Trump's Foreign Policy PART TWO

In my earlier post, "Trump's Foreign Policy," I suggested that Trump might install a dictator in Afghanistan and play the waiting game in Libya.

I wish to take it back and say the opposite: that Trump might install a dictator in Libya and play the waiting game in Afghanistan.

The Afghan War is the longest and one of the most unpopular wars in American memory. To spend much longer in Afghanistan would make Trump more unpopular. Since his foreign policy motto is to "get out of the nation-building business" and "focus on stability," he is likely to stabilize other countries first before trying to stabilize Afghanistan.

In any case, an exploding Afghanistan (caused by American troop removal) represents a much smaller regional threat to American assets than does an exploding Iraq, Syria or Libya.

Rather than stabilizing Afghanistan, it seems more likely that Trump, Russia and Iran would stabilize Syria by letting the legitimate Assad government remain to destroy ISIS. Though Assad victory in Syria strengthens Iran, Iran would be faced with an unstable Afghanistan on its eastern border. Such instability would only increase once America left, and would be a valuable bargaining chip for Trump against Iran.

As well as this, Trump would, in his words, "bomb the hell out of ISIS" in Iraq and Syria and "take their [Iraqi] oil." In Trump language this means destroy ISIS and increase oil relations with Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia and Iran.

In Libya Trump has a valuable opportunity to cast himself as having a blueprint for American foreign policy. Comparatively, there has not been as much time in Libya since intervention (2011), compared to Afghanistan (2001) which again makes it easier to stabilize Libya over Afghanistan.

Unlike Afghanistan, in Libya there is already a potential dictator fighting on the ground: Haftar Al-Khalifa. All Trump would have to do is scrap the "Unity Government of National Salvation" (which has no power anyway) and give power back to the previously legitimate Tobruk-based government and Haftar Al-Khalifa. Trump supporting the Tobruk-based government and Haftar Al-Khalifa would likely stabilize Libya drastically.

Libya represents a large threat to the stability of Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt. Trump stabilizing Libya would increase relations substantially between America and those countries.

An unstable Afghanistan represents a threat to stability for Pakistan and Iran in particular, which is also better for America. Iran is anti-American, so a threat to their stability is in America's interest. A threat to Pakistan forces Pakistan to rely more heavily on America. This is good considering Pakistan is one country that does - but should not have - nuclear weapons.


The negative behind America leaving Afghanistan would be a more radical Taliban emerging in 3 - 5 years. This, together with increased Al-Qaeda strength in Yemen, would put Al-Qaeda back on the map. Yet, like Iraq, it's what the American people are willing to accept for the price of getting out of the war.

A post-war unstable Afghanistan would only strengthen how Trump would look to the American people. The American people would be able to compare Trump's results in a stable Iraq, Syria and Libya with those of Obama and Bush, seen visibly in a continually deteriorating Afghanistan.


Such might increase Trump's popularity, causing him to come back for a second Presidential term and finish the war in Afghanistan for good, by installing a dictator on top. Then America would truly be out of the "nation-building business" and stability would return to those regions of the Middle-East.