The last post in this diary expressed the necessity for action by the next president in order to reestablish constitutional law immediately upon the departure of the Trump cabal and asked readers for their concrete suggestions. This was done in the hope that such suggestions published in the Daily Kos, a site for Democrats would reach policy makers in the Democratic Party. One hopes that many suggestions did so: if not, why bother? Some seemed confused as to the post’s definition of serious and immediate steps to be taken. For example, a suggestion for an immediate and necessary action would be the means by which the next President, on inauguration day, could immediately arrange for subpoenas and seizures of all hard and soft copy documents of Trump appointees. On the other hand, guaranteed medical care for all Americans would not be an immediate issue, needing quite some time to accomplish and accomplish right, although its effect on the history of the nation would be far greater. The question was, though, what has to be done on the first day or even the first week?
The restoration of justice as the federal level, enormous as that task will be, is not the only exigency: the new president will inherit certain international crises. These immediate crises either present the open military seizure of territory in violation of international law or the possibility of another attack on American soil.
There can be no single policy to cover all the potential crises; each has its unique aspects. Some of these looming crises were explored in the piece posted on February 20th; already much of that is obsolete.
Immediate restoration of ties with our friends.
On inauguration day, ambassadors of nations and international groups must be contacted to arrange meetings and summits to address the immediate problems of aggression made by the strong against the weak in the last months of the Trump administration and to repair at least partially the damage to America.
Announced should be the intention of the US to affect adherence to the Paris Climate Accord and re-acceptance of the Iran Nuclear agreement. A grand summit must be arranged within weeks, not months, to address and resolve the problem of the world’s refugees who, at this very moment, are dying on borders around the globe, the victims of histories in no way of their making. Thanks to our unhappy recent choices, we cannot assume any longer that the US can take on its former leadership role, but it still can give powerful weight and resources to these important agreements.
The next president will probably have to travel more than during any presidency before. We have passed the point in which foreign leaders will come to us; we must get used to going to them. No matter how triumphantly these trips might be pictured, they will essentially be that of a supplicant asking for re-admittance to the community of nations.
The regions.
Those are actions that might be taken on Wednesday January 20th or at least Thursday, January 21st. Other events might well require presidential decisions at that time. There is now a greater possibility for overt international aggression than at any time since the cold war if not the end of World War Two. All of these possibilities require responses planned, if at all possible, before the inauguration, since it may be safely assumed that the current administration is neither temperamentally inclined nor intellectually capable of significant action.
Russia and Ukraine
It is probably too late to reverse Russia’s absorption of the Crimea in its Sudetenland-style Anschluss; the ethnic Russian populace of that territory cheered the move that included, as in Stalin’s day, the expulsion of the Tatars of the Crimea. Beyond that, Russian proxies continue to occupy the eastern portions of Ukraine. The next step would be outright annexation, perhaps in the final weeks of the lame Trump occupation of the White House. This would have to be answered, but how?
China and the South China Sea
Should the new administration accede to Chinese naval construction on the coasts of South China Sea nations, there is a real risk of a naval confrontation in the early weeks of the new administration. The one constant in American policy that has survived unchanged since independence is that American ships have free transit of international waters and that any attempt to thwart this is considered as casus belli. Short of a military confrontation. what are the possible alternatives for a new president? If the construction is allowed to continue, how will American adjust to a new alignment of power in which the nations of the South China Sea certainly become economic and political satellites of China? We already are seeing a lessening of ties with America’s once most steadfast friend, the Philippines amid a concurrent growth in Sino-Philippine relations.
Beyond that, what is to be the policy towards a seizure of Hong Kong and, although far less likely, Taiwan?
The Levantine coast: Israel, Palestine and Lebanon
The recent election results in Israel might serve to derail the almost certain plan for Israel to overtly annex the West Bank and Gaza. The complete subjugation of the Palestinians under the fig leaf of the Israeli- “Kushner” plan would have been and might still be accomplished by inauguration day.
