President Donald Trump continuously criticizes the previous administration, blaming officials for the lack of US economic influence, US national debt, the weakness of the US armed forces abroad, and the support of wealthy nations despite it not being beneficial to the United States. Because of this, Trump has pledged to 'make America great again' as he thinks the US deserves. Trump’s presidential campaign did not lack controversy, and his official platform promises that the transition from Obama's presidency to Trump's will bring in many changes that will most likely cause extensive debate if not outright anger in many respects all over the world. Trump has been very vocal about changes in foreign policy, in particular, he has put emphasis on national security issues focusing heavily on, what he has painted as, eminent terrorist threats from ISIS. Some aspects of Trump's foreign policy that will be considered in this paper in comparison to Obama’s include: the approach to handling ISIS in Syria and Iraq, immigration restrictions in terms of national security and, last but not least, the approach to Iran as a national security threat. This essay will argue that Trump’s more aggressive approach to targeting ISIS, his antagonism of Muslims both within and outside U.S. borders, and his hardline stance against cooperation with Iran will undermine national security by fueling terrorist narratives like those of ISIS and Al Qaeda.
The so-called Islamic State became a pressing issue during Obama’s presidency. Under the Obama administration, “the Pentagon began a three-year program in early 2015 to train and equip five thousand “appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition” for a year to fight against Islamic State forces” (Laub). Obama recognized the threat of ISIS to its allies in the Middle East. The expansion of ISIS via the recruitment of extremists from all over the world has presented a major security challenge to the US and its allies because of “foreign fighters who could return to commit acts of terrorism in their homelands” (Boot). Those that ISIS manages to influence and radicalize sometimes serve ISIS goals all around the world. As such, Obama’s tactics have been criticized for not being firm enough to effectively neutralize ISIS. Many argue that Obama should not rule out the idea of sending US troops to fight on the ground. Trump is one of those critics.
National security was one of Trump’s main campaign issues, and his campaign placed a great deal of emphasis on what he described as the Obama administration’s shortfalls especially in regard to ISIS. When it comes to ISIS, Trump has expressed that the US has seriously dropped the ball, and that it should hit harder by sending troops to fight against ISIS, thwart recruitment for ISIS globally and especially through social media, and prevent ISIS from using oil sales to fund their campaigns. During Trump’s campaign, Trump told NBC that "Everybody that's touched the Middle East, they've gotten bogged down…I don't want to see the United States get bogged down. We've spent now $2 trillion in Iraq, probably a trillion in Afghanistan. We're destroying our country." Later during his campaign, Trump told CNN that "We really have no choice. We have to knock out ISIS… I would listen to the generals, but I'm hearing numbers of 20,000 to 30,000.” (Gaurer and Starr). Trump has even gone so far as to suggest building a mutually beneficial relationship with Russia to defeat ISIS. Trump drew criticism by posing the question: "Wouldn't it be nice if we got together with Russia and knocked the hell out of ISIS?" (Diamond). These sentiments are controversial as Russia’s intentions in Syria are not completely aligned with those of the U.S. since Russia believes that the best way to fight terrorism coming out of the Syrian conflict is to support the Syrian government led by president Assad. This is the complete opposite of US stated policy in Syria. Although ISIS is a common enemy, working with Russia towards the same objectives despite different overall goals might not gain much approval within the US or with its allies in Europe or the Middle East.
While debating these few points, the differences in Trump’s and Obama’s political personalities become apparent. Although both Obama and Trump want to eradicate ISIS, Trump’s impatience with the slow progress that the Obama administration has made is showing in his demands for more extreme methods. Trump has been described as a nationalist who thinks mostly in terms of striking deals. He is dissatisfied with the financial pressure that fighting ISIS has put on the United States, and he feels that other countries should step up and share the burden. This could serve as an explanation for Trump’s willingness to send in troops and even work with Russia in order to end this costly war against ISIS as quickly as possible. Obama, on the other hand, followed a more conservative approach to fighting ISIS. He opposed any plan that included sending large numbers of troops to fight on the ground since one of his administration’s policies and campaign promises was ending all US combat operations in Iraq, opting instead for providing training and assistance to the Iraq government forces. Obama adopted several strategies trying to dismantle ISIS’s US vs Islam narrative which was an effective recruitment tool for ISIS especially in the west. Additionally, Obama tried to rely on local groups in Syria and Iraq to fight ISIS and provided them with financial support, logistics, training and weapons. Overall, both Obama and Trump share the same goal of defeating ISIS. However, as Trump succeeds Obama, we might expect to see more dramatic efforts against ISIS.
