Search Results for “Free PDF CAS-005 PDF Download – The Best Knowledge Points for CAS-005 – Authoritative CAS-005 Pass Test 🅱 Search for ✔ CAS-005 ️✔️ and easily obtain a free download on [ www.pdfvce.com ] 🦈Valid CAS-005 Exam Pass4sure” – Page 4

Most Senate Republicans Whiff on the Constitutionality of Impeaching Trump

Most Senate Republicans Whiff on the Constitutionality of Impeaching Trump

By John R Guardiano on February 15, 2021

For blatantly partisan political reasons, most Republican were willfully wrong about the Constitutionality of impeachment; but in the end, it did not matter: Justice, albeit not conviction, was done.

Senate Republicans eager to condemn Trump without voting to convict him during this, his second impeachment trial, found a convenient if disingenuous way to do so. They seized upon the notion that the impeachment itself is unconstitutional.

I say disingenuous because even if you grant that this is a legitimate point of view, Senate Republicans—and Democrats—are hardly sticklers for a narrow and cramped legalistic reading of their Constitutional authority or the president’s Constitutional authority.

Indeed, since at least the New Deal, the vast majority of elected officials have adopted a wide and expansionary view of their Constitutional authority. Yet, curiously, when it came to Trump’s second impeachment, Senate Republicans suddenly found that the Constitution prohibited them from acting.

The Constitution prohibited them from convicting a president who, plainly and obviously, was guilty of inspiring or provoking a violent attack on Congress and who, plainly and obviously, was guilty of a gross dereliction of duty as that attack transpired.

How politically convenient this was for Senate Republicans eager to find an excuse—any excuse—to shirk their Constitutional duty. Thus 43 of them voted to acquit Trump, while only seven voted to convict.

Plausible Deniability. How is this possible? How could Senate Republicans argue with a straight face that the Constitution prohibited them from impeaching and convicting Trump?

After all, Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the House of Representatives “the sole power of impeachment.” Article I, Section 3, likewise, gives the Senate the “sole power to try all impeachments.”

That seems straightforward and unambiguous. Case closed, no? Trump’s impeachment trial is perfectly legitimate and Constitutional.

Well, here’s the rub: when the Senate trial began, Trump already had left office. And the Constitution, some scholars argue, only allows for the impeachment of incumbent officials, not former officials.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) expressed this argument in full-throated fashion shortly after the Senate voted 57-43 Saturday (Feb. 13, 2021) to acquit Trump of “incitement of insurrection.”

McConnell began his remarks by unequivocally condemning Trump in no uncertain terms. In fact, an uninformed reader might think that McConnell is explaining why he voted to convict Trump, but no.

Although, “there is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day,” McConnell said, “we have no power to convict and disqualify a former officeholder who is now a private citizen.”

But of course, Trump was not impeached for what he did as a private citizen; he was impeached because of his conduct as President of the United States. And the Constitution does not specify that only incumbent officials can be impeached. Instead, it clearly allows for the impeachment and conviction of former presidents and former officials.

Impeachment Authority. That is because, as Chuck Cooper observes, one of the Constitutional penalties for an impeached and convicted official is “disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States” (Article I, Section 3).

That punishment can be imposed only on former officers. That is because Article II, Section 4 is self-executing: A convicted officeholder is automatically removed at the moment of conviction.

The formal Senate procedures for impeachment trials acknowledge this constitutional reality, noting that a two-thirds vote to convict “operates automatically and instantaneously to separate the person impeached from the office.”

The Senate may then, at its discretion, take a separate vote to impose, by simple majority, “the additional consequences provided by the Constitution in the case of an impeached and convicted civil officer, viz: permanent disqualification from elected or appointed office.”

Thus a vote by the Senate to disqualify can be taken only after the officer has been removed and is by definition a former officer.

Given that the Constitution permits the Senate to impose the penalty of permanent disqualification only on former officeholders, it defies logic to suggest that the Senate is prohibited from trying and convicting former officeholders [emphasis added].

Nonsensical Reading. In short, it is simply nonsensical to suggest that the Constitution does not allow for the impeachment and conviction of former presidents and former officials.

To arrive at such a conclusion, you have to read one provision of the Constitution (Article II, Section 4) legalistically and out of context, while divorcing it from its necessary and obvious relationship to a second provision of the Constitution (Article I, Section 3).

As the House impeachment managers pointed out, if McConnell’s nonsensical view of the Senate’s impeachment authority were adopted, it would mean that a president could commit impeachable offenses and then quickly resign to avert impeachment.

It would mean a “January exception” that would allow a president to commit impeachable offenses in his final days or weeks in office safe in the knowledge that Congress lacks sufficient time to impeach and convict him. It is inconceivable that this is what our Founding Fathers intended.

Founding Fathers. And in fact, as Princeton Politics Professor Keith E. Whittington notes:

For the Founders, it would have been obvious that the “power to impeach” included the ability to hold former officials to account.

The impeachment power was imported to America from England, where Parliament impeached only two men during the 18th century, both former officers. No U.S. state constitution limited impeachments to sitting officers, and some allowed impeachment only of former officers.

In 1781 the Virginia General Assembly subjected Thomas Jefferson to an impeachment inquiry after he completed his term as governor.

As the sixth President of the United States, John Quincy Adams, put it:

I hold myself, so long as I have the breath of life in my body, amenable to impeachment by this House for everything I did during the time I held any public office.

Historical Precedent. There is, of course, very little case law or precedent governing presidential impeachments. Only three presidents, after all, have been impeached, and Trump’s second impeachment was just the fourth impeachment in our nation’s entire 245-year history.

There is, though, one notable precedent, and that is the 1876 impeachment of Secretary of War William Belknap.

Belknap was impeached for malfeasance while in office, but resigned before the House impeached him. Nonetheless, the Senate asserted jurisdiction over his case and tried him for malfeasance in accordance with the House articles of impeachment.

Jurisdictional Question. The Senate also asserted its jurisdiction over Trump’s case after Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) introduced a procedural motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that the hearing was unconstitutional because Trump no longer was in office.

McConnell voted for Paul’s procedural motion; but as Quin Hillyer points out: “McConnell was [nonetheless] not duty-bound to vote to acquit Donald Trump if he thought the trial wasn’t constitutionally proper.”

For the purposes of impeachment, Hillyer explains, the Senate acts as a tribunal and thus is analogous to a federal court or judicial body. “Think of it this way,” he writes:

If a three-judge panel of a federal appeals court rules that the court lacks jurisdiction on a certain case, but the whole appeals court en banc decides that jurisdiction is indeed proper and thus sends the case back to the panel to decide on the merits, then, by gosh, the panel must decide on the merits.

Its judgment of jurisdictional constitutionality has been overruled by a higher authority.

