FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Oct 8

Trump’s Foreign Policy Is A Complete And Utter Flop

by bcurry

Just hours after President Trump declared that American troops were being withdrawn from the Syrian border, he warned Turkey that he would “totally destroy and obliterate” the economy of Turkey if he’s unhappy with how the country carries out its planned assault on Kurdish fighters. Indeed, what Trump has done is a betrayal and abandonment of the Kurds who, with U.S. backing, have been fearlessly fighting the Islamist radicals of ISIS in northern Syria. Both Democrats and Republicans have condemned the move as irresponsible and dangerous, leaving the Kurds to worry about a war with the more powerful Turkey and an inability to deal with the thousands of ISIS members interned in Syria. Some have even suggested that ISIS may re-emerge under the circumstances.

This is just another example of Trump’s lack of good judgement and his inability to appreciate the consequences of his foreign policies to date. Take North Korea for example, we now have a situation where nothing has happened since the talks between President Donald Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un broke down. Indeed, the meetings only helped to legitimatize Kim’s regime on the world stage, while allowing him to continue testing missiles capable of reaching most Asian countries.  There are also suspected hidden nuclear fuel production sites around the country.

With respect to the European Union (EU), Brexit and the Ukraine, Trump has interfered on a number of occasions, upsetting his NATO and European allies. He has instead aligned himself with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and dropped out of nuclear missile treaty with Russia, which is what Russia wanted all along. Trump is far too close to Putin, particularly in light of the Russian invasion of Crimea and confirmed Russian hacking in the 2016 election.

In terms of the current disastrous Brexit negotiations between Britain and the EU, Trump is much too close to Prime Minister Boris Johnson who in an undemocratic manner tried to circumvent the British Parliament to get his way. Then there are the recent revelations about Trump’s unprecedented dealings with the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky which have led to the launch of an impeachment enquiry in the House of Representatives.  Here we have the President trying to persuade the Ukrainian President to get involved in a political-inspired investigation of an American presidential candidate.  Trump’s request has been tied to the withholding of military aid to Ukraine, something everyone agrees is not normal and most likely illegal. He has even suggested that China should undertake a similar investigation. Go figure!

On top of all this, one has the U.S. State Department in total turmoil. Its officials have little input into the Trump Administration’s foreign policy decisions and are daily loosing credibility abroad and in the U.S.  Once a highly respected and influential arm of government, one now has a Secretary of State who has become nothing more than a puppet for the President.  Mike Pompeo simply defends his boss’s mistakes, regardless of the international consequences.  One can only imagine what goes on in the National Security Council on a daily basis?

Donald Trump Foreign Policy Iraq and ISIS North Korea US

Leave a comment »
Oct 6

Trump’s Plan to Decertify the Iran Nuclear Deal Leaves Republicans in the Lurch

by bcurry

President Trump has argued that under the Iran nuclear deal signed in 2015, Iran has not “lived up” to the spirit of the deal. This despite the fact that by all accounts — even that of the U.S. — Iran had lived up to its commitments under the agreement. In addition, European leaders have stated that they were not interested in expanding the scope of its implementation. Other countries that are party to the deal — Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China and Iran —argued that the agreement was designed to address issues solely related to Iran’s nuclear program, and not other issues that Trump has raised in the past.

Now, Trump is expected to decertify the deal which would kick the matter over to the Republican controlled Congress, which in turn would then have 60 days to determine how to proceed and whether to re-impose sanctions. The only problem is that the majority of Republicans have little appetite to reopen the 2015 deal, backed by the Democrats in Congress. The Republicans want to avoid a crisis and don’t want to kill the agreement which would leave them with the blame both at home and abroad. Once again, the President and Republicans are at loggerheads, with the party split between the so-called hawks and doves.

The situation with Iran is a lot more different than it was ten years ago. After all, it is in Iraq, where fighting the Islamic State (ISIS) has most conspicuously brought the U.S into a tacit alliance with Iran, that a more hostile relationship between Tehran and Washington could prove most consequential. Iranian-backed militias are deeply embedded in the overall Iraqi effort to wrest back territory from the militants, one that is also being aided by the United States.  Today, Iran commands the loyalties of tens of thousands in allied militias and proxy armies that are fighting on the front lines in Syria, Iraq and Yemen with armored vehicles, tanks and heavy weapons.  Exactly what the Trump administration intends to do about a state of affairs that has already become deeply entrenched is unclear.  So pervasive is Iran’s presence across the region that it is hard to see how any U.S. administration could easily roll it back without destabilizing allies, endangering Americans, undermining the war against the ISIS and upsetting the new regional balance.

