Posts tagged as “Middle East”

Many critics, myself included, lament the fact that President Trump tweets so much. In truth, though, the problem is not that Trump tweets so much; it’s that so much of what he tweets is embarrassing, juvenile, and blatantly detrimental to his own political interests.

But just imagine, if you will, a president who had greater self-awareness, self-discipline, maturity, wisdom, savvy, and political smarts. Why, such a president could tweet regularly and often, but to much greater political effect. I thought about this when reading an excellent piece by Thomas Joscelyn in The Dispatch.

Joscelyn is a senior editor at the Long War Journal published by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. He notes that, according to fresh reporting by Martin Chulov and Mohammed Rasool in The Guadian, the Islamic State’s new leader is Amir Mohammed Abdul Rahman al-Mawli al-Salbi, also known as Haji Abdullah; and he is not an Arab, but an ethnic Turkmen.

Salbi (or Haji Abdullah) became the leader of ISIS after their previous leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, blew himself up in a U.S. military raid in late October 2019. And the fact that Salbi is not an Arab, but an ethnic Turkmen is a real problem for the Islamic State: because it calls into question Salbi’s legitimacy as a ruler in the eyes of the jihadists whom he’s supposed to lead and command.

Why is that? Because ISIS’s claim to legitimacy its based on the fact that its rulers supposedly descend from the Prophet Muhammad; but such a claim is dubious, Joscelyn points out, if in fact, Salbi is not an Arab.

An earlier leader of the Islamic State, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, had much the same problem, he notes.

Jihadist critics argued that no one really knew Abu Omar’s true identity or background, so it was absurd for anyone to declare their fealty to him. Bin Laden had to answer this charge in both his private correspondence and public statements.

There’s more to the story, but the point is that this could be a real problem for the current Islamic State, which split off from al-Qaeda. But thus far the U.S. and its allies have done little to exploit it.

“If the U.S. and its allies were adept at messaging—and, trust me,” Joscelyn writes, “they are not—this is the sort of apparent discrepancy that would be trumpeted far and wide as part of a counterterrorist media campaign.”

Internecine Jihadi War. This is a great and under-appreciated point. Internecine ideological disputes within the Jihadist ranks are intense and very real—and taken quite seriously by the Jihadists themselves. The United States should be doing everything that it possibly can to exploit these divisions and keep the Jihadists divided and at war with themselves.

This is especially important because, as Joscelyn observes, ISIS is not yet dead. Indeed, despite the loss of its territory, the terrorist group retains an estimated 14,000 to 18,000 combatants in Syria and Iraq combined, including “key veteran personnel” such as Haji Abdullah.

Haji Abdullah, in fact, “is a founding member of the Islamic State’s first incarnation, with his jihadist biography stretching back to the days of al-Qaeda in Iraq (circa 2003-04),” Joscelyn writes.

An American President who understood this (not President Trump, obviously) could use his Twitter feed smartly and wisely to wage war agains the Jihadists.

And there is no need for heavy propaganda or editorializing either. Simply tweeting out a link to this Guardian article, for instance, and mildly asking some fair and legitimate questions about the ISIS leader would do the trick.

Unfortunately, Trump would rather tweet in juvenile and idiotic fashion about what he last saw on Fox News or how he was wronged by the “Deep State.” But the problem is not Twitter, which, in the right hands, can be used well and to good effect. The problem is the man—or the adolescent in a man’s body—behind the tweet.

Feature photo credit: The Guardian

Is it asking too much of Congress to support American troops under fire in the Middle East? This, sadly, is not a rhetorical question. The House of Representatives has conspicuously failed to support our troops and the Senate is poised to follow suit.

How so? By passing a “war powers resolution” designed to restrict President Trump’s Constitutional authority as Commander in Chief to authorize military action in defense of our troops. The House approved a war powers resolution last week and the Senate is expected soon to do the same.

Why now? Because of the U.S. military strike that took out Iranian General Qassem Suleimani. Congressional advocates of a war powers resolution say it is needed to stop Trump from taking America to war. Never mind that the President has been extraordinarily restrained and tempered in the wake of repeated Iranian provocations.

In fact, it was the only after an American serving in Iraq was killed by Iranian-backed militia that Trump finally decided to strike back by taking out Suleimani. The President has since made clear, in both word and deed, that he has no plans or desire for a larger-scale war with Iran. Yet, says Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), “Congress cannot be sidelined on these important decisions.”

Of course, no one would deny Congress its rightful say in the use and disposition of American military power. Under Article 1 of the Constitution, Congress authorizes and appropriates funding while conducting necessary oversight of the executive branch and U.S. military. But once U.S. forces are deployed—as they have been in the Middle East for decades now—then the President of the United States, as Commander in Chief, has a solemn responsibility to act with dispatch in their defense.

That’s exactly what Trump did when he ordered the strike against Suleimani, a terrorist ringleader who had orchestrated the death of more than 600 Americans. As Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) explains, we simply cannot have 535 Commanders in Chief. That is completely illogical and utterly impractical.

If the war powers resolution ever makes its way to Trump’s desk, it will be summarily vetoed. The President will not allow his Constitutional authority as Commander in Chief to be usurped by Congress. Nonetheless, serious damage will have been done to America’s standing in the world, and our troops will be imperiled.

Terrorists and rogue regimes throughout the Middle East will interpret the war powers resolution as an impediment to Trump’s ability to respond to their provocations and defend our troops. They will see the resolution as an opportunity for them to terrorize U.S. and allied forces with minimal fear of reprisal: because, after all, Trump has been constrained; his hands tied by Congress.

Weakness invites aggression, and make no mistake: the war powers resolution signals weakness to America’s enemies.

What should Congress have done and what might it still do? Simple: pass a resolution that: a) condemns the Iranian regime for sponsoring terrorism; and b) supports the U.S. military strike against Suleimani. That would strengthen deterrence vis-a-vis the regime and limit the possibility of a larger-scale war in the Middle East.

President Reagan called this “peace through strength,” and it is still the right and strategically wise approach.

One of the most pointless policy debates ginned up of late by the anti-Trump media and Dems in Congress is whether an Iranian attack on U.S. interests was “imminent” prior to the U.S. military strike that took out Iranian General Qassem Suleimani. If such an attack was imminent, they say, then the U.S. military strike may have been justified; but if not, then the strike is probably illegal and Trump may have committed a war crime.

What this analysis ignores, of course, is that, regardless of whether such an attack was “imminent,” Iran has been waging war against the United States for the past 40 years, ever since its 1979 revolution and seizure of 52 American hostages.

Suleimani himself, moreover, had orchestrated the death of more than 600 Americans serving in Iraq for the past 16 years. Suleimani’s blood-stained record provided more than ample justification for targeting him while he was in Iraq plotting yet more terror attacks against American military personnel and civilian contractors.

Indeed, the U.S. military strike against Suleimani is best understood as a quick defensive measure taken when a moment of opportunity suddenly arose. Trump wisely seized upon this opportunity to free the world of a dangerous terrorist mastermind. A good deed and good riddance.