Why President Trump is not a war President

Though many of President Trump's political enemies would love him to be painted in such a light, President Trump has shown curious restraint that many other candidates of the 2016 election - both Republican and Democrat - would not have.

The most famous - and frightening - call for war from Presidential candidates of 2016 was for an invasion of Syria against the Russians, to establish a no-fly-zone - something Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Lindsey Graham and Hillary Clinton all pushed for in their foreign policy. President Trump, while bombing Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib, Syria, did so as a stunt against North Korea and to keep his foreign policy looking unpredictable.

Nor is it likely that President Trump will go to war with North Korea. Intense diplomatic pressure has been put on North Korea, China and Russia to deal with the threat Pyongyang represents to the region by seeking to acquire nuclear missiles. Contrary to Media narrative, the diplomatic pressure has been highly successful, and President Trump has been able to avoid war on the Korean peninsula while crippling the regime with harsher and harsher sanctions.

With the exception of the war on ISIL, Afghanistan is about the only war President Trump has committed to. This is in line with President Trump's "America First" foreign policy, as a stable Afghanistan not only denies terror safe havens for Al-Qaeda, ISIL and the Taliban - US presence in is also strengthens bilateral relations with India against the growing influence of China, as well as curbs Pakistan's dangerous moves in support of the Taliban.

President Trump seems highly uninterested in starting a war - whether it be against Syria and Russia, North Korea, or even Iran or Pakistan. Trump is more interested in finishing wars - that is, cleaning up the mess left behind by both the Bush and Obama Administrations, namely in Iraq and Afghanistan, and using such nations as platforms from which to shine the hope of democracy into the Middle-East and Asia.

It is such a shock to the world that a US president who acts as Donald Trump does would be more interested in peace than either of his predecessors. But that is the reality: President Trump is interested in stabilizing both Iraq and Afghanistan, followed by turning US focus back home, to make America Great Again and restore the US' reputation globally.

US-Russian reproach to follow Pakistan debacle?

The US needs a stable route into Afghanistan.

More important for the US than economic security for their mission in Afghanistan - which is what Pakistan has provided for the US over the last 16 years - is regional security. Pakistan has continued to show that it is unwilling to give up on its dangerous foreign policy, which allows US troops to use Pakistan as a base while also funding the very Taliban the US are trying to destroy.

Should Pakistani-US relations continue to sour - as seems highly likely under the Trump Administration - the US will be forced to use the more expensive Central Asia route. The route through Central Asia forces the US to deal with its strained relations with Moscow, for to have access to Central Asia requires Russian approval.

The US would likely be able to reach common ground on Afghanistan with the Kremlin, as Moscow is in no position currently to tackle the jihad threat in that region, but thorny issues like Ukraine and Syria present a difficulty for the two world powers. One sure way to ease tensions between Washington and Moscow would be for the Trump Administration to tacitly approve the political process in Syria, allow Bashar Al-Assad to stay in power and stop the rhetoric of regime change.

Such thawing of Russian-US relations also has the potential to drive a wedge between Russia and China, as Russia is far more concerned about the rising terror threat in the region than its counterpart in Beijing. China sees Pakistan and its foreign policy as advantageous to holding back India and gaining leverage over mineral reserves in Afghanistan. Though Russia has also been eying those mineral reserves, the Kremlin is aware that mineral monopoly is not worth risking instability and terrorism for the Russian Federation.

Given President Trump's long held view that he would get along well with President Putin, it is time for a thawing of relations between the two world powers regarding Afghanistan. Otherwise the US will be unable to achieve the results it desires for Afghanistan and the South Asia region.

Trump's Afghanistan Strategy is an Asia Strategy

In late August President Donald Trump recommitted US forces to Afghanistan, to defeat the Taliban and to help the US achieve military victory there as part of his South Asia strategy. But President Trump's strategy represents more than victory over the Taliban, and has implications even larger than just South Asia. President Trump's strategy in Afghanistan is an integral part of a successful US pivot towards Asia.

President Trump is using his strategy in Afghanistan to reshape US alliances in Asia. In President Trump's speech, rhetoric against Pakistan was made harsher and an invitation was extended for India to invest more fully in Afghanistan. The US has calculated that in Asia, India is an essential long-term ally and will thus receive the lion's share of benefits from Afghanistan at the expense of Pakistan. The US is turning the Afghan War into a proxy war between India and Pakistan, a proxy war that India is likely to invest in victory for.

As a result of this policy, US-Pakistani relations are deteriorating. This gives India the reassurance they need that they will be a highly prized US ally and will be able to commit long-term to the US over other geopolitical contenders, such as Russia. Pakistan, on the other hand, will be forced to rely more exclusively on China and Russia and, given Pakistani links to terrorism, Pakistan will taint Russian and Chinese reputations in Asia.