Each individual senator is in somewhat the same position as that three-judge panel. His oath to the Constitution includes an oath to respect a higher constitutional authority—and, in this case, the full Senate is a higher constitutional authority than the individual senator is…

In other words, once the whole Senate, acting according to its agreed-upon rules, determines that it does have constitutional jurisdiction, then the individual senators should accept that determination and adjudge the impeachment solely on the merits.

In sum, the constitutional question becomes moot.

Put another way, even if McConnell genuinely believed that the Senate’s trial of Trump was unconstitutional, the entirety of the Senate ruled against him and decided otherwise. Thus that question no longer had any standing or relevance to the Senate’s deliberations.

McConnell’s task, then, was to address the sum and substance of the charges leveled against Trump. It was not his task, or any senator’s task, to revisit a jurisdictional question that the Senate already had decided.

The bottom line: if McConnell and other Senate Republicans wanted to convict Trump, they had more than ample Constitutional authority to do so. The truth is they chose not to convict Trump because they viewed Trump’s conviction as too politically problematic and difficult for them and the Republican Party.

That is, they chose their perceived partisan political priorities over the imperatives of the Constitution while pretending to do the exact opposite. Shame on them. These senators are profiles in cowardice, and their constituents and donors should remember this come election day.

The good news, though, as David Frum notes, is that “a clear American majority—including a sizable part of the Republican Senate caucus—[voted]… to condemn Trump as an outlaw and a seditionist…

The 57 votes against Trump silence any complaint that he was condemned on some partisan basis or by some procedural unfairness. It crushes his truculent lawyers’ claim that the argument against Trump was mere chicanery

The senators who voted to acquit are the ones likely to justify their decision on some strained, narrow, technical ground. The number who truly believed Trump innocent of the charges brought against him is surely smaller than the 43 who voted to acquit.

Statements by senators such as Mitch McConnell and Rob Portman show that their votes did not match their thoughts.

In sum, Donald Trump has been thoroughly discredited. His treasonous and insurrectionary conduct has been catalogued for history and for all to see. His failure to live up to his oath of office to ensure that the laws of the land were fully and faithfully executed has been thoroughly documented.

As a result, Trump is a spent political force in American politics. He won’t win another national or presidential election, as even the Trump-friendly Wall Street Journal editorial board acknowledges.

What remains unclear, though, is whether Trump is a spent political force within the Republican Party. Forty-three GOP Senators seem to think not, and that does not bode well for the party of Lincoln, Coolidge and Reagan.

Time will tell and we will see. Stay tuned.

Feature Photo credit: For better and for worse, GOP Senators Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul, both from Kentucky, played instrumental roles in the Republican Party’s posture toward Trump’s second impeachment (courtesy of Donkey Hotey, Forward Kentucky).

When Biden Says ‘Follow the Science,’ He Means ‘Ignore My Politics’

When Biden Says ‘Follow the Science,’ He Means ‘Ignore My Politics’

By John R Guardiano on October 11, 2020

The American people have a right to know what policies a President Biden would pursue to combat COVID. A politically self-serving declaration that he will “follow the science” is pure obfuscation.

“Let’s end the politics and follow the science,” declares Joe Biden.

Biden’s declaration is politically self-serving because it suggests that, as president, his policies to address COVID will be apolitical and simply science-based. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

As Faye Flam points out at Bloomberg:

Joe Biden’s promise to “follow the science” does not amount to a strategy. It’s just a slogan.

A strategy to deal with the pandemic needs to set priorities and incorporate values that science isn’t equipped to provide. If Biden and his fans think following the science is the plan, they misunderstand the nature of science and its limitations.

Science can give insights into the nature of the pandemic, but there is no scientific formula pointing to a solution

“This year has driven home as never before the message that there is no such thing as ‘the science,'” writes Matt Ridley in the Wall Street Journal. “There are different scientific views on how to suppress the virus.”

Sweden. As we’ve previously noted, for instance, Swedish scientists and public health authorities have taken a strikingly different approach to combating COVID than their counterparts in the United States.

The Swedes have eschewed lockdowns and mandatory mask orders and instead, have focused their efforts on protecting the most vulnerable members of the population. Thus schools, restaurants, and fitness centers have remained open.

Early on in the pandemic, as Ridley notes, the Swedish approach looked foolish and shortsighted. “Now, with cases low and the Swedish economy in much better health than other countries,” he observes, Swedish public health authorities look prescient and wise.

“Different countries,” explains Flam, “can ‘follow the science’ to different strategies.”

Science. Yet, “follow the science” resonates with us because it appeals to our belief that politics involves opinions and value judgments about which people can and do vigorously disagree. Science, by contrast, deals with facts and empirical reality which we all must acknowledge and recognize.

If only it were that simple! In truth, our scientific understanding of the coronavirus is not fixed and settled dogma; it is developing and evolving based on new discoveries and new empirical realities.

“In 2020,”writes Gideon Meyerowitz -Katz,

science has gone from a gradual accumulation of knowledge to a train at full steam.

It’s worth remembering that what is true today will almost certainly be proven false next week, and that when people appear to change their minds it is an inherently good thing—adapting to new evidence is the cornerstone of science.

Just last week, for instance, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) acknowledged for the first time that the coronavirus sometimes can spread through airborne particles “that can linger in the air for minutes to hours,” thereby infecting people “who are further than six feet apart.”

The implications of this finding, though, are a legitimate source of political debate. Is the risk of airborne infection serious enough to warrant a different public health strategy? Or is the risk sufficiently low that no change in strategy is warranted?

“The science” ought to inform how we answer these and other public health questions; but ultimately, policymakers must make value judgments that balance competing interests, assess what is most important, and determine how much risk the public should assume.

Politics. In short, the science of COVID cannot be divorced from the politics of COVID. It is, therefore, too glib and self-serving for Biden to declare that his strategy for combating the coronavirus will be simply to “follow the science.”

As Bruce Trogdon observes, this is a great political “sound-byte. But the scientists don’t even agree and the consensus is constantly shifting. Which scientist? Which study? Which day?”

We don’t know because Biden won’t say.

Bide says he’ll “follow the science,” because he wants us to ignore his politics, which mirror those of blue state governors like Michigan’s Gretchen Whitmer and New York’s Andrew Cuomo, who embrace lockdowns.

“Joe Biden is the shutdown candidate,” explains the Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Hennninger. “At last week’s presidential non-debate,” he writes,

perhaps the most consequential remark by Mr. Biden was about living with the virus. “You can’t fix the economy,” Mr. Biden said, “until you fix the Covid crisis.” Virus first, economy later.

I take that to mean Mr. Biden’s coronavirus policy would be to support reviving shutdowns if the virus-case metric goes up, and support governors who push back against openings.

As such, his policy would reflect minimal adjustment of the Democratic party’s lockdown bias, no matter the country’s experience with the virus since March.

That’s a legitimate position to take, even if it is, as I think, seriously mistaken and misguided. What is utterly illegitimate and wrong is for Biden to continue to dodge the question in an effort to deceive the American people.

