reflectivepundit

ISIS and the Terrorist Threat after the Death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Kudos to the our country’s intelligence community, our Special and Conventional Forces, and the Syrian Kurds for locating and taking out ISIS’s founder and spiritual leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in a daring raid. After the earlier demise of the physical “caliphate” this weekend’s death of Baghdadi is a welcome victory for the United States and all other targets of the ruthless and cult-like doctrine of the Islamic State and its fanatic jihadists.

It was hardly surprising that Donald Trump during his rhetorical victory lap resorted to superlatives as he compared the end of al-Baghdadi to the capture and killing of Osama bin Laden during Barack Obama’s presidency. During his Q & A session with the press President Trump boasted in the style that dominates his political rallies, “This is the biggest one perhaps that we’ve ever captured...This is the biggest there is. This is the worst ever. Osama bin Laden was big, but Osama bin Laden became big with the World Trade Center. This is a man who built a whole, as he would like to call it, a country." Trump tried to bolster his own achievement and minimize that of his predecessor by characterizing al-Baghdadi as bigger than bin Laden; he also diminished and dehumanized the ISIS leader as dying “like a coward” and “like a dog.”

Trumpian lingo, not the tone normal presidents used in similar situations!

By declaring that “the world is a much safer place,” the president raised a very important question, namely, whether the death of the leader of a dangerous terrorist organization will likely weaken that group or even signals the beginning of its end.

Unfortunately, the answer is a clear NO. Remember that al-Qaeda did not go away after bin Laden’s violent death but gained in strength in various regions of the world—including Syria. And ISIS, an off-shoot of Al Qaeda in Iraq, became a deadly factor after bin Laden was gone.

As President Trump allowed, indeed encouraged Turkish President Erdogan’s troops to force Syrian Kurds, our staunchest allies in the fight against ISIS, out of their homeland as U.S. forces left the area hastily, the many thousands of ISIS fighters in hiding and a growing threat of their brethren escaping from prisons guarded by Syrian Kurds are major factors in ISIS’s likely revival. Moreover, even after the caliphate was defeated, ISIS expanded elsewhere, including in Afghanistan and several African regions.

In his statement and exchanges with the press yesterday Mr. Trump’s first and most profoundly thanked Russia (and his idol Putin), Turkey (and his strongman friend Erdogan), and Syria (and human rights violator supreme Assad) for their assistance. Those parties merely allowed the U.S. military to fly over their controlled parts of Syria. Although the Kurds were crucial in providing human intelligence to pinpoint al-Baghdadi’s hiding place, the President minimized their role. And he once again attacked our Western allies, democracies, for their lack of cooperation.

America’s posture in the fight against ISIS, al-Qaeda and their many affiliates relied for years on relative small footprints of the American military and major fighting roles for local allied forces.

But Trump's betrayal of the Syrian Kurds does not bode well for present and future alliances of this kind nor for America's crucial alliances in Europe and Asia.

 

Flattering Trump and Avoiding War

 

By Brigitte L. Nacos

There is no doubt the John Bolton, President Trump’s National Security advisor, has been itching to go to war against Iran for decades. And now, he finally sees a very good chance to realize his plan. In a way, the hawkish Bolton in the Trump White House resembles the hawkish Richard Cheney in the George W. Bush White House, where the then Vice-President (along with fellow neo-conservatives) finally got his war against Saddam Hussein and Iraq that they had plotted for years.

So, today, the worries that the Middle East will soon see another war of choice, not a war of necessity, are real. In the current climate, wittingly or unwittingly, hostilities can break out any time.

However, in one respect the build-up to the Iraq invasion was different than the current period of heightened conflict rhetoric.

George W. Bush was different than Donald Trump—especially in one important respect: Contrary to George W. the current president is an extreme narcissist who needs constant admiration, affirmation, and assurances of love.

The mirror-hungry Trump looks day-in and day-out for reflections of complete devotion—on FOX News, during his frequent rallies, in the absolute obedience and service of Republican politicians, his on-their- knees cabinet members, and his White House advisers.

