NATO, Russia and America in Libya

Very interesting developments are occurring in regards to Libya, Russia, America and NATO.

Other members of NATO are not paying their fair share. NATO is, in many ways, obsolete, with America always having to bear the brunt of the burden and financial cost, and with NATO mainly directed to Russia and not to radical Islamic terrorism.

Libya is the ultimate way for Trump to revolutionize NATO. How? By abandoning it. Instead, Trump would wage a war for Libyan security with a Russian-American alliance.

Russia and America share an ally in Egypt. Abdul Feteh Sisi has strong ties to Russia, dating back to the beginning of Sisi's military coup in 2013, when Obama wanted nothing to do with Egypt but Putin did. Now that Trump is promising not only an alliance but a friendship to Sisi, in Libya we see American and Russian interests are very similar: stability in Libya to protect Sisi to his west, which means Haftar Al-Khalifa.

Thus it may be in Libya where American-Russian relations bud to fruition rather than in Syria. In Syria it is a quagmire like no other, and should America bomb ISIS with Russia in Syria, it would be perceived to benefit Iran.

Not only so, but such a Libya strategy would result in a serious wake up call to NATO. They would know that America has other options, unless they pay their fair share of the wage and focus more on radical Islamic terrorism than Putin.

Thus would be a win-win situation for both Putin and Trump, but particularly for Trump: it would improve ties with Russia, force NATO to pay their fair share, stabilize Libya and fulfill his promise to Egyptian President Sisi to not only alliance but friendship.

This is the likely outcome for Libya. And it is one that would show that the Trump-doctrine is just what the world needs right now.

If John Waver had been Barrack Obama

Forget that I'm not Barrack Obama, but let's just imagine that I, John Waver, had been in 2008 elected to be President of the United States of America, as I am today. What would have President John Waver done in Foreign Policy?

I would have been different from Obama in a number of ways. However, on Iraq, I would have been in accord: it was time to get out, or at least leave a residual force behind if allowed by the then Maliki government.

From the start of 2008 in Afghanistan, however, I would have implemented a vastly different policy to that of Obama's. Rather than give in to demands for a troop surge in Afghanistan, I would have surged airstrikes in Afghanistan to support existing American/NATO troops and bolster morale for Afghani troops.

From the beginning, I would have implemented an "Iraq War in Reverse" mentality in Afghanistan. I would have allowed - and even encouraged - then leader of Afghanistan Hamid Kharzai to remain in power indefinitely as a dictator so he could crack down hard on the Taliban.

I would have had a "no tolerance" approach to the Taliban, who had harboured Al-Qaeda preceding 9-11. I would have pushed Hamid Kharzai for mass arrests of Taliban members and for members of the Taliban to be held in high security prisons. Rather than putting lots of money into Afghani infrastructure - that was so frequently blown up again and again - I would have put the money into border security between Afghanistan and Pakistan, to make sure no Pakistani Taliban would come through to Afghanistan.

I would not negotiate with the Taliban. I would make sure that a dictatorship under Kharzai was fiercely anti-terrorism and anti-Taliban, and - once a much stronger country - encourage for Kharzai to stand up to Iran, like Saddam Hussein did, to assist America in that regard.

While withdrawing from Iraq in 2011, I would have marked the war as a defeat, not a victory. I would tell the American soldiers that their fight was tough and was not in vain, but that as of now, America had lost the Iraq War. I would encourage them to stiffen their resolve in fighting the war on terror in Afghanistan and that, should the Iraqis ever need our help, the United States would be their top ally and friend and return swiftly.

In the 2010 Iraqi elections, I would have pushed for Ayad Allawi to become the Prime Minister, as he was supposed to be. Though I would have supported Iraq no matter the Prime Minister, I would have at that time criticized Al-Maliki for his policies which alienated Sunni Arabs from belief in Iraq, and blamed him for Iranian takeover of Iraq, to weaken him and strengthen Allawi. Assuming I failed in diplomacy, I would still have remained in support of Iraq under Maliki.

I would not have endorsed the Arab Spring at all. I would not have overthrown Gidaffi in Libya, nor pushed to overthrow Bashar Al-Assad in Syria, nor would have I encouraged the overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt. I would site the Iraq War as the top reason.