Voters have a right to know precisely what the former Vice President means when he says he’ll “follow the science”: because, as he surely knows, the meaning of that phrase is anything but self-evident and self-explanatory. It is, though, politically self-serving.

Feature photo credit: The Yeshiva World.

Only the Private Sector Can Deliver the Ventilators NY Gov. Cuomo Says He Needs to Combat the Coronavirus

Only the Private Sector Can Deliver the Ventilators NY Gov. Cuomo Says He Needs to Combat the Coronavirus

By John R Guardiano on March 24, 2020

The severe shortage of ventilators in the United States to cope with the anticipated wave of coronavirus patients who will require them illustrates what government can and cannot do—or at least should and should not do.

The government should plan and prepare for likely or predicted pandemics and other potential mass-scale medical emergencies by ensuring that hospitals and healthcare providers have the necessary supplies and equipment that they need to treat and care for patients.

I say likely or predicted pandemics because we obviously cannot anticipate every possible medical emergency. And it is not practical, feasible, or economical to prepare for everything that might happen, no matter how unlikely or remote.

But the truth is: the coronavirus is a pandemic that we were warned was coming, and which our elected representatives should have anticipated and prepared to combat. As NBC News’ Ken Dilanian reports:

For years, American intelligence agencies have been warning about the increasing risks of a global pandemic that could strain resources and damage the global economy, while observing that the frequency and diversity of global disease outbreaks has been rising.

In a worldwide threats assessment in 2018 and 2017, intelligence analysts even mentioned a close cousin of the current COVID-19 strain of coronavirus by name, saying it had “pandemic potential” if it were “to acquire efficient human-to-human transmissibility.”

For this reason, writes Betsy McCaughey in the New York Post, a New York State task force found, in 2015, that the state had “16,000 fewer ventilators than the 18,000 New Yorkers would need in a severe pandemic.”

Yet, state officials decided not to buy these 16,000 ventilators. The governor of New York at the time: Democrat Andrew Cuomo.

Ventilators. This is the same Andrew Cuomo who has been eloquent about his state’s need for 30,000 ventilators. Otherwise, he warns, hospitals in New York risk being overwhelmed with coronavirus patients.

And, if that happens (as it already has happened in Italy), hospitals and physicians will be forced to make heart-wrenching decisions about who gets a ventilator and who does not—meaning who gets to live and who does not.

Of course, it never should have come to this. State officials like Cuomo should have heeded the warnings of public health experts years ago and prepared for this foreseeable and predicted pandemic.

But we are where we are. What, then, is to be done?

Unfortunately, there are no quick and simple solutions. It takes time and money to manufacture ventilators, and, as Cuomo himself admits:

You can’t find available ventilators no matter how much you’re willing to pay right now, because there is literally a global run on ventilators.

For this reason, Cuomo and his left-wing allies in the media and in Congress want the federal government to provide the ventilators; and they fault Trump for allegedly not using the full powers of the presidency to make it happen.

They specifically fault Trump for supposedly failing to invoke the Defense Production Act to manufacture ventilators.

“I do not understand the reluctance to use the federal Defense Production Act to manufacture ventilators,” Cuomo tweeted. “If not now, when?”

But as the Wall Street Journal points out, Trump already has invoked the 1950 Defense Production Act

that lets a President, during a national emergency, order business to manufacture products for national defense, set wage and price controls, and allocate materials.

On Tuesday the Federal Emergency Management Agency used the Korean War-era law for the first time in this crisis to procure and distribute testing kits and face masks…

[But] businesses know their workforce capacities and supply chains better than the government—and how to retool them to maximize efficiency…

Ford said on Tuesday that it would start assembling plastic face shields and work with 3M and GE to make respirators and ventilators.

General Motors is also exploring how to use its global automotive supply chain to make ventilators.

Ford’s CEO said its ventilators could be available by June, and it isn’t obvious that a government takeover of manufacturing would speed this up,

In short, having the government order or mandate something doesn’t magically make it happen. If that were the case, the Soviet Union would have won the Cold War and we’d all be speaking Russian.

Private-sector companies and manufacturers, moreover, already are stepping up in a big way to provide ventilators, masks, gowns, nose swabs, and other critical health gear and equipment needed to combat the coronavirus. And the Trump administration is watching and prodding them as best it can.

Private Sector. Cuomo says that “only the federal government has the power to deliver” the ventilators. But this is nonsense and shows how little Cuomo knows. In truth, only the private sector has the power to deliver—and it will if the government lets it.

Indeed, contra Cuomo, what is needed is not nationalization of the medical supply chain, but rather deregulation of the medical supply chain. This so that private sector companies are free to innovate and rapidly produce the supplies and equipment that our healthcare professionals need.

And, on that score, there is some good news. Reason magazine’s Scott Shackfo r d reports

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is easing up on some regulations so that ventilators can be manufactured and implemented more quickly to respond to the spread of COVID-19.

In new guidance issued on Monday, the FDA said that it will practice “enforcement discretion” by allowing manufacturers of ventilators to allow for some modifications of hardware, software, and materials.

This allows manufacturers more flexibility in response to supply shortages that could keep them from ramping up production.

The new guidance will also allow for the quicker addition of new production lines and alternative production locations.

[In other words], if other companies that have space to install production lines of their own (GM, for example, has offered unused space in its shuttered plants) those companies are free to do so.

In short, Cuomo has identified a real problem that he had it in his power to address years ago. However, he lacked the foresight and wisdom to do so. Thus he now urges the federal government to act. But he misdiagnoses the problem, and his recommend cure is no cure at all.

The best thing the government can do is to identify early on big issues and problems that need to be addressed, and then leave the private sector free to experiment and innovate its way toward a solution.

They know, far more than the state bureaucracy, what must be done to get us out of our logjam.

In the meantime, let us hope and pray that the entrepreneurs and the captains of industry can act quickly enough to ensure that, in the weeks and months to come, no American who needs a ventilator is denied a ventilator.

Feature photo credit: Associated Press via Salon.

Biden Emerges from the Primary Race with Big Political Advantages, But His Age and Record Are Looming Problems

Biden Emerges from the Primary Race with Big Political Advantages, But His Age and Record Are Looming Problems

By John R Guardiano on March 12, 2020

Biden won big Tuesday night (March 10). Thus the pundits who wrongly insisted after Super Tuesday (March 3) that it was a two-man race between him and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders now acknowledge, belatedly, that Biden is the Democrats’ 2020 presidential nominee.

The Democratic primary results might also mean that Biden is the prohibitive favorite to win the White House. Consider:

First, Biden is not Hillary. He does appreciably better with working class whites, white ethnics, and black male voters than Hillary. These are voters whom Hillary under-performed with against Trump as compared to past Democratic presidential nominees.

Biden’s relative success with these voters spells real trouble for Donald Trump, especially in Michigan and Pennsylvania, which he barely won in 2016.

