Monday, November 21, 2016

Trump Foreign Policy in the Middle East: Obama's Muddle Plus Torture and a Gitmo Renaissance

by Michael Dorf

President-elect Trump's selection of Michael Flynn for National Security Director and his plan to nominate Jeff Sessions for Attorney General and Mike Pompeo for CIA Director make it likely that, so far as domestic security policy is concerned, the Trump administration will be every bit as anti-Muslim, anti-civil rights, and anti-undocumented immigrant as his campaign was. Yet the actual conduct of foreign policy overseas might not change much, even with these hardliners in place.

For one thing, it remains possible that Trump might name more pragmatic characters to other key positions, such as Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State. Moreover, even if Trump finds a few more likeminded hardliners for the top spots, the important under-secretary and deputy positions could go to more traditional Republicans. Trump campaigned in the primaries and in the general by running against the policies pursued by (the second) President Bush, but there may not be enough people who share Trump's views and also have the relevant foreign policy and military skills to fully staff a minimally competent administration.

To be sure, some of the differences probably won't matter. VP-elect Pence and the vast majority of Republicans available for a Trump administration favored the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Trump claimed during the campaign that despite his support for the war in a January 2003 appearance on the Howard Stern show, he actually opposed the war. The claim is unverifiable but also at this point largely irrelevant. A president has some powerful tools at his disposal, but a time machine is not among them. Many people who favored the Iraq invasion or who at least favored authorizing President Bush to invade because they thought he would use that authorization as leverage now recognize that the war was a colossal blunder. The relevant question is how to move forward. The fact that some people working in an administration took one view on a past policy question and others took a different view does not in itself preclude them from working together on new questions.

However, past support for the Iraq war is not the only division likely to surface. Policy towards Russia is an important current area of disagreement between Trump and much of the Republican Party. With the exception of the small Rand Paul wing of the GOP, most Republicans are probably closer to the position staked out by Hillary Clinton during the campaign, which basically goes like this: Vladimir Putin is an autocrat at home who perpetrates gross human rights violations abroad (most prominently in Ukraine and Syria); there can be some limited cooperation with the Putin government on areas of common interest, but overall the U.S. and its allies should pursue a policy of containment.

Trump's view seems to be something more like what has traditionally been called "realist" foreign policy, viewing Putin as someone whose war crimes are simply not our concern, so long as they do not directly impinge on our national interests, narrowly defined. I put "realist" in scare quotes to reflect the fact that the alternative in this context is not exactly "idealist" in the sense in which that term is usually opposed to foreign policy realism. The bipartisan consensus that Trump opposes is not exactly rooted in a concern for human rights or spreading democracy per se (in the way that, respectively, Jimmy Carter's and George W. Bush's foreign policy idealism were); the bipartisan consensus is also a kind of realism, albeit taking a different view of Putin's goals and intentions, as well as how best to respond to them.

But let's suppose for the sake of argument that all of the people Trump appoints to carry out foreign policy share or at least try to pursue his views about Russia. There will still be contradictions because of the complexity of the world situation, especially in the Middle East. And that's not even counting the complexity introduced by the potential for conflict between Trump's business empire and the national interest.

Consider soon-to-be National Security Advisor Flynn's view that the overriding concern of U.S. policy ought to be winning what he regards as the ongoing "world war" with Islamist militants. What does that mean in practice? Partly it leads to rapprochement with Russia, which shares an interest in combating ISIS, especially in Syria but elsewhere as well. Greater cooperation--indeed, even greater efforts to avoid confrontation--with Russia probably means softening or even eliminating support for the Free Syrian Army and other non-ISIS forces now battling the Assad regime.

However, there's still an important tension: A tilt away from opposition to Assad is in practice a tilt towards Assad, which means aiding, even if unintentionally, Assad's Iranian benefactors. Yet Trump and Flynn have also made implacable opposition to Iran another plank in their Middle East policy. As a practical matter, warming relations with Russia with respect to Syria mean aiding Iran. Rapprochement with Russia and isolation of Iran are contradictory goals.