The Iran nuclear deal is only one part of the foreign policy equation in the Middle East. To date, the deal has succeeded in stabilizing relations with Iran as it pertains to the nuclear weapons issue. Trump will have to spell out a broader strategy for confronting Iran, including its ballistic missile program and alleged support for terror networks in the Middle East. Decertifying and reopening the deal will not help matters, and may even destabilize relations with Iran who has become a major ally in the fight against ISIS. Without a doubt, the President’s move will present Congress with another hot potato and, once again, undermine America’s credibility to uphold its commitments with its allies and partners.

Donald Trump Foreign Policy Iraq and ISIS Uncategorized US

Leave a comment »
Mar 5

George W. Bush is an Enigma in Many Ways as a President and a Person

by bcurry

The other day, former president George W. Bush was on the Ellen Show.  He was promoting a book containing portraits of American veterans that he had painted.  Apparently, he took up painting as a past time some five years ago.  Ellen Dejeneres is a friend of the Bush family, including Bush senior.  President Bush stated his admiration for vets, particularly those wounded in battle.  As always, he displayed his known sense of humour during Ellen’s polite interview, noting that historians will inevitably judge his presidency.

Having lived through the period of his presidency, nine-eleven and the invasion and occupation of Iraq, I have mixed feelings about the former president. I remember seeing him standing at the site of the destroyed twin towers in New York, giving warm thanks to first responders and those who aided them. The event was to change the direction of his presidency toward a commitment to wage war on terrorism.  Indeed, this was to be his legacy to the American people.

However, after that tragic event, a number of wrong turns were taken by President Bush and his administration. Remember that this was an administration that included the likes of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell — the first two who were definitely ‘hawks’. Suddenly, the U.S. was to take on the so-called axis of evil, unfortunately including Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. The administration perpetuated the belief that Hussein had ‘weapons of mass destruction’, which of course was never true.  I firmly believe that President Bush was goaded into accepting this assertion by his immediate advisors – despite intelligence to the contrary.  However, no one in the administration had a viable ‘exit’ strategy once the Iraq occupation was over — something even George H. W. Bush had warned his son was a crucial consideration. Following the speedy fall of Hussein’s regime, Bush junior declared ‘mission accomplished’ aboard an American aircraft carrier.  The rest is the sad history of over a decade of American military actions in Iraq, amid corrupt and incompetent Iraqi governments and sectarian fighting among various religious factions. Thousands of Americans and many more Iraqis loss their lives or became refugees during the decade.  Once U.S. forces withdrew from Iraq, this led to the re-emergence of Al Qaeda and eventually the spin-off terrorists who formed the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Otherwise, the whole region became a bigger mess with even more explosive potential among the warring factions.

President Bush was the puppet on a string for a hawkish administration that used American military might for all the wrong reasons. Subsequent presidents have and will have to deal with the consequences of such tragic mistakes.  American troops returned home from Iraq as amputees, many having incurred the loss of limbs, brain trauma, post-traumatic stress disorder, etc. Iraq continues to be embroiled in ugly urban guerrilla warfare, this time involving ISIS. Sorry President Bush, although you may be a somewhat likeable person, the heartbreaking outcome of your administration’s decisions is no laughing matter.  I believe that history will judge it so.

Iraq and ISIS Iraq Today Syria and ISIL US US Politics

Leave a comment »
May 2

Why Canada Should Get the Hell Out of Iraq

by bcurry

It was March 2003 and the U.S.-led coalition invaded Iraq. According to U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the coalition mission was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.  After 21 days of major combat operations, the loss of thousands of lives and the destruction of much of Iraq’s infrastructure, President Bush declared that the war was over.  At the time, I had many misgivings and was happy that Canada had refused to participate in this farce.  Remember, no weapons of mass of mass destruction were found and the war continued on for a decade.  Saddam Hussein was subsequently found and hung by the interim Iraqi government.  Iraq supposedly was supposedly on its way to discovering “democracy”— Western style.

Jump forward a dozen years, and where are we today? On April 30, 2016, thousands of protesters stormed the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad and took over Iraq’s parliament. A state of emergency was declared in Baghdad.  President Obama’s plan for fighting the Islamic State (ISIS) was predicated on having a credible and effective Iraqi ally on the ground in Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi.  Instead, we have a corrupt and paralyzed government overseeing an Iraqi society fractured once again along ethnic and sectarian lines, with Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish elements fighting for power, oil and territory.

