely boycotted the big Beijing extravaganza, Russia’s Vladimir Putin did not and won an agreement with his Chinese host, Xi Jinping, that America’s two most powerful adversaries should join forces in challenging America’s position as the world’s preeminent power and dominant economy. This is not good news for Americans.

                The United States has been trying to pivot to the Pacific since Barack Obama was president but events in Europe and the Middle East keep getting in the way and Europe’s leaders, as usual, want America’s undivided attention, in some respects, even more than the Ukrainians seem to. They apparently feel that we are overstating the likelihood of a Russian invasion while our leaders and the western media seem to believe that it’s imminent.

                President Joe Biden talks tough about the consequences to Russia should they invade but can he deliver? He promises that he will stop the Nord Stream 2 pipeline to Germany if Russian forces cross the border into Ukraine but can he if Germany objects? The pipeline is already completed and only awaiting certification.

                Russia’s immediate aim is to extract concessions from the U.S. and NATO limiting any further expansion of NATO into the former Soviet Socialistic Republics of eastern Europe. Its broader objective is to dominate that region and further enhance its influence in the Middle East. It is not the threat to America’s vital interests that the People’s Republic of China is. While certainly not our friend, Russia did not have to be our sworn enemy. The Democrats’ preoccupation with the Russian threat may have actually helped drive Moscow to seek closer relations and cooperation with Beijing.

                China’s aims are much more ambitious and threatening to the United States. It is not limited to becoming just a regional power which it has already accomplished. Beijing believes its destiny is to surpass the United States as the world’s preeminent superpower and economy and replace its democratic and capitalist values around the world with its own which is to say, those of the ruling Communist Party of China. It is no longer, if it ever really was, a friendly competition because too much is at stake.

                China is determined to absorb Taiwan by force if necessary and Moscow will be happy to help by provoking trouble in Eastern Europe or the Middle East at the same time. So, too, might Iran which has little interest now in any agreement with the west which could slow its progress toward acquiring nuclear weapons. The United States and its allies are not sufficiently prepared to respond militarily to simultaneous military action on multiple fronts. Insufficient sealift would be only one of the major problems we would face. To make matters worse, Congress still cannot agree on a spending plan for fiscal year 2022 and we are operating on yet another short-term continuing resolution which means defense spending remains stuck at last year’s funding levels and priorities and no funds can be allocated for new and urgently needed military priorities until Congress acts. The issue that divides legislators largely revolves around demands by liberals that every increase in military expenditures needs to be accompanied by at least an equal increase in non-defense spending, needed or not.

                America has a history of being unprepared for wars including both world wars and the Korean and Vietnam conflicts, so eager were we to scrap our wartime military buildup and prolong the so-called peace dividend. The direct result of this unpreparedness was unnecessarily high loss of life in the initial stages of the next conflict. America’s industrial capacity and ability to rapidly mobilize always enabled us in the past to turn the tide but will it be enough the next time? Is our industrial capacity even sufficient anymore to ramp up rapidly enough?

                The notion that President Donald Trump rebuilt the military is largely imagined. Our navy and air force in particular has not come close to reaching the increased aircraft and ship numbers commensurate with even current tasking, let alone sufficient to meet the increased threat we now face. The current defense budget, projected by the Congressional Budget Office to be just under $715B, is less than 3% of Gross Domestic Product which is woefully inadequate. It needs to be doubled and that may be too little, too late. This is not, of course what the administration and probably most taxpayers want to hear. We should have anticipated this threat and the need to increase defense spending long ago but we were too preoccupied with entitlements, climate and race politics and other domestic issues.

                The best way to prevent a devastating and costly war is to be so prepared to win one that a potential adversary realizes that he cannot win and that it would be suicidal for him to try. Whatever the cost of achieving such preparedness, it would be far cheaper than losing.

February 14, 2022

Shielding Civilians from Harm

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                “War is hell” is a much-used expression generally attributed to Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman whose Union forces burned Atlanta in order to deprive the Confederacy of much of its industrial capacity and thus end the bloody Civil War sooner. More specifically, Sherman said, in addressing the city’s mayor and councilmembers, “War is cruelty and you cannot refine it”. But that was long ago and today we have more precise and surgical methods of targeting which can at least minimize civilian casualties. But it’s impossible to guarantee that that there will be none, especially when civilians live and work in proximity to valid military targets or when combatants are integrated with civilians.

