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.

What if Obama never endorsed the Arab Spring?

If President Barrack Obama never endorsed the Arab Spring, he would have had a more sizable impact in the war on terror.

If Barrack Obama had never overthrown Gidaffi in Libya, Gidaffi would have regained control of Libya between 2011 and 2012. Had Obama never supported the uprising in Syria and forbidden his Muslim allies in funding the Syrian Opposition, Bashar Al-Assad would have remained in power after crushing an uprising in 1 or 2 years.

In short, ISIS would have never existed in Syria and Libya, and never existed as a separate entity from Al-Qaeda.

It would have meant that in 2014, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, while certain to create instability and chaos in Iraq under the name ISI (the Islamic State of Iraq), would have been unable to declare a Caliphate by crushing the Syria-Iraqi border. He would have only been able to urge Muslims to fighting their governments.

ISI would have never been powerful enough to break away from Al-Qaeda - only cause a resurgence of bloodletting in Iraq.

Obama would have returned to Iraq as he did in 2014, but he would have never had to combat as extensive an ISIS threat as he did in the later years of his Presidency. He would have been able to maintain that efforts and focus must be maintained towards Afghanistan over and above Iraq.

Obama, maintaining more emphasis on Afghanistan than Iraq, may have been able to do more sizable damage to the Taliban in Afghanistan instead of chasing after an ISIS threat his policies created.

In short, Obama has completely undone any work that he accomplished with the killing of Osama Bin Laden, withdrawal from Iraq and focus on Afghanistan. It has all been undone because he believed that Libya and Syria were ready for 'democracy' when Iraq as early as 2003 clearly showed why this is folly.

Obama will go down in history as a President whose efforts in the war on terror were misguided and contradictory. He should have known that the war for democracy must wait until the war on terror is won.

Islamic State threatens both Al-Qaeda and Saudi Arabia

In 2013, when the Islamic State broke off from Al-Qaeda over 'fiqh,' or Islamic jurisprudence, a 'crack' in the universal terror front was formed. Previously all under Osama Bin Laden, Ayman Zawahiri and Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi are now the two faces on the terror front with different goals.

Ayman Zawahiri, the current leader of Al-Qaeda - like Bin Laden before him - has the aim of warring on America through terrorism and provocation, with the ultimate aim of bankrupting America and allowing the Middle-East to be left alone. The Al-Qaeda group sees the defeat of America as a prelude to the defeat of Israel and a slow return to the way things used to be in an Islamic Middle-East.

Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi - the leader of the Islamic State - aims to establish a Caliphate at the earliest possible time, primarily through a process of 'waking up' the Sunni sleeping giant by waging war on the Shi'ites of the Middle-East. Abu Musab Az-Zarqawi, the head of Al-Qaeda in Iraq (2003) was the founder of this ideology.

The differences are stark. Al-Qaeda's first priority is America; the Islamic State's first priority is Shi'ite Muslims and Sunnis in error. Al-Qaeda does not believe in the early return to the Caliphate - the Islamic State does. Al-Qaeda does not always resort to extreme implementations of Shariah law and jihad - the Islamic State does.

Ultimately, the Islamic State threatens both Al-Qaeda and Saudi Arabia. After declaring the Caliphate Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, in a recording, called for Saudis to wage war on their Shi'ite populations and on the Saudi military before striking the Americans and their military bases. The Islamic State has been known to fight Al-Qaeda branch Jabhat An-Nusra (now Jabhat Fateh Ash-Sham) in Syria, through military campaigns and suicide bombings.

With a Trump Administration threatening to stabilize Syria and Iraq, the threat to the legitimacy of both Saudi Arabia and Al-Qaeda is all the more potent. Should Trump succeed in stabilizing these two countries under Iranian-friendly governments, the Islamic State would be able to turn to both Al-Qaeda and Saudi Arabia, point the finger and say, 'see? The Shi'ites control Iraq and Syira because you have not been waging jihad properly!'

The Islamic State is set to cause a regional explosion in Saudi Arabia. Should Syria and Iraq stabilize, the threat would arrive to the conservative kingdom sooner. This is especially true given the direction Mohammed Bin Salman is moving the kingdom in.

With the Islamic State threatening to tear Saudi Arabia from its monarchy, this threatens Al-Qaeda's sway in the region as well. Should the Islamic State control the holy sites of Mecca and Medina, Al-Qaeda's vision for the Middle-East would be shattered. Instead of focusing on Israel and America, the Islamic State would cause Arabs to fight each other and strengthen Israel's standing in the region - some countries previously hostile to Israel would secretly ally with her to protect them from the Islamic State threat.

Should Saudi Arabia continue its aggressive westernization as adopted by Mohammed Bin Salman, I doubt the royal family would survive an Islamic State uprising. Mohammed Bin Salman has made comments about distancing Saudi Arabia from Salafiya - their conservative form of Sunni Islam - but, like a nail in the coffin, has also suggested improving ties with Israel in a more public manner.

Such would lead Mohammed Bin Salman to ruin and potential assassination. There is no way that even a non-Salafi Sunni country can make such outrageous statements about Israel without severe consequences, let alone the son of the custodian of the two holy mosques!

However, Saudi Arabia is faced with another possible solution to their Islamic State problem: an alliance with Al-Qaeda. In the Iraqi-Kuwait war, Osama Bin Laden offered for his Mujahideen to fight in Kuwait against Saddam Hussein's forces, which was refused in favour of the Americans. While this caused enormous damage in relations between Saudi Arabia and Bin Laden, an Islamic State threat to the Gulf could repair relations between Al-Qaeda and Saudi Arabia out of necessity.

An Al-Qaeda-Saudi-Arabia merger would stand a better - but by no means certain - chance of success against the Islamic State. It would certainly stand a better chance than a Saudi Arabia ruled by Mohammed Bin Salman!