An important aspect of national defense that also relates to defense against ISIS in particular is border control. In response to perceived danger of entering refugees from Muslim majority countries, Obama’s policy was to "enhance the already stringent vetting to which refugees and SIV applicants were subjected." This included "rigorous procedures, which lead to waiting times of 18-24 months for many Iraqi and Syrian refugees"(Finer). The purpose of these vetting procedures was to ensure that those seeking refuge in the United States do not pose any potential threat to American citizens. Enhancing and extending the vetting procedures are believed to be necessary to keep the United States safe from terrorist attacks that have taken place in foreign countries. Despite this crack down on immigration, The Obama Administration admitted 10,000 mostly Muslim Syrian refugees in the 2016 fiscal year. (Omri) Trump has criticized these immigration policies for being too lax, citing ISIS related attacks all over the world as a reason for more stringent immigration policy. No more than one week into Trump's presidency, an executive order was issued that banned the entry of Syrian refugees and anyone from seven majority Muslim countries into the US. Those holding travel documentation from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen were held back from travelling to the US, and in some cases detained. (Stack) This order inevitably led to public outrage and mass demonstrations inside the US and around the world. The order was a manifestation of the ideals Trump presented during his presidential campaign.
Both Obama and Trump recognize that immigration from unstable regions, especially from ISIS controlled regions, could lead to a larger security threat on US soil. However, Trump's extreme counter-terrorism tactics are far more drastic than Obama's. According to Obama, Trump's tactic would only play into a detrimental 'Us vs. Them' or the 'United States vs Islam' narrative. This arguably might play into the hands of groups like ISIS resulting in more recruitment. To Trump, this is his way of proving to Americans that under his administration, the American people will be put first. In many ways, the ban vocalized the idea that protecting US citizens against possible terrorist attacks is more important than providing aid and shelter to those who are more imminently threatened or displaced by ISIS.
Another topic of national security that also relates to stability in the middle east is the question of US – Iran relations. Later into Obama’s presidency, sanctions were lifted against Iran in exchange for a dramatic roll back of Iran’s nuclear facilities. Under this so-called ‘Iran Deal,’ Iran’s facilities will be reduced both in number and in its capability to create nuclear weapons. Reducing Iran’s nuclear capability reduces the nuclear threat against the US’s most important proxies in the region: Israel and Saudi Arabia. Iran posed and still poses the most serious threat to US influence, it will most probably continue to do so, however, striking the nuclear dear with Iran means that the threat from Iran will be greatly reduced and tensions as well will begin to diminish, this is not to say that the US-Iran relations will blossom, but at least they will be greatly reduced.
This deal was frowned upon by many Republicans including President Trump. He expressed his dissatisfaction with the deal and pledged to repeal it, although that might be easier said than done. In the mean time, Trump’s administration will keep a very watchful eye on Iran’s activities, ready to pounce on the deal if Iran shows any signs of rebuilding its nuclear weapon facilities. According to Richard N. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations:
“Iran is an imperial power that seeks a major and possibly dominant role in the region. Sanctions relief will give it much greater means to pursue its goals, including helping minority and majority Shiite populations in neighboring countries, arming and funding proxies such as Hezbollah and Hamas, propping up the government in Damascus, and adding to sectarianism in Iraq by its unconditional support of the government and Shia militias. The agreement could well extend the Syrian civil war, as Iran will have new resources with which to back the Assad government” (Haass).
Haass outlines some of the main concerns that President Trump might have regarding producing a strategy to deal with Iran. This explains why his administration has tread lightly thus far in its dealings with Iran.
Iran is a concern in the eyes of both the Obama and Trump administrations. However, Trump has taken an aggressive attitude towards the deal. Iran is a very influential player in the Middle East, and in Trump’s eyes, Iran will cause instability in the region with backing from Russia. Additionally, “Iran props up the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad and supports Lebanon's Hezbollah”, and for that reason, “many policymakers say the United States will need to shore up its primary Middle Eastern allies, particularly Israel and Saudi Arabia, providing them with the latest military weapons, intelligence, and other forms of support.” (Masters). Depending on the unfolding events in Syria and with ISIS, the US may feel the need to protect its interests in the region, especially in the event of the extension of the civil war in Syria.
Both Obama and Trump have stated strong positions regarding terrorism, however, as president, Obama was making decisions and developing strategies based on actual intelligence given to him by government agencies. One can argue that Obama has taken a very tough approach to terrorism with the wide use of covert operations and using drones to attack suspected terrorists all over the world including Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen. Obama has also ordered the US military to work closely with all the major players in the Middle East including the Iraqis, Saudis, Turkey and others in order to try to contain the spread of ISIS in the region as well as other groups such as Al Qaeda and its affiliates. The US led international coalition conducts almost daily air attacks on suspected ISIS and other groups. Stricter US immigration admission criteria for many nationalities have been implemented, however, taking into consideration not to appear as anti-Muslim or Islamophobia. Obama went as far as to welcome refugees from Syria, Iraq and other countries with the intention in part to show that the US is not at war with Muslim or Islam and also to encourage European countries to accept thousands of refugees who were flooding into the continent (Omri). All of this was meant to be part of multi-faceted strategy to combat and confront ISIS and the idea that the US is at war with Islam, hoping that this will thwart the recruitment efforts by terrorist groups especially ISIS. Trump on the other hand has used the fear factor in terms of presenting the threat of terrorist attacks from ISIS or other groups as immanent, citing examples of recent attacks in Europe.
