Trump staying out of Libya!

For more information, see here:


https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/2017/04/20/trump-no-role-for-u-s-in-libya-but-will-fight-isis-in-iraq-or-libya-or-anywhere-else/


It looks like Trump is keeping to his campaign promise of getting America out of the "nation-building business," and staying out of Libya!

This is fantastic news. When pressed by the Italian Prime Minister, Trump stated that America had "enough responsibilities" without adding Libya to the list. He also stated that he hoped he would be able to focus on domestic US policy once ISIS was defeated.

It is not only fantastic because it is great policy - it is policy I predicted in earlier posts, such as my post, "why American allies can expect no help from Libya."

http://jwaveruspolitics.blogspot.com.au/2017/01/why-american-allies-can-expect-no-help.html

It also signals that while Trump is going to talk the talk with regards to Bashar Al-Assad, there is every possibility that he won't walk the walk and militarily push for the removal of Assad. If his focus really is on ISIS in Syria and then return to American domestic policy, then Trump is likely to leave Assad in power without a military confrontation.

Trump's Middle-East: an April Update

Trump's Middle-East is continuing to take shape.

An unprecedented airstrike in Syria; deteriorated Russian-US relations; "Mother of All Bombs in Afghanistan"; the Yemen Question still unanswered.

There's a lot to talk about.

First, the unprecedented airstrike in Syria was unexpected, unpredictable and won Trump enormous support from long-time allies such as Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, while damaging relations with Russia. But while it represents a shift in strategy, the priority for the US remains the destruction of ISIS in Syria and, consequently, Trump will be forced to strengthen the ruling Assad Government.

However, I doubt - highly - that Rex Tillerson, the American Secretary of State, will succeed in ousting Bashar Al-Assad from Syria, either through negotiations with Russia or through military conflict. The US' military has no appetite for world war 3 with Russia over Syria, nor for supporting Syrian rebels, so should Russians say, "Assad will stay," there would be little America would do, save protest and add sanctions to Syria and to Russia.

Plus, Russia has suffered a string of humiliations: Ukraine and Libya are chief among them from the Obama years. Keeping Assad in power would be Russia putting dirt in America's eye for humiliating them and declining their influence. And Trump - with his military behind him - would be unwilling to wage war over Syria.

The unleashed "Mother of All Bombs" in Afghanistan serves as another lesson of unpredictability from the Trump Administration. Apparently the operation was against an ISIS network of tunnels and was successful, killing dozens of militants and no civilians. This serves to tell the American people: the Afghan war will grind on - certainly to defeat ISIS.

But it is likely that Trump will want to win the Afghan War - against the Taliban - during his Presidency. It has been going for over 15 years - if Trump wins the Afghan War, then that will go down in his legacy. I sincerely believe he will escalate the Afghan conflict to enable it to reach its conclusion before engaging in either Libya or Yemen.

Like Obama, Trump has shown reluctance to get involved in Libya. There is simply not enough there for them. Russia has taken the opportunity to fill the void, and Trump has been silent, largely because he - silently - supports Russian intervention there.

The reason for this is that the Egyptian President, Abdul Feteh es-Sisi, is a staunch ally of Haftar Al-Khalifa, the Libyan strongman who Russia supports. If Trump went against Russia, it would be against Haftar Al-Khalida and against Egypt - a cold shoulder from Trump as he received from Obama, which Trump does not want for Egypt.

Truly, Trump has struck an ingenious chord by bombing Syria: it blows the "Russian-supported Trump" narrative out of the water, yet also lets Russia do what they like in Libya without blow back from the US, because the west is too busy saber-rattling over Syria!

In Yemen, the question of increased military intervention is still unanswered. Will Trump escalate against the Houthi rebels? Should he do it, it would be the biggest error of his presidency thus far. As I have detailed in other posts, the northern Yemeni tribes allied to the Houthis would sooner ally to Al-Qaeda than to President Hadi. Trump would be strengthening Al-Qaeda by escalating the war against the Houthis.

In Iraq, things are looking like they are heading in the right direction. Mosul is close to completely liberated - the trick for Trump will be stabilizing Iraq, which is probably Trump's most difficult Middle-East challenge. But I have no complaints about Trump's intention to stay in Iraq indefinitely, as that will encourage him to leave other conflicts alone at a faster rate - like Syria, Yemen and Libya - and encourage Trump to win the Afghan War.