The geopolitical calculation of the Trump Administration is that together, the US and India are a powerhouse which can match growing Chinese influence. Victory in Afghanistan would see an enormous economic boost for India and the US, and would allow both countries to rely less on China for unearthing rare minerals. Estimates put the minerals in Afghanistan as worth trillions of dollars, and securing those resources with a government in Afghanistan friendly to India and the US would mean that India and the US would compete with China in the minerals' monopoly.

The South Asia strategy, together with harsher measures on North Korea and more open US-Taiwanese relations, sees a US that is pivoting away from quagmires in the Middle-East and towards Asia. In a stronger Indian-US alliance cemented in Afghanistan, China is finally faced with a worthy adversary.

Trump to ignite proxy war with China in Afghanistan

In the Presidential campaign, Donald Trump promised to be harsher on China. Today, President Trump's actions are beginning to match his campaign rhetoric.

More US pressure has been exerted on China from a number of fronts. First of these is North Korea, with President Trump pushing for President Xi Jinping to reel in its unstable neighbor. As well as this is increased relations between Taiwan and the US, largely unnoticed in the American media.

But perhaps the most serious challenge to China is President Trump's ambition to continue the Afghan War. The US has long backed the Afghan government, previously headed by President Hameed Kharzai and now headed by President Ashraf Ghani. China, on the other hand, backs Pakistan who, in turn, back the Taliban. And Al-Qaeda leader, Ayman Az-Zawahiri, pledges allegiance to the Taliban leader.

Trump's aim is to expose Chinese tacit support of terrorism in Afghanistan. China is a staunch ally of Pakistan, and Pakistan arms and gives safe haven to the Taliban. For Trump, exposing Chinese support for the Taliban would allow the US to monopolize on the minerals which lie at the heart of Afghanistan.

Over the last 15 years, US has been unable to win either Afghanistan or Iraq, and has also accrued enormous levels of debt. The Iraq War decreased support for America globally and distracted the US from the Afghan War. George W. Bush also increased government spending while increasing tax breaks for American workers, resulting in a 5.8 trillion dollar increase to the US national debt.

Under President Obama, relations between select allies was strained by several contradictory policies, such as support for the Arab Spring, the overthrow of Qaddafi, support to Syrian rebels and the Iran nuclear deal. Obama policies on Afghanistan and Iraq allowed the Taliban to resurge and ISIS to proclaim a Caliphate. And under Obama, the debt soared to even greater heights, an addition of a staggering 11 trillion dollars.

For Donald Trump, Afghanistan is more than just a terror safe haven needing to be eradicated. US influence internationally is waning; Chinese and Russian influence is growing. One way to sustain US influence internationally is by monopolizing on the minerals in Afghanistan, of which some estimates conclude are up to 3 trillion dollars in worth. But should the US fail to win the war, China would have total dominion over all major mineral reserves, and the US' status as a superpower may be challenged as never before.

For US strategy in Afghanistan, there are worrying signs from key members of President Trump's staff. Rex Tillerson, the Secretary of State, has stated that the US may not win on the battlefield, but neither will the Taliban, undermining Trump's rhetoric of winning in Afghanistan, and Trump's suggestion that the Taliban may not even want to negotiate. Both Tillerson and General Nicholson have stated they wish to push the Taliban to the negotiating table, a flawed strategy and counter to Trump's own Afghan policy speech.

In Afghanistan, President Trump wants to defeat the Taliban - and, by extension, Pakistan and China - which is why he has brought India into the forefront. India, like China, is an emerging superpower. Letting India have more influence in Afghanistan is more likely to achieve a lasting victory.

Since the Iraq War, the US has been unable to score many lasting victories in their foreign policy. Should the US lose the Afghan War, it would add to their long list of military disasters which have transpired over the last 14 years.

Trump laments failures in Afghanistan

According to a report by NBC news, Trump has been unwilling to sign off the new Afghanistan strategy because it does not represent a sizable enough shift from the Bush-Obama era:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-says-u-s-losing-afghan-war-tense-meeting-generals-n789006

He lamented bitterly, complaining that though US troops were fighting and dying there, China was making the most profit out of the conflict, while Trump continually called for the firing of General John Nicholson, in charge of the war in Afghanistan. He also complained about the use of NATO and the incompetency of the generals to win the war after 16 years. Amusingly, he compared the generals' strategies to a business proposal in a failing New York restaurant, and said that the veterans of the Afghan war had given him more sound advice than the generals had.

Trump is right to be critical of US policy in Afghanistan. Obama's strategy has been rightly called wanting to 'not lose the war' and including absurd policies like announcing surges and withdrawals simultaneously. At its height, 100,000 troops were in Afghanistan under Obama, but due to announcing their withdrawal at the same time, the Taliban just hid and waited them out. The only positive which happened under Obama in Afghanistan was the killing of Bin Laden in neighboring Pakistan.