Nothing is feeding his insatiable appetite for compliments more than assurances by his admirers that God send him to be the leader of America.

Obviously, the North Korean leader Kim Jong Um recognized the U.S. president’s narcissistic traits and fed his ego in “lovely” letters and personal encounters.

While the North Korean leader and his minions clash with members of Trump’s cabinet, they never have a bad word for Trump himself. In the words of President Trump, he and Um, “We fell in love!”

In this spirit, the narcissist Trump downplays the missiles that North Korea test-fires now and then as not violating his accord with Um. And never mind they expansive nuclear arsenal.

As for Iran, there is a constant drum beat of rhetorical attacks on Iran although there is no conclusive evidence that Tehran violated the Nuclear Accord that was agreed on by the Obama administration, Europeans, Russia, and China but severed quickly by the Trump White House.

Earlier this year, the National Security Advisor used a YouTube clip to send a message to Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. It was not a congratulatory gesture at the 40^th anniversary of the Iranian Revolution in 1989 but rather a threat. Directly addressing the Ayatollah, Bolton ended his message with the sentence, “I don’t think you’ll have many more anniversaries to enjoy.”

But war is not inevitable.

According to reports Trump so far resists Bolton’s anti-Iranian drum beats, is not ready for war.

The Ayatollah and/or Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani could send a “lovely” letter to Mister Trump and exploit his narcissistic needs. Just like the one time Trumpian “rocket man” Um recognized that the U.S. President is a real sucker for flattery, the Iranian leadership could play their cards in similar ways and beat Bolton and other hawks in Washington and elsewhere.  

While the tough words of Iran's leaders do not favor my peace diplomacy I still hope that soft (and clever) power trumps hard power.

 

 

 

Trump’s Dangerous Wrecking Crew

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Trump does not unite but he divides people and nations;

Trump does not build but he destroys bridges;

Trump does not solve but he creates problems;

Trump does not clean up but he corrupts politics;

Trump does not uphold but he violates democratic values;

Trump does not tell the truth but he lies day-in and day-out.

Voices of reason and sanity are not heard in President Trump’s White House and Administration. Instead, the intellectually and ethically challenged narcissist-in-chief is validated by his like-minded wrecking crew of extremists in domestic (i.e., AG Jeff Sessions and EPA Director Scott Pruitt) and foreign/national security (i.e., John Bolton and Mike Pompeo) politics and policy.

In her new book titled “Fascism,” former Secretary of State Madeline Albright writes in the concluding chapter, “Trump is the first anti-democratic president in modern U.S. history…If transplanted to a country with fewer democratic safeguards, he would audition for dictator.”

I wonder, though, how many of those safeguards are left and whether the remaining ones will crumble under constant attacks by Trump’s wrecking crew.

The Republican majorities in both Congressional chambers certainly are not democratic safeguards against presidential encroachment. Instead of providing the inter-branch checks and balances prescribed in the U.S. Constitution, GOP members are on bended knees before their dear leader.

The judiciary still holds strong. The question is, how long?

As candidate and as president, Mr. Trump has relentlessly attacked officials in the Department of Justice, the FBI, the intelligence community, and judges whose rulings he did not like. Just read a few of his many tweets for confirmation.

And now, Republican members of congressional committees, such as Rep. Devin Nunes, act more like President Trump’s defense attorneys than members of an independent legislative branch in their war against the Department of Justice, especially independent counsel Robert Mueller, Deputy Attorney-General Rod Rosenstein, and most recently even AG Sessions—all of them Republicans.

A free press is the most important foundation of a democratic system. Thus, the First Amendment! 

 Major news organizations have maintained their independence thus far. After providing “breaking news” all the time to Trump’s campaign for the Republican nomination, the press’s investigative reporting had displayed in the last 18 months and continues to report on the dark underbelly of President Trump and his supporting cast.

