Strife

The Academic Blog of the Department of War Studies, King's College London

You are here: Home / Archives for Donald Trump

Donald Trump

Resuming Nuclear Talks with Iran: Too Late to Renegotiate?

by

By Owen Saunders

Source: Antony Blinken’s confirmation hearing: 5 things to know about Biden’s secretary of state nominee

The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran have endured continued tensions over the last forty years. The relationship has often been strained by disagreements over values, government structures, foreign interference, and ideological beliefs. A primary threat perceived by the United States in recent years has been Iran’s emerging capacity to produce enriched uranium, which can be used in the creation of nuclear weapons. The formulation and negotiation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) which ended successfully in 2015, principally as a result of track two dialogues beginning in the early 2000s, was intended to address these latest pressures.

As background to the JCPOA, the election of President Hassan Rouhani in 2013 and the re-election of President Obama in 2012 presented an opportune moment wherein both sides were looking for new ideas and new ways forward in order to kickstart formal discussions around reaching a nuclear agreement. The JCPOA, in essence, was a deal whereby, in exchange for the lifting of the US’s longstanding and crippling economic sanctions, Iran agreed to limit its nuclear capabilities. For example, the agreement stated that Iran could have no more than 300 kilograms of enriched uranium at a maximum of 3.67 percent, and that the attainment of such quantities was to be verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Besides the two disputants, other parties to the JCPOA included all members of the Security Council (China, Russia, France and the United Kingdom) and Germany.

After the election of President Donald Trump in 2016, his Administration targeted the JCPOA as one part of its agenda of projecting American strength and embracing isolationism. Trump was opposed to what he saw as the unnecessary compromises made by Obama, in much the same way that he was committed to undoing much of Obama’s domestic and other foreign initiatives. In regard to the JCPOA, Trump stated that:

‘The Iranian regime supports terrorism and exports violence, bloodshed and chaos across the Middle East. That is why we must put an end to Iran’s continued aggression and nuclear ambition. They have not lived up to the spirit of their agreement.’

Trump went on to say, that if these issues were not resolved, the United States would withdraw from the agreement. Israel was another harsh critic of the deal, with Prime Minister Netanyahu arguing that Iran was able to circumvent the deal and would significantly increase production of a nuclear weapon.

American and European supporters of the JCPOA argued that the agreement was critical in upholding four objectives: nuclear nonproliferation, regional stability in the Middle East, restoration of U.S.-Iran bilateral relations (as well as the reintegration of Iran into the international community), and the promotion of ‘western’ human rights and democracy inside Iran. Critics, however, argued that the primary problem did not lie in the details of the agreement, but rather in what was left out of it, that being the threat posed by Iran’s geopolitical ambitions towards U.S. allies in the region. As for providing regional stability, they argued that Iran could not even effectively stabilize itself. Other criticisms focused on the possibility of U.S.-Iranian normalization, with some arguing that the animosity from and toward the United States would constitute an intractable obstacle in attempting to rectify their relationship. Finally, critics also purported that the Iranian regime was unreformable when it comes to human rights and democracy. As one critic noted, Iran is “a police state, incapable of reforming itself while drowning in corruption and economic ineptitude.”

These latter views had attracted little support during the Obama administration, but found strong support in the Trump administration, and the U.S. withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018. Once withdrawn, Trump not only re-imposed the previous sanctions but added new ones as well. As a result, Iran began to breach the constraints outlined within the JCPOA and has, since 2018, exceeded numerous limits on the stockpiling of low enriched uranium.

U.S. disengagement and the concurrent reaction by Iran has raised major concerns for the remaining signatories of the JCPOA and has led to increasing tensions between Washington and Tehran. Most recently, the Trump administration’s assassination of Iran’s General Qassim Soleimani, a powerful figure in Iran’s politics, sparked outrage and inflamed relations. After his death, Iran announced that it was abandoning the “final limitations in the nuclear deal,” which prevented Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. However, Iran also stated that it would continue to cooperate with the IAEA and return to the original agreement should an American administration lift the economic sanctions and abide by the JCOPA. Iran’s Foreign Minister Zavad Zarif said that if the Biden administration lifts the sanctions imposed by the Trump administration, and provides assurance that the United States will not leave the agreement in the same manner as the previous administration, the Iranian government would be willing to re-enter negotiations.