The result of this would have meant no ISIS in Syria or Libya, and no Al-Qaeda there either.

With no S in ISIS - S for Syria - the Islamic State of Iraq, under Al-Qaeda, probably would have still reared its ugly head in 2014. I would have immediately put in a "safe zone" in Nineveh Province to prevent Christian and Yazidi genocide and, if necessary, would have put in American ground troops in that safe zone to prevent it.

But I would not expand military operations in Iraq beyond the Nineveh safe zone until Allawi were made Prime Minister of Iraq, as he should have been in 2010. I would have repeated my claims about Nouri Al-Maliki's leadership. Perhaps then, Allawi would become the Prime Minister following the crisis in 2014.

Had Allawi become Prime Minister, I would then give him firm and strong support via airstrikes to protect Baghdad and the oilfields of Kurdistan. I would have prioritized northern Iraq before Anbar Province, to make Saudi Arabia, Syria and Jordan work hard to prevent infiltration from ISI, while securing Christians and Yazidis from genocide and slavery.

The result may have been that ISI would have been driven out of Iraq by the end of my second Presidential term, because there would be no significant amounts of funding from the US to ISI to overthrow Bashar Al-Assad, but also because ISI would not exist in Syria and not exist as a Caliphate.

While destroying ISI - or at least driving it underground - I would tell Allawi I planned to prioritize oil exports from Iraq over every other country. I would have drastically increased the oil exports from Iraq, and drastically decreased them from countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to bankrupt them so they would be no longer able to fund their projects.

Thus, in my view, Afghanistan and Iraq would have been drastically more stable than they are today. Yes, Obama: I could've beat you on Foreign Policy in the Middle-East.

Positioning NATO towards radical Islam PART TWO

Now that Trump has been President for almost 1 month, his intentions behind NATO are more clear.

It seems that Trump intends for the Afghan War to become purely a NATO war, not an American-NATO war. It is in Afghanistan that Trump sees his idea of positioning NATO towards radical Islam to be the easiest to implement.

It would force all partners within NATO to work towards a solution to the Afghani conflict - which will only occur once all members of NATO are convinced to prioritize stability over democracy. America under Trump sees this - so does, interestingly, Erdogan of Turkey. But few other NATO allies do.

It is very unlikely that NATO would be positioned within Syria or Libya, as Trump seems content for these conflicts to end up in Russia's hands. Putting NATO in Syria and/or Libya adds risk to conflict between NATO and Russia, which Trump is against.

It is also unlikely that NATO would be positioned in Iraq. NATO would get in the way of Trump's desire for a largely American victory in Iraq.

As for Yemen, that is the now uncertain arena in regards to NATO. At the moment, Trump is happy to work with the Saudi government against the Iran-sympathetic (but not Iran-backed) Houthis, but will that last after stability is reached elsewhere? Will Trump betray Saudi Arabia after stability returns to Iraq, Syria, Libya and Afghanistan? Or will he increase NATO involvement on the southern neighbour of the Arabian Peninsula?

The first is more likely, but with Trump, things are not always as they seem.

The only solution to the Afghan War

It should be obvious to pundits that the only country who really has the right idea about how to defeat terrorism is Russia.

Their historic 'Iraq War in reverse' in Syria has seen drastic levels of stability reached all across the country. Once ISIS and Al-Qaeda are cleared out from Syria, Bashar Al-Assad will make sure that his country will no longer be a terrorist haven.

This lesson has profound implications for Afghanistan. Meanwhile, other journalists are calling for bringing the Taliban to the negotiating table as part of the peace process. The Taliban! The group who harboured Al-Qaeda and caused 9-11!

Of course, Trump will not focus on Afghanistan until Iraq is stabilized. His plan to stabilize Iraq involves destroying ISIS, giving Sunni Arabs more of a say in their government, quenching Iranian influence from the country, and upping oil relations between Iraq and the West. Let's hope it works.

But the solution for Afghanistan is clear: an 'Iraq-War in reverse' must be waged. Rather than engaging in dialogue with the Taliban, the Taliban need to be ruthlessly driven out of Afghanistan into Pakistan - either that or mass Taliban imprisonment.

A strong man must take charge of Afghanistan; whether he be an Afghan general or someone else, a coup must be supported by the United States to enable strong government to exist in Afghanistan, to the detriment of terrorism and benefit of the Afghani people.