According to an Associated Press article by Robert Burns, the ACLU’s national security project director, Hina Shamsi, believes that “a serious Defense Department focus on civilian harm (from military operations) is long overdue and welcome” and “(w)hat’s needed is a truly systematic overhaul of our country’s civilian harm policies to address the massive structural flaws, likely violations of international law, and probable war crimes that have occurred in the last 20 years”. The article also referenced a Rand Corp. report alleging that the U.S. military “follows a flawed and inadequate process for assessing and investigating suspected civilian damage and casualties caused by U. S. airstrikes and that the staff who are assigned to work on civilian casualty issues are often inadequately trained and supported.” No examples or evidence of this was included in the article.

Now comes a directive from Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin ordering senior civilian and military officials to formulate an “action plan” for improving how the military limits civilian casualties. An action plan means, obviously, that action is required which presumably means that something has to change. It is reasonable for taxpayers, whose taxes fund the military and its related studies, to ask if the effort is really necessary and to see some evidence showing that it is. Mr. Austin said that the protection of civilians is “vital to U.S. military success and is a moral imperative”. A moral imperative it may be, but vital to U.S. military success? How so? Is it also vital to a potential aggressor’s military success that they protect our civilians in the event of war? Will, say, China, Russia, Iran, North Korea or the terrorist organization du jour, develop an action plan to limit harm against our civilians in the event of a conflict with us? The last war that we actually won, it’s worth remembering, was won, or at least shortened, not just by battlefield victories but by fire bombing enemy cities to destroy its industrial capacity including obliterating two Japanese cities inflicting great harm to civilians. And, in the view of many of us who served there, the Vietnam Conflict was lost, at least partly, because of restrictions on targeting in order to avoid civilian casualties.

Mr. Austin wants the action plan on his desk in 90 days. Moreover, he wants the creation of a “civilian protection center of excellence” to formalize and institutionalize improvements in this area. This means, of course, that our over-extended and over-tasked military which is, hopefully, preparing for a possible great power conflict which would subject many civilians to serious risk of harm, especially if their side loses, may have new restrictions in carrying out its mission which is to fight and win wars. It’s often said that in wars where losing is not an option, winning by whatever it takes is the only option. This tasking is, presumably, in addition to other non-mission related taskings such as ensuring that the military shows proper appreciation for the importance of diversity in its assignment and promotion policies which have heretofore been based upon merit, demonstrated fitness and the needs of the service.

Mr. Austin’s directive follows heavy criticism in the media over an airstrike in Kabul which went awry and killed 10 civilians during the frantic withdrawal from Afghanistan. The military admitted its mistake but admitting mistakes, which are almost inevitable in combat operations (as in law enforcement), is never going to be enough to satisfy critics of either profession. Some kind of action is always demanded and even that won’t be enough. The danger is that in the zeal to come up with new rules to limit collateral damage to civilians, we will put our combatants at even greater risk than they are already exposed to and lessen their chance of prevailing in combat, just as misguided efforts to defund and repurpose police departments has caused more crimes including murder and put law enforcement lives at greater risk.

Personally, I believe that military commanders are already well aware of the need to take extreme measures to prevent civilian casualties but civilian casualties will occur especially in urban settings where combatants are integrated with civilians and are often indistinguishable. Our commanders are also well aware of the provisions of the Geneva Convention for the Protection of Civilians which, among other things, defines war crimes, safe and neutral zones and protected persons. It recognizes that such persons may reside in an area “exposed to the dangers of war” and that collateral damage is likely. It states that such dangers as (for example) bombings are war crimes only if civilian casualties are excessive compared to the military advantage gained. Whether they are or not is, of course, a judgement call and it depends usually on which side you ask.

U.S. special forces recently staged a risky overnight raid in Syria in an attempt to capture alive the leader of Islamic State Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi. Before he could be captured, al-Qurayshi detonated a bomb that killed him and his family. Our special forces suffered no casualties but they easily could have. That risk to American lives could have been avoided by using a missile instead of a high-risk ground assault but we chose the latter to save civilian lives at the risk of ours. On the other hand, the enemy had no problem blowing up its own civilians including women and children.