Can these goals be reconciled? One strong possibility is that Trump, Flynn, and the rest of the incoming hardline team are simply Islamophobes who have not thought through the contradictions that are seemingly inherent in their position. However, for the sake of argument, let's give them the benefit of the doubt. How one might try to rationalize the Trump/Flynn approach?

The best that might be said is that the U.S. should oppose militant Islamists, regardless of whether they are Sunni (like ISIS and al Q'aeda) or Shia (like Iran and its Assad-aligned Hezbollah proxies). Yet while that's a coherent approach in theory, it can't really be executed effectively in the current context of a Sunni-versus-Shia civil war in Syria, Yemen, parts of Iraq, and the broader region. For example, Assad and the Russians are not Islamists, but aiding their cause in Syria means aiding the Iranian Islamists.

To be fair, the internal tension in what will likely be the new administration's policy is not a problem created by Trump. It's a problem created by the fact that, with two exceptions I'll discuss shortly, none of the actors with any real power in the current Middle East are closely aligned with American interests, much less values. The main actors that either do not share US values and interests or do so only occasionally are:

Sunni Islamist non-state actors like ISIS, al Nusra, and al Q'aeda
Sunni Islamist states like Saudi Arabia
Shia Islamist non-state actors like Hezbollah
Shia Islamist states like Iran and, increasingly, Iraq
Secular dictators like al-Sisi in Egypt and Assad in Syria

In the heady days of the Arab Spring, it looked like there might also be liberal democracies with which the U.S. could find common cause, but the only success story is Tunisia, a bit player in the region. U.S. foreign policy for several decades has relied on finding areas of common interest with moderate autocracies, of which the only real examples were Jordan and the oil-rich but small states of the eastern Arabian peninsula, while turning a blind eye to the true nature of the more important regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Turkey could have been an important democratic ally, but even before its turn towards repression, Turkey (understandably) seemed more intent on avoiding involvements in conflicts in the region.

The two real exceptions, i.e., reasonably powerful entities in relatively sensible alliance with the U.S., are Iraqi Kurdistan and Israel. Kurdish fighters have played an important role in the war against ISIS. However, there are limits to what can be accomplished given the size of the Kurdish force. Moreover, both the Kurds and the Israelis have enough trouble looking out for their own interests that neither can be expected to be that much help in advancing U.S. interests in the broader region. Perhaps in a Nixon-to-China mode, under Trump there is some hope that Netanyahu will be more accommodating of the U.S. interest in avoiding deliberate provocations of Palestinians than he has ben during the Obama years, but even if so, that is a matter of avoiding further harm, not securing greater aid. In any event, too close an alliance with either Iraqi Kurdistan or Israel is likely to be counterproductive, given the hostility of other allies, e.g., Turkey's hostility to Turkish Kurds who feel themselves in solidarity with Kurds elsewhere, and Israel's tendency to unite even otherwise mutually hostile Islamist forces--such as Sunni Hamas and Shia Hezbollah--in alliance against Israel.

What should Trump do? I don't know, and even if I did there's no reason to think that Trump's foreign policy team would listen to the likes of me. Meanwhile, color me extraordinarily skeptical of the idea that any single guiding principle can be implemented successfully. That's true whether it's an emphasis on human rights, Bush's effort to spread democracy, or the Trump/Flynn idea that saying the magic words "radical Islamic terrorism" will somehow bring victory, whatever that consists in.

The fact is that in the Middle East and elsewhere the U.S. has a number of goals that will come into conflict with one another. In the end, therefore, I suspect that Trump's policy will be as much of a muddle as Obama's has been, at best reducible to trying to avoid further involvement of US troops in active combat, while focusing on counterterrorism. The Trump administration will be substantially less concerned about its own and others' human rights violations than the Obama administration has been, but that might not make a big difference on the ground. The human rights situation in Syria (and parts of the broader region) is already appalling.

Put differently, we can expect the Trump policy to be basically Obama's policy minus the criticism of Putin and Assad, plus renewed torture, civil rights violations, and a Gitmo renaissance.