On the U.S. side, Biden is open to re-joining the pact, but the issue is under what conditions and how to do so. The new U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken is expected to meet with the foreign ministers of Germany, France, and the United Kingdom to discuss the United States’ re-entry into the agreement. The Biden Administration has also appointed Robert Malley, a senior official under both the Obama and Clinton Administrations, as an ‘Iran Envoy’ to aid in the effort. The primary challenge as re-negotiation moves forward will be to what extent the Biden Administration can push amendments to the original agreement, what degree of pushback will there be from the other parties to the JCPOA?

A successful re-entry into the agreement is, however, still uncertain. President Biden seeks to continue to rebuild the reputation of the United States on the world stage. The challenge will be to negotiate and successfully re-enter the agreement within a very short time frame – by the 2022 midterms, the domestic landscape, international challenges, and congressional makeup could likely look very different. Although Biden is still in the first weeks of his mandate, time is already running out. Biden’s recent authorization of offensive air strikes on Iranian backed militias in Syria could create further tensions between the US and Iran, impacting the successful re-negotiation of the JCPOA.

 

Owen is pursuing his MA in International Peace and Security in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London. His interest in researching this topic developed from a Track Two Diplomacy course by Dr. Peter Jones at the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa. Find him on Twitter @owensaunders26

President Trump’s gift to Al Shabaab

by

by Marie Blessing Gilbert

US Troops in Somalia. Source: Commondreams

On the 4th of December last, the withdrawal of approximately 700 US troops and assets from Somalia was announced by the Pentagon. Some of these numbers will be deployed outside of East Africa whilst the rest will be repositioned in countries neighbouring Somalia. For decades Somalia has been devasted as a result of wars and famines. The burden carried by its people has been huge. Assistance from the US forces in Somalia in attempting to stabilise the country is vital if any hope of a better tomorrow is ever to be achieved.

Al Shabaab is an Al Qaeda linked militant group in Somalia whose aim is to establish a caliphate in Somalia that would in turn spread to neighbouring countries in the ‘Horn of Africa’ and beyond. They are not the only extremist group in Somalia, ISIS too has a footing there, however they are the primary source of terrorist offences in the Horn of Africa.

US troops have been present in Somalia since the early 1990s when at its height, there were approximately 25,000 troops assisting UN aid workers in humanitarian and peacekeeping missions. This number was critically cut soon after by President Bill Clinton, and has dwindled since, to the 700 that were removed from Somalia in the last days of the Trump Administration.

The timing of the decision couldn’t be worse. Somalia has already missed the deadline of its general election which was due this month. Presidential elections are due to take place in February 2021. Tensions always run high in East Africa on the run up to and in the aftermath of elections. Anxiety in Somalia, which has been decimated for years at the hands of warlords and terrorist groups like Al Shabaab will hit a pinnacle soon. Pre- and post-election violence is expected no matter what the result of either election is due to the power struggle between elected officials, opponents, jihadist groups and clan elders. It is widely believed that the Somali security forces and African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) are not prepared to deal with a further escalation of violence within the country. Al Shabaab, as the most powerful jihadi extremist group in Somalia, is set to capitalise in the strife that will ensue.

Further to this, Somalia’s current fragile governmental system has long been aided by troops from neighbouring Ethiopia as part of AMISOM. Ethiopia has approximately 4000 troops currently in Somalia. However published reports have shown hundreds of Tigrayans troops forming part of this number have had their weapons seized by Ethiopian troops loyal to the government in Addis Ababa as a result of the current conflict between Tigrayan and Ethiopian forces in Ethiopia. Should AMISOM forces get distracted in any way from their peacekeeping mission in Somalia a vacuum will be created where militants can thrive even further than they do already. Somalia and Ethiopia have a long, porous border and traditionally strong ties. If the conflict in Ethiopia continues or escalates Somalia will undoubtedly suffer as a consequence.