Biden doesn’t have to win a majority of the white working class or white ethnics. Instead, he simply has to do better with these voters than Hillary and keep Trump’s margins down.

Biden, likewise, doesn’t necessarily have to win a greater share of the black vote.

Instead, he simply has to get more black Democrats to the polls versus staying home from indifference or apathy. All indications are that, for Biden, this will be a mission easily accomplished.

Second, Democratic voters are seriously motivated to vote against Trump, whom they despise. In the March 3 Virginia Primary, for instance, a record 1.3 million voters cast ballots, and voter turnout was up by 69 percent over 2016, reports the Washington Post.

In the nine Super Tuesday states, the Post notes, voter turnout grew by an average of 33 percent, according to Edison Media Research.

These are astounding numbers; and they spell real political trouble for the President, who again, won a very narrow, fluke victory in 2016.

Trump won in part because some Democratic voters were indifferent to Hillary and thus didn’t bother to vote. In 2020, with Biden as their nominee, it appears that these formerly indifferent Democratic voters intend to turn out and make their voices heard.

Third, although Biden is in no way a “moderate” or centrist Democrat, he nonetheless is being portrayed that way because of the contrast between him and self-avowed “democratic socialist” Bernie Sanders, and this helps Biden politically.

Most voters are not liberals, leftists or socialists; and centrist or independent voters are the ones up for grabs, politically.

Indeed, these are the voters Biden needs to win to unseat Trump; and, by being described incessantly in the media as a “moderate” or centrist, Biden already has a built-in advantage with these voters.

Trump will try to disabuse moderate or centrist voters of this misperception by pointing to Biden’s long and very liberal record as a senator, and his current left-wing views as a 2020 presidential candidate; but after months of conditioning by the media, that may prove to be a long, uphill slog.

Fourth, Biden’s age is a real and worrisome problem for the Democrats. This is obvious to anyone with eyes to see, and to any honest political observer. Biden often misspeaks, flubs his words, and rambles incoherently in ways that suggest senility or dementia.

Biden also is prone to sudden bouts of intense energy and apparent anger followed by rambling incoherence.

This is not surprising given his advanced age. Should he win the election, after all, Biden would be 78 years old on inauguration day. He would be the oldest person ever elected president and the oldest serving president in our nation’s history.

The question is whether Biden can hold it together and avoid a major faux pas between now and Nov. 3, 2020, without giving voters real reason to think that he simply isn’t up to the job.

At the very least, there will be much greater weight and scrutiny given to Biden’s vice presidential pick, since may voters will correctly perceive that there is a strong likelihood that person will become president within the next four years.

Fifth, Trump needs a second-term agenda, especially if the economy slows or goes into a recession because of the twin shocks of the coronavirus and Saudi-Russian oil war.

Trump has had many praiseworthy achievements as president: corporate tax reform, record low unemployment, a strong and robust economy, two superb Supreme Court appointments, a phase one trade deal with China, and a concerted effort, against incredible partisan odds, to enforce the rule of law at the nation’s southern border.

Elections, though, are about the future, and voters will want to know what Trump plans to do in a second term. Unfortunately, Trump has said little about this and has offered up no new agenda. That will have to change if he intends to serve four more years.

The bottom line: Biden looks very strong coming out of this primary contest and has some real political advantages over Trump. His age and political record, though, are real liabilities; and Trump and the Republicans have yet to really go after him.

Moreover, a lot certainly can and will happen, politically, between now and election day. Who, after all, would have predicted the coronavirus? And these future happenings and events will affect the trajectory of the race and whom the nation chooses as its next president. Stay tuned.

Feature photo credit: The New Yorker.

Trump’s Outreach to Black Voters Is Real, and Prominent Media Voices Are Beginning to Take Note

Trump’s Outreach to Black Voters Is Real, and Prominent Media Voices Are Beginning to Take Note

By John R Guardiano on February 7, 2020

In the immediate aftermath of President Trump’s State of the Union Address, we were struck by the fact that it was written in large part to appeal to black voters.

Trump touted the strong U.S. economy and explained how it is benefiting the poor and disadvantaged, who are disproportionately black, brown, and members of racial and ethnic minorities.

He heralded his tax cuts and enterprise zones as the engine of opportunity and upward mobility for “forgotten Americans” in the dilapidated inner cities. And he pledge to build “the world’s most prosperous and inclusive society—one where every citizen can join in America’s unparalleled success, and every community can take part in America’s extraordinary rise.”

In short, we will leave no American behind, Trump essentially said.

However, a close reading of the speech shows that it has even more explicit appeals to African Americans, and prominent media voices are beginning to take note.

The Wall Street Journal, for instance, published an editorial called “Trump’s Bid for the Black Vote. African-Americans,” the Journal notes, “were front-and-center at the State of the Union.”

Beyond the inclusive tone, Mr. Trump emphasized policies that address real inequities in American life.

Perhaps the most compelling was Mr. Trump’s extended brief for school choice. The quality of many urban government schools is a national disgrace, and African-American children suffer most.

Mr. Trump highlighted a black youngster whose “future was put further out of reach when Pennsylvania’s Governor vetoed legislation to expand school choice,” and he called for Congress to expand opportunities for scholarships to attend alternative schools.

This has become a sharp dividing line between the two parties, as Democrats have abandoned choice under pressure from unions.

In 2018 Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis won a close race thanks to the votes of African-American women who supported him out of proportion to other GOP candidates. One likely cause was his school-choice platform.

Mr. Trump should campaign around the country highlighting charter, private and parochial schools that help children of all races escape rotten union schools.

CNN analyst Van Jones, meanwhile, warned his fellow Democrats that Trump’s State of the Union Address was

a warning to us, a warning shot across the bow of Democrats that he’s going after enough black folks to cause us problems.

It’s not just the white suburban voters. He’s going after black voters, too… And what he was saying to African Americans can be effective.

In addition to the strong economy, enterprise zones, and school choice, Trump specifically mentioned his administration’s support of historically black colleges and universities, as well as criminal justice reform.

“Our black colleges have been struggling for a long time,” said Van Jones. “A bunch of them have gone under. He [Trump] threw a lifeline to them… in his budget.”

Indeed, according to the Associated Press, the Future Act, which Trump signed into law Dec. 19, 2019,

authorizes $85 million a year for historically black colleges and universities, along with $100 million for Hispanic-serving institutions, $30 million for tribal schools and $40 million for a variety of other minority-serving institutions.

“The money,” reports the AP, “is primarily meant to expand programs in science, technology, engineering and math.”

“To expand equal opportunity,” said Trump in his State of the Union Address, “I am also proud that we achieved record and permanent funding for our nation’s historically black colleges and universities.”

Criminal Justice Reform. Trump is equally proud that he achieved criminal justice reform, which, he said, is giving many former prisoners the ability to work and make a fresh start in life.