9 comments:

Joe said...

"Put differently, we can expect the Trump policy to be basically Obama's policy minus the criticism of Putin and Assad, plus renewed torture, civil rights violations, and a Gitmo renaissance."

Yay? The fact it could be worse is ... well, depressing is one way to describe it. Note too that who runs a foreign policy tends to matter too, even if the people have limited ability to alter events big picture.

Trump merely running the SAME policy as Obama would be different in certain ways. This would include certain negative things critics cite (let's say drones -- personally, I think some critics are somewhat unfair when talking about the process there, but if different people ran the process in place, it would be more likely to be a problem).

David Ricardo said...

The most telling statement in Mr. Dorf's post is this

"What should Trump do? I don't know"

and the reason for this is that this is a difficult and complex situation; if a clear cut answer were known it was have been put in place by the Obama administration.

The risk here is that amateurs, Trump and his inner circle, and delusional professionals like Flynn will makes some many errors, engage and enrage much of the non-violent Muslim community and make matters so bad that there will be a new unleashing of terror attacks against the U. S. ad Europe, resulting in massive xenophobia and repression.

To misquote Murphy (or Herb Stein), 'if it can get worse it will get worse'.

Shag from Brookline said...

The overlay of Turkey, a key NATO ally of the US, on the situation described in the post is ominous. Yesterday 60 Minutes had a troubling segment on the situation as Turkey's President pushes the US to extradite a person claimed to be responsible for the recent failed coup in Turkey. Gen. Flynn has had some things to say on the subject. And Turkey's President has had some nice things to say to President-Trump as has Russia's Putin. Trump has business interests in Turkey. President Assad of Syria also had nice things to say about President-Elect Trump. There are dots connecting Turkey, Russia and Syria; and there are dots connecting Syria with Iran. Meantime there are Kurds not only in Turkey, but also in Syria, Iran and Iraq. Putin is concerned with NATO's impact on Russia. Turkey is a key member of NATO. There are potentially explosive conflicts in the Middle East to add to the longstanding conflicts in that area and the US has had to take careful steps over many decades in this area, including for the US protection of the interests of Israel. It turns out that Gen. Flynn's consulting firm has ties with a major Turkish player. Both Trump and Flynn seem to have volatile tempers. How will they deal with this tinderbox?

By the way, when I was a teenage lad in the 1940s, the then new expression "In Like Flynn!" provided a sense of potential personal excitement. Today, "In Like Flynn!" may mean America gets screwed.

My fear is that if Trump fails to resolve/fulfill his economic domestic campaign promises that lured many of his voters, might a dumb foreign policy decision be made to "unite" America?

Shag from Brookline said...

Query: Might Trump properties in foreign countries become targets for dissidents of US foreign policy? If so, how might Trump as President react? [I should have included this with my preceding comment.]

David Graubert said...

Michael, I very much enjoy your *legal* writing and analysis - and Eric Segall's. But, this post failed to impress. Sorry.

I do not agree that Trump et al. will have substantially the same foreign policy as Obama-Clinton, or their predecessors. For what it's worth, I voted for Hillary but supported Bernie. I do not see the Trump administration allowing the tail to wag the dog. They have to get their policies through Congress and expect to do so by working with the Republicans in the first instance. That explains the chief of staff pick. But Bannon and (by all accounts) Jared will hold more sway.

I do not assume Trump is a "useful idiot." I think that Bannon's nationalist anti-interventionism (with the big exception of action against ISIS) will prevail and we will indeed see abrupt changes in policy toward Russia and NATO. Of course, the EU is itself shifting. I've no tears shed over Victoria Nuland's departure and other neocons. If Bolton is picked, I am wrong. Though if he is, I doubt he'll last. Sessions is bad (drug policy clashes?). But I expect bipartisan moves, the Donald is no Cruz.