To add to the problems of this highly vulnerable state the announcement that the US will remove their troops from within Somalia’s borders in weeks will further weaken the security forces in Somalia. The brunt of the American withdrawal is expected to be felt by the Somali commando force, Danab that was set up in 2014 as an elite force of combatants. Danab was established largely with US financial help, training and equipment. Its primary aim was that of a counter terrorist force in the country. Accompanied on many missions by US forces, Danab will surely be left to fend for itself when its US counterparts leave Somalia. Given they have worked together closely for 6 years it will, without doubt be a devastating blow to the Somali counter-terrorism efforts.

Al Shabaab members in Somalia. Source: Independent.ie

Leading politicians in Somalia and neighbouring countries have been left alarmed by the Pentagon’s announcement with Somalia’s President, Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed expressing deep concern that the efforts to counter terrorism in the region were aided hugely by the existing US-Somali partnership. In Neighbouring Kenya, Foreign Affairs Principal Secretary, Kamau Macharia, has opined that the situation will worsen in Somalia after the US withdrawal. It had already been announced that AMISOM troops were to work towards a full withdrawal of their troops from Somalia by the end of 2021, with graduated withdrawal already underway. Should this take place on top of US withdrawal the future looks very bleak for this extremely fragile and volatile state.

It seems that everything is happening at once to hinder any hopes that Somalia has to rise from the ashes of decades-long conflict. Somalia’s loss will be Al Shabaab’s gain and undoubtedly Trump’s final actions as he leaves the White House to withdraw his forces from Somalia will have devastating effects. The final withdrawal of troops was completed just two days before the inauguration of Joe Biden as President. The hope would be that President Biden will reverse this decision. However, with the troops already out of Somalia and even the uncertainly surrounding Trump’s decision will unquestioningly strengthen Al Shabaab’s resolve and can be seen as Trump’s parting gift to these jihadi extremists.

Marie Blessing Gilbert is currently studying full time for a Masters degree in Terrorism, Security and Society in King’s College London with an interest in the terrorism threat in Ireland and East Africa.

Marie is a part of the Strife Women in Writing Programme.

Insurrection and Chaos in the United States: Capitol Crimes at the Centre of Government

by

by Owen Saunders

Swarms of Trump supporters storm the U.S. Capitol. Source: Reuters

If there was anyone left following 2020 that still held to T.S. Eliot’s words that the ‘world ends/Not with a bang but with a whimper,’ then the events at the U.S. Capitol on 6 January will have cured them of this misconception. In the course of an unprecedented mayhem, the seat of U.S. representative democracy was assaulted by a violent insurrection of Trump supporters intent on preventing the certification of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election in a bizarre attempt to keep Donald Trump in power. The event will undoubtedly consume the opinion pages in the days to come. It is therefore crucial to provide a clear account of the events as they happened and situate them within their context of the wider U.S. democracy.

What happened

The morning of 6 January 2021 began with all eyes focused on the run-off elections for Georgia’s two Senate seats. As no candidate had succeeded in reaching 50% of the vote in the general election of 3 November 2020, these plebiscites offered Democrats the opportunity to carry on the momentum of a victorious Presidential campaign and secure a Senate majority. Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff will be Georgia’s first Democratic Senators in seventeen years, having won by razor-thin margins.

On 6 January, Vice President Mike Pence and members of both Houses of the U.S. Congress began the process of formally certifying electoral college votes. Pence did so in spite of immense pressure from President Trump to reject the outcome of the election, with the President explicitly encouraging him to invalidate the results in the Senate. During the count, soon-to-be Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell and the current Minority Leader Chuck Schumer gave similar speeches defending democracy. However, Schumer warned how some on the Republican side might ‘darken this view of democracy.’ Republicans more recently, according to The Washington Post, are displaying dangerous authoritarian tendencies, including Senator Ted Cruz of Texas who argued his colleagues should not ‘take the easy path‘ and should reject the election’s outcome.