But Trump’s attacks against the “fake” media are of great concern. Today, he threatened to take access credentials away from the press. He has repeatedly threatened changes in the libel law—even though that would not be in his power.

And, then, there is Trump’s impact the rest of the world.

The Most Dangerous Man in the World Sits in the White House and Spineless Republicans in the Congress Do Nothing to Prevent the Catastrophe that the President Himself Threatens

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Nine month-worth of 24/7 nightmares unleashed by Donald Trump’s daily menu of outrageous tweets and ludicrous deeds are enough to realize that Trump is an emperor without clothes.  

If you hoped this spoiled, narcissistic child-man would grow in the august Oval Office, you know now that there are no such miracles.

Every hour it becomes clearer that the President of the United States and supposed world leader is precisely what his own Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has called him—a moron who does not and does not want to understand our governmental system, its  institutions, and domestic and foreign policy-making, and most of all the U.S. Constitution.   

Today, October 12, 2017 is another “normal” day in the disturbing saga of Donald Trump’s presidency:

• He threatens to challenge NBC’s broadcast license because of the News Division’s credible reports that Trump demanded from the U.S. military a significant build-up in the nuclear arsenal.
• He announces the signing of yet another Executive Order to weaken Obamacare further by allowing insurances to sell cheap plans to the young and healthy.
• He threatens to end relief efforts in Puerto Rico where the majority of U.S. citizens still do not have electric power, lack drinking water and health services.
• The State Department announces that the United States withdraws from UNESCO, the United Nation’s agency for the sciences, culture, and communication, because of UNESCO's "anti-Israel bias."
• Congress wrestles with President Trump’s announcement that he will not certify the Nuclear Deal with Iran.

All those irrational threats and actions came before 12 noon today. Plenty of time to add to the insanity that has the last word in Washington with ripple effects around the country and the world.

And what does the Republican majority in both houses of the Congress do?

Besides Bob Corker, the courageous U.S. Senator of Tennessee, nobody puts the interests of the whole country first.

There is silence--even though the President has threatened repeatedly war against North Korea-- in the words of Corker --WWIII.

In Trump’s Reality Show Even the Generals Surrender

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Not enough that GOP leaders and foot soldiers in Congress, elected offices around the country, and so-called experts in think tanks continue to defend the indefensible in the Trump campaign, transition operation, and White House. What many observers described as the adults around Trump, cool-headed generals, have surrendered as well.

John Kelly, the Secretary of Homeland Security and H.R. McMaster, the National Security Adviser, went public this weekend with nonsensical excuses, even endorsements of Jared Kushner’s reported efforts during the transition period to use secret Russian communication means to communicate with Moscow’s decision makers. Since nothing happens in the Kremlin without Vladimir Putin, one has to assume that the communication the political novice Kushner had in mind was with his father-in-law’s most admired dictator Putin.

Come to think of, Kelly’s statement shouldn’t have surprised. Since taking over at the DHS the retired marine general has echoed or trumped Trump’s crazy ideas beginning with the need for The Wall to separating children from their parents in the most cruel enforcement policy against undocumented immigrants.

As for General McMaster, his impeccable credentials in the military took a hit earlier this month, when he refuted a Washington Post story that President Trump had revealed highly classified intelligence during his meeting with Russia’s Foreign Minister Lavrov and Russia’s  Ambassador Kislyak by countering points that the Post had not made. Now add to this the General’s defense of a backchannel between Trump’s transition team and the Kremlin that Kushner tried to establish.

And then there is James Mattis, the Secretary of Defense, who spoke out in support of his boss’s shocking behavior at NATO headquarters in Brussels that threatens the seven decades old transatlantic defense arrangement between the U.S. and European allies. As Mattis explained, previous presidents, too, complained about European countries’ insufficient financial contributions to NATO. What the General conveniently omitted is the real reason for the rift in the alliance, namely, Trump’s refusal to endorse NATO’s mutual defense agreement as stated in Article 5. Coming on the heels of Trump’s campaign statement that NATO is obsolete, Secretary Mattis, who once commanded NATO’s Supreme Allied Command for Transformation, should know better than depicting Trump’s dangerous  reality show in Europe as merely business as usual.