“Everybody said that criminal justice reform couldn’t be done, but I got it done, and the people in this room got it done,” he bragged.

“Mr. Trump’s willingness to buck political convention on this issue is making a difference for young black men especially,” says the Journal.

In fact Trump clearly wishes to communicate to African Americans and other minorities that he is fully committed to broad-based opportunity, inclusion, and second chances. His campaign thus spent “half of its $10 million Super Bowl ad-buy highlighting [his] commutation of a black woman’s life sentence for a drug offense.”

African-American Contributions. Moreover, the president made clear that African Americans have contributed mightily to our achievements and greatness as a nation. Thus he recognized one of the last surviving Tuskegee Airmen, Charles McGee, whom he promoted to Brigadier General.

The Tuskegee Airmen, of course, are a storied U.S. military unit of predominantly black fighter pilots and support personnel who served during World War II, when the U.S. Armed Forces were still segregated by race.

Trump noted that Brigadier General McGee flew more than 130 combat missions in the Second World War before serving in both the Korean and Vietnam Wars as well.

McGee is now 100 years old; and his great grandson, 13-year-old Iain Lanphier, aspires to follow in his footsteps through service in the United States Space Force

Finally, Trump rounded out his paean to American greatness by acknowledging that Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, and Martin Luther King, Jr. rank high in the pantheon of heroes and heroines who are responsible for “our glorious and magnificent inheritance” as a nation.

Leadership. Trump’s outreach to black voters is a demonstration of moral and political leadership, and it is the right thing to do irrespective of any potential political gains for him and the Republican Party in November. But sometimes, doing what is right is also good politics, and this may be one of those times.

Trump won about eight percent of the black vote in 2016; however, a conspicuous number of recent polls suggest that he is poised to significantly increase that tally on election day.

A new Zogby poll, for instance, finds that Trump’s approval rating has reached 50 percent among all voters; and that 26 percent of African Americans and 47% of Hispanics at least somewhat approve of the job he’s doing as president.

Even if just half of that 26 percent end up voting for Trump, that would represent a 62 percent increase in the president’s share of the black vote vis-a-vis his 2016 tally; and, with that, Trump would most likely easily win reelection.

It’s still too early to tell what will happen; but it’s never too early to do the right thing. And Trump, to his credit, is trying to do the right thing for African Americans and other minorities. Good on him.

Feature photo credit: Getty Images via MegaNewsEn.

Biden Should Use his State of the Union Address to Declare Economic War on Russia

Biden Should Use his State of the Union Address to Declare Economic War on Russia

By John R Guardiano on February 26, 2022

America and NATO have the means to force Vladimir Putin from power and reverse the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Note: President Biden is scheduled to deliver the annual State of the Union Address to Congress Tuesday, March 1. In light of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, here is what the President should say.

Madam Speaker, Madam Vice President, members of Congress, my fellow Americans, and concerned people across the globe, especially the brave people of Ukraine:

This evening, I was planning to deliver the annual State of the Union Address. However, you will forgive me for parting from tradition and doing something different.

Tonight, I would like to address a much more pressing and urgent matter: the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the response from America, NATO, and the free world.

Russian Invasion. As you know, last week, Russian dictator Vladimir Putin launched a wholly unprovoked military assault against the free and sovereign nation of Ukraine. Putin’s aim: to conquer and subjugate Ukraine and make it an indissoluble part of a new and more expansive Russian empire.

America and its NATO allies have armed the Ukrainian military and we will continue to do so. A free and sovereign people deserve the right to fight for themselves, to fight for their freedom and independence. The United States of America will never be indifferent to their pleas for help and to the cause of liberty.

However, we will not wage a military war against Russia. We will not send American ground troops to Ukraine.

The time to do that, candidly was a year or more ago, before Russia invaded, when U.S. troops could have deterred Putin and prevented this military war from happening. That opportunity, sadly, has been lost.

But while a traditional military war in not something we will partake in, we will embrace every measure short of armed conflict, and short of “boots on the ground,” to ensure that Ukraine remains a free and sovereign state.

This means that America and NATO are launching an economic war against Russia. Our aims are clear and just:

First, as I mentioned, we will arm the Ukrainian people with as much military aid as possible as quickly as possible. America once again will be the arsenal of democracy, and our support for the brave people of Ukraine will continue for as long as they wish to fight.

Second, we will destroy the Russian economy through economic boycotts, sabotage, and cyberwar. This is necessary to force Russia to change course and to change its government.

Putin serves at the pleasure of a rich and cosseted Russian mafia oligarchy that has plundered Russia and stolen blood and treasure from the Russian people. By squeezing Russia economically, we will force that oligarchy to come to terms with the economic wreckage wrought by Putin’s misrule and his reckless invasion of Ukraine.

Costs. This economic war will not be cost-free for America and its NATO allies. We will suffer economic hardship and deprivation. In the short-term, certainly, the price of gas will rise dramatically. Disruptions to our electrical grid and Internet connectivity will occur.

But these will be temporary and transitory problems that I assure you we will overcome. America is rich in fossil fuels and energy abundance, and I will be unleashing the full power of our nation’s energy sector.

Our cyber capabilities, likewise, are second to none and not to be tampered with. Silicon Valley, after all, is an America creation and we will retain dominance in the cyber domain, while protecting our networks from attack.

Third, by means of economic warfare, we aim to force Putin from power, so that we can constructively engage a new Russian government that respects its neighbors and acts in accordance with international norms and international law.

We seek peaceful and constructive relations with Russia. And we are confident that, when Russia has a new government worthy of its history and its people, we again can have harmonious and mutually beneficial relations.

But this can only happen when Putin is removed from power and Russia has a new leader and not an international gangster at the helm who holds free and sovereign nations hostage.

Fourth, we demand the withdrawal of all Russian troops from Ukraine, Belarus, and Georgia; the restoration there of freely elected democratic governments; and the end of Russian meddling in the internal affairs of these and other countries.

Ukraine, Belarus, and Georgia were granted their freedom and independence in 1991 at the conclusion of the Cold War. However, all three countries have since seen their sovereignty undermined and taken by Russia at the behest of Putin.

This cannot stand. The nation-state, its territorial integrity, self-rule, and self-determination are pillars of the international order. Yesterday it was Georgia and Belarus; today it is Ukraine; and tomorrow it will be the Baltic states and Poland.

We must stop and reverse Russian military imperialism before it further unravels the world order and imperils America and the West.

Victory. Make no mistake: we will prevail. Because of Putin’s economic mismanagement and oligarchic plundering, Russia today is a poor country that has failed to realize its potential. Russia’s economy is smaller than the economy of South Korea and smaller than the economy of Italy.

And we are not acting alone, but instead in concert with allies who span the globe—from Europe to Asia, North and South America, Africa and the Middle East. Literally dozens of nations are joining us to reverse Putin’s dangerous assault on international norms and the international order.