Historically, the United States has transferred power peacefully, even when the opposing party won the election. This is why in a normal election year these counts rarely attract any attention; indeed, in the course of this year, with the rejectionist rhetoric of Trump, there was little widespread significance attached to these proceedings. This changed following the 3 November election as President Trump made increasingly strident calls for Congress to refuse to certify the Electoral College votes after losing over sixty legal cases attempting to overturn the election results

Just as Congress had begun debating a motion to reject the Electoral College votes from the State of Arizona, President Trump concluded a rally on the National Mall by urging his supporters to pressure Congress to reject the Electoral College results, overtly encouraging insurrection. Thousands flocked from the rally towards the Capitol and, upon arriving, were met with a relatively small force of United States Capitol Police – a significantly smaller force in comparison to the National Guard troops deployed in advance of a June 2020 Black Lives Matter protest at the Lincoln Memorial. The assembled Trump supporters eventually overran the security protections and took possession of the United States Capitol for several hours. As a result, the formal process certifying the vote came to an immediate halt.

Though eventually forced out of the building, thousands of protesters remained outside the Capitol, with the precinct formally under lockdown. The decision to deploy the District of Colombia National Guard, was made by Army Secretary Ryan D. McCarthy and Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher C. Miller, and the order was approved by Vice President Mike Pence following multiple requests from the Mayor of Washington and Congressional leaders. Interestingly, Trump as the Commander-in-Chief would have been expected to give this order, however, according to press accounts he failed to do so.

Later that evening, after the 6:00 PM curfew imposed by the DC Mayor that evening, Congress reconvened and voting resumed to certify the outcome of the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. Other major takeaways from this disruptive day, which ended in the deaths of five people, included the significant delays by the President and Department of Defense to authorize the activation of the DC National Guard, the failure by the United States Capitol Police to adequately plan for an obvious threat, and the stark dissimilarities in the way law enforcement handled this event versus the Black Lives Matter protests in the summer after the death of George Floyd.

How did the United States get here?

The United States has always portrayed itself as a global leader and champion of democratic values, especially after World War II and again after the fall of the Soviet Union, where US power and influence became unparalleled. Over the last decade, however, with global power dynamics in shift, rapid advancements in technology, and the 2008 financial crisis, this position began to witness a dramatic transformation. The ‘Tea Party’ movement, a far-right branch of the Republican party, began to manifest during the Obama administration, notably in 2009 as a backlash to the Affordable Care Act, also known as ‘Obamacare’. The 2010 U.S. elections saw 87 Republicans elected to Congress in what was known as the ‘tea party wave’. They were known for anti-regulation and obstructionist domestic policies, an isolationist foreign policy, and a distinct lack of reverence for many democratic institutions and the role of the state in society.

As Donald Trump came onto the political scene as a serious candidate for President in 2015, he took advantage of what remained of the tea party movement, appropriating their populist rhetoric as his own. Throughout his 2016 campaign, he fed his growing base a populist message that appealed to the far-right elements of the Republican party. Trump’s populist approach, direct criticism of his opponents and President Obama, and self-styled image as a ‘fighter’ proved impossible to beat by his primary opponents or in the general election, Hillary Clinton. His victory represented an accumulation of a number of a number of grievances by Middle America, grievances which he continued to perpetuate and exacerbate throughout his presidency.

President Trump throughout his presidency pushed a narrative that the democratic election processes and institutions could not be trusted, that elections are ‘rigged,’ and that the ‘fake news media’ never reported the facts of his administration accurately. He used his impeachment in early 2020 to reinforce his narrative about the ‘fake news media’ and the alledged persecution of his administration. He set the stage for the post-election turmoil by stating in August 2020 that ‘the only way we’re gonna lose this election is if the election is rigged’.

His supporters have adopted his recent, far more deranged, and unhinged views which were disseminated through his constant stream of disinformation via his now-suspended Twitter account. This included spreading far right media misinformation from QAnon, giving OANN, another far right media outlet, priority to speak during presidential press conferences, and asking for the Proud Boys to ‘stand back and stand by‘ in the course of the campaign. These actions displayed a blatant disregard of the democratic process by the rejection of facts, the promotion of distrust of the media, and the removal of multiple members within his administration who stood up to his disinformation.