Such is Trump's Middle-East thus far. Time will tell where it will end up.

The Yemen Question

Unlike Obama, Trump has escalated the conflict in Yemen against Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. The real question is, will Trump escalate the war to include against the Houthis in Hodeida?

No. I do not believe he will. And if he does, Trump will not bring an end to the wars of the Middle-East. His decision in regards to the Houthis, therefore, is a critical one. If he escalates the war, he will show that he is a war-monger. If he does not escalate the war, he will show the American people that he wants America out of the endless cycle of wars and he will be practically guaranteed a second Presidential term.

The question therein lies: how can Trump defeat Iran without engaging in a costly proxy war in Yemen? The answer is two-fold: Iraq and Afghanistan.

I do believe it to be far more likely that Trump will continue the Afghan War than escalate the Yemen War. Should Trump strengthen Afghanistan as a sovereign, independent country, it would certainly act as a bulwark on Iranian influence as Saddam Hussein's Iraq used to. Afghanistan has enormous economic potential - should that be unleashed, Afghanistan could become a dominant power in the Middle-East, and that to limit Iranian influence.

On the other hand, withdrawal from Afghanistan would guarantee that tensions between the Taliban and Iran would be exacerbated, and this could spill over into all-out conflict, resulting in the annexation of Afghanistan to Iran. That would be detrimental to the region and to American interest.

As for Iraq, this will be discussed in more detail in another post. Suffice to say there is considerable difference between the Shi'ites in Iraq and those in Iran, though both adhere to twelver Shi'ism. Should the Iraq brand of Shi'ism be funded to the exclusion of Iranian Shi'ism, not only in Iraq but in the Gulf, Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen, then Iran's influence would be greatly reduced.

Trump is unlikely to see Yemen as pressing an issue as ISIS in Iraq and Syria, or as the Taliban is in Afghanistan. I was right about Iran - am I right about Yemen? Time will tell.

Trump's Middle-East - March Update

How does Trump's foreign policy look 2 months since his inauguration?

Clearly, a lot is happening in the Middle-East, and a lot of it is related to Trump's action and inaction. In Syria, the battle against ISIS is clearly defined and not sidetracked by a war on the Syrian Government, as it was under Obama. In Iraq, Trump is capitalizing on Obama's success in his 'degrade, defeat and destroy ISIL' campaign, escalating the battle for Mosul and meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi.

In Iraq, Trump is set to stay in the country to make sure on the one hand, that the ISIS threat does not return, and on the other, make sure Iranian influence is quelled within the country. Destroying Iranian influence in Iraq can be done - all Iraq and America need to do is:

1) embrace Iraqi nationalism, and
2) fund Iraqi Shi'ism extensively

Embracing Iraqi nationalism is something which can only be done with a strong economy, government and army. Trump seems to be entirely aware of these in Iraq, with a focus on trying to give Iraqi Sunnis more power in the government, wanting to increase oil exports and increase counter-terrorism intelligence.

On the other hand, there is a big difference between Iraqi and Iranian Shi'ism. If Trump were to encourage funding of Iraqi Shi'ism to spread to other Shi'ite areas, such as Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, the Gulf states and even Iran, Iranian influence in the region would drastically recede. This would benefit the Middle-East enormously and would be one powerful way for Trump to use smart tactics to decrease Iran's appeal.

In Syria, Trump's target to 'degrade, defeat and destroy ISIS' seems set to work, and this primarily because he has dropped Obama's policy of "Assad must go." Trump withdrawing support for the Syrian rebels has allowed Assad to focus on uprooting ISIS from Syria. Assad has launched an incredibly powerful campaign against ISIS in the Aleppo countryside; Syrian Government sights are now set on the oil fields in Homs and Deir Ez-Zor, with the ultimate target the besieged Deir Ez-Zor city. Should Assad liberate all of this territory, Syria will remain a whole country and not fragment.

Trump's use of the Syrian Kurds in Raqqa does cause concern for Turkey, but is an appropriate middle ground between the Syrian Government and American forces. After the destruction of ISIS from Syria, America is very likely to withdraw and let Russia negotiate a deal between the Syrian Government and their Kurdish counterparts.

Trump's inaction in Afghanistan is actually related to his accelerated action in Syria. Trump realizes that America can only do so much at once - he seems set to end the campaign in Syria before focusing on Afghanistan, and until then only providing military necessity for Afghanistan.