Some Americans, I know, will say: why us? Why is Ukraine’s problem our problem? Why is Europe’s danger our danger?

Because, my fellow Americans, we live in a world in which America and Americans are deeply engaged, commercially and politically. Thus our well-being as a nation is inextricably and irreversibly linked to what happens far beyond our borders.

Our ability to travel and do business abroad, in all corners of the globe, will suffer mightily if Russian military imperialism is left unchecked.

And of course, as we’ve seen, Putin’s attacks have extended far beyond Ukraine. He has launched cyber attacks on America and Europe and waged a war of discord and disinformation on the West. He has undermined peace, stability, and freedom worldwide.

This will not stand. We are in an economic position to stop Putin and we will.

The path ahead will not be easy and it is not without risk. But previous generations of Americans have encountered far worse and triumphed over much greater odds. With your help and with God’s blessing, we will prevail. Freedom will be restored and justice will be done.

Thank you. God bless America and God bless the people of Ukraine.

Feature photo credit: President Biden (L) and Russian dictator Vladimir Putin (R), courtesy of Al Arabiya.

Schumer’s Sham Non-Apology Makes It Imperative That the Senate Censure Him

Schumer’s Sham Non-Apology Makes It Imperative That the Senate Censure Him

By John R Guardiano on March 9, 2020

As we reported Saturday, March 7, the failure and unwillingness of institutions—churches, schools, corporations, professional societies, et al.—to maintain standards of professional conduct, and to police and disciplined their own, is a big reason institutions increasingly have lost the public’s trust and confidence, and, with that, their ability to mold the American character and shape the nation’s destiny.

Yuval Levin makes this point brilliantly in a new and important book: A Time to Build: From Family and Community to Congress and the Campus, How Recommitting to Our Institutions Can Revive the American Dream.

The Congress of the United States, unfortunately, is not immune from this problem. Witness the fact that Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) has threatened two Supreme Court justices.

For this reason, we have called upon the Senate to censure Schumer. This would be the right thing to do; and it would help to restore public trust and confidence in Congress as an institution.

Schumer’s apologists, however, say that censure is unnecessary because Schumer has apologized. In truth, though, the senator has issued a sham non-apology in which he doesn’t really own up to his condemnable offense; and this makes censure all the more imperative. Consider:

Abortion. First, after Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) rebuked Schumer, Schumer began his “apology” by castigating McConnell for a “glaring omission.” McConnell’s offense? He failed to mention that Schumer’s threats were issued within the context of a political rally motivated by an abortion rights case now pending before the Supreme Court.

But this is utterly irrelevant. Threats against Supreme Court justices do not become more legitimate or acceptable if they involve certain types of favored cases. Threats against Supreme Court justices are always and everywhere wrong. So-called context here is a diversion that Schumer is using to try and evade responsibility for his obviously egregious misconduct.

Louisiana Law. Second, Schumer falsely suggests that Court is on the verge of outlawing a so-called woman’s right to choose an abortion; and that this is accounts for his “anger” and “passion.” But this is hyperbolic nonsense.

In truth, what is at issue before the Court now is not the underlying right to abortion; but rather, whether doctors who perform abortions should be required to have hospital admitting privileges.

The state of Louisiana passed a law making this a requirement for doctors who perform abortion. The Court must decide whether this is an “undue burden” on the right to terminate a pregnancy. But even if the court found that the Louisiana law is Constitutional, abortion will remain a Constitutional right.

And what if the Court found that abortion is no longer a Constitutional right. Does that mean abortion will be ipso facto outlawed? No, as Sen. Schumer well knows.

Instead, it means that abortion policy will be decided by Congress, if it so chooses, and/or (more likely) the 50 state legislatures. Some states, such as California and New York will allow abortion at virtually any stage of a pregnancy, while other states, such as Louisiana and Alabama, will have more restrictive laws governing abortion.

In any case, the policy implications of the Court’s jurisprudence are again, utterly irrelevant. Threatening Supreme Court justices is plainly, simply, and obviously wrong. There are no exceptions to this rule because a senator feels strongly or passionately about a particular case or issue pending before the the Court.

Schumer’s huffing and puffing about abortion is a political diversion designed to try and legitimize his threats and thereby enable him to evade responsibility for his wrongdoing.

Political Diversion. Third, Schumer claimed that he wasn’t threatening violence, but instead was warning of the “political consequences” that would result were the Court to undermine abortion rights. Anyone suggesting otherwise is guilty of “a gross distortion,” he asserts. But as George Conway III observes in the Washington Post, “Schumer’s words

were unmistakably intimidating: “I want to tell you, Gorsuch.” “I want to tell you, Kavanaugh.” “You will pay the price.” “You won’t know what hit you if …” The emphasis is mine, but the meaning is clear: If you don’t do as we say, something bad will happen to you.

Those were threats, pure and simple. Although Schumer’s office was right that Schumer also spoke of a political backlash at the ballot box, that hardly leavens the threatening words Schumer directed toward Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh.

They have life tenure. Just as the Constitution’s drafters intended, elections can’t punish them. So what “price” would they “pay”? What exactly will “hit” them?

Moreover, while Schumer may have meant only that the Justices will suffer “political consequences,” some of his more deranged supporters may legitimately think otherwise, given the inherently threatening nature of his rhetoric.

Again, it was only three years ago that a Bernie Sanders supporter with a manifest hatred for Republicans nearly gunned down the entire House Republican leadership and some two dozen GOP congressmen. Schumer needs to be mindful of the effects his rhetoric might have on the lunatic left.

Chief Justice Roberts. Fourth, after the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, rightly rebuked Schumer for his threats, Schumer’s spokesman attacked Roberts for “remaining silent when President Trump attacked Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg.”

But even if Roberts had done what Schumer’s spokesman said he did—give Trump a pass—two wrongs don’t make a right.

As it turns out, though, Trump never threatened Justices Sotomayor or Ginsburg. Instead, Trump recently said that these two justices should recuse themselves in all “Trump matters” because of their alleged bias against him.

Trump’s remarks may have been, as Conway argues “dumb, baseless, and contemptuous of the rule of law; but they weren’t threatening.”

Indeed, since Trump could theoretically make a motion to recuse, and thus present the issue to the individual justices, it would have been inappropriate for Roberts to respond. And given how Trump didn’t and won’t back up his words with such a motion, his remarks didn’t deserve a response.

Beyond this, Roberts has spoken out against Trump’s demeaning of the judiciary.

In November 2018, after Trump criticized an “Obama judge” who had ruled against Trump’s administration, Roberts responded that there are no “Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges” but, instead, “an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”

(Trump, of course, immediately hit back.)

But judges, let alone the chief justice, shouldn’t have to verbally spar with politicians. It undermines the judiciary for judges to have to do that, or even to consider whether they have to.

Schumer’s concerted attempt to rationalize his threats and evade responsibility for his misconduct make it all the more imperative that Congress intervene and formally censure him.