Why the Arab Spring was worse than the Iraq War

The Arab Spring destroyed more countries than the Iraq War did.

To be sure, George W. Bush's invasion in 2003 totally and completely destroyed Iraq. It increased persecution of Iraqi minority groups, especially Sunni Arabs and Christians, and gave birth to Al-Qaeda in Iraq (2004), the organisation which became the Islamic State of Iraq in 2006.

However, when Obama inherited that big mess, he could have very easily left Iraq without sending money to Islamic State of Iraq. Yes, you heard that right: Obama sent money to the Islamic State of Iraq to get them to be allies in overthrowing the secular Syrian Government.

Did you know that the same year the Iraq War ended, Obama endorsed the Arab Spring and funded terrorists, including ISIS, to overthrow dictators?

In Syria the results have been obvious, because most of the "moderate rebels" defected to then Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (or ISIS), the organisation which expanded from the Islamic State of Iraq. ISIS would never have existed in Syria had Obama not supported the Syrian Opposition.

In Libya, much less is seen in the Media, but it is nonetheless horrific. The violence escalated about the same time as ISIS invaded Iraq and declared their Caliphate. In 2014, the remnants of the Libyan Government moved to Tobruk to wage war against mainly Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda militants based in Tripoli. This war, while not as intense as the current Syrian-Iraqi conflict, has still caused untold suffering for the people of Libya.

Yemen is also a very sad story. Obama gave the kingdom of Saudi Arabia the green light to wage a war against the Houthis, a Iranian-friendly (but not Iranian-backed) group hell-bent on destroying Al-Qaeda in Yemen and giving the country much-needed stability. However, Saudi bombing has ended that possibility, with now 7 million Yemenis in famine as we speak,

All three of these conflicts could have never existed had Obama not endorsed in then "Arab Spring." Had Gidaffi crushed the rebellion in 2011; had Assad been able to crush the "moderate rebels" in Syria, the Arab Spring would have undoubtedly dried up.

Syria, Libya and Yemen together affect more people than Iraq does. Iraq has a population of 30 million; the combined population of Syria, Libya and Yemen is 60 million, double that amount.

The difference is that less American ground troops were sent into Syria, Libya and Yemen. This is the reason why Obama's intervention (or compliance over actions of American allies) in Syria, Libya and Yemen has been (until recently) more popular than George Bush's Iraq War. Americans saw Iraq as if it was outside their window - Syria, Libya and Yemen they do not.

But it seems likely that the Obama legacy - and the legacy of the Arab Spring - will be in Russian takeover of each of these 3 conflicts. Russia plans to stabilize Syria by fully allying and cooperating with the government there; in Libya, Russia is currently working with Egypt to stabilize the country by working on a solution through Haftar Al-Khalifa and the remnants of the Libyan Government in Tobruk; in Yemen, Russia is patiently eyeing for the right moment to intervene, likely to occur after significant levels of stability are reached in Syria and Libya.

Thus will it be that Trump's own legacy will be more aligned with that of America: end the Iraq and Afghan Wars properly and proceed to focus on America First. Should Trump remain President for 8 years, I expect he will accomplish these, and these without worrying about Russia cleaning up Obama's mess.

Brexit and Trump, and why millennials need to wake up

Overwhelmingly, millennials are shaken and upset that Brexit and Trump happened.

But I wonder how many millennials have full-time jobs? Or have families to provide for? Or whether they live at home, single, partying like there's no tomorrow with only a mind on themselves.

Selfishness is a trait inherent to millennials. They need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Brexit and Trump happened because many people in Britain and America are able to compare between how these countries were, and how these countries are. Before, Britain and America had independence in trade, foreign policy and immigration. Now the world dictates unfair and unjust trade deals, foreign policy and obscene types of immigration, which has meant the older generations voted for Brexit and Trump.

Obama's foreign policy decisions rival those of George W. Bush. Though not responsible for the Iraq War, Obama's foreign policy decisions in Libya and Syria were abysmal, causing untold suffering for the Middle-East and resulting in the genocide of minorities. That was Barrack Obama - not George Bush.

George Bush, to his credit, didn't invade another country after learning the lesson of Iraq. Barrack Obama's foreign policy saw the destabilization of Syria, Libya, Yemen and even Ukraine. These are Barrack Obama's fault, and nobody knows about it or cares from the millennial generation.

