Russia has fought the big battle in the war on terror

Russia's strategy is a winning strategy: scope, focus and a hard punch.

Like in world war 2, Russia's impact in the war on terror is marginally overlooked. Until Russia entered the Syrian civil war on the side of the Government, terrorism was largely winning worldwide. ISIS, while retreating in Iraq, was regrouping and attacking the government in Syria. Idlib in Syria had fallen to Al-Qaeda forces. Saudi was aiding Al-Qaeda in Yemen. Libya was an unsolvable debacle. Afghanistan was a stalemate.

But when Russia entered the Syrian Civil War in September 2015, it all changed. In Syria, there was nowhere to hide for any terrorism, whether ISIS - which was already suffering under American air strikes - or Al-Qaeda - which America was attacking far less.

The Syrian Civil War had reached its turning point. In a matter of 12 months, many rebel gains had been reversed. After 18 months, Aleppo city is back in the government's hands; ISIS is on the run from the Syrian Arab Army in Aleppo, Homs and Deir Ez-Zor provinces; the rebels are holed up in Idlib and rebels from other parts of Syria are periodically evacuated to Idlib and out of other cities.

This forced Obama to apply more military might. In the battle of Ramadi, more American air power resulted in victory, while in Libya, Obama moved to destroy ISIS in the city of Sirte. He also urged his Gulf allies to attack Al-Qaeda in Yemen while battling the Houthis, and halted withdrawal from Afghanistan.

I guess some call it, "Obama leading from behind." I call it Putin's genius.

Since Trump has gotten in power, Russia is doing more to end the war on terror than ever. Not only is Russia involved in Syria; Russia is moving behind the scenes in Libya to stabilize the Arabic state under Haftar Al-Khalifa with assistance from Egypt. Meanwhile, Putin is also eyeing Yemen as an extra country of influence should Syria and/or Libya stabilize, or should Russian operations in Syria be challenged.

Rather than tear down Russian gains in the war on terror - which was Hillary Clinton's foreign policy - Trump is likely to want to compete with Russia on who can deal the terrorists the most fatal blow. Trump is likely to strike these blows in Iraq and Afghanistan - in Iraq against ISIS and Iran, and in Afghanistan against the Taliban and by making Afghanistan into a "block" against Iran as Saddam's Iraq once was.

But Russia was the one who started these amazing victories. Even should Trump compete, Russia has fought the big battle in Syria on the war on terror.

Why ISIS is set to grow - not shrink - in the Middle-East

People who believe ISIS will be destroyed after the liberation of Syria and Iraq are not seeing the whole picture.

Many strategists of counter terrorism believe that, should ISIS be destroyed from Syria and Iraq, they won't be able to come back, and that Al-Qaeda is making more inroads by playing the "long game".

This ignores how much weaker Al-Qaeda has become since the death of Osama Bin Laden and the rise of ISIS. The only reasons why we're still talking about Al-Qaeda is because they represent a serious threat to Yemen and Afghanistan. In Syria, Al-Qaeda would join ISIS if the Assad Government were removed. They are only separate today because it is more acceptable for countries to fund Al-Qaeda than ISIS.

As it is, should the Assad Government stay in Syria, it is near impossible for Al-Qaeda to remain in Syria at the conclusion of the civil war. They will be completely obliterated - Jabhat Feteh Ash-Sham will be but a memory of the Syrian Civil War.

But ISIS... ISIS' origins are in Iraq, and as long as Iraq is as unstable as it has been since 2003, ISIS will also remain in Iraq. While Iraqi military gains have been impressive, ISIS has been gaining ground in suicide bombs and insurgent attacks, especially in Baghdad. While crushing terrorism in Syria is much easier - letting the dictator stay in power - this is unlikely to work as well in Iraq.

With Russia set to stabilize Syria and Libya, ISIS will be forced to dig deeper into the fabric of Iraq in order to survive. This represents one of the most serious challenges to the Trump Administration: how to stabilize Iraq and deprive ISIS of an underground safe haven.

Worryingly, while ISIS will be continuing to destabilize Iraq, their efforts will be turned towards Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. For further information on how ISIS threatens Saudi Arabia, read the following article by Alistair Crooke:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-aim-saudi-arabia_b_5748744.html

In fact, it is easy to see how this has been the aim of ISIS all along: declare a Caliphate across Syria and Iraq, force all enemies to utterly destroy the Caliphate, then to "rebirth" the Caliphate in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states.

