The Trump impact on US policy

[Azor]

1. You reside in Germany and are clearly not facing the adverse economic and financial conditions that prevail in the Rust Belt and for roughly half of Americans. This is not a criticism, but context...

2. You wanted Hillary Clinton to be elected President because you expected her pursue a more confrontational foreign policy with respect to Russia and Iran, and toward the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Syria. You also were aware that she would largely ignore domestic policy, knowing that any initiatives would be obstructed by Republicans in Congress. Clinton’s policy focus and ability to effect change were both in the area of foreign affairs, and Clinton had established herself as a hawk.

3. You have accused Obama of ignoring Russian aggression in Ukraine and Syria, and Iran’s aggression in Syria and Yemen. In fact, you have argued that Obama has been complicit in Putin’s attempts to coerce Kiev into recognizing Putin’s puppets, and in Assad’s attempt to annihilate the moderate rebels. You have posted sources and articles suggesting that Obama is cooperating with Putin and Khamenei and is seen as their accomplice by many Sunni Arabs.

Therefore, I have two questions for you:

Question 1: If Obama has caved to Putin and Khamenei as you suggest, what could Trump do to make things even worse?

Lift sanctions on Russia for its invasion of Ukraine? The Europeans are the least enthusiastic about maintaining the sanctions, Kerry has already tied them to Donbas rather than Crimea, and they show no signs of causing Russia to withdraw from either territory.

Allow Russia to bomb the Free Syrian Army? That is already happening.

Suspend aid to the rebels? That would only cause the Turks, Saudis and Qataris to increase aid without the CIA’s restrictions and would probably be a net benefit to the FSA.

Cooperate more with the Iranians and their mercenaries? Actually, Trump would prove more confrontational as he cares little for the JCPOA. This would mean more arms sales and transfers to the GCC.

Question 2: What could Hillary actually accomplish more than Obama?

Create a NFZ in Syria? Doubtful unless you want war with Russia.

More aid to the FSA? And suffer accusations of supporting Daesh and Al Qaeda…

More sanctions on Russia? Not if the Europeans can help it.

Lethal aid to Ukraine? In return for advanced weapons to Syria, Iran, the Houthis and others?

[TheCurmudgeon]

1. You reside in Germany and are clearly not facing the adverse economic and financial conditions that prevail in the Rust Belt and for roughly half of Americans. This is not a criticism, but context...

2. You wanted Hillary Clinton to be elected President because you expected her pursue a more confrontational foreign policy with respect to Russia and Iran, and toward the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Syria. You also were aware that she would largely ignore domestic policy, knowing that any initiatives would be obstructed by Republicans in Congress. Clinton’s policy focus and ability to effect change were both in the area of foreign affairs, and Clinton had established herself as a hawk.

3. You have accused Obama of ignoring Russian aggression in Ukraine and Syria, and Iran’s aggression in Syria and Yemen. In fact, you have argued that Obama has been complicit in Putin’s attempts to coerce Kiev into recognizing Putin’s puppets, and in Assad’s attempt to annihilate the moderate rebels. You have posted sources and articles suggesting that Obama is cooperating with Putin and Khamenei and is seen as their accomplice by many Sunni Arabs.

Therefore, I have two questions for you:

Question 1: If Obama has caved to Putin and Khamenei as you suggest, what could Trump do to make things even worse?

Lift sanctions on Russia for its invasion of Ukraine? The Europeans are the least enthusiastic about maintaining the sanctions, Kerry has already tied them to Donbas rather than Crimea, and they show no signs of causing Russia to withdraw from either territory.

Allow Russia to bomb the Free Syrian Army? That is already happening.

Suspend aid to the rebels? That would only cause the Turks, Saudis and Qataris to increase aid without the CIA’s restrictions and would probably be a net benefit to the FSA.

Cooperate more with the Iranians and their mercenaries? Actually, Trump would prove more confrontational as he cares little for the JCPOA. This would mean more arms sales and transfers to the GCC.