Putin and his team are rejoicing. They wanted nothing more than a split in the transatlantic defense alliance. And now they got it.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel is right. Europe can no longer count on the America of Donald Trump as a dependable NATO ally.

As it turns out, the generals are not the voices of reason, not the adults in White House and administration.

The Vienna Agreement: Now the Choice is between War and Peace

The frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination, Donald Trump, whose crude propaganda campaign receives free air time hour for hour on CNN, FOX, MSNBC, and headline news in other media, said in reaction to the Vienna agreement that all of Iran is laughing at us. No, Mr. Trump, the whole world is laughing at us because you are dominating the political discourse of the Republican Party—now also with respect to the agreement designed to prevent Iran from building a nuclear arsenal.

The GOP clown show starring real estate mogul and TV reality star Trump occurs at a time when we are faced with a choice between war and peace. And this choice does not involve non-state actors, such as ISIS, Al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab, and the likes but a major nation state—Iran.

Do we really want John McCain “Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” refrain come true?

Have we forgotten the lessons of Vietnam and the post-9/11wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Have we forgotten how many young Americans lost their lives and limbs in those conflicts?

Yesterday, seasoned politicians in the Congress and elsewhere as well as novices like Mr. Trump condemned the agreement before reading the whole document without offering peaceful alternatives; in one way or the other they echoed Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s assessment that the world the world is now a "much more dangerous place" than without the agreement.

Not exactly a logical argument. Without the implementation of this agreement and its strict inspection regimes Iran is free develop the capability to build nuclear bombs.

How would that make the world a safer place?

Even some thoughtful and knowledgeable observers complained that the Vienna agreement does not touch on Iran’s human rights violations and support of terrorism.

Fair enough. The negotiations in Vienna were from the outset strictly about the most pressing problem, namely, the threat of an Iran with nuclear weapons. The sanctions as punishment for Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism remain in place.

Yes, lifting the tough sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program will provide the mullahs with more resources some of which could be channel to terrorists. But even during the economically tough times, there is always room for these sorts of transactions in authoritarian states.

But it should also be noted that most of all the decision-makers in Iran came to the negotiating table and made an agreement to improve the country’s economic conditions and the hardship of its citizens.

Forgotten in the attacks on President Obama is that the Vienna agreement was not the result of U.S.-Iranian negotiations but rather a multilateral affair with all important players involved, most of all the UK, France, Germany, the European Union, Russia and China. If the agreement is rejected in Washington, there will not be allies for sanctions against Iran and certainly not for military actions.

Ronald Reagan remains a much admired figure in the GOP. But there seems no collective memory among those who like to portray themselves as Reagan’s heirs. They should remember that their hero negotiated arms treaties with the Soviet Union, our most formidable enemy during the long Cold War.

Reagan’s formula expressed in particular during the INF treaty negotiations, “trust but verify,” was an excellent one that also guided the U.S. and its partners in the negotiations with the Iranian delegation in Vienna.

The hawks in Washington and elsewhere around the  warn that the agreement with Iran will not sit well with “moderate” Arab states, most of all Saudi Arabia. Not a good argument in view of Saudi Arabia’s history in the spreading of its kind of Wahhabi Salafism without which there would be an Al Qaeda/ISIS movement. Nor should one forget that the vast majority of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis.

Congressional Republican's tried to sabotage the Vienna negotiations by appealing to the most conservative religious and political strata in Iran to prevent an agreement. 

That's when they showed their cards.

If Republicans manage to derail the deal that, of course, could also be rejected in Tehran, the choice is a tragic one--war, not peace.