After this incident of domestic terrorism where thousands of Trump supporters, some of whom were armed, stormed the Capitol, Congress was forced to adjourn; the national guard was deployed and five people died. The media, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others have argued that the 25th amendment should be invoked to have the president removed from office immediately, as his inflammatory rhetoric and disregard for U.S. democracy have made him incapable of fulfilling the duties of his office. The unprecedented incident that unfolded this week is a true test of the more than 200-year-old democracy.

Where does the United States go from here?

The Electoral College vote has been certified but the riots and takeover of the United States Capitol by supporters of the outgoing president will undoubtedly remain as a painful reminder of and stain on his Presidency. The violent incident at the Capitol is but one of the tainted legacies of his administration.

Taking office on 20 January 2021 President-Elect Joe Biden has much to do – and much to undo. His priorities will surely include undoing many Executive Orders from the Trump Administration and working to pass comprehensive legislation for millions of Americans currently experiencing unprecedented losses, restrictions, and economic hardship due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. Most importantly, however, the Biden Administration must also work to repair the distrust, hyper-partisanship and extremism which have steadily spread and intensified throughout the United States over the past four years.

Biden will have to rebuild the reputation of the United States on the international stage, further damaged by the events of this week. Countries and international organizations around the world have reacted in disbelief and disappointment, releasing statements of shock and condemnation regarding the incident. Specifically, the Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau released a statement saying Canadians were ‘deeply disturbed by the violence that unfolded’, violence he stated that was incited by the president. Prime Minister Boris Johnson of the United Kingdom emphasised that it is ‘vital that there should be a peaceful and orderly transfer of power’.

The United States, the supposed beacon of democracy, the ‘shining city on a hill’ and self-proclaimed ‘leader’ of the free world, largely failed at upholding their promise and self-avowed values.

Trump’s legacy will be one of immeasurable division, an explicit rejection of democratic values and practices, and the denial of rudimentary facts. Unfortunately, these systemic issues will not simply vanish after his term expires on January 20th. Over the next four years, therefore, Biden must work closely with his cabinet, the Congress, Governors, and citizens across the country to undo the unprecedented division, mistrust, and right wing radicalization that Trump has sown and restore unity and trust in democratic institutions and traditions.

The challenge before President-Elect Biden is daunting. He inherits a highly divided country where one side believes he was democratically elected and the other side believes that he is the beneficiary of a stolen election. Finding a way to bridge that divide and heal the wounds created over the past four years will dictate the trajectory and prosperity of the United States and its place in the world for years to come.

Owen is an MA student in International Peace and Security in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London. He has taken advanced courses on U.S. Foreign Policy with Professors David Haglund and Joel Sokolsky during his time in Political Studies at Queen’s.

Whither America First: A New US Foreign Policy under Biden?

by

by Owen Saunders

Joseph R. Biden (D) and Donald J. Trump (R), the candidates in the 2020 US Presidential Race (Image credit: BBC)

After a long election cycle, the US Presidential Election is almost concluded. In January, Joe Biden will become the 46th President of the United States. Whilst Democrats managed to retain control of the House of Representatives, the Republican Party looks likely to hold their Senate majority. The Senate has an important role to play in the ratification of treaties negotiated by the President and, thus, the successful execution of his foreign policy. Just as Trump’s foreign policy offered a break with the Obama-era, the question is now what change will Biden bring: a return to the goals of his former running mate, or a new unique path? As of 20 January 2021, a new foreign policy dynamic will be in place. The legacy of Trump’s ‘America First’ approach, however, may limit Biden’s ability to restore US leadership globally.