Question 2: What could Hillary actually accomplish more than Obama?

Create a NFZ in Syria? Doubtful unless you want war with Russia.

More aid to the FSA? And suffer accusations of supporting Daesh and Al Qaeda…

More sanctions on Russia? Not if the Europeans can help it.

Lethal aid to Ukraine? In return for advanced weapons to Syria, Iran, the Houthis and others?

Azor,

This is no longer about Clinton or Obama. This is all about Trump. Trump won the election so the question is not about what ifs and more about what is to come. Based on his personality and exceptionally thin skin, his total lack of foreign policy experience, and his refusal to take advise from anyone (like the intelligence community), I think trepidation is in order.

[Azor]

Azor,

This is no longer about Clinton or Obama. This is all about Trump. Trump won the election so the question is not about what ifs and more about what is to come. Based on his personality and exceptionally thin skin, his total lack of foreign policy experience, and his refusal to take advise from anyone (like the intelligence community), I think trepidation is in order.

Firstly, you are dismissing my reasonable questions about how Trump would be "worse" for those voters wanted a tougher line on aggression in Ukraine and Syria.

Secondly, Obama had a very thick skin, and it only encouraged the Russians and Iranians to provoke him and put US servicemen and women at risk. Erdogan shot down a Su-24 that was in Turkish airspace for less than a minute, and nothing happened. Yet the Russian Air Force violates NATO airspace regularly and skirts it with nuclear-capable bombers.

Thirdly, the Director of the CIA and his two Deputy Directors are all political appointees, and only the Director has relevant experience with the CIA, albeit from 2005. Therefore, we cannot regard information from the CIA released officially or by unnamed sources as merely the apolitical expert opinion of intelligence analysts.

The CIA gave absurdly low numbers for Daesh's strength from 2014 on, which were up to ten times lower than the Peshmerga's estimates. To date, Operation Inherent Resolve has killed more Daesh fighters than were estimated in 2014 and 2015.

Now we are seeing a regurgitation of the allegation that the Russians hacked the DNC, which I believe that they did. Yet the WikiLeaks release of July was only a temporary setback to Clinton's chances and Comey's letters as well as Hillary's "deplorables" remark had far more of an impact on her electoral chances, with the latter having by far the greatest (est. 32 seats lost).

Trump understands that the CIA's claims and Obama's investigation are yet another attempt to question the legitimacy of Trump's victory, after the suggestions that Russia hacked paper-based booths and after Stein's failed recount bid.

Lastly, many Republican officials associated with the CIA also denounced Trump's nomination by the GOP and publicly supported Clinton.

So is it Trump's fault for tensions between the president-elect and the CIA, or the CIA's role in the scorched earth tactics by anti-Trump Republicans and the DNC?

It was said that during Bill Clinton's presidency, that the DCI had to crash his helicopter into the White House to get a minute of Bill's time, and the lack of action on Al Qaeda is indicative of that. Now that the ODNI has publicly disagreed with the CIA's conclusions based on evidence from the Summer, it is incumbent upon the Agency to make music with the president-elect.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Firstly, you are dismissing my reasonable questions about how Trump would be "worse" for those voters wanted a tougher line on aggression in Ukraine and Syria.

Secondly, Obama had a very thick skin, and it only encouraged the Russians and Iranians to provoke him and put US servicemen and women at risk. Erdogan shot down a Su-24 that was in Turkish airspace for less than a minute, and nothing happened. Yet the Russian Air Force violates NATO airspace regularly and skirts it with nuclear-capable bombers.

Thirdly, the Director of the CIA and his two Deputy Directors are all political appointees, and only the Director has relevant experience with the CIA, albeit from 2005. Therefore, we cannot regard information from the CIA released officially or by unnamed sources as merely the apolitical expert opinion of intelligence analysts.

