The Most Important Decision by President Trump to Date

Source: The New York Times

More than a year ago, I had written how important it was for a Republican to win this election. There was only one reason behind it. The foreign and military policies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course, I did not want someone like Donald Trump to make it to the top.

Even though there are plenty of sane Democrats on that subject around as well and Hillary Clinton could easily be one of them. However, since the charismatic victory of President Barack Obama, elected with a massive anti-war mandate, and the pressure from Bernie Sanders progressives, who knew what direction policy would have taken. After President Obama turning the direction of the hands-on American Empire created by the Bush family and growing threats from China and Russia, American influence is only likely to fall in the coming years.

There has been plenty of areas where Trump has displayed how out of touch he is with American people, as well as how inappropriate his response could be to certain tragedies such as the Charlottesville rally. However, in foreign policy, he stuck to the conventional military wisdom of the Republican leadership.

Sure, he has deviated from the intellectualism of furthering the American Empire that has been the legacy of Bush 41 and Bush 43. This solidifies the notion that President Trump is a part of the same sentiment that got President Obama elected, as different both of them may be to each other. But where both agree is that America should not have invested heavily in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and that America should not be nation-building, a Bush era policy widely condemned as neo-colonialism.

But when I indeed wrote about a Republican winning, the precise person that I had in mind was Jeb Bush. Because he would have continued where Bush 41 and Bush 43 left office. While the execution of the military campaigns was flawed, even criminal, under Bush 43, you could say the intention and idea behind it were noble and well-meaning. But then again, you could not possibly ignore factors like business interests affiliated with the military industrial complex. And then there was all the corruption in the Bush 43 administration.

Of course, lacking in detail, but this speech by President Trump is greatly symbolic. And one that even his nemesis in Senate, Senator John McCain would be proud of, as such a policy speech means that the hard work of the latter has been paid off. At least there is assurance that Afghanistan is not going to prove another Vietnam as the enemies and critics of America so frequently like to quote.

President Trump not only reassured that America is going to maintain its presence in Afghanistan, at least there will be no “hasty withdrawals” as in the case of Iraq, he also addressed irresponsible allies. While Pakistanis have been complaining about his tough talk pushing Pakistan to do more, nobody focused that he also pressed India to play its due contribution. Because like China, you would always find India conveniently shunning its due international affairs responsibilities from the war on terror to relations with Iran. Such brutal clarity from American leadership was much needed after eight years of intellectual ambiguity from President Obama.

It is hard to tell what the future holds for the free world in problem areas such as Afghanistan. However, at least the direction has been set right.

Nevertheless, let us not be too excited to proclaim this as a sign of furthering the American Empire.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————

The Expectations from President Donald Trump

Source: abc.com

Source: abc.com

A few months ago when the Republican primaries started, I wrote that a Republican presidency was the best possible road for the situation in Iraq and Syria. The suggestion was more for a traditional Republican. Even though I did anticipate a Donald Trump presidency right from the start, it was never something that thrilled me. Of course, a conventional Republican such as Jeb Bush or John Kasich would have been a far better choice of leadership in these difficult and almost apocalyptic times in the Middle East.

While apparently handing the complete legislative control to the Republican Party, the American people seem to have reversed the effect in 2008 that made Obamacare possible, things matter more on the foreign front. On the issue of terrorism, President Trump overwhelmingly beat Secretary Clinton, and even had an edge over her on economy and immigration, embarrassingly.

Considering the situation in Iraq and Syria, President Obama’s sheer disregard of the crisis is an abomination and a moral disgrace. With the monotone narrative in the Democratic Party, there is no hope of finding a viable alternative there. Ironically, a President Hillary Clinton would by far have been the most sensible voice in a party with increasingly isolationist tendencies pertaining to Iraq and Syria.

Trump’s main litmus test is going to be economic, of course. One of his greatest campaign promises, and one of his greatest hurdles to pursue an aggressive military policy, and he is expected to hesitate unlike Bush 41 and 43. You cannot claim to know Donald Trump or what he believes in except his love for himself, but you can estimate that when it comes down to it, he is going to be more cautious than you would expect. Contrary to the image of a monster that has been constructed by media in the last quarter or so.