While short-term this will infuriate the Afghan government, long-term it stands to benefit both America and Afghanistan. When the campaign in Syria is dealt with and America has withdrawn, the Trump Administration will put focus on and give a high level of attention to finishing the war in Afghanistan, including through strong-man politics, Afghan border security, tougher stance on the Taliban, increased trade between Afghanistan and America, and, for Afghan stability, increased tri-relations between Afghanistan, America and India. To quell Iranian influence, rather than pursuing regime change in Syria, Trump is likely to pursue a strong, stable Sunni ally in Afghanistan.

In Libya, Trump is leaving it alone, letting Europe and Russia sort out their differences there, which is likely to end with Haftar Al-Khalifa gaining more Russian support in battling for control of the entire country. Europe is unlikely to provide a better alternative, meaning Libya will stabilize with Haftar, backed by Russia and Egypt, without Trump having to lift a finger.

By far Trump's greatest foreign policy challenge is Saudi Arabia's war on Yemen. Currently the Trump Administration is reviewing their strategy in Yemen and considering escalating the war in Yemen against the Houthis to quell Iranian influence there.

Should Trump see the treasure of Iraqi Shi'ism for what it is, I do not think he will support military intervention against the Houthis in Yemen. It is better for America - by far - if Saudi Arabia and her coalition fight this Yemen War on their own, while the Trump Administration targets Al-Qaeda extensively, as they have been doing since taking office. Meanwhile, should the Houthis gain control of the entirety of Yemen - which is the likely outcome of such a war should America not intervene - Iraqi Shi'ism could be funded there to decrease the Iranian influence in Yemen.

Should Trump decide not to intervene against the Houthis in Yemen, he shall truly be able to get America out of the endless cycle of wars. Should Trump allow Russia to control Libya, this will help Russian-American relations considerably. Should Trump withdraw from Syria after defeating ISIS, this will increase his appeal in America.

Should Trump win the Afghan and Iraq Wars, he will go down in history as one of America's great Presidents.

the Afghanistan question

Trump is currently assessing whether or not to send more troops to Afghanistan in an attempt to break the stalemate that has been hanging over the country, between government forces and the Taliban.

Unlike Obama, Trump will soon have his own vision for Afghanistan, one that he will likely convince the American people is entirely necessary.

Afghanistan is an incredibly important ally in the war on terror - before Haider Al-Abadi became Prime Minister of Iraq, Afghanistan was probably America's most important regional ally in the war on terror. What Trump needs to convince the American people is that America will not be in Afghanistan forever, there is a vision and there is the possibility of victory.

As Trump well knows, the only way to get the Middle-East stable at this critical juncture is for dictators to return to the region. His views on Syria have guaranteed Bashar Al-Assad, the strongman of Damascus, will remain in power and stabilize the country. His views on Russia give an increasing likelihood for Haftar Al-Khalifa, a strongman in Libya, to control the entire country.

Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan is a better place to start for allowing a strongman to gain control. If the Trump Administration can force Ashraf Ghani to have a dictatorship dedicated to him in Afghanistan, there is a real chance that the country will have something to fight for against the Taliban.

The other thing which needs dealing with is the Afghani-Pakistani border. If Trump can direct American resources to bombing the Taliban as it moves from Pakistan into Afghanistan, the threat will become much smaller.

The wild card in this fight is NATO. Trump could ask NATO allies to contribute more substantially to the war effort in Afghanistan to offset enormous American expenditure there. This would be a win for Trump on both NATO and the Afghan War.

One thing that is for sure: if things continue as they did under Obama, Afghanistan will be America's next Vietnam War.

Trump's attitude to Iraq and Syria kindles hope

Trump is showing the marks of a great leader of the world in foreign policy.

There are sizable changes occurring in the battle against ISIS in Syria and Iraq. In Syria, Syrian Kurds are being given more prominence by the Trump Administration in defeating ISIS, yet are also giving territory back to Bashar Al-Assad to protect themselves from Turkey. The Trump Administration's analysis that the Syrian Kurds are the better middle ground between Assad and America is spot-on.

America is also assisting the Syrian Government - via airstrikes - in retaking territory from ISIS. This occurred in Palmyra, which was lost after Obama had a hissy-fit about Assad regaining Aleppo, refusing to target ISIS returning to Palmyra. It is not too hard to see that Assad, with the help of Russian and American airstrikes, will soon be pushing east towards the embattled Deir Ez-Zor city, a city under siege by ISIS for the past 2 years, which is in desperate need of liberation.