I believe that our military commanders place high value on protecting civilian lives and don’t need to be taught how to do it. I also believe that military lives matter, too, and that they should rarely if ever be placed at greater risk than absolutely necessary to accomplish their mission.

                                                                    -30-                 

  February 11, 2022

The Future of Our Nation

                A commentary

                By J.F. Kelly, Jr.

                As I was reviewing some scribbled notes for a possible future column that never got written. I ran across a clipping I saved for future reference. It was an editorial appearing in the Jan. 6, 2022 edition of San Diego’s largest daily newspaper entitled “January 6 Was a Rehearsal for What’s to Come.” It reviewed the horrific events of that day a year ago. It was a dark day to be sure and I don’t wish to understate the seriousness of the attack on the Capitol Building by a mob inspired by a fiery speech by outgoing President Donald Trump who repeated his false assertion that the 2020 election was stolen from him and that they had to fight like hell if they wished to save their democracy.

                The editorial said that Jan. 6 felt like “a rehearsal for the seditious power plays to come.” Referring to actions by some states to rewrite (their) election laws, the editorial went on to say that while it’s hard to believe a civil war is possible, “it is easy to believe that America as we know it could rupture. If sedition leads to a Republican presidential victory in 2024, attempts by progressive states to secede from the union—only starting with California—are certain no matter how complicated it appears. When the values of two large groups are so at odds –when mutual partisan hatred is so intense—a divorce may seem like the only option.”

                Wow! As readers know, I’m not always optimistic about where our nation is heading but civil war was never one of the destinations. You bet that it’s hard for me to imagine that another American civil war is possible. We already fought one that cost the lives of over 620 thousand soldiers, more than we lost in two world wars and the Vietnam Conflict. It was the bloodiest war in our history, fought to prevent states from seceding and to abolish slavery. If we learned anything from that blood bath, it was that secession is not an option and never will be. In resolving our differences, however grave, that must be taken off the table.

                As serious as the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol Building was, our democracy was never really in mortal danger. It was over in a matter of hours and the business of Congress resumed. It may have ended sooner had sufficient security been in place which is a responsibility of Congress. It takes more than a ragtag bunch of fired up, gullible Trump groupies to take down our democracy which has survived far worse attacks. Quibble if you wish over whether or not it amounted to an insurrection, sedition or just an act of pure mob stupidity to think that by interrupting a largely symbolic function they could change the outcome of an election, it was not a coup. Those who trespassed, vandalized, fought with police, threatened to harm officials or otherwise broke the law should be punished to the full extent of the law. As far as I’m concerned, Mr. Trump’s legacy was destroyed by his role in inciting the violence and he should never again hold public office. Those responsible for security should be held responsible for the appalling lack of sufficient security and backup. Those who joined in the march but broke no law should learn from the experience that demonstrations can quickly turn violent as mob mentality takes over.

                The 2022 mid-term elections will soon be upon us and we are fast approaching a decision point. What kind of a nation do we want to be? Do we want to continue as the world’s pre-eminent power and largest economy or are we losing interest in that role and wish to join the ranks of the once-great powers like Europe’s former colonial empires, now welfare states? If the answer is the former, then we need to do some domestic housecleaning first because a nation divided cannot lead the world. We might start by restoring order to the chaotic southern border which remains a porous gate for illegal aliens, drugs and who knows what else. A nation that can’t control its own borders has no business trying to defend someone else’s, like, for example Ukraine’s.

                Before we criticize the human rights violations of other nations, we need to clean up the messes in our cities. They are cesspools of crime, violence, drug usage and homelessness, largely tolerated by the feckless policies of Democrat mayors, city councils, district attorneys and attorneys general who decide what laws they will enforce, and whose catch and release policies return criminals to the streets to commit the same crimes again. It should be obvious now to all but the incurably woke that defunding and repurposing police departments went entirely too far, restricting the ability of police to do their job and endangering their lives as well as those they are entrusted with to protect, particularly in minority neighborhoods. Funding and respect for law enforcement need to be restored as a matter of the highest priority.

                We face global threats on multiple fronts today. If we are to address them with credibility and maintain our status as leader of the free world, we have to clean up some of our own domestic messes and most of all, heal our most serious partisan divisions. That includes electing people to public office who actually know what works, how to lead and how to unify.

February 2, 2022