Britain, NATO and the EU wholeheartedly supported Barrack Obama's moves in these countries, which has left the world far less safe than it was 8 years ago. That's Obama, not Bush.

In addition to all this destabilization, the EU and Obama's America have been taking in more refugees, caused by intervention in these countries. Do you see the pattern? Obama destabilizes the Middle-East by forcefully supporting the Arab Spring, then, look at that! Immigration goes up!

Nothing was done by the EU and Obama to respond appropriately to these crises - all the decisions merely inflamed the crises. That's why Brexit and Trump happened, and that's why millennials need to wake up.

The older generations have seen far more of life than millennials have. Can millennials really claim to be well educated when they cry out for Socialism that led to the bankruptcy of the Soviet Union? Or that Socialism is causing the bankruptcy of the European Union? That Greece failed because of the Euro?

Or that Barrack Obama has done more in aid of terrorism in his foreign policy blunders than even George W. Bush?! That Obama is the reason the economy in America is failing? His unwillingness to tackle big banks, wall street and job loss, while everyone says, 'he's a good President' because he's an Afro-American democrat who says nice things?!

The older generations have done you, the millennials, a huge favour. The whining and whinging over their votes for your future is sickening. Read up on the issues, the actual issues, and you will see that Trump and Brexit are the best change we've seen in a quarter of a century of politics.

why an ISIS-Saudi war is not only probable but inevitable

The forces that were unleashed in the Iraq War have not yet been fully realised. This is especially true regarding ISIS and the threat it brings to Saudi Arabia.

Whether the conflicts in Iraq and Syria end or not is irrelevant - either way, the international community will still be faced with an ISIS-Saudi war within the kingdom.

The two options of an ISIS spillover into Saudi Arabia are a 'defeat-spillover' or a 'success-spillover.' A 'success spillover' would mean that ISIS maintain a permanent base in Syria and Iraq and from there are able to launch attacks on Saudi Arabia and destabilize it. In the case of a 'defeat-spillover,' Saudi Arabia would lose the large Syrian-Iraqi proxy war to Iran. This would cause Saudi Arabia to destabilize in favour of ISIS.

Interestingly, Hillary Clinton's foreign policy would have resulted in a 'success spillover,' while Donald Trump's policies are likely to result in a 'defeat spillover'.

Donald Trump is planning on reversing ISIS' gains permanently in Syria and Iraq to such an extent that he is prepared to work with Russia and the Syrian Government, an Iranian ally, to do this. He is also prepared to work towards military, political and economic solutions in Iraq, which might succeed in giving the country stability for the first time since 2003.

Should Trump be successful, the ISIS 'defeat-spillover' would cause Saudis to blame their government, pledge allegiance to ISIS in overwhelming numbers to rid Saudi Arabia of its twin threat: Iran and America.

This war is only inevitable because the forces of the Middle-East have not yet adjusted to the seismic shift caused by the Iraq War. By removing Saddam Hussein, a secular Sunni, and replacing him with a Shi'ite dominated government, Sunni dominance under secular Saddam Hussein was replaced by a struggling Salafi Islam as Saudi Arabia tried to fill a Sunni void in Iraq, a void left by the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. This 'filling of the void' in Sunni Iraq gave us ISIS.

Should Iraq and Syria stabilize under regimes friendly to Iran, Saudi Arabia would need to have an internal transformation in order to resist the threat of an Iran-dominated Middle-East. ISIS is of course a natural benefactor, as Saudis will choose ISIS to force their government to act more forcefully against the threat of Iran within their country.

ISIS also gives Saudi Arabia the excuse to rid the Arabian Peninsula of all Shi'ites, likely causing large Gulf Shi'ite emigration to Iraq. This would mean that Iran would have no chance of using the Shi'ite minority in Saudi Arabia for their own gain.

Regarding America, both ISIS and Al-Qaeda provide avenues for Saudis to resist American influence within the kingdom. This would send a clear message to America: Saudis no longer trust Americans because of the Iraq War.

The Iraq War has had implications far beyond the immediate removal of Saddam Hussein. Even should Iraq stabilize, we will still see the consequences of this disastrous foreign policy played out elsewhere.