After Syria, terrorism increase in Libya likely

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438605/hillary-clinton-benghazi-scandal-arming-syrian-rebels

According to Wikileaks, when Libyan President Moammar Al-Qaddafi was overthrown, his weapons were looted and taken to Syria. The insurgency in Libya died down, and most jihadists went to fight Bashar Al-Assad in Syria.

The results of such decisions by the US State Department are shocking. Syrian rebels overwhelmingly pledged allegiance to ISIS, invaded western and northern Iraq and declared a Caliphate.

Now, after 3 years of US intervention and after 2 years of Russian intervention in Syria, ISIS is almost defeated in Iraq and almost destroyed in Syria. ISIS will still remain a potent threat to Iraq, but in Syria, so long as Bashar Al-Assad remains in power, ISIS is highly unlikely to return.

Now the tables are turned. The only area of dominance for anti-Assad rebels are in Idlib, where Al-Qaeda has managed a complete takeover of the Syrian Opposition. With an Al-Qaeda takeover certain in Idlib, the Trump Administration has given Russia permission to destroy them unhindered.

But after Idlib, it would be foolish to expect that violence will correspondingly decrease across the Middle-East. In 2013, Mohammed Morsi was overthrown, and while stability returned to Egypt for a time, instability increased in Syria, Iraq and Libya in 2014. With Syria set to be cleared of jihadists and Iraq set for a lull in the fighting, conflicts in Libya, Yemen and Afghanistan will all intensify.

But Libya is the last bastion of the US-intervened Arab Spring. Jihadists, though failing in Syria, might instead return to Libya to make sure Islamism rules somewhere in the Arab world.

What happens in Idlib may determine what happens in Libya. Should Turkey close its borders to Idlib in the ensuing conflict between Al-Qaeda and the Syrian government, then Libya would have less to fear. However, should Turkey allow jihadists to flee Syria only to regroup in Libya, then the people of Libya will suffer enormously, and a new terror organisation could rear its ugly head in Libya.

Turkey could send Syrian Al-Qaeda militants to Libya to shore up the Muslim Brotherhood Ikhwan forces there. Having lost Ikhwan dominance in Syria and Egypt, Libya is one of the last bastions of instability through which Ikhwan could take over, benefiting Turkish influence in the Arab world.

Added to the conundrum is the current crisis between Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia supports the Tobruk government in the east, while Turkey and Qatar both support the Government of National Accord in Libya and the largely Ikhwan militants which back it. For Qatar, Libya might be a way to get back at Saudi Arabia for alienating it from the GCC.

Like Iraq in 2014, escalated violence in Libya may come as a complete shock to the western world. But it will likely be another example of fallout from President Obama's Arab Spring policies, which have failed spectacularly and caused more damage to the Arab world than even the Iraq War.

US leaflets undermine Afghan War

Though well known for patriotism, the US continue to have an abysmal handling of foreign policy in the Middle-East.

Days ago, leaflets were dispatched in Parwan Province, north of Kabul, in which a lion was devouring a dog. Unfortunately, the Taliban's logo, "There is no god but God and Mohammed is God's Messenger" was embedded on the dog, while the US was portrayed as the lion.

The reason this causes such a problem is that this slogan of the Taliban is also the shahaada, the proclamation a person says to become a Muslim. It is in Arabic, considered by Afghans the language of God. But a dog is considered spiritually unclean and defiled. Combining a dog with the perceived words of God is definitely ill advised.

Far more beneficial would have been to design a pamphlet with Taliban leader Hibatullah Akhundaza riding a dog into battle, while the US and Afghans riding lions to defeat him. The Afghans would have laughed and got the message.

Either these leaflets were distributed by accident, or it was an act of sabotage from within the military and/or Trump Administration. President Trump wants to win the Afghan war, but not everyone within the Administration and military would benefit from a victory in Afghanistan. Some US politicians are bought out by China, a benefactor from a US defeat in Afghanistan, so their priorities lie elsewhere.

This is a blow to decisive victory in Afghanistan. Whether President Trump is able to deal with this foreign policy blunder effectively will determine the outcome of the war during his Presidency.