Meanwhile, Canada has increased its military advisors on the ground to help train Kurdish fighters in the north in their battle against ISIS. However, the problem is that the Kurds are really fighting to eventually establish an independent state, separate from the current Iraqi regime.  Since ISIS is nothing more than a bunch of thugs who rely on fear and threats to maintain their occupation in parts of Iraq and Syria, fighting ISIS has become a “good feel” campaign for the West.  Recent ISIS-inspired attacks in France and Belgium have given an added incentive to the campaign.  However, there is the much tougher task of helping Abadi repair Iraq’s corrupt and largely ineffective government before a ground war can be won against ISIS.

Canada is caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, if it pulls out its advisors from Iraq, its allies and the hard-liners will argue that Canada is soft on terrorism.  On the other hand, if it continues with military assistance to Kurdish forces, the Shiite and Sunni factions will accuse Canada of supporting the Kurdish independence movement.  Iraq is becoming increasingly ungovernable and eventually the U.S.-led coalition will be left with overseeing the breakup of Iraq into separate political entities.  For the moment, the common enemy in ISIS has forced some form of sectarian cooperation.  If and when ISIS is effectively removed from Iraq, what will come next — another civil war?  Most likely.  Canada had better begin thinking about an exit strategy, sooner than later.

Canada Iraq Iraq and ISIS Iraq Today US

Leave a comment »
Nov 16

Will the Paris Attacks Create a Backlash in Canada?

by bcurry

Already a fire was deliberately set at a mosque in Peterborough, Ontario.  Police believe that this may represent a hate crime.  Some prominent Canadians are increasingly questioning the Canadian Government’s stated intention to try to bring in 25,000 Syrian refugees by the end of the year.  Critics are concerned that radicals may be allowed to enter under the program, despite the Government’s assurance that all potential refugees will be adequately screened. For the most part, they will be selected from refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey.  Many will be families with women and children.  Remember that the horrible war in Syria has left more than 250,000 people dead and has displaced half of that country’s population.  Despite the hard work of numerous agencies, many refugees have been living in difficult conditions for several years.

Given the recent tragic events in France and elsewhere, including ISIS-related attacks in Lebanon and Turkey, this is not the time for “fear mongering” when it comes to providing humanitarian aid to these refugees.  It is also not the time for attacking Muslim communities in Canada, even if they are isolated events.  If this occurs, we are giving the radicals exactly what they want.  Such actions by Western countries will be used in ISIS propaganda as examples of why their so-called causes should be supported.  This in turn could very likely lead to a further radicalization of certain individuals who are already susceptible to such propaganda.

We need to work within our communities to ensure that inclusive policies and programs are in place to combat radicalization.  We need to be better informed about the complexity of the issues creating the Syrian situation and the general unrest in the Middle East.  We need to combat ignorance, extreme forms of backlash and xenophobic policies.  The best way that Canadians can combat extremism at home and abroad is by continuing to promote our finest traits as a caring, inclusive and diverse populace.

Canada Foreign Policy Iraq and ISIS Refugee Policies

Leave a comment »
Mar 26

Canada’s Expansion of Iraq Mission to Syria is a Huge Mistake

by bcurry

No matter what the reasons that the Canadian government gives, the proposed expansion of the current Iraq mission to Syria has all kinds of serious consequences.  Simply stating that Canada is following the American lead provides little in the way of justification.  Syria is a bigger mess than even Iraq.  Let’s recap for a moment.  The Syrian uprising, part of the so-called Arab Spring, originally involved opposition groups to the current Syrian government under its dictator Bashar al-Assad.  The Americans didn’t step into this internal war, preferring to wait and see.  However, things didn’t go well for Assad, making him commit even more atrocities against his own people, including the use of chemical weapons.  Still, the Americans didn’t step in.  Then along came ISIL or ISIS, a major radical group who began to make territorial gains in Syria and eventually into Iraq.  So now, the Americans, no longer knowing who to support militarily in Syria, decide to go after the most radical group — ISIL.

Subsequently, the Iraqi government and security forces couldn’t stop ISIL’s advances inside Iraq, threatening to bring down Iraq’s American-supported and primarily Shia-backed government.  ISIL found support among the Sunni population in Iraq who felt persecuted by the Shia regime, and have faced atrocities by Shia security forces and local militia.  Enter Iran, whose military guard began to support the Shia militias in Iraq, who in turn appeared better able to defend against ISIL than Iraq’s government forces.  Let’s not forget about the Kurdish forces fighting ISIL in northern Iraq, and who would still like to have more independence from Baghdad.  At this point, Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi called on the U.S. to provide military support in the form of air strikes against ISIL and military advisors to Iraqi forces on the ground.