Trump promoted the idea that refugees from Muslim countries are perpetrating these attacks and went so far as to insinuate that Islam as a religion is promoting these sorts of acts. We can argue that Trump lacks the type of intelligence that may be needed to formulate an accurate opinion let alone a formal policy. Trump managed to successfully incorporate these ideas into his overall “nationalistic” and “America First” approach through pitting America and Americans vs. foreigners with the added perception that the threat comes mainly from foreigners who happen to be Muslims and may very well be associated with ISIS. At the risk of being considered an isolationist, Trump has made it clear that he will be very tough when it comes to the his plan “putting America first” and “making America great again.” During his campaign, Trump has indicated that he will be ready to do a number of things that include the cancelation of international trade agreements which he doesn’t agree with, building a wall along the border with Mexico, ban immigration from specific countries, all Muslim and take steps designed to “take out” ISIS and the threat of “Islamic terrorism” through the use of US military might including putting troops on the ground and collaboration with other countries including Russia. Although appealing to many Americans, a tough approach can also backfire if it is not well thought out considering that America cannot adopt an isolationist policy while it tries to assert international dominance and leadership at the same time. Furthermore, the long standing policy of previous administrations of avoiding a direct clash between cultures has a solid foundation and is based on national security considerations, therefore, any drastic change is this policy can have serious negative consequences.
It is obviously too early to ascertain whether Trump’s anti-terrorism policy will succeed or not, however, if we consider that Trump is advocating steps that have not been utilized by the previous administrations then there might at least a chance that these steps will achieve their objectives. After the 9/11 attacks the Bush administration launched one of the biggest wars in US history in Afghanistan and Iraq and spent trillions with the objective of eradicating terrorism, however, the result was a glaring failure since Al Qaeda is now arguably as strong as ever and has in part spawned ISIS. Trump’s alienation of 1.5 billion Muslims around the world through associating terrorism with Islam and through the apparent discrimination against Muslim, including American Muslims, will surely have a negative effect. Bear in mind that thousands of ISIS members came from western societies where they were born and raised, and most of them cite racism as one of the reasons they became disenchanted (Berlinger). While it was obvious that Obama’s efforts were a failure, Trump’s policies can be described at best as half measures if they are not part of a comprehensive solution to the core problem, in deed they might even make matters worse. It is important for U.S. citizens who should have a say in their own national security to understand that Trump’s antagonism of foreigners and non-white Americans can only lead to a dangerous divide that drives terrorist groups like ISIS into power.
Works Cited
Berlinger, Joshua. "The Names: Who Has Been Recruited to ISIS from the West." CNN. Cable News Network, n.d. Web. 21 Feb. 2017.
Boot, Max. "Defeating ISIS." Council on Foreign Relations. Council on Foreign Relations, n.d. Web. 22 Feb. 2017.
Diamond, Jeremy. "Timeline: Donald Trump's Praise for Vladimir Putin." CNN. Cable News Network, n.d. Web. 22 Feb. 2017.
Finer, Jon. "Sorry, Mr. President: The Obama Administration Did Nothing Similar to Your Immigration Ban." Foreign Policy. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Feb. 2017.
Gaouette, Nicole, and Barbara Starr. "Trump Wants 30,000 Troops. Would That Defeat ISIS?" CNN. Cable News Network, 11 Mar. 2016. Web. 21 Feb. 2017.
Haass, Richard N. "On the Iran Nuclear Agreement and Its Consequences." Council on Foreign Relations. Council on Foreign Relations, 04 Aug. 2015. Web. 21 Feb. 2017.
"Iran." Council on Foreign Relations. Ed. Jonathon Masters. Council on Foreign Relations, n.d. Web. 21 Feb. 2017.
Laub, Zachary. "The Islamic State." Council on Foreign Relations. Council on Foreign Relations, n.d. Web. 22 Feb. 2017.
Omri, Haeyoun Park and Rudy. "U.S. Reaches Goal of Admitting 10,000 Syrian Refugees. Here's Where They Went." The New York Times. The New York Times, 31 Aug. 2016. Web. 21 Feb. 2017.
Stack, Liam. "Trump’s Executive Order on Immigration: What We Know and What We Don’t." New York Times. N.p., 29 Jan. 2017. Web.