So far, no one in counter terrorism is addressing this. They are looking at the paper tiger of Al-Qaeda in Syria, when they should be looking at the threat ISIS is to the Arabian Gulf!

Not only is war and instability coming to Saudi Arabia, but also to most of the other Gulf states: Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait and U.A.E (Dubai), which may lead to the fall of these smaller kingdoms to ISIS. Such instability will cause an oil shortage - greatly increasing oil prices and forcing the whole world to gaze in horror at Saudi Arabia as they have been in Syria.

Destroying ISIS from the Arabian Gulf will be a near impossible task. Once ISIS detonates there, it will be easier for America to stabilize Iraq than drive ISIS out of Saudi Arabia.

Predictions for Trump and the war on terror

These are my predictions for the war on terror in the next 4 - 8 years under Trump:

1) The jihadists' spaces will shrink. In Syria and Libya, Russia is pushing radical Islamic jihadists out of power and is replacing them with strong governments in Bashar Al-Assad and Haftar Al-Khalifa respectively. Trump is unlikely to wage war over these Russian policies. Trump is also likely to double down on Afghanistan and Iraq after ISIS is defeated, to utterly destroy the Taliban in Afghanistan and to make sure ISIS does not return to Iraq.

2) The jihadist space in Yemen will grow. By supporting the Saudi-led war on Yemen, America is likely to be hurled into a quagmire almost as deadly as Syria. By striking Al-Qaeda and supporting the Saudi air war on Yemen, Trump is attacking two enemies - who are fighting each other - at the same time. Ultimately, one has to prevail over the other.

In the case of Yemen, Al-Qaeda is perceived by Saudi less of a threat than the Houthis, so Trump will probably be forced to either withdraw support for the Saudi war on Yemen, or allow Al-Qaeda to grow in Yemen at the expense of the Houthis. Either way, the jihadist space in Yemen is set to grow under Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

3) ISIS and Al-Qaeda will come to Saudi Arabia. Should Trump let Russia stabilize Libya and Syria while Trump himself focuses on stabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia will become incredibly vulnerable to civil war. This is largely due to Mohammed Bin Salman trying to modernize the kingdom in a completely impractical way, while also tying up too many Saudi resources in Yemen.

This will likely lead to Saudi Arabia imploding, with ISIS being a problem in the north, east and centre of the country while Al-Qaeda ending up a problem in the south of the country. What America does in that situation is anyone's guess.

4) American relations with Middle-East nations will change drastically. It seems to me that Turkish-American relations are at the worst point in their history, due to having different priorities in the Syrian Civil War: for the Turks, the priority is the Kurds; for America, the priority is ISIS.

With Turkish-American relations set to further deteriorate, in Turkey's place America will likely raise up its US-dependent, allies - and those with enormous resources - to a different level of relations. Iraq and Afghanistan come to mind in particular. Both have potential to function similarly to how Turkey had functioned for America in the past and, should they become stable, will become strong enough to keep American allies powerful in the region due to enormous swathes of natural resources.

In addition to Iraq and Afghanistan, relations with Jordan and Egypt are likely to deepen, as well as, predictably, Israel. These strengthening and weakening of relations will all affect the war on terror, as countries which have supported terrorism, like Turkey and Pakistan, are more likely to end up US' enemies rather than allies.


These are the predictions during the - likely - 2 presidential terms of the Trump Administration. We'll find out just how close or off the mark I was in due time.

Had John Waver had been George W. Bush

For my article 'If John Waver had been Barrack Obama' read here:

http://jwaverfpolicy.blogspot.com.au/2017/02/if-john-waver-had-been-barrack-obama.html


In this article I will explain what John Waver would have done had he been President of the United States in the time George W. Bush was, from 2001 - 2009, and his subsequent response to 9-11 and the war on terror.

Had John Waver been George W. Bush and 9-11 occurred, I would have of course authorized the Afghan War with Congress Approval. However, I would have never gone into Iraq.

Rather than engaging in an Iraq War, I would have orchestrated an 'Iraq deal,' getting chemical and biological weapons out of Iraq in exchange for sanctions lifted and Saddam Hussein able to continue his rule in Baghdad.

In Afghanistan, rather than push for democracy, I would have allowed a military dictator to take control of the country. Like in Syria under Bashar Al-Assad, I would have pushed for secular and democratic reform in Afghanistan under the dictator, with an enormous emphasis on the newly formed Afghan Army driving Al-Qaeda and the Taliban out of the country.