The CIA gave absurdly low numbers for Daesh's strength from 2014 on, which were up to ten times lower than the Peshmerga's estimates. To date, Operation Inherent Resolve has killed more Daesh fighters than were estimated in 2014 and 2015.

Now we are seeing a regurgitation of the allegation that the Russians hacked the DNC, which I believe that they did. Yet the WikiLeaks release of July was only a temporary setback to Clinton's chances and Comey's letters as well as Hillary's "deplorables" remark had far more of an impact on her electoral chances, with the latter having by far the greatest (est. 32 seats lost).

Trump understands that the CIA's claims and Obama's investigation are yet another attempt to question the legitimacy of Trump's victory, after the suggestions that Russia hacked paper-based booths and after Stein's failed recount bid.

Lastly, many Republican officials associated with the CIA also denounced Trump's nomination by the GOP and publicly supported Clinton.

So is it Trump's fault for tensions between the president-elect and the CIA, or the CIA's role in the scorched earth tactics by anti-Trump Republicans and the DNC?

It was said that during Bill Clinton's presidency, that the DCI had to crash his helicopter into the White House to get a minute of Bill's time, and the lack of action on Al Qaeda is indicative of that. Now that the ODNI has publicly disagreed with the CIA's conclusions based on evidence from the Summer, it is incumbent upon the Agency to make music with the president-elect.

No one is questioning the legitimacy of the election. That is a discussion for elsewhere.

Look, this thread is about Trump, not about Hillary Clinton, not about Obama, not about Bill Clinton. So I will ask you politely to please stick to the topic.

What do you see Trump doing differently about ISIS? About al Qaeda?

[Azor]

No one is questioning the legitimacy of the election. That is a discussion for elsewhere.

Look, this thread is about Trump, not about Hillary Clinton, not about Obama, not about Bill Clinton. So I will ask you politely to please stick to the topic.

What do you see Trump doing differently about ISIS? About al Qaeda?

Well, my responses were to Outlaw 09, who does question Trump's legitimacy, and were repositioned by the Moderator.

For people that are opponents of Trump, it is important to ask what they think Clinton would have done differently...

Trump is a showman, and I expect him to carry on Operation Inherent Resolve, albeit with a bit more flair:

• Reduced ROEs
• An emphasis on massive strike packages as opposed to smaller sorties
• Use of Land-Attack Cruise Missiles and strategic bombers
• More frequent and boastful updates on progress directly from the White House and SecDef

Al Qaeda is more of a tricky situation, as it might be best to negotiate with the former Nusra and ignore those Sunni jihadists not focused on attacking the West. How he gets along with Iran will determine his priority on targeting Sunni jihadists, when they would prove useful proxies against the rampaging Shia militias.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Well, my responses were to Outlaw 09, who does question Trump's legitimacy, and were repositioned by the Moderator.

For people that are opponents of Trump, it is important to ask what they think Clinton would have done differently...

Trump is a showman, and I expect him to carry on Operation Inherent Resolve, albeit with a bit more flair:

• Reduced ROEs
• An emphasis on massive strike packages as opposed to smaller sorties
• Use of Land-Attack Cruise Missiles and strategic bombers
• More frequent and boastful updates on progress directly from the White House and SecDef

Al Qaeda is more of a tricky situation, as it might be best to negotiate with the former Nusra and ignore those Sunni jihadists not focused on attacking the West. How he gets along with Iran will determine his priority on targeting Sunni jihadists, when they would prove useful proxies against the rampaging Shia militias.

I expect him to leave ISIS to the Russians outside of Iraq, or at a minimum, follow their lead. I also don't expect him to change the current policy much in Iraq. He will talk tough, but I don't think the policy will change much.

He is going to have a divided cabinet on Iran. Russia is solidifying links with them, so I am not sure that he will do anything more than talk.

There is also a much more interesting thought process coming from people like Tom Ricks, who believe that Trump will have little if anything to do with foreign policy. I offer this for your consideration ...

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/12/13/...-star-friends/