On environmental issues, Donald Trump had repeatedly criticised the Obama administration’s engagement in the 2015 Paris Agreement, arguing that the accord would unduly impact rustbelt states and American sovereignty. Consequently, last year Trump announced the formal withdrawal of the United States, a decision coming into effect the day after the election. Joe Biden has promised to rejoin the accord and can do so without Senate ratification. The problem sits with the Senate, who again must approve many of the measures required to meet the goals of the accord. Former President Bill Clinton experienced similar resistance in regard to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

In the course of his presidency, Trump has also repeatedly turned a blind eye to human rights abuses, most recently in the case of China’s Uighur Muslim minority. He has refused to condemn or sanction China over the issue because it would threaten ongoing trade negotiations. The Biden campaign, in comparison, repeatedly called the treatment of the Uighur population ‘genocide’. Similarly, China has imposed national security legislation in Hong Kong, restricting freedoms and denying Hong Kongers of their sovereignty. In reaction, Trump signed an Executive Order in July of 2020 calling for “Hong Kong Normalization.” Biden, like Obama, can be expected to outwardly condemn these actions.

Bilateral and multilateral trade arrangements have been heavily criticised by Trump as damaging for American economic interests. One of Trump’s first foreign policy decisions was to withdraw from the Transpacific Partnership negotiated by Obama (TPP). Biden will presumably attempt to resuscitate the pact, though he will need Congressional approval and Senate ratification. Further, Trump successfully re-negotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which he had repeatedly lamented for undermining the US auto-manufacturing industries. The new agreement, the Canada United States Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), was mainly a cosmetic change, however, it does enforce greater percentages of steel and aluminum produced in the US to be integrated in automobiles. Changes to CUSMA are unlikely under a Biden administration. Early on, Trump imposed trade tariffs on Chinese goods to force a better trade deal, but these initiatives largely failed to address trade disputes. Preliminary agreements to reduce tariffs had been reached by early 2020 but then the COVID-19 pandemic took hold. Biden has argued that the tariffs have only hurt US businesses and consumers and will likely pursue less confrontational methods of negotiation.

Regarding bilateral relations, Trump is boastful of his relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, though the minutes of their five meetings are unrecorded. Russia has proven to be a central threat in the spread of misinformation across the United States and Trump has often been reluctant to criticize them. Given Russia’s role in the 2016 election and Biden’s criticism throughout the campaign of Trump’s “unknown diplomacy” with Russia, Biden will likely take a tough stance against Putin, including on the occupation of the Crimea. Similarly, despite Biden’s criticisms of Trump’s legitimising of North Korea,’ his administration would continue negotiations with North Korea on nuclear issues. Finally, the Anglo-American Special Relationship may be impacted by Biden’s election. While Trump remains an advocate for Brexit and a quick trade deal with the UK, Biden opposed Brexit and his administration will only approve a new deal if Brexit does not threaten the Good Friday Agreement.

The Trump administration has repeatedly criticised Western security alliances and agreements. As a result, the Trump administration abandoned the Obama-era Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), in 2018 and imposed new economic sanctions on Iran. Under a Biden presidency, removing those sanctions is a real possibility that could open re-engagement with Iran and lower bilateral tensions. A Senate approval of two-thirds vote is required for a new agreement or re-entry into the old one, which may prove difficult to achieve. Trump has also not been shy to criticize the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), mainly as European members fail to meet obligations to spend 2% of GDP on defense. The Biden administration will undoubtedly re-engage with and vigorously support the organization, as he championed the Obama administration’s commitments to the security alliance.

Regarding public health, Trump has repeatedly blamed China for the COVID-19 virus. In September 2020, announcing that the US would withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO), blaming the multilateral institution for the failure to recognize and react to the virus adequately. Under Biden, Trump’s commitment to withdraw from the WHO would not be honored.

President-elect Biden has a great deal of work to do in repairing damaged bilateral and multilateral organisations and relationships around the world. Although not every foreign policy decision made under the Trump administration is noted here, the evidence of an ‘America First’ policy is strong. Nonetheless, Trump himself is not the problem, he is a symbol of sentiments within the United States that are anti-trade, anti-immigration and pro-isolationism. Although Biden’s foreign policy will likely be a continuation of the Obama administration, which itself was not perfect, Biden is likely to be limited in his efforts to return American foreign policy towards multilateralism and globalization.

