Tag Archives: Donald Trump

China, North Korea, United States

The United States should not act alone in dealing with North Korea

NORTH KOREA

While most Western political and diplomatic attention is currently focused on Syria, both in terms of the chemical weapons attack and in the aftermath of the U.S. missile strike, a potentially greater drama is taking place thousands of miles away in the East China Sea. A U.S. battle group, headed by the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson, has arrived off the Korean peninsula in a show of military strength intended to warn Kim Jong-un of the consequences of his continued provocations and sabre-rattling.

President Donald Trump has indicated that Syria is less of an issue for the United States than North Korea, which continues to pose as a nemesis and direct threat to American allies in the region and even to the US west coast. In view of what transpired in Syria, the world needs to be prepared for the unexpected here, too. Mr Trump has hardly hidden his anger or intent in dealing with Pyongyang. Using his preferred vehicle for issuing executive statements – social media networking site Twitter – he stated: ‘North Korea is looking for trouble. If China decides to help, that would be great. If not, we will solve the problem without them.’

In another message, he appeared to link a trade rapprochement with China if Beijing were willing to help contain the threat posed by North Korea. Since Chinese president Xi Jinping was in America for trade talks with Mr Trump last week it must be assumed that part of their discussions involved tactics for dealing with North Korea. The U.S. have a clear national security interest in stopping further conflagration and proliferation of its nuclear weapons programme and China has a clear regional interest in averting the chaos that would be caused by a war on the peninsula.

A common approach, however, does appear to be developing: talks between Chinese and South Korean ministers have agreed ‘strong additional measures’ if Kim Jong-un conducts further nuclear or missile tests. China has already imposed economic sanctions including a ban of all imports of North Korean coal.

Pyongyang’s irrationality makes it essential that America does not act unilaterally. This cannot be allowed to happen. President Xi was sufficiently concerned to telephone the White House and assure Mr Trump that China was fully ‘committed to the goal of denuclearisation on the Korean peninsula’ but has also emphasised the need to resolve problems through peaceful means. A flashpoint could come within the next 48 hours, birthday of the state’s founder Kim Il-sung, or later this month when the ruling party celebrates its 85th anniversary. If the regime decides to fire missiles to mark one of these occasions, China and America must respond in concert.

Appendage:

North Korea Arsenal

Standard
Government, Middle East, Politics, Syria, United States

The options of strategic air strikes and a ground invasion in Syria

SYRIA

The shocking images that have disturbed many people around the world of Syrian children gassed to death have rightly provoked outrage and disgust throughout the civilised world.

As the war drums begin to thump again in Washington, President Trump insists that the U.S. may have to act again. Here an analysis and narrative is made for two options that will be under due consideration:

Strategic Air Strikes

The top military brass at the Pentagon and NATO will have advised the President on scenarios involving air strikes.

The goal would be to punish and weaken the Syrian government and military, with the threat of more to follow if Damascus commits what Washington considers to be further crimes against humanity. However, Russia and Syria have a long-standing mutual defence treaty, dating back to the Seventies.

This means Moscow would also immediately consider such aggression against Syria as a declaration of war, leading to direct confrontation between the U.S. and Russia.

The problem for President Trump is that in Syria, Russia is well-prepared to face down such a threat. Last year there were thought to be around 4,000 Russian troops in the country, though some have been withdrawn.

Since it joined the civil war in support of Assad two years ago, Russia has also built an advanced military base in Latakia, and expanded its heavily fortified naval base on the Mediterranean at Tartus – both located in the regime’s coastal heartland.

And both are equipped with Russia’s most advanced S-400 air defence missile system, capable of destroying airborne targets as far as 250 miles away with deadly accuracy.

If the Russians chose to retaliate, U.S. aircraft flying over Syrian skies would soon be falling like flies, while few American long-range missiles – fired from aircraft carriers offshore, or military bases in the region – would reach their targets on the ground.

American generals are also likely to have warned that not all such precision-guided missiles actually reach their intended targets. The inevitable accidental bombing by America of schools and hospitals would outrage Syrians. They would rally round their president in much the same way as the Yemenis did towards Al-Qaeda – in seeking safe sanctuary – following continued drone strikes in that country. It would also, of course, undermine the moral authority – based on the murder of Syrian children – for launching airstrikes in the first place.

Ground Invasion

A U.S.-led military ground invasion – though still an extremely remote possibility – is being touted by some hawkish politicians and military experts in the U.S. as a last resort. A ground invasion might be used should the Assad regime descend into even further uncontrolled tyrannical bloodshed.

But Mr Trump surely understands that such an undertaking would be an extremely high risk consideration politically, given that it would result in massive casualties, and be fraught with logistical difficulties on the ground.

The Syrian army is more than 100,000 strong, which means the U.S. and its allies would have to deploy perhaps half a million troops to fight them, as well as their allies, and then occupy the country. That aside, there isn’t an obvious friendly country from which to launch such an invasion.

The occupying American army would quickly become a target for ISIS fighters, of whom there are thousands in Syria. Those U.S. troops would also offer the terror group a powerful new recruitment tool. The prospect of U.S. soldiers being taken prisoner, paraded on TV and beheaded should be enough to chill the blood of any exuberant hotheads in Washington.

In order to secure Syria, as well as fighting ISIS, U.S.-led troops would simultaneously find themselves battling Syrian and Russian troops, in addition to thousands of battle-hardened, Assad-supporting militia men from his ally, Iran.

In short, the drawn-out consequences of a full-scale U.S.-led invasion would be so catastrophic as to make the chaotic and bloody aftermath of the Iraq invasion seem like a high school prom.

Even if U.S. troops leading a new ‘Coalition of the Willing’ did miraculously manage to occupy Syria after ousting Assad, they would then find themselves occupying the coastal region along the Med.

There, the majority is from the Alawite sect – a branch of Shia Islam – which means they are overwhelmingly supportive of their fellow-Alawite, President Assad. American troops would not be welcome by the locals.

Standard
Syria, United States

Backing non-ISIS jihadis in Syria is an option, but problematic

SYRIA

The options facing President Donald Trump in dealing with a deadly serious situation in Syria are terrifyingly dangerous. The options open to the American president include strategic air strikes, a possible ground invasion, additional aid for pro-West rebels or the backing of non-ISIS jihadis. It is to this last option I wish to clarify and expand upon.

Most non-Islamic State jihadist groups fighting in Syria have been keen from the outset of the civil war to show they have no intention of spreading jihad into the West.

The main Al-Qaeda-affiliated branch, Al-Nusra Front, even changed its name in a vain bid to avoid Western arms embargos.

It is true that when not fighting Syrian regime forces they are battling ISIS – while denouncing the later through their propaganda organs as Islamic miscreants.

Given this mutual loathing of ISIS and the Syrian regime, at first glance it is understandable that many Western politicians, as well as intelligence experts, have been eager to trumpet them as natural allies of the West.

However, for Mr Trump there will be two main problems when it comes to considering the wisdom of such advice. The first is that these groups are on the retreat on the battlefield, having been pounded by Russian airstrikes (in support of Assad) and repeatedly overrun by the better-trained, more heavily armed and fanatical ISIS fighters.

Then there are the lessons of the not-so-distant past: while such radical Islamist groups often swear, hand on heart, that they have no beef with the West, history suggests such declarations should be taken with a huge pinch of salt.

The most obvious example is the Mujahideen – or ‘freedom fighters’ – who, like the Islamist terrorists in Syria today, were funded and trained by the CIA in the Eighties to expel the Soviets from Afghanistan. They achieved that – and then quickly morphed into the Taliban.

Standard