Impact of Trump's Top Appointments on US Domestic & Foreign Policy

[Riaz Haq]

Who are President-Elect Donald Trump's top picks for his Cabinet and White House staff positions? What are their views on US domestic and foreign policies? How will they shape US policies on national security, immigration, minority rights and foreign relations?

Are critics right about their reservations regarding Trump's top choices of Steve Bannon (Chief White House Strategist), Gen Michael Flynn (National Security Advisor), Jeff Sessions (Attorney General), Michael Pompeo (CIA Director) and Chris Kobach (Immigration)?

What should Muslims do in response to appointments of known Islamophobes like Michael Flynn, Steve Bannon, Chris Kobach and others? Should they support civil rights groups like Council on Islamic Relations (CAIR), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to challenge any anti-Muslim policies and actions? Should they make common cause with other ethnic and religious minorities to defend their civil rights? Should they put more efforts into inter-faith harmony?

What will Team Trump's policy be toward India and Pakistan? Will they favor India over Pakistan? Will they pressure Pakistan to comply with US demands in the region, particularly with respect to Afghanistan? Will they collaborate with India to isolate Pakistan? How will Pakistan respond to such pressure? Is there a risk that Pakistan might go rogue?

Viewpoint From Overseas host Faraz Darvesh discusses these questions with panelists Misbah Azam and Riaz Haq (www.riazhaq.com)


https://youtu.be/Otsw3atq5W4




https://vimeo.com/192410033



Impact of Trump's Top Appointments on US Domestic & Foreign Policy from Ikolachi on Vimeo.

Related Links:

Haq's Musings

Trump & Modi

Is Husain Haqqani Advising Trump?

US Elections 2016

Trump Phenomenon

Trump's Muslim Ban

Talk4Pak Think Tank

VPOS Youtube Channel

VPOS Vimeo Channel

VPOS Dailymotion Channel

[Riaz Haq]

Anti-#Muslim assaults in #US reach 9/11-era levels in 2015, #FBI data show. #Trump #Islamophobia

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/21/anti-muslim-assault...

The number of physical assaults against Muslims in the United States reached 9/11-era levels last year, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of new hate crimes statistics from the FBI. There were 91 reported aggravated or simple assaults motivated by anti-Muslim bias in 2015, just two shy of the 93 reported in 2001.

Separately, the number of anti-Muslim intimidation crimes – defined as threatening bodily harm — also rose in 2015, with 120 reported to the FBI. Again, this was the most anti-Muslim intimidation crimes reported in any year since 2001, when there were 296.

Overall, the FBI reported 257 incidents of anti-Muslim hate crimes in 2015, a 67% increase from the previous year. These incidents included 301 individual crimes, 71% of which were crimes against people, as opposed to property. (Incidents can encompass more than one crime.) By contrast, crimes perpetrated against other religious groups more often involved property offenses, such as vandalism or theft. For example, 64% of anti-Jewish and 51% of anti-Catholic offenses in 2015 involved vandalism, compared with just 23% of anti-Muslim offenses.

Most Americans say there is “a lot” of discrimination against Muslims in the United States today – roughly six-in-ten U.S. adults (59%) said this in a January 2016 Pew Research Center survey. About three-quarters of Americans (76%) also said discrimination against Muslims in the U.S. was increasing.

The same survey found that almost half of American adults (49%) think at least “some” Muslims in the U.S. are anti-American, including 11% who think “most” or “almost all” are anti-American. Another survey from about the same time (December 2015) found that 46% of Americans thought Islam was more likely than other religions to encourage violence.

FBI data for 2016 will not be released until next year, but there have been anecdotal reports of a continued rise in anti-Muslim hate crimes this year. While not all incidents can be confirmed, the Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights advocacy group that tracks hate crimes, reported more than 30 cases of anti-Muslim incidents in the five days following the presidential election alone.

The FBI collects hate crime data from about 15,000 law enforcement agencies that voluntarily participate, which means the annual statistics likely undercount the number of hate crimes in a given year. Still, the report is a useful tool for comparing hate crimes over time and tracking the minimum number of these crimes that occurred in a given year.

[Riaz Haq]

#NawazSharif is a terrific guy, #Pakistan is an amazing country with tremendous opportunities: Donald #Trump https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/headline/pm-nawaz-felicitates-donal... ISLAMABAD – Prime Minister Muhammad Nawaz Sharif telephoned US President-elect Donald Trump and felicitated him on his victory.

 

During the telephonic conversation, Donald Trump said he is ready to play any role that Pakistan wants him to do to find solutions to the problems. He said it will be an honour and he will personally do it.

 

Donald Trump said Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has a very good reputation, and he is doing amazing work, which is visible in every way. He is looking forward to meet the Prime Minister soon.

 

He said Pakistan is amazing with tremendous opportunities. Pakistanis are one of the most intelligent people.

 

On being invited to visit Pakistan by the Prime Minister, the US president-elect said he would love to visit the fantastic country, a fantastic place of fantastic people.