In particular, I would have targeted the Afghan-Pakistani border and increased spending on border security over and above spending tax-payer dollars on infrastructure. Should an Afghani economy have materialized, American tax-payer dollars would have been less necessary to provide infrastructure for the country as Afghanistan would have had the economic means to do it themselves.

I would have made Afghanistan a necessary and top ally of America in the Middle-East. I would have increased bilateral trade between America and Afghanistan, sending a clear message to allies who fund terrorism, such as Pakistan, that we don't need allies who stab us in the back.

Yet John Waver would not have gone into just Afghanistan, as America was looking for a fight and not satisfied with invading Afghanistan. They really wanted to make someone pay for what happened with 9-11. In addition to invading Afghanistan, I would have pushed for an invasion of Somalia.

Not only were Americans spoiling for a fight; after 9-11, they pragmatically needed another supply of oil other than just Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. Rather than destabilizing Iraq to get that oil, or in President John Waver's case, rather than just lifting sanctions off Iraq, stabilizing Somalia would have been more beneficial for the wider region and would have increased American appeal in the Middle-East and Northern Africa.

By 2003, Somalia had been in chaos for over ten years. Sadly, it is still in chaos today. Somalia is perhaps as bad as Syria and Iraq, but the violence has not ended; it has just kept going and going. Ash-Shabab, an Al-Qaeda group, had taken up refuge in Somalia, which is why George W. Bush authorized a bombing campaign there. Rather than authorizing a bombing campaign in Somalia and an invasion of Iraq, I would have ditched Iraq War plans altogether and invaded Somalia to stabilize it and liquidate the Al-Qaeda threat.

Stabilizing Somalia would have had immense economic benefits and would have been a smaller project than the Iraq War. That said, it would still have been more challenging than the Afghan War. Reinstating stability in a lawless country is no easy task. However, with help of experts in Somali culture and tribal warfare - including listening to their advice - it would have been far more achievable than democracy in Iraq.

One of the other benefits of establishing an American presence in Somalia would have been its close proximity to Yemen and Saudi Arabia. This would mean that Saudi Arabia would have felt more pressure from a nearby US presence from across the Red Sea and would have had to check their actions - such as relations with Al-Qaeda - more carefully. Not only so, but Al-Qaeda would have increased its hold on Yemen as a result of its expulsion not only from Saudi Arabia (which occurred in 2006) but also from Somalia, had the Somali war been successful.

It would have left an incredibly easy platform for intervention in Yemen against Al-Qaeda. Perhaps rather than endorsing the Arab Spring, America would have chosen to focus on stabilizing Yemen, across the sea from Somalia and gaining military bases south of Saudi Arabia. Yemen, together with Somalia, could have acted as alternate top allies for America over Saudi Arabia. Like with choosing Afghanistan over Pakistan, John Waver could have reshuffled alliances in the coasts of the Red Sea, as a result of 9-11 and the war on terror.

Alas, we will never return to those days. Somalia will continue to deteriorate, and Trump is stuck fixing a plethora of countries: Afghanistan and Iraq - thanks to W. Bush and Obama - as well as Syria, Libya and Yemen - thanks specifically to Obama. The amount of wars engaged in by the US could have been much more beneficial for the region had earlier actions been different.

The next 9-11

We are not far from the next 9-11 from occurring.

As ISIS is losing its Caliphate, from Mosul, to Hawija, to Deir Ez-Zor, to Anbar, to Raqqa, the terror group will turn more to terror attacks in increasing frustration.

I expect this will occur after the fall of Mosul to Iraqi forces.

I also expect this will not happen in America. America is too heavily fortified against another 9-11 from occurring in their country. It is instead likely to happen in Europe.

The prime targets for a 9-11-style attack by ISIS are Belgium, France, Germany or Sweden. Make no mistake: a 9-11 attack by ISIS will be far worse than September 11, 2001. This is because ISIS show they are more focused on killing civilians than attacking governments. Al-Qaeda was about attacking American centers, like the world trade center, the Pentagon - even the White House.

ISIS' aims are far more primitive. Destroying an entire football stadium, or somewhere else with mass population density, would be enough for them.

Once an ISIS attack of this magnitude occurs in Europe, civil wars will ignite like wildfire. It will mean the instability of Iraq and Syria will come to Europe.

Obama's missed opportunity with Pakistan and Somalia

Obama increased George Bush's wars from 4 to 7.