Bush's strategy on Afghanistan was one of negligence. The first two years of war showed remarkable success against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, but this was all wasted by the Iraq War, which saw Afghanistan fall into the background. With ISIS almost defeated in Iraq and Syria, Trump will likely do the opposite: Iraq will fall to the background and Afghanistan will be brought to the foreground.

Trump's own ideas behind Afghanistan are remarkable. His ideas include taking control of the mineral reserves which bankroll the Taliban - while this would likely require a significant troop surge, the goal of securing the mineral reserves offers something tangible to both Afghan and US troops: economics.

What is paramount is that Trump needs to make a decision soon. Morale among Afghan troops is waning, the Taliban continues to win the war, and many Afghan war veterans are worried that their sacrifice will be in vain. Winning the Afghan War is crucial for stability in the Middle-East and for Trump's own credibility. Trump cannot afford another Vietnam.

Why a US-Russian conflict over Syria is unlikely

Trump has used military force against Bashar Al-Assad after the alleged chemical attack in Khan Sheikhoun. And this is the basis from which to expect the US will not go to war with Russia over Syria.

When Trump struck the Syrian Government before - the US' first use of military on the Syrian Government in the entirety of the civil war - Russia responded by suspending the cooperation line between the US and Russia, which had been established months after Russia entered the conflict. The US, in turn, decided to send drones to bomb ISIS in north-western Syria, to avoid planes being shot down by Russian military. Eventually the crisis was resolved and the cooperation line restored.

More recently, the US has struck Iranian allies in Syria which encroached too close to US-backed forces, both the Free Syrian Army in the south of the country and the mainly Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces. The US also shot down a Syrian aircraft, the first time the US shot down one such as this in the entirety of the Syrian Civil War.

Russia has, once again, suspended the cooperation line between the US and Russia. Even more drastic has been the Russian threat to shoot down any US aircraft found west of the Euphrates river - the city of Raqqa, thankfully, sits to the east of the Euphrates.

This recent rise in tensions has been compared to the Cuban Missile Crisis, the closest time then USSR and the United States reached a state of nuclear war. And experts fear that a large conflict may result from this rising of tensions in Syria.

But it is unlikely that the US will allow itself to be drawn into a conflict against Russia in Syria. The reason should be obvious: the best time to strike Russian and Syrian military forces was after Khan Sheikhoun, when Trump had the element of surprise.

Because Trump only struck the air base and not the Damascus palace, it is clear that Trump policy is not directed against regime change in Syria. It should be more obvious given Trump's statement after striking the Syrian airbase: "we are not going into Syria."

To be fair, the US will be directing future policy against Iranian influence in the Middle-East - but Syria is not the country at the forefront of Trump policy against Iran. The countries to be targeted by the Trump Administration to decrease Iranian influence include Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen, and perhaps the Kurds in Syria as well.

But unlikely - very unlikely - that Trump will use military force against Russia and Syria to oust Bashar Al-Assad.

Why Afghanistan is key to containing Iran

For more information:
https://www.dawn.com/news/1339411
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/trump-afghanistan-mineral-reserves-235962


In Trump's search for containing Iran, one of the most viable options is Afghanistan.

In the campaign Trump talked about how the Iraq War knocked out a "block" in the Middle-East spheres of influence. A country with traditionally Sunni and secular leadership, Saddam Hussein under the Ba'ath party, was knocked out and replaced with Iranian dominance stretching from Tehran to Beirut unabated.

Now the areas in which Iranian dominance can be countered are scarcer. In Syria and Yemen, the two countries in which Saudi Arabia is waging proxy wars, the conflicts are unlikely to produce the results necessary to beat back Iran. Both sides chosen by Saudi Arabia - the Syrian rebels and the Hadi government - are exceedingly unpopular with the people of each nation and these proxy wars are, subsequently, doomed to fail.

As for Iraq, well, nobody is interested in regime change there to counter Iranian influence.

Afghanistan, however, has a small Shi'ite population and has enormous economic potential. Instead of engaging in proxy wars in Yemen or Syria, which destabilize the region, a US focus to strengthen Afghanistan against Iran would mean that a new "block" would emerge in Iraq's place.

The Trump Administration has even suggested that they will do such a thing. Jim Mattis, the Secretary of Defense, has suggested that the Afghan policy will be comprehensive and will include a regional approach, focusing on India, Pakistan, the whole South Asian area and "especially Iran." This suggests that the Afghan policy will include making sure that the government in Kabul has no reproachment with Iran and acts as a bulwark against growing Iranian influence.

However, such stabilizaton of Afghanistan would be insufficient to completely counter Iranian dominance in the Middle-East, but it would be a key starting point. Other options include making Iraq more neutral in the Sunni-Shi'ite proxy wars, increased relations between an anti-Iranian Afghanistan and Iraq and between Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

In any case, an anti-Iran Afghanistan would give many in Washington a renewed desire to pursue stability in Afghanistan. It would certainly go ways to containing Iranian influence and stop their meddling.