What is important to consider is that Trump’s electorate has not voted for him to take America to another war, even though that may be the need of the hour. President Trump has been elected to improve America’s economic growth, to add jobs, for protecting American traders from the risks of globalization, and to bring manufacturing factories back to the United States.

But if only the economy were the only hurdle in the way of a more responsible foreign and military American policy in Iraq and Syria. With the Russian President Vladimir Putin and Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad immediately reaching out, the signs for the future are not healthy indeed at all.

Besides, Donald Trump is hardly a traditional Republican conservative. His populist platform and trade protectionism are the residue of his past in the left, with perhaps the issue of abortion being the only one on which he may have appeared to evolve as a conservative. Who knows?

But he is not exactly a Rockefeller Republican either and probably you cannot expect him to respect free trade agreements. The outlook on his domestic policy is scary and his calls for registering Muslims sounds highly inappropriate. He is also likely to block more Syrian refugees from entering. However, it would be difficult to argue that he is not merely following up on his mandate anyway.

While the liberals of the world are mourning the loss of Hillary Clinton, who has the conscience to ask the question about Iraq and Syria? Where were the military forces of the free world when the Peshmerga were struggling to hold Mosul with the fierce battle raging against the Islamic State? Where was the outrage and mourning for the Iraqi Kurds and the Yazidis?

This is where regardless of his personal ideological beliefs, or lack thereof, Donald Trump must rise up to the challenge of dealing with the Middle East situation in a brave and urgent manner. He must do that at least for the sake of his party and even if that means going to war with the legislature. And he must do that without coming under the influence of Vladimir Putin.

 It is undoubtedly unfortunate that an intellectual such as President Barack Obama is leaving office with the situation in the Middle East worsened when he assumed it. It is sad that he has not been able to work to resolve the sectarian tensions in Iraq, which have spilled over into Syria to fuel the bitter civil war. It is sad that he has threatened but never followed up on his red line.

If liberal and responsible leaders are not going to do their job, you have no choice but to count on “demagogues” to bring the task to completion.

Good luck President Trump.

The post was originally published in The Nation blogs.

Just When You Needed Establishment GOP Candidates To Do Well…

Source: AP/ktar.com

Source: AP/ktar.com

Just when you needed the establishment GOP candidates to do well at this point in history, American conservatives seem to be having a populist Tea Party-like awakening. Well, sort of.

Despite the terrible run, not many people would have expected Senator Lindsey Graham to have come to the forefront in the second Republican debate. I personally believe he was in the wrong debate, and should have been in the prime time debate. Nevertheless, he lacks either the polling numbers or the popularity among the American public to have made it.

But hearing Senator Lindsey Graham in the September 16 Republican Presidential nomination debate makes you wonder what on earth went wrong. While he is not the sort of Republican who would greatly offend the liberals, Graham is not always the most popular person in the media, probably due to his uncompromising foreign policy views and reputation as a hawk. In my opinion, ironically, a hawk is what is needed to take on ISIS and the situation in Syria and Iraq.

However, there is a reason why Lindsey Graham and his relatively more accepted partner in crime in the Senate, John McCain, sound so dangerous to the American people. Because they almost always have war on their mind pertaining to the scenario in the Middle East, and sure it just sounds as evil as Dick Cheney. Nevertheless, right now the world needs moral leadership in the White House when it comes to the ISIS issue, and candidates from both the parties should be making a similar pitch, because it is a shame that the most unpopular candidate is making it.

Just when you thought that the Republican base needed to support more establishment candidates, such as Jeb Bush and Senator Graham himself, you would find the disillusioned voters polling in favor of Donald Trump and Dr. Ben Carson, and lately Carly Fiorina. Of course, just about any Republican candidate offers at least some will to fight ISIS and these “political outsiders” are not any different. But are they electable?

Many voters, particularly those on the liberal side of the political spectrum are worried about Trump’s anti-immigration and perceivably xenophobic rhetoric, something further worsened by his refusal to correct an Islamophobic question from a supporter in his New Hampshire rally.