Haftar Al-Khalifa and Israel

Haftar Al-Khalifa, the strong man winning the Libyan civil war, is cultivating stronger ties with Israel, according to the following article:

http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/haftar-israeli-military-aid-strongman-reveals-new-friend-libya-1638239413

This represents a pattern which continues to occur post-Arab Spring: Sunni Arab countries are looking to Israel for their national security. With the increase of Iranian dominance, this increase is noticeable between Saudi Arabia and Israel, and with the fall of Mohammed Morsi in Egypt, Sisi has also cultivated strong ties with Israel.

It also exposes the false narrative of an implicit alliance between Israel and Salafi/Ikwani terrorism. While this is certainly conclusive in Syria, this does not hold true in every Arab conflict. In the cases of Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and UAE, terrorists hinder Israeli influence, not help. Israel prefers strongmen wary of terrorism and Iran, but would rather Salafi or Ikhwani terrorists to Iranian allied states.

As for Libya, this is good news: Haftar sending signals to Israel means the US will be less inclined to condemn Khalifa and Russia for stabilizing the country and create less hostility.

Afghanistan Strategy to wait until after ISIS?

It might be that the reason the Trump Administration is taking so long on a strategy for winning the Afghan war is because they wish to see ISIS defeated first.

Bush and Obama both began their presidencies more interested in Afghanistan, yet ended up more invested in Iraq; for Bush it was invading Iraq 18 months after Afghanistan and for Obama, it was returning to Iraq to defeat ISIS in 2014. Trump may just be doing the opposite: beginning his presidency more interested in Iraq and ending up more invested in Afghanistan.

Certainly the long Afghan policy review is welcome news for many, as it is always better to have a plan thoroughly reviewed and scrutinized before being implemented. But it might also be because the President's priorities are elsewhere in foreign policy: first with ISIS but also with North Korea.

The end of the war on ISIS is in sight. Raqqa is surrounded by the Syrian Kurds. The Syrian Arab Army is decimating ISIS across the desert of eastern Syria. Mosul has been retaken by the Iraqi Army. Tel Afar, Hawija and western Anbar are ISIS' last strongholds in Iraq. Abadi and Trump have agreed to keeping a residual US force in Iraq after the defeat of ISIS. Trump has stated the US is not going into Syria to remove Bashar Al-Assad.

Though Trump has said that after ISIS is defeated, he would spend more time invested in rebuilding America, in Afghanistan glints a desire to outshine Obama: Obama withdrew from Iraq in 2011, to return 3 years later to a country decimated by ISIS. Can Trump win a Bush-era war where Obama could not? He campaigned hard against the Obama doctrine, and is making all the right moves to push the US to victory in Afghanistan.

But it may just be that we will not see a coherent policy on Afghanistan until ISIS is defeated.

Why Trump will not leave Afghanistan

There has been talk in the White House about leaving Afghanistan altogether. But Trump will not leave Afghanistan.

This ploy by Trump - suggesting to leave Afghanistan - is to get his cabinet to think seriously about how to win the war there. Threatening to pull out puts their toes to the fire and forces them to come up with a different solution.

Some progress has been made in Afghan War policy. Trump has escalated strikes on the Taliban and the Islamic State of Afghanistan; policy reviews have included criticism of Pakistan's double game, making sure Afghanistan does not become another client state of Iran or Russia and, crucially, given the United States an economic reason to stay in Afghanistan: minerals, which the Taliban make part of their living off.

What should be undeniable - but currently is not - is that the Taliban can be beaten so long as their economic supply is strangled and border control between Afghanistan and Pakistan is strengthened. Most of the money the Taliban makes is from narcotics, secondly from minerals - if both of these fell into the hands of the government, this would make the difference needed to push tribes away from supporting the Taliban and back to the government.

In fact, narcotics in the hands of the Afghan and US forces could go some way to destabilizing Iran if they were sold to Iranians on the black market.

Trump will not leave Afghanistan because to leave would be to do exactly what Obama did with Iraq in 2011, something Trump campaigned against. Winning a Bush-era war where Obama could not would be icing on the cake for Trump's Presidency.

In any case, the US staying in Afghanistan is good for the Middle-East. It keeps the US military industrial complex churning, allows Russia more influence in countries like Syria, Libya and, in the future, Yemen, and deprives Iran, Al-Qaeda and ISIS a safe haven in another country.