 

 

Dick Cheney did Not Learn from Iraq Debacle, Wants Repeat

By Brigitte L. Nacos

It is difficult enough to listen to John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and others in the camp of perennial foreign policy hawks who have not seen a violent conflict or a perceived major threat abroad without demanding American military aid or military deployment. This was the case in the Libyan uprising against Gaddafi, the Syrian civil war, the conflict in the Ukraine, Iraq, again. And, of course, Iran!

It is more difficult to watch former Vice President Dick Cheney making the same case. He wants more of our military in Iraq, left more forces in Afghanistan, and, strangely, told ABC’s John Karl he “would definitely be helping the resistance up in Syria, in ISIS' backyard, with training and weapons and so forth, in order to be able to do a more effective job on that end of the party.”  Karl did not call him on that. ISIS is by far strongest force of the Syrian resistance against the Assad regime. How, then, would Cheney support the Syrian National Coalition and prevail?  

While out of the country I missed some of Cheney’s frequent media appearances. He has his lines remembered, repeats them at every stop. Especially when ask about the Iraq invasion. “I believed in it then. I look back on it now - it was absolutely the right thing to do.” That’s what he said the other day during a friendly “Playbook Lunch” hosted by Politico’s Mike Allen. That’s what he said when interviewed on ABC’s “This Week.” That’s what he had repeated elsewhere according to transcripts and reports I read today.

 “At this stage, you know I’m not spending a lot of time looking back 12 or 14 years at what was or wasn’t done then,” Cheney told the Daily Caller, “I’m concerned about the future. And about the threats were going to face and do face as a nation at this very moment.”

Sure, instead of pondering his starring role in past blunders, he rather criticizes President Obama for his measured foreign policy decisions, especially, as they relate to the Middle East and South Asia.

In the interview with Karl he said, “I don't intend any disrespect for the president, but I fundamentally disagree with him. I think he's dead wrong in terms of the course he's taken this nation and I think we're in for big trouble in the years ahead because of his refusal to recognize reality and because of his continual emphasis upon getting the U.S. basically to withdraw from that part of the world.”

Interestingly, just as Cheney has fundamental disagreements with the president, he has the same problem with fellow-Republican Rand Paul who actually agrees with Barack Obama on these foreign and security issues.

Take a Deep Breath and Think Before Making Missteps in the Ukrainian Crisis

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Yesterday, Secretary of State John Kerry told  Bob Schieffer of CBS News that Russia’s move into Crimea is “an incredible act of aggression. It is really a stunning, willful choice by President Putin to invade another country.” According to Kerry, Russia has violated Ukraine's sovereignty and several of its obligations under international agreements. "You just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext," he said.

I wondered: Did Kerry indeed say that in the 21^st century you are not invading another country on completely trumped up pretext? Yes, he did. Obviously Washington’s diplomat-in-chief chose not to remember the invasion of Iraq some 11 years ago that fell squarely into the 21^st century and was trumped up with bogus justifications.

I certainly do not applaud or justify Russia’s military move into the Crimean peninsula. But one cannot ignore that the European Union and NATO contributed a great deal to Vladimir Putin’s reaction, overreaction, to the violence accompanying the political crisis in the Ukraine.

By relentlessly pursuing their goal to bring the former Soviet republics into the fold of the European Union and NATO, the leading European players and Washington expanded their western alliance ever closer to the Russian Federation’s borders with the Ukraine as the latest domino at the verge of falling from the Russian-dominated to the western sphere.

Long part of Russia, in 1954 Moscow transferred Crimea to the Ukraine, then part of the Soviet Union. That symbolic administrative change came to haunt Russia after the crumbling of the Soviet Union and the subsequent independence of former Soviet Republics. Russia has multiple interests in the Ukraine, most of all in transporting natural gas through Ukrainian pipelines, and in the Crimean peninsula, most of all as access to the Black Sea and site of Russia’s Black Sea fleet.