Again, this is about institutional honor and integrity, and restoring public trust and confidence in Congress as an institution. The time to act is now.

Feature photo credit: Reuters/Leah Millis via National Review.

Does President Biden Understand What Is at Stake in Ukraine?

Does President Biden Understand What Is at Stake in Ukraine?

By John R Guardiano on March 13, 2022

His weak leadership and wishful thinking undermine America, Ukraine, and the free world.

Has America ever had a weaker, less serious, and and more reactive President at a time of war than we do now with Joe Biden at the helm?

He has been forceful and emphatic about what he does not want and will not allow—”World War III“—but fuzzy and inarticulate about American objectives in Ukraine. And, each and every step of the way he has been dragged into taking necessary action—by the Europeans (economic sanctions), the Ukrainians (military arms shipments), and the Congress (sanctions on Russian oil).

Mr. Biden is following, not leading.

Yes, this is the Russo-Ukraine war and America is a non-belligerent; however, we are not neutral. America, NATO, and the free world have a clear interest in the outcome of this conflict.

We are on the side of Ukraine; its courageous President, Volodymyr Zelensky; and the Ukrainian people. And we ought to seek to discredit and defeat the Russian dictator, Vladimir Putin.

Why? Because Putin’s Russia threatens peace and stability in Europe, the rules-based international order, and American interests worldwide. Russia is too big and too important a country to ignore. Its misrule and outlaw status cannot be abided and mustn’t stand.

Yet, Mr. Biden never really says this. Instead, he appears more fearful of provoking Russia than in deterring Russia. He appears more eager to court Putin for help with his misbegotten Iran nuclear deal than in stopping Putin’s reckless war in Ukraine.

The President was tactically wise, in the run-up to the war, to loudly announce Putin’s moves before they happened. This helped to frustrate the Russian dictator by effectively denying him any pretext for his wholly unprovoked military assault on Ukraine.

But Mr. Biden appears not to grasp the strategic significance of the Russian invasion and the need for American leadership at this critical hour of maximum danger.

Instead, he appears bothered that Ukraine is diverting him away from his cherished domestic policy agenda and the need to “build back better” with “green energy.”

Sorry, but as Richard Hass points out, an American president doesn’t get to “choose his in-box,” or the issues that historical fate thrusts upon him and the nation.

Wartime Presidential Leadership. Indeed, Lincoln did not seek or choose the Civil War and Harry Truman did not seek or choose the Cold War or the war in Korea. Yet, both Lincoln and Truman recognized that these wars could not be ignored or downplayed; they had to be confronted—and American leadership was a moral and geo-strategic imperative.

We are at a similar historical inflection point with Putin’s brazen assault on Ukraine. As Eli Lake observes:

We are living in a different world now. In the new world, Putin’s Russia is not part of the community of nations. It is a threat to the community of nations.

Consequently, the international system created after World War II must be revised. The free world is again engaged in a cold war with a country whose capital is Moscow.

⁩Mr. Lake outlines a long-term strategy to defeat Russia, as well as Russia’s ally and enabler, Xi Jinping’s China. He recommends, among other things, that the West pursue a policy of “economic separation” from both China and Russia.

“Energy independence and new supply chains are two crucial elements when it comes to protecting the free world’s economies from China and Russia,” Lake writes.

Unfortunately, energy independence is the furthest thing from Joe Biden’s mind. When he came into office he announced, essentially, a war on fossil fuels: “shutting down pipelines, denying new drilling permits and promising a renewed regulatory and tax attack on any who dare to drill.”

Predictably, this has driven up the price of oil and made America more dependent upon foreign sources of energy. Yet, Mr. Biden says that “transforming our economy to run on electric vehicles powered by clean energy… will help.”

This is a pipe dream that ignores the current political and economic realities.

Electric Vehicles. It is conceivable, though highly unlikely, that ostensibly clean electric vehicles will replace gas-driven automobiles decades from now. But in truth, the United States—as well as every other country on earth—is dependent upon fossil fuels, and this won’t change anytime soon.

Mr. Biden is in denial. Worse yet, his thinking is divorced from reality; and, as a result, he is not leading.

Mr. Biden must do better because America, Ukraine, and the free world need much better. We need a serious wartime president who understands what is at stake in Ukraine and why America must lead. Now.

Featured photo credit: Screenshot of Joe Biden speaking from video on his Facebook page.

Why America Is Right to Honor Christopher Columbus

Why America Is Right to Honor Christopher Columbus

By John R Guardiano on October 10, 2022

Leftist lies to the contrary notwithstanding, Columbus was a great explorer who heralded the Age of Discovery, the rise of Western Civilization, and the birth of America.

Columbus Day (today) is still a federal holiday. Yet, few Americans understand why we honor Christopher Columbus.

Moreover, to the extent people are familiar with the great Italian explorer, it is through the politically correct lens of modern-day progressivism, which sees Columbus as an avatar of colonialism, white supremacy, genocide, and Christian European privilege

None of this is true, of course. These are malicious lies fabricated by leftists to impugn and discredit Western Civilization, so that they can remake the West in their own radical, woke image.

Debunking Leftist Lies. In truth, as Jarrett Stepman observes, historians like Carol Delaney have debunked the leftists lies about Columbus:

Rather than cruel, Columbus was mostly benign in his interaction with native populations. While deprivations did occur, Columbus was quick to punish those under his command who committed unjust acts against local populations.

“Columbus strictly told the crew not to do things like maraud, or rape, and instead to treat the native people with respect,” Delaney said.

“There are many examples in his writings where he gave instructions to this effect. Most of the time when injustices occurred, Columbus wasn’t even there. There were terrible diseases that got communicated to the natives, but he can’t be blamed for that.”

The Age of Exploration. The truth is: we recognize and honor Columbus because he was a great explorer, who heralded what historians call the Age of Exploration or the Age of Discovery, which led, in turn, to the establishment of the new world, aka America.

As the late great historian Samuel Eliot Morison explained in one of his many magisterial works of history, Christopher Columbus: The Voyage of Discovery 1492:

Five hundred years ago an obscure Genoese mariner sailing in the service of Their Catholic Majesties, the Sovereigns of Spain, made the single greatest voyage of discovery the world has ever known.

The consequences of the First Voyage of Columbus were so momentous that even today they are difficult to grasp.

From that voyage stemmed not only a great Age of Exploration that would shortly transform other men’s understanding of the planet on which they lived, but indeed the entire history of the United States, of Canada and of all the nations of the Central and South America.

It is no wonder that October 12 is celebrated annually throughout the length and bread of the Western Hemisphere.

Samuel Eliot Morison. Morrison’s works of scholarship are highly impressive and dwarf those of any modern-day historian. The man won two Pulitzer Prizes: first for Admiral of the Ocean Sea, a 1942 biography of Columbus, and A Sailor’s Biography, a 1959 biography of John Paul Jones.