[Riaz Haq]

Trump's national security advisor Gen Michael Flynn has said the rise of Islamic State was “a willful decision” and defends accuracy of US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) 2012 Memo:


In Al Jazeera’s latest Head to Head episode, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Michael Flynn confirms to Mehdi Hasan that not only had he studied the DIA memo predicting the West’s backing of an Islamic State in Syria when it came across his desk in 2012, but even asserts that the White House’s sponsoring of radical jihadists (that would emerge as ISIL and Nusra) against the Syrian regime was “a willful decision.”

-------

While holding up a paper copy of the 2012 DIA report declassified through FOIA, Hasan reads aloud key passages such as, “there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria, and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime.”
Rather than downplay the importance of the document and these startling passages, as did the State Department soon after its release, Flynn does the opposite: he confirms that while acting DIA chief he “paid very close attention” to this report in particular and later adds that “the intelligence was very clear.”
Lt. Gen. Flynn, speaking safely from retirement, is the highest ranking intelligence official to go on record saying the United States and other state sponsors of rebels in Syria knowingly gave political backing and shipped weapons to Al-Qaeda in order to put pressure on the Syrian regime:

(Aljazeera's Mehdi) Hasan: In 2012 the U.S. was helping coordinate arms transfers to those same groups [Salafists, Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda in Iraq], why did you not stop that if you’re worried about the rise of quote-unquote Islamic extremists?
Flynn: I hate to say it’s not my job…but that…my job was to…was to to ensure that the accuracy of our intelligence that was being presented was as good as it could be.
The early reporting that treated the DIA memo as newsworthy and hugely revelatory was criticized and even mocked by some experts, as well as outlets like The Daily Beast. Yet the very DIA director at the time the memo was drafted and circulated widely now unambiguously confirms the document to be of high value, and indicates that it served as source material in his own discussions over Syria policy with the White House.
As Michael Flynn also previously served as director of intelligence for Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) during a time when its prime global mission was dismantling Al-Qaeda, his honest admission that the White House was in fact arming and bolstering Al-Qaeda linked groups in Syria is especially shocking given his stature.

https://levantreport.com/2015/08/06/former-dia-chief-michael-flynn-...

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/headtohead/2015/07/blame-isil-1... 

[Riaz Haq]

#Pakistan Is the Crisis Flying Under the Radar. #Trump needs to increase #military, #economic #aid to #Pakistan

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/24/pakistan-is-the-crisis-flying-u...

First, the Trump administration should recognize that our levers to influence Pakistan are limited — but not entirely impotent. While we can and should be working to strengthen national ties with India, this must be done in a way that is not threatening to Pakistan. Thus, the first best option to help achieve stability in South Asia is to do all we can to encourage India to try to resolve differences with its neighbor. Washington’s role could include top-level official visits to both capitals; offering unofficial “Track 2” negotiating programs; and explicitly making peace and stability in South Asia a U.S. strategic interest, identified in our national strategic planning documents.

Second, the Trump administration should increase military assistance to Pakistan in the counterterrorism fight on the Afghan-Pakistani border. A long source of frustration for U.S. military planners — including during my time as NATO’s supreme allied commander responsible for combat operations in Afghanistan — has been Pakistani support for the Afghan Taliban. Developing a package of counterterrorism incentives for Pakistan that requires a quid pro quo of their reducing and eventually dropping support for insurgents within Afghanistan is key. Such incentives could include more robust intelligence sharing; better surveillance and strike technology; and joint operations. Washington’s efforts to sell weapons, surveillance, and intelligence systems to Islamabad have been uneven to say the least. Setting out a coherent, reliable pipeline of military assistance and sales would be very helpful.

A third idea would be to increase soft-power support in Pakistan. When the United States and NATO led relief efforts following the massive earthquake in Pakistan in 2005, it had a significant and positive impact on America’s image in the country. Providing more financial aid tied to education, medicine, and humanitarian projects could help. This is an area where much suspicion lingers following medical programs that are perceived to have been tied to intelligence gathering. We need effective strategic communications alongside the aid to help recover.

A question that arises in the context of soft power is whether to impose conditions on Pakistan in return for the aid it receives. While Republicans in Congress have pushed a more conservative approach to use aid as a tactic to pressure Pakistan, it is unclear how the new administration will approach this. In general, it would be wise to consider both our short- and long-term priorities in the region: Too often, a focus on eradicating terrorism today fails to address the circumstances that drive people to extremism in the first place.Too often, a focus on eradicating terrorism today fails to address the circumstances that drive people to extremism in the first place. Using aid to strengthen democratic stability, create opportunities for citizens, and increase investments to grow the economy will translate into long-term benefits that help minimize incentives to turn to extremism.

Fourth and finally, it would make sense to internationalize our efforts. Working with other nations — Britain or Germany, for example — could leverage the impact of our efforts. There are also international organizations, such as the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, that exercise considerable influence in Pakistan. Strategizing jointly with international partners can help.