When the clashes in Kiev and elsewhere unfolded, the U.S. and European governments were eagerly supporting the pro-EU side. I was stunned when a U.S. Assistant Secretary of State visited and encouraged pro-western protesters in Kiev and provided them with cookies. Just imagine the reaction here, if a Russian assistant foreign minister whipped up anti-war protesters before the Iraq invasion before TV cameras and microphones. 

Iraq War Hawks Have No Right to Criticize Obama’s Libya Decision: Now France and/or Other Europeans Must Take the Lead

By Brigitte L. Nacos

It is astounding that many of the very Washington politicians that supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq are now criticizing Barack Obama for his decision to involve the U.S. military in the implementation of the UN sanctioned no-fly zone in Libya’s airspace and prevent the massacre of civilians by Muammar Gaddafi’s loyalists. After all, the involvement in the Libyan case is negligible compared to the long and costly and unjust Iraq War.

It is even stranger that one of the architects of the Iraq adventure, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, attacks President Obama for not determining the Libya mission before using military forces and risking peoples’ lives. This is the same man who knew full well that the justifications for the Iraq War were carefully manufactured lies and who rejected as unnecessary plans for the post-invasion phase in Iraq and thereby jeopardized the lives of many American soldiers and Iraqi civilians.

Contrary to Iraq, the Libyan involvement is a humanitarian one. As Nicholas Kristof notes in today’s New York Times, “If not for this intervention, Libyan civilians would be dying on a huge scale.”

While few people inside and outside of Libya would shed tears if Gaddafi and his regime were to fall, nobody can be sure about the opposition and what would await Libyans if the rebels would prevail.

Nor is it certain that the no-fly zone alone will protect civilians in areas now under the control of Gaddafi’s opposition.

Whatever the case, it is now up to France and other Europeans as well as Arabs to take over the lead in the Libyan intervention.

The President has assured from the outset that America’s leading role in establishing the no-fly zone would be short term and that thereafter Europeans and Arabs would patrol the skies over Libya. He must stick to this position. The U.S. cannot afford to be involved for long in yet another military conflict beyond a minor supporting role.

If there is no agreement within NATO to take the lead, the French seem ready to step to the plate. President Nicolas Sarkozy was instrumental in pushing the UN to decide in favor of a no-fly zone. French planes were the first to bombard loyalist tanks moving towards cities held by the opposition and full of civilians.

Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and the Upheaval in the Arab World

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Because the popular uprisings in several Arab autocracies and the fall of the regimes in Egypt and Tunisia occurred without any part by Al Qaeda or like-minded Jihadis, some experts on the Middle East and terrorism have suggested that the recent developments cast Osama bin Laden, his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri, and whatever else is left of Al Qaeda Central in the roles of irrelevant bystanders.

To be sure, Al Qaeda’s hallmark—a lethal mix of religious fanaticism and indiscriminate violence—was and is not the driving force in the protest movements sweeping the Arab world.Indeed, the contrast between non-violent protesters and violent government reactions was instrumental in the demise of the regimes and Egypt and Tunisia.  

But it is far too early to presume that Al Qaeda and its unholy mission are obsolete in the region and beyond.

In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood may well emerge as the most influential group in the government of the future and shed the mantle of non-violence that it adopted in response to brutal oppression.

In Yemen, with President Ali Abdullah Saleh trying to hold on to power, the influential cleric Sheikh Abdul Majid al-Zindani called for the establishment of an Islamic state. It is noteworthy that Al-Zindani was once bin Laden’s mentor and that Yemen today is home to the most activist Al Qaeda branch. Were his former mentor to succeed, this would certainly bolster bin Laden’s objectives in the Arabian Peninsula--although enemy number one remains the house of Saud in neighboring Saudi Arabia.

To free this particular region from its governments and their American and Western allies—the “occupiers” and “Crusaders”--was from the outset Osama bin Laden’s primary objective as well documented in his 1996 fatwa.

For Al Qaeda’s second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, who was tortured in Egyptian prisons for his oppositional activities years ago, the fall of Hosni Mubarak is not enough. Nor is the demise of the Tunisian regime of Ben Ali.