No predicting what Trump will do
The next installment of the American empire may well be a doozy.
Of course, things are already pretty shaky. Responsibility for the tragedy of Aleppo, in northwestern Syria, does not rest with the Obama administration; that disgrace belongs to Russia and the Syrian government. President Assad has killed and pummeled hundreds of thousands of his own people, in one long litany of shame.
Still, the administration and President Obama bear some of the blame. In addition to the dead, the catastrophe of Syria includes the uprooting of millions of Syrians. The Syrian refugee crisis has been one of the factors — maybe the chief factor — in the weakening of the European political order and the rise of an energized right wing.
Fear of the foreign has seeped across the Atlantic. It shadowed the United States elections, and with the selection of Donald Trump, now threatens to unravel seven decades of cooperation and alliance-building, in opposition to Russia and, secondarily, the re-emergence of European fascism.
The goal of a unified western alliance anchored by a growing devotion to liberal democracy is being buried under the tidal wave of refugees flooding across Europe, the contagion of fear and uncertainty following in their wake, and Trump’s inexplicable cozying up to Russian President Putin.
At least as far as the refugee crisis goes, the Obama administration must shoulder part of the burden. Time and again President Obama flicked away calls for vigorous U.S. action to aid the Syrian civil insurrection against the brutal Assad regime
He cited, probably correctly, the near impossibility of identifying which rebel fighters to arm. The administration has largely been unable to solve the singularly important problem of deciding which groups might play a more or less constructive role in constituting a new Syrian government and which might pose various dangers to good order and peace.
The concern has always been who among the many rebel factions were likely to perpetuate violence and instability by turning their guns on both religious and political opponents, whether the fight against Assad was completed or not.
In addition, the administration has consistently opposed the creation of a no-fly zone over Syria, which presumably would have cleared the way for a safe harbor for refugees inside Syria.
What to do about Syria of course has been complicated by the rise and spread of ISIS. From Syria deep into neighboring Iraq, the Islamic State has been profoundly destabilizing. Its atrocious behavior has had profound moral implications.
ISIS has become the focus of U.S. attention, not alone because of its public beheadings and its destruction of national borders, but because of its potential, founded on its mastery of social media, to radicalize young Muslims around the world.
Unlike Russia, which paid lip service to fighting ISIS (its target since entering the Syria civil war has been the rebels fighting Assad, some of whom were embraced by the U.S.), we’ve devoted considerable resources to the struggle.
President Obama has sent, to date, some 5,000 troops back into Iraq. Just this week Apache helicopters began supporting the Iraqi-led fight to retake Mosul. U.S. drones and special ops have targeted and eliminated a dozen or so top ISIS leaders, in additional to killing thousands of its fighters.
ISIS is in retreat. But Assad is still in place, bolstered by Russian air power. President Putin is riding high, convening in Moscow a conference on the future of Syria, inviting the Turks and shunning the Americans.
And then there are all those refugees, 1.3 million in Germany alone. Because of a falling birthrate and an aging population, the infusion of hundreds of thousands of young, ambitious refugees might actually aid the German economy; however, the overall effect is not good. With German elections looming, the chancellorship of Angela Merkel may very well be in jeopardy.
Now comes Donald Trump, promising what? To “bomb the blank out of ISIS,” sending condolences to the families of all the dead children buried under the avalanche of American ordnance? To confiscate Middle East oil to lubricate infrastructure renewal here at home? To abandon allies in favor of partnership with Russia — puny Russia, with the 12th-largest economy in the world, between Indonesia and Italy? To launch nuclear missiles, or a new nuclear arms race?
Based on the many contradictory things he has said, these seem just as plausible as their alternatives, maybe more so.
President Obama consistently maintained that staying out of the Syrian civil war was in our national interest. That seems like a mistake.
But it still may be better than what comes next. Maybe more so than ever, the road ahead looks uncertain.
Richard Robbins lives in Uniontown and is the author of two books — “Grand Salute: Stories of the World War II Generation” and “Our People.” He can be reached at grandsalutebook@gmail.com.