On the other hand, Mike Huckabee, popular with evangelicals, is strongly standing by the side of Kentucky clerk Kim Davis who refused to issue licenses for gay marriage. And the uncompromising and strong headed Senator Ted Cruz, who is urging the leadership to push the defunding of Planned Parenthood to the point of shutting down the government, following the release of controversial sting videos.

In the debate, Lindsey Graham thwarts the idea of shutting down the government over Planned Parenthood. Furthermore, he thought that it was futile to pursue the idea during the term of President Obama. He was probably the only one acknowledging the good social welfare.

For all the criticism that the GOP is bombarded with by the Democrats and American progressive liberals, the establishment views of the party are nowhere near the sort of material the front runners are providing these days for political satires.

According to a new CNN poll, Trump is still leading, while another political outsider Carly Fiorina has dramatically jumped to the second spot, owing to her strong debate performances. Dr. Ben Carson, who just made a statement that a Muslim should not become the American President, is still in top three. And Lindsey Graham is still stuck at 1%.

Fortunately, many believe the primary system is designed to make people like Jeb Bush get the nomination, instead of people like Donald Trump. Despite the polls, mood of the Republican voters, and that he is a Bush.

I am not too sure about that.

This post was originally published in The Nation blogs.

Asking the Wrong Question

Source: usnews.com

Source: usnews.com

These days the candidates for the 2016 US Presidential Elections, especially Republicans, are being asked the perfectly wrong question. And I hope we don’t see it as often for the rest of the duration of the campaign.

Knowing what we know now, would you still attack Iraq?

Of course, America has just gotten out of two wearing wars and great sacrifices have been made. So no wonder the public mood is pretty anti-war. And in a perfect isolationist world, rightly so. But ISIS is a threat of the proportions of the Nazis, if not worse, so being an anti-war isolationist with ISIS is not even an option.

The media has been orgasming over Republican Presidential candidate Jeb Bush fumbling the question, as ISIS moved on to take the historic city of Palmyra in Syria and Ramadi in Iraq. The White House responded to the development by assuring they were not losing against ISIS. Actually, the administration had an even more creative explanation of their disaster of a military strategy.

It is remarkably ignorant comment of the US Secretary of Defense  Ash Carter to assume that recent ISIS gains in towns such as Ramadi was due to the “lack of will to fight” of Iraqis. Maybe that could be true for some of the radical Iraqi Sunnis, but what about the United States letting the Kurdish people down, who are very willing to fight and are still fighting singlehandedly?

The Iraqi military is inadequate, and is neither properly equipped, nor trained for fighting the monstrous force of ISIS, which is fighting with sophisticated Western weapons anyway. Even in Senator John McCain’s opinion, the US administration seem to have no strategy to fight ISIS. But then again, he’s just another pissed hawk.

Source: News Corp

Source: News Corp

And leave alone the question of aiding a militia on the ground trying to resist ISIS, something which is apparently against the principles of the White House, they did not even bother taking action to help the unarmed Yazidis. Since then, countless Yazidi women have been forced into sexual slavery.

Apparently, of all the people, Iranians seem to have some moral authority in this issue. Yes, finally I found one. They and their supported Shiite militias are the ones who seem to be resisting ISIS, albeit for their own interest, which is perfectly fine.

But it speaks volumes of the state of morality of the nations around the world, especially the EU, who usually would go to great lengths to threaten dictators like Gaddafi and Assad, but would be largely silent on this issue. The Sunni majority Arab states are completely ignoring this monster, which has already started knocking on their doors.

And to which heading is the moral compass of Pakistan pointing? Surely, we don’t want to stir another hive of bees. But what if the enemy is at the gates?

Where is the international coalition that got together to fight against terrorism? Is dethroning Assad worth destroying the entire Middle East?

So instead of asking the candidates hypothetical questions about what they would have done in terms of invading Iraq 10 years ago, (most of them supported Iraq War anyway, including Hillary Clinton) how about asking them what they have to offer to improve the situation on the ground in Iraq and Syria now. And I am sure this question will come up near the elections.

And if they simply have no solutions to offer, just like the current President, let the voters hear them.

Because it is no doubt that US foreign policy created this mess, whether Bush or Obama, it doesn’t matter.

America should clean the mess up, because apparently no one else will anyway.

A version of this post was originally published in The Nation blogs.