When World War II broke out, Morison, then a professor of history at Harvard, volunteered to serve for the express purpose of writing an operational history of the wartime Navy.

He was commissioned as a Lieutenant Commander in the United States Navy Reserve, called to active duty, and permitted to go where he wanted when he wanted to fulfill his mission.

Morison’s skill as a sailor who had retraced Columbus’s voyages made him conversant with ships and navigation. Consequently, he was welcomed by the operational Navy and saw combat multiple times on vessels large and small. He subsequently published a 15-volume History of the United States Naval Operations in World War II.

Clearly, if anyone is in a position to evaluate Columbus”s achievements as an explorer and a navigator—and and what these achievements mean for Western Civilization—it is Samuel Eliot Morison. Here is what he wrote about Columbus:

We are right in so honoring him, because no other sailor had the persistence, the knowledge, and the sheer guts to sail thousands of miles into the unknown ocean until he found land. This was the most spectacular and most far-reaching geographical discovery in recorded human history.

Moreover, apart from the magnitude of his achievement, Columbus was a highly interesting character. Born at the crossroads between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, he showed the qualities of both eras.

He had the firm religious faith, the a-priori reasoning and the close communion with the Unseen typical of the early Christian centuries.

Yet he also had the scientific curiosity, the zest for life, the feeling for beauty and the striving for novelty that we associate with the advancement of learning. And he was one of the greatest seamen of all time.

In short, we Americans owe a debt of gratitude to Christopher Columbus. His courage, derring-do, Christian faith, and commitment to progress and exploration gave rise to the new world and the pride of place we now call America.

Western civilization, moreover, grew, prospered and developed in large part because of his efforts and the efforts of other great explorers.

Let us hope and pray that we Americans never forget this; and that, generations from now, our posterity will continue to recognize and honor Christopher Columbus and the Age of Discovery.

Feature photo credit: Renowned historian Samuel Eliot Morison (L) and the great Italian explorer Christopher Columbus (R), courtesy of Harvard Magazine and the Knights of Columbus, respectively.

Biden, Afghanistan, and the U.S. Military

Biden, Afghanistan, and the U.S. Military

By John R Guardiano on April 25, 2021

No to ‘Forever Wars,’ but Yes to ‘Forever Forward Deployed’

“It’s time to end the forever war,” declared President Biden in his Apr. 14, 2021, announcement that he is withdrawing all U.S. military forces from Afghanistan.

No one wants to say that we should be in Afghanistan forever, but they insist now is not the right moment to leave…

So when will it be the right moment to leave? …War in Afghanistan was never meant to be a multi-generational undertaking.

Of course no sane American wants to fight a “forever war”—that is, an indeterminable conflict with no end in sight, only a mounting list of U.S. casualties. But the President is wrong when he argues that the only alternative to “endless war” is military retreat and withdrawal.

In fact, there is a third and much better option: forever forward deployed as a garrison force, in country, that works closely with our allies—in this case, the legitimately elected government of Afghanistan—to protect vital U.S. interests in the region.

This was the option strongly recommended to Mr. Biden by his own military advisers, as well as the bipartisan Afghanistan Study Group.

A small residual force of 4,500 U.S. troops, they argued, would be enough “for training, advising, and assisting Afghan defense forces; supporting allied forces; conducting counterterrorism operations; and securing our embassy.”

U.S. troops, after all, have been forward deployed in Germany, Japan, and South Korea for more than half a century. True, Afghanistan is a far cry from being remotely like any of these three countries; it remains wracked by armed conflict and civil war.

Progress. Nonetheless, with American military help, Afghanistan has made tremendous strides forward—socially, politically, economically, and militarily. U.S. casualties, meanwhile, have steadily and precipitously declined. As the New York Times’ Bret Stephens reports:

Millions of girls, whom the Taliban had forbidden to get any kind of education, went to school. Some of them—not nearly enough, but impressive considering where they started from and the challenges they faced—became doctors, entrepreneurs, members of Parliament.

“There have been no American combat deaths in Afghanistan since two soldiers were killed and six wounded on Feb. 8, 2020, in a so-called insider attack in eastern Afghanistan’s Nangarhar province,” reports the Desert News.

“The U.S.,” Stephens notes “has lost fewer than 20 service members annually in hostile engagements in Afghanistan since 2015. That’s heartbreaking for those affected, but tiny next to the number of troops who die in routine training accidents worldwide.

“Our main role in recent years,” he adds, “has been to provide Afghan forces with effective air power. It is not an exorbitant price to pay to avert an outright Taliban victory.”

Strategic Ramifications. And preventing the Taliban from winning matters for reasons that extend far beyond Afghanistan. It matters in China, Taiwan, and the South China Sea. It matters in Russia, Ukraine, Pakistan, and Iran. And it matters in North Korea, Europe, and the Middle East.

“Our enemies will test us,” warns Bing West.

After Saigon fell [in the Vietnam War], Russia and Cuba supported proxy wars in Latin America and Africa, while Iranian radicals seized our embassy in Tehran.

The Biden administration will face similar provocations. Already, China is threatening Taiwan, Russia is massing troops on the Ukraine border, and Iran is increasing its enrichment of uranium.

“The theory of deterrence relies not just on the balance of forces, but also on reserves of credibility,” Stephens explains. “Leaving Afghanistan now does next to nothing to change the former while seriously depleting the latter.”

Diplomatic Leverage. The President disparages the notion “that diplomacy cannot succeed without a robust U.S. military presence to stand as leverage.” Yet, he offers no evidence to refute this commonsensical and well-proven truth.

Instead, he blithely asserts:

We gave that argument a decade. It’s never proved effective—not when we had 98,000 troops in Afghanistan, and not when we were down to a few thousand.

But the failure to win in Afghanistan is a reflection of an intractable war in an antiquated tribal society; it is not an indictment of the necessary nexus between military and diplomatic power.

Recognizing that the U.S. military has failed to achieve victory in two decades of conflict and likely will never achieve victory in the classic sense does not mean that we must reject wholesale the use of military power in Afghanistan.

This is a colossal blunder and unforced error by Mr. Biden.

The President compounds his error by arguing that “our diplomacy does not hinge on having boots in harm’s way—U.S. boots on the ground. We have to change that thinking.”

In fact, we need to understand that a forward-deployed U.S. military presence overseas is a stabilizing force for the good and a critical component of American diplomacy.

False Choice. The bottom line: the choice between so-called endless war and abject withdrawal and retreat is a false choice. We do not have to accept either of these two badly mistaken and extreme options.

Instead, we should choose to be forever forward-deployed militarily in small but strategically significant numbers to protect our interests and put America First. The President’s failure to do so in Afghanistan jeopardizes our national security.

Feature photo credit: President Biden announces that he is withdrawing all U.S. military forces from Afghanistan by Sept. 11, 2021, courtesy of ABC News.