Six months ago, Canada entered the American-led campaign along with some other European and Arab countries.  Remember, this is not a NATO endorsed campaign.  Canada’s token contribution deployed several dozen special forces troops to northern Iraq, six fighter jets, two surveillance aircraft, a refuelling plane and around 600 support personnel based in Kuwait.  So far, Canada has had one casualty and three injured by Kurdish friendly fire.  Have air strikes really accomplished much?  ISIL’s advancements have to date been slowed, but most military experts believe that the war against ISIL can only be won on the ground.  In the case of the Syrian campaign, the results of air strikes are even less convincing.

Yes, ISIL has made some vague propaganda threats against Canadians, has committed atrocities, and a few Canadians have even gone to join ISIL in Syria, along with other foreign combatants.  However, is there really a serious threat to the homeland from ISIL?  Or is this just political maneuvering on the part of the Canadian and American governments to justify their military actions in the region?  What are the governments’ exit strategies?  Indications are that the Iraqis and Syrians could be at war for years.  Neither the current Iraqi nor the Syrian regime appears to be able to deal with this mess.  Do the Canadian and American governments really believe that they can resolve the disputes without further bloodshed and atrocities?  These are real questions and consequences that need to be further explored before both countries begin to witness ever-growing “mission creep”.  Unfortunately, the majority of Canadians and Americans don’t really understand the complexities of the situation to adequately address these questions.  Sorry, but it’s the truth.

Iraq Iraq and ISIS Syria and ISIL

Leave a comment »
Nov 10

Why Should Canada’s Small Air Force Help Bomb ISIS in Iraq?

by bcurry

In case you weren’t aware, the Canadian government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper has sent half a dozen CF-18s to help bomb targets in Iraq held by the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS or ISEL). As Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau noted, the government whipped out our CF-18s to show them how big they are. He rightfully asked why Canadians aren’t talking more about the kind of humanitarian aid that Canada can and must be engaged in. Besides thousands of civilian deaths, the previous Iraq war also created hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing that country’s on-going civil war. With the onset of ISIS, thousands more Iraqis have fled to neighbouring countries and safe havens within Iraq. They are desperate for food, shelter, clothing, medical supplies and other essentials to survive the coming winter conditions.

Let’s take a step back to clarify Canada’s historical position vis-a-vis the first American incursion into Iraq to dispose of Saddam Hussein. The Iraq War began with the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The government of Canada did not at any time formally declare war against Iraq. The then Prime Minister Jean Chrétien said in 2002 that Canada would, in fact, be part of a military coalition to invade Iraq if it were sanctioned by the United Nations. However, when the United States and the United Kingdom subsequently withdrew their diplomatic efforts to gain that UN sanction, Jean Chrétien announced in March 2003 that Canada would not participate in the pending invasion. As it turned out, this was one of the best decisions that Prime Minister Chrétien ever made during his government’s term of office.

Recently, former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien defended Justin Trudeau’s controversial decision to oppose Canada’s air combat mission in Iraq. He believes that the fighter planes deployed by the Harper government are a “very marginal” response to the crisis caused by ISIS militants. He concluded that the best ‎contribution Canada can make is by engaging in massive, not token, humanitarian assistance. The leader of the official opposition, Thomas Mulcair of the New Democrats, has also stated that Canada’s first contribution should be to use every diplomatic, humanitarian, and financial resource at our disposal to respond to the overwhelming human tragedy unfolding on the ground. We should also help to strengthen political institutions in both Iraq and Syria.

Let’s face it, the U.S. has been in this conflict for well over 10 years and has been fighting ISIS under one name or another. While ISIS has renamed itself several times since 2004—al Qaeda in Iraq, the Mujahideen Shura Council and the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham in Syria—it is literally the same insurgent group that U.S. forces have been battling for over a decade. The Americans propped up a corrupt Iraqi regime under Maliki, which favoured the Shiite population at the expense of the Kurds and Sunni. With the evident inability of the Iraqi security forces to fend off ISIS militants, the Americans once again have had to step in militarily to defend the Iraqi government through air strikes and provision of thousands of military advisors.

President Obama has already warned that American military and financial support will be needed for a long time in this new campaign. The Canadian contribution is but a mere token of some sort of support. The danger is always that such policies can go quickly from mission creep to mission leap. As in the case of Canada’s contribution to the Afghan mission which started out with only a few dozen soldiers and ended up with many casualties, when will this mission end? Canada’s international credibility as a country with an extensive history of humanitarian achievements is in jeopardy. Unfortunately, ISIS is not going away anytime soon. In a year’s time, there is little doubt that the Canadian government will have to seriously rethink its policies!

Iraq Iraq and ISIS Iraq Today

Leave a comment »
Blog at WordPress.com.