Keeping Turkish involvement to a minimum means that Syria will be less complex by the conclusion of the Syrian War. It will mean that nearly all previous Syrian territory held by Turkey - as well as all Syrian Arab territory currently held by the Kurds - will be handed back to Bashar Al-Assad, with the reward to the Kurds being semi-autonomy.

In Iraq, a mainly Sunni Arab offensive is about to get underway against the ISIS stronghold of Hawija, one of ISIS' last strongholds in the country. This shows a willingness on the side of the Abadi government to give Sunni Arabs more prominence in military and political matters, which is a great sign that tensions between Sunni and Shi'ite Iraqi Arabs will be defused. It's not too hard to see that this was probably encouraged by the Trump Administration.

Trump also removed Iraq from the revised travel ban, which in the words of the spokesperson for the Iraqi foreign minister,

“emboldens the strategic alliance between Baghdad and Washington in several fields, most importantly countering terrorism.”

This is terrific news. Trump has stuck to his promise of offering Iraq strong and firm support, while not alienating Iraq into becoming more of a puppet state of Iran.

With Iraq set to get Mosul, Hawija and western Anbar province from ISIS' filthy hands, there are still enormous challenges ahead for the country. Unlike Syria, which has a strong government which will stabilize the country, much of Iraq is still in chaos. Sadly, an Arab-Kurdish war may begin shortly after Iraq is liberated from ISIS' grip.

Trump is likely to remain neutral in such a fight, as a smaller Iraq (the likely outcome of the war) stands to weaken Iran's influence in the region. On the one hand, the Kurdish region of Iraq would have complete independence from Baghdad. On the other hand, losing Kurdistan would force the remnants of Iraq - the Sunni and Shi'ite Arab regions - to come together in unity behind a stronger government, to prevent Iraq from fracturing further.

Whether Trump will flood Iraq with more American boots on the ground as before is unclear. What is clear is that both Iraq and Syria have more hope ahead of them than since the beginning of the Syrian Civil War and withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

Trump's new plan for defeating ISIS

What will Trump do to defeat ISIS?

Trump has stated that he would give the military 30 days for constructing a new, more effective plan to completely degrade, defeat and destroy ISIS. While Obama's ISIS plan has worked in Iraq, in Syria it has left the country worse off than ever, forcing Russia to step in to save the Syrian Government in 2015.

Trump is expected to be handed that plan today. I would like to make some predictions, then I will release another post to confirm whether I was on target or not:

1) In Iraq, Obama's strategy will be implemented, only on a grander scale. Iraqi forces will receive enormous amounts of air power to drive ISIS out of western Mosul, Hawija and western Anbar province. Obama's strategy has largely worked - Trump is unlikely to undo it, only add to it.

2) In Syria, Trump will work with Turkey against common objectives. Trump will not fund the Kurds inasmuch as he will work with the Turkish military. He will use the Turkish military to push through ISIS-held territory, preventing the Kurds from advancing any further onto Raqqa or anywhere else. From the Syrian territory held by Turkey, safe zones will be implemented.

However, by that same token, Trump will not allow the Turks to take any of the Syrian Kurdish territory from them. Trump will force Turkey to target ISIS territory, not Kurdish territory, but do so to prevent the Kurds from gaining any more territory. This middle ground strategy would mean that neither side is fully satisfied, benefiting Trump diplomatically.

3) Trump will work for airstrikes with Russia. One of Trump's hopes is that the burden of obliterating ISIS will fall not only on the back of the US, but also on the back of the Russians. Turkey and Russia have already been doing joint airstrikes against ISIS; it would not be hard militarily for America to follow Turkey's example under Trump - though, diplomatically, it would be a nightmare.

4) Trump will put pressure on Bashar Al-Assad to fight ISIS first and save the rebels in Idlib for later. Trump wants to use Assad as a battering ram on ISIS (which is interesting, because Obama did the exact opposite: he used ISIS as a battering ram on Assad from 2014 - 2016!)

Trump wants Assad's first priority on the complete and utter destruction of ISIS before defeating the other rebels in Syria. With Russian and Turkish pressure for the same, and with Assad controlling Aleppo, it is not hard to see that Assad would swing his army east rather than north-west.


Time will tell how close to the mark I was.