He wants to be liked and admired. Back him into the lower right corner and he may stay there. He wants to surprise the pundits. His support was less about right wingers than it was anti-establishment. Of course, this is not to say I'm not concerned. What I'm not at all sanguine about is his environmental policies. Or, his tax policies. Or his personal sexism and racism. But, it will be resisted. If only the left can get its act together. I'm encouraged by Bernie's appeal.

PS the Kurds have stuck with the U.S. and had nearly all of their promises from us to assist their independence struggle broken (most notoriously by Bush, Sr. after the first Gulf War). It's about time we support their aspirations or at least stop letting them down. As to the Palestinians (and human rights more generally), I didn't expect much from Hillary and I don't expect much from Trump. And yet, Sheldon may rue the day he put his money on the Trump horse.

My two cents.

Shag from Brookline said...

Some have said that Trump's draining of the swamp is to get rid of the alligators that might challenge him. That's a "croc" as Trump could herd them and make them pick up the check.

And instead of building a wall, his infrastructure proposal will instead pave a yellow brick road to Wall St.

Discussions elsewhere of the Constitution's emolument's clause on foreign gifts have been interesting but all over the place. What about the "take care" clause and a moonlighting President? I thing even originalists would say that clause means the country's business and not his.

As to the Kurds, while I was still in grade school I bought a second hand copy of H. G. Wells' "The Outline of History" and recall maps depicting a Kurdistan, not realizing it was not a nation state. They have been split between Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq. They have long been shortchanged in the Middle East.

Yes, Sheldon (aka Big Casino) bet on Little Casino and may hit the jackpot.

Michael C. Dorf said...

Just a brief reply to David Graubert: My post does not say, and I certainly do not think, that Trump's overall foreign policy will be substantially the same as that of Obama. (I said nothing at all about what Clinton's policy might have been.) What I said in the post is that Trump's Middle East policy won't be all that different from Obama's, because of the external factors that constrain it and the inherent tensions due to our multiple, conflicting goals.

As for Shag's points about Trump's business interests, they are very important. I'll have a Verdict column and a blog post on these topics in about a week.

Shag from Brookline said...

Trump convened an "off the record" media meeting that the New York Post reported on, described as contentious. Trump then cancelled a later separate meeting with the NYTimes that had been agreed would be substantially on the record. Those who agreed to the earlier meeting's "off the record" must respond to efforts to intimidate the 1st A's speech and press clauses by the incoming Trump Administration. It seems that the Trump transition is to the dark ages.

Mary Wilkie said...

Hi everyone, I'm so excited.
My ex-boyfriend is back after a breakup,I’m extremely happy that will are living together again.
My name is Mary Wilkie from England.
My boyfriend of a 4yr just broke up with me and am 30 weeks pregnant.I have cried my self to sleep most of the nights and don’t seem to concentrate during lectures sometimes I stay awake almost all night thinking about him and start to cry all over again.Because of this I end up not having energy for my next day’s classes ,my attendance has dropped and am always in uni and on time.Generally he is a very nice guy ,he ended it because he said we were arguing a lot and not getting along.He is right we’ve been arguing during the pregnancy a lot .After the break up I kept ringing him and telling him I will change.I am in love with this guy and he is the best guy I have ever been with.I’m still hurt and in disbelief when he said he didn’t have any romantic feelings towards me anymore that hurt me faster than a lethal syringe.He texts me now and then mainly to check up on how am doing with the pregnancy,he is supportive with it but it’s not fair on me, him texting me as I just want to grieve the pain and not have any stress due to the pregnancy.i was really upset and i needed help, so i searched for help online and I came across a website that suggested that Dr Unity can help solve marital problems, restore broken relationships and so on. So, I felt I should give him a try. I contacted him and he told me what to do and i did it then he did a spell for me. 28 hours later, my bf came to me and apologized for the wrongs he did and promise never to do it again. Ever since then, everything has returned back to normal. I and my bf are living together happily again.. All thanks to Dr Unity. If you have any problem contact Dr.Unity now and i guarantee you that he will help you.Email him at:( Unityspelltemple@gmail.com ),you can also call him or add him on Whats-app: ( +2348071622464 ),His website: http://unityspelltemple.yolasite.com .