But, as Trump well knows, the Afghan war must be won, or else Afghanistan will become the US' next Vietnam. And Trump will do everything he can to make sure that doesn't happen, for veterans and for America First.

Why Pakistan is an enemy of the US

The Pakistani government has been an enemy of the United States.

Nuclear armed, the Pakistani government gives regular funding and sanctuary to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda-linked militants. Osama Bin Laden himself was found in Pakistan.

Pakistan is the reason why the Afghan War has dragged on for so long. Terrified of an independent Afghanistan, Pakistan has been continually funding the Taliban, because so long as Afghanistan is a weak nation, Pakistan is strong and India can be held at bay.

Indian dominance terrifies Pakistan more than anything else. But the US is getting tired of Pakistan playing a double-game and, under Trump, expect US-Indian-Afghani relations to improve.

So long as the Pakistan problem is not dealt with, the Afghan war will never end. The only way to end the Afghan War is to step up Afghani-Pakistani border control between to prevent any members of the Taliban from getting into or out of either country.

Immense pressure needs to be applied on Pakistan to force it to sever ties with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda-linked militants.

Russia, for example, already showed how to do this with Turkey: in Syria, Russian air power dominated the Turkish-backed rebels and forced them to retreat on almost every front. Turkey then shot down a Russian jet and in response Russia escalated its campaign against the rebels and severed all ties with Turkey. Turkey then repaired ties with both Russia and the Assad Government when it realised its previous foreign policy had completely failed and it was at risk at losing even more outright with the Kurds on its border.

Pakistan needs America much more than America needs Pakistan. Should America move to annihilate the Taliban, increase Afghani-Pakistani border security and increase US-Indian-Afghani ties, Pakistan will come to the negotiating table and even sever ties with the Taliban. But it will only do so if the US shows military might and crushes Pakistani proxies completely.

This is why it seems Trump's regional approach to Afghanistan may succeed where Obama's and Bush's did not. Trump may win the Afghan war by forcing Pakistan to stop acting as an enemy of the US.

Trump reaffirms support to Afghanistan

For more information, see the link below:

http://www.khaama.com/trump-speaks-with-president-ghani-after-deadly-kabul-explosion-02839



In the wake of the ISIS terror attack on Kabul which left 80 people dead, Trump has rung Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and reaffirmed US support of the government and the commitment to ending terrorism there.

Trump ran an historic Presidential campaign, in which his slogan was often "America First." There are those who are wondering how getting tangled back in the Afghan quagmire benefits the US and whether Trump should just withdraw from the country altogether.

I say no. I would be glad for Trump to stay in Afghanistan, the reason being that military resources tied up in both Afghanistan and Iraq are less spared for other military temptations, such as in Syria, Iran, Yemen, Libya or North Korea. Trump starting new wars while withdrawing from old ones, as Obama did, would be a very dark and foolish idea.

Better would be for Trump to pass up on newer military opportunities (such as temptations in Syria, Iran, Yemen, Libya or North Korea) in favour of winning the old ones. One of the things Trump spoke of on the campaign trail was "winning" and "winning big." It would, therefore, stick with Trump's campaign rhetoric if he stayed in Afghanistan to win the war by rapidly changing the conditions upon which said war is played on.

The Trump Administration has been all too willing to do that. In the last 6 months, the Afghan question has been carefully studied and pondered in the hope of finding a way to win the war there. While rapidly defeating ISIS in Syria and Iraq, Trump has taken his time regarding Afghanistan to make sure nothing rash is done there.

Not only has there been careful and deliberate thinking about the Afghan question - Pakistan has been sharply slapped on the wrist for supporting the Taliban. They have lost hundreds of millions of dollars in funding from the US - more recently, in his historic counter-terrorism speech in Saudi Arabia, Trump did not even mention Pakistan as a partner. The Trump Administration has been clearly sending signals to Pakistan that, should they remain in implicit support of the Taliban, they would lose the US as a close ally.

This reaffirmation of support for the Afghan government does not suggest a neo-con change in Trump - rather, it represents an entirely different policy to Obama: seeking to win old wars, not start new ones.