One might suggest that it will be too late by that time. However, this ignores the fact that Israeli is bankrolled by the United States, thusly giving to any president the same leverage that past presidents have refused to utilize: a fact, perhaps, lost on the American people but common knowledge on the streets of any other community of the planet.
The loss of US aid would cause subsequent Israeli tax increases that would threaten that Israeli middle-class life style so pleasing visiting American politicians who imagine a communality of outlook missing in comparison to the life afforded Palestinians. It might not, however, cause an Israeli retreat nor would it necessarily hamper the Israeli military, which has long been stockpiling material far beyond immediate needs. Even more importantly, Israeli has built up an impressive arms industry of its own, in part for export and also in preparation for an American cut in aid, the nonoccurence of which in the past few years has probably mildly surprised Israeli planners.
There is also the ever-present possibility that Israel may fabricate an excuse to once again attempt to take Lebanese territory. Lebanon, due to its political, economic and now health crises is even more vulnerable than usual. Netanyahu, a man whose morality matches that of his soul mate Trump, is desperate to find means of diverting Israeli attention from his legal problems.
Turkey and Syria
In the same region, the recent clashes between Turkish and Syrian forces pose an interesting problem, pitting the oppressor of the Kurds against the oppressor of the Syrians. This is even more interesting since Turkey is a NATO ally and the Syrians are propped up by Russia. To tangle the knot further, Turkey has managed to be the recipient of military largess from both the US and Russia. How might the US president respond to an illegal Turkish annexation of part of Syria, a Syria under the tyranny of the Assad pseudo-monarchy?
Iraq and Iran
Iraq is the only nation in which American have actually died in recent days. Yet the threat to the US is mainly in the mind of the US administration. Keep in mind when coming up with solutions that the US entered Iraq to foil a non-existent threat to America from Iraq’s oppressor, Saddam Hussein. Daesh (aka ISIS, ISIL) entered the subsequent vacuum and the US found itself at war, alongside those whom now the Trumpists abhor.
First point when considering options: nobody, save the current White House and perhaps the Likud Party wants the US military in Iraq. Iraqis do not want the US military in their country; their elected Parliament has asked the US to leave.
Yet the US insists on staying as a counter to a perceived danger of the Iraqi militia Kata'ib Hezbollah, of Iran, and of Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia and political party that the US, much to its future sorrow, refuses to distinguish from Iran. These were the co-belligerents of the US and its associates in the fight that defeated Daesh. and are regarded by the Iraqis as natural allies, natives or neighbors of the same faith, fighting for the same cause. The question here is not the Iranian presence, but the continuing US obsessive animosity with Iran. for far longer than the periods in which Germany and Japan transformed from enemies into allies.
Second point: it is quite probable that Daesh will not be able to return to Iraq. Daesh’s first incursion was enabled by that vacuum left by the US destruction of the Saddam Hussein regime and the US inability to create a viable alternative. The alternative now exists in the militias sharing nationality and religion with the majority of the nation. Daesh was, after all, essentially a Levantine and Arabian movement attempting to impose upon Mesopotamian Shia Muslims a sect that was an extremely small offshoot of Sunni Islam; a theological equivalent might be Scientologists (no insult intended: I’m still a Travolta and Cruise fan) trying to impose their faith upon Protestant Europe.
The emergence of an anti-Iran Iraq was never really an option; the Iraqis have already had enough of that. Establishing and sustaining another pro-US mini-Mubarak such as Sisi would be too expensive to prop up for long amidst a largely Shia population that had experienced long years of Sunni tyranny. The choice has always been an Iraq leaning towards Iran or a permanent and hostile occupation by the US.
Saudi Arabia in Yemen
American arms are also in use by Saudi Arabia in its quest to subjugate Yemen to the will of the House of al Saud. This particularly criminal war will certainly reach a crescendo, one way or another, before January 20th, leaving the US with responsibility for if not the ability to influence the aggression.
