If John Waver had been Donald J. Trump (2016 - 2017)

This article will focus on where John Waver would have deviated from Donald Trump's own foreign policy of the last twelve months, particularly in how it relates to the Middle-East.

For the most part, Donald Trump has done well in the Middle-East. He has certainly done better than Barrack Obama, though it is contestable as to whether he has done a better job than George W. Bush. This is because like W. Bush, Donald Trump is fighting in a war that cannot be won. George W. Bush fought the Iraq War. Donald Trump is supporting the Saudis in their war on Yemen.

1) John Waver would have withdrawn from Syria as soon as possible.

The American people are war-weary. Like Donald Trump, John Waver would have wanted to minimize the Obama legacy as much as was possible, and one way to do this would be to withdraw from the conflict the US had the least to lose by leaving: Syria.

Syria is complicated. With Russian involvement in the Syrian civil war, regime change in Syria is all but impossible without an exacerbated conflict between Russia and the United States. Simultaneously, John Waver would have pulled all troops and aviation out of Syria, to stop the war on ISIS in Syria, while also withdrawing all funds for the Syrian rebels. That way Russia would have been under further economic and military strain to end the conflict in Syria, keeping them occupied in Syria so the United States could have more breathing space to fix up other problems it has in other areas of the Middle-East.

Temporarily this would have given ISIS a firmer safe haven in Syria, but it would have meant that relations between the US and Turkey would not have deteriorated as rapidly as they have this year. Relations between the two NATO allies have deteriorated largely because the Kurds in Syria have been funded by the US to fight ISIS. Withdrawing all support for the Syrian Kurds would have meant that Turkey would have felt more at ease on its large southern border, and would instead have been able to work out with Russia and Iran how to deal with the ISIS threat in Syria.

2) John Waver would have pushed Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey to fly sorties against ISIS exclusively in Iraq.

While ISIS in Syria could be dealt with by Russia, Turkey and Iran, ISIS in Iraq would have remained the responsibility of the US. But rather than the US fighting ISIS alone in the air, encouraging allies such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey to fly sorties over Iraq would have been a positive step for the region. While Iraq and Saudi Arabia have been expanding their ties recently, these have largely been after the war against ISIS has been won, and not before then.

Iraq being welcomed earlier into the Arab world would have given Iraq more time to wrest itself free of Iranian control. Such ambition will undoubtedly take years, but Sunni Arab help in Iraq against ISIS would not have gone astray to ending the sectarian bloodletting there.

3) John Waver would have held the same course as Trump in Afghanistan - with one ISIS exception.

One of the things underestimated by the US is the ability to manipulate an intra-jihad war between Al-Qaeda and ISIS. In the case of Afghanistan, while Trump's policy is sound, further pressure could be put on the Taliban if it were hammered by not only the US-backed government in Kabul, but also by ISIS militants.

ISIS is small in Afghanistan. Turning a blind eye to it growing in size at the expense of the Taliban would have made it easier for certain tribes within Afghanistan to reconcile themselves with Ashraf Ghani's government. Provided ISIS received no weapons, training, or finance from the US, it could still be used to weaken the Taliban and provide the Afghan Army with further relief.

The Taliban, not ISIS, is the major threat to stability in Afghanistan. Until the Taliban is destroyed, the world will not be safe from the powers that enabled 9-11.

4) John Waver would have divided Yemen into two parts - north and south

The bloodletting in Yemen is beyond a catastrophe. It has happened because Saudi Arabia has felt surrounded by Iranian proxies - across Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and now Yemen. President Donald Trump's support of the Yemeni civil war is reprehensible.

Understanding such concerns, but also realizing the limitations of Saudi air power, John Waver would have dissolved the Hadi Government and replaced it with a government headed by the Southern Movement. The Southern Movement, under a UAE-friendly dictatorship, would then be able to drive Al-Qaeda militants out of Southern Yemen and into the north, forcing Al-Qaeda to fight the Houthis until the Houthis accepted Yemen would no longer be two states.

It would be crucially important that food, water and sanitation be allowed into northern Yemen, while the Houthis' own supplies of weapons and military bases would be targeted. This would have helped avoid famine and the current Cholera outbreak in Yemen while also avoiding the current Al-Qaeda safe haven in the south of the country.


Perhaps this would have been more effective than President Trump's foreign policy - perhaps it would have been less effective. It is open for discussion, and overall I am happier with Trump's progress in the Middle-East than with Presidents' Obama and Bush.