Positioning NATO towards radical Islam

Trump has gotten many things right about the war on terror - one of these is his vision to have NATO direct its policies away from antagonising Russia and towards dealing with radical Islam.

Russia represents no threat to the USA - actually she represents a great asset for America. This is especially true in Syria. In Syria, Trump now has the option of withdrawing from the conflict altogether to let Russia and the Syrian government deal with ISIS and radical Islam there.

But radical Islam represents a sizeable and paramount threat to the USA. Since 9-11, the United States has not achieved even one notable victory in the war on terror. Even the capture of Osama Bin Laden was not a notable victory, because in Bin Laden's place is now Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, who is more extreme than Osama Bin Laden.

Capturing Bin Laden has only resulted in a further radicalisation caused by - you guessed it - Obama's policies in Iraq, Syria and Libya. Instead of Bin Laden's execution resulting in a breaking up of Al-Qaeda to decrease radicalisation, the capture of Bin Laden gave Obama the excuse to overthrow Libyan president Gidaffi, greatly increasing Al-Qaeda and ISIS networks there. Obama also funded Iraq's worst enemy in Syria while withdrawing from Iraq, which is tantamount to betrayal by the Obama Administration.

Trump's policies are likely to materialize into some of the greatest victories in the war on terror that we have yet seen - this is especially true if he repositions NATO in that direction.

To reposition NATO towards fighting radical Islam is likely to start in Libya, where NATO was last used. Under Obama and Hillary Clinton, NATO was used wrongly in support of radical Islamic terrorists seeking to overthrow Libyan President Gidaffi. Rather than land in Libya and have America bear all the costs, Trump is likely to use NATO to install Haftar Al-Khalifa in Libya as the dictator there. This will result in a victory on the war on terror.

A greater victory on the war on terror than a Libya War is currently being accomplished in Syria under Russia. When Russia succeeds in stabilizing Syria - when, not if - Trump will need larger victories to compete. One such victory could be accomplished in Iraq.

In Iraq, whether America will attack ISIS on its own or whether Trump will use NATO is difficult to know for sure. Yet the only way to create a lasting victory in Iraq would be to up oil exports there over and above oil exports in Iran and Saudi Arabia, two known funders of radical Islamic terrorism.

In this second Iraq War (2014 - present), it would make sense for Trump to utilize NATO to protect oil fields in Iraq from lone wolf attacks. Increasing exports between NATO countries and Iraq would only be accomplished should the Iraqi oil fields remain protected. Trump has vowed complete energy independence from the world - an increase in oil exports between NATO countries and Iraq would be hugely beneficial to both parties without compromising Trump's promise for American energy independence.

In Afghanistan, it is harder to know for sure what Trump will do. Should he sit tight? Or should he withdraw? The only way to create a sizable victory in the Afghan War would be for temporary withdrawal from Afghanistan, a focus on Libya and Iraq, then a return to Afghanistan - from the air - once the situation has more seriously deteriorated. This would give the Afghanis an opportunity to form for themselves a government devoid of Al-Qaeda, ISIS and the Taliban - but only after they see the Taliban firsthand without an American presence on the ground.

In short, Trump's victories on the war on terror are likely to be substantial. At the very least, I anticipate Trump policy to stabilize Syria, Iraq and Libya, which will decrease radical Islam's vice grip over the region.