Southwest Asia
Also welcoming the new president on January 20th, 2021, are problems in the contiguous nations of Afghanistan, Pakistan and India that should have no relation to each other but could act as a chain reaction to produce another attack on American soil. Or an atomic war. Or both.
Trump’s recent visit to India represented the final phase in the American reversal of attitude towards the Modi regime: after all, Modi, as the leader of a hate group, was banned from entering the US for nine years. As it now stands the US is understood to be complicit in a new Indian policy that will result in the oppression of millions of Indians. It would appear that the pseudo-Christians supporting Trump prefer polytheist Hindu supremacy to monotheist Muslim liberty. There might be little room for the US to maneuver here, except, perhaps to cease arms sales to India A larger problem looms in that the illegal annexation of Jammu and Kashmir puts India, an atomic power, on the course to war with Pakistan, another atomic power and perhaps with China, yet another atomic power.
Pakistan is a large part of a problem that is unfolding as this is written. It is an inherently unstable nation; much of the countryside is outside of government control and within the government, factions often work against each other and against Pakistan’s ostensible friends. Yet the nation has enjoyed temporary periods of national unity and indeed enthusiasm for the state, but this has only occurred during wars with India.
The accession, for the first time, of an openly anti-Muslim regime in India and its subsequent discrimination against Muslim refugees might well be played as an act against Pakistan. Indeed, both India and Pakistan always have that temptation of war as a traditional means of erasing domestic discontent.
In neighboring Afghanistan Trump is now removing troops in order to leave the vast territory of the Hindu Kush in the hands of America’s sworn enemies, the Taliban, Daesh and al-Qaeda. The Afghan government, now divided between two self-proclaimed presidents, seems incapable of defending more than small portions or that unhappy nation.
At the same time Trump has rendered the US intelligence services useless, leaving for the next president an enlarged potential for another attack on America, perhaps as horrific as 9/11.
It is unlikely that Pakistan would be much of a help against any groups based in the Hindu Kush. While Pakistan was in principle an ally of the US in its fight against al-Qaeda terrorism, bin Laden resided untouched within sight of the Pakistani military academy, apparently under the protection of Pakistani intelligence.
Doctor Shakeel Afridi, who aided the US in its hunt for Osama bin Laden was imprisoned and tortured by the Pakistanis for his role in opposing a man whom the Pakistanis also proclaimed an enemy. Doctor Afridi remains a prisoner to this day and the US has done nothing to aid this benefactor. This has been a powerful notification to any who might wish to help America: America will abandon you and you will be treated as a traitor by your own.
A non-American might work for the US intelligence services for various reasons. The person might be corrupt, or have a personal vendetta and therefore be unreliable. One might, however, be convinced that helping the US also helps one’s own country. No motivation, however, has an appeal with the certainty that the US abandon any who aids it.
There must be a great lack of human intelligence in that harsh region, since local recruitment can be the only source: how many American CIA agents, after all, are fluent in Pashtun or Baluchi? Nor are the much-vaunted drones much help in regions where all men routinely carry weapons: is that the picture of a terrorist group, a government militia or a wedding party?
The appointment of one more political hack to replace another as Director of National Intelligence has been yet another blow to the function and therefore morale of the intelligence services. One can only hope that these dedicated professionals have hunkered down under Trump’s radar and continue to gather what shreds of knowledge is possible in the current atmosphere, while waiting patiently for a new era.
The black swan?
What are the answers to these problems, and what happens when something occurs in international affairs for which there can be no real political precautions? All of the above has been, in the end, a speculation dependent, as are all human endeavors, on the quiescence of the planet and of its other inhabitants. The black swan here might well be that corona virus now occupying so great a place in our thoughts. To conquer territory requires troops en masse and en masse is the open door for the latest pestilence riding the earth. It may well be, as in so many moments of human history before, that the first horseman will, for a time, take precedence over the second.
******************************************