Never forget that the same year Obama withdrew from Iraq, in 2011, he funded operations against Syria and Libya in the Arab Spring. By 2012, he expanded the drone war to Yemen, then bombed Iraq in 2014 in the war on ISIS, while also expanding said war on ISIS into Syria that same year. Obama also went back into Libya to fight ISIS in 2016.

Rather than being the anti-war candidate, Obama proved himself to be the 'anti-American troops' candidate. Though he deserves credit in not overthrowing Bashar Al-Assad and in his war on ISIS in Iraq, he loses most of that credit by landing tax-payer money into the pockets of ISIS in Syria.

Obama could have been an anti-war candidate. Clearly he was not.

Had Obama not endorsed the Arab Spring, that could have meant that Obama did not get involved in Syria, Libya or Yemen. But there are still 2 other drone wars that were, in my mind, unnecessary.

Rather than pouring loads of cash into rebellions in Syria and Libya - which turned into jihadists and terrorists - he could have withdrawn from drone strikes in Pakistan and Somalia. Imagine that! Instead of Obama turning 4 wars into 7, he could've turned it into 1!

Had Obama withdrawn from Somalia, Pakistan and Iraq and focused head-over-heels on Afghanistan, resources could have been far better spent. Of course Somalia, Pakistan and Iraq would have ended up as terrorist safe-havens, but by the time Afghanistan was actually solved - which it could have been in this scenario - Obama would have been able to return to these 3 other countries to continue the mission!

The folly behind expanding the war on terror with not enough resources should be obvious. Obama expanded 11 trillion dollars of debt under Bush to 19 trillion dollars by the time he left. That is almost half the debt again!

Like Britain during the years it was alone in the fight against Nazi Germany, America under Obama should have known their priority: Afghanistan. They should have left Somalia, Pakistan and Iraq alone. The reasons for Iraq are obvious: American support for the war had completely evaporated. It was a contributing factor to Obama's election victory over John McCain. But what about Pakistan and Somalia?

Pakistan borders Afghanistan and is the main reason why Afghanistan is so unstable. As I have mentioned in other posts, had Obama spent billions of dollars on Afghan border security on the Afghani-Pakistani border, the Taliban threat to Afghanistan would have been greatly reduced. That would mean that the Taliban could have been obliterated from Afghanistan with the remnants regrouping in Pakistan. With Afghanistan stabilized, then Obama could have dealt with Pakistan.

As for Somalia, letting terrorism get worse there would have been a better idea than funding terrorism in Syria, Libya and Yemen, which happened under Obama. Obama endorsed the Arab Spring, which is how Syria, Libya and Yemen were able to be added to the list of countries bombed by America. America supported groups with links to Al-Qaeda and ISIS in all 3 countries, while also bombing those same forces he funded. It would have been fiscally far cheaper to come back to an Islamic State in Iraq and an Islamic State in Somalia - with Assad and Gidaffi still ruling in Syria and Libya - than the current scenario.

Was Osama Bin Laden's Death a victory in the war on terror?

Was Osama Bin Laden's Death a victory in the war on terror? It was.

However, this victory has been overshadowed by American policy during the Arab Spring. Had Obama abstained from intervention in Syria and Libya in particular, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi would have never been able to take the limelight from Al-Qaeda.

With the death of Bin Laden was a - much-missed - opportunity for terrorism to break down and no longer be the threat it once was. While Al-Qaeda broke down after the death of Bin Laden, terrorism did not decrease but increased under a new face, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS.

The truth is the death of Bin Laden meant that a new, more formidable head of the serpent was able to rise in its stead. And Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi is not only the next Bin Laden - he is worse than Bin Laden.

We have not yet felt the full effects of the establishment of ISIS' Caliphate. On one hand, ISIS are yet to do a 9-11-sized terror attack. But mark my words: after Mosul is liberated, we are approaching dangerously close to the day when ISIS will attack at a 9-11-sized scale.

On the other hand, we have not yet felt ISIS' explosive power in deconstructing the Arabian Peninsula. When that happens, one had better hope Iraq is stable, otherwise the ISIS madness will return to Iraq but stronger than ever.

When these effects are fully realised, Osama Bin Laden will be but a distant memory. Mark my words: America will wish it never endorsed the Arab Spring by the time these events have taken place.

To overcome these issues is enormous, but without overcoming ISIS and preparing for what is soon to be a brutal onslaught, the West will never win the war on terror.