Despite the popularity of ‘America First’ casting a long shadow, Biden will continue seeking re-engagement with the world, despite the domestic political difficulties at home. President Biden can do so by focusing on re-entering environmental agreements and security deals, upholding human rights, and restoring the reputation of the United States as a leader of the liberal international order. Through bi-partisan negotiation, the undoing of President Trump’s executive orders, and the implementation of new executive orders himself; any successes will depend to a great extent on working with other states in regaining more effective US diplomacy and leadership in the world.

Owen is pursuing his MA in International Peace and Security in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London. His interest in researching this topic developed from a US Foreign Policy graduate course thought by Dr. David G. Haglund, Department of Political Studies, at Queen’s University in Canada. Find him on Twitter @owensaunders26

Europe’s Options for the Boogaloo

by

by Michael C. Davies

US Civil War redux? (Image credit: The Trumpet)

Moe: ‘Oh ho, an English boy, eh? You know we saved your ass in World War Two.’
Hugh: ‘Yeah, well, we saved your ass in World War Three.’
- ‘Lisa’s Wedding,’ The Simpsons, S6E19.

In the past few weeks, U.S. President Donald J. Trump, and the Republican Party more generally, have made it clear they are willing to do anything to remain in power in the aftermath of the 2020 election, including possibly starting a civil war. Both Trump himself and numerous Republican Party elected officials and apparatchiks have stated they will neither acknowledge the outcome of the election if they lose, an election Trump already decries as illegitimate, nor participate in it fairly. Even more concerning is that a contested result could light a spark many on the American right are hoping for. White supremacists groups have grown exponentially during his Administration, and declare any event other than a Trump victory to be grounds to start the Boogaloo—the white supremacists’ slang term for a second American civil war. The question therefore becomes, what will Europe do if America fractures? Should this happen, Europe, broadly, will have four options to consider.

The roots of a possible second American civil war have been identifiable since the end of the first civil war in 1865. While the Confederacy was military and politically defeated in 1865, it re-emerged soon after and took back control of the South, imposed Jim Crow laws and social regulations, and expanded into the West. Certainly not for the last time, the United States chose white supremacy and strategic failure rather than engaging in effective state-building to achieve a new birth of freedom. This time, with forty years of free-market fundamentalism having stolen $50 trillion from the American people and collapsing the American middle class, the lack of quality health care and student loans collapsing birth rates, and decades of sectarian media blaming it all on ‘others,’ a large percentage of the American populous is armed, ready, and willing to wash the country in a genocidal and politicidal cleansing fire, just as the Confederacy did during the Civil War.

In Donald Trump, the Confederate element of American society has found their saviour. Trump’s approval rating has rarely moved regardless of how many more failures pile up exactly because he treats politics as his favourite movie, Bloodsport. He antagonizes large swathes of the populous because they refuse to love him and treat him with the respect he believes he deserves. After all, this was the man who did not really care about the number of COVID-19 deaths until the virus started affecting ‘his’ people—citizens in Republican-leaning states. 225,000+ dead, ever-rising, and he is more than happy to say it ‘affected virtually nobody.’ To Trump, he is only the President of those who love him. And a pox on all others—now, literally.

It is precisely because far right-wing groups praise him that Trump has allowed them to flourish under his Administration and reach the mainstream. Individually and collectively, they all pine for the Boogaloo. Groups like the Oath Keepers, the Boogaloo Boys, the Proud Boys, and now, the incredible rise of the mind-melting QAnon conspiracy, together with the ever-present militia movements that all have their basis in white supremacist violence, give form to the battle lines being drawn. Their goal, broadly, is to impose a right-wing anarcho-capitalist white supremacist state in America using extreme mass violence. Their intentions are so clear even establishment centrists who bemoan any act of revolt against these groups and their political handmaidens have finally begun to see the writing is on the wall.

The question therefore remains, what will Europe do should conflict break out? During the last US Civil War, because of America’s distance and Europe’s own problems, it largely left the war alone, preferring to see who emerged on top. This time, distance and impact are meaningless. Should the US divide into a years-long brawl, Europe’s own security blanket—conventional and nuclear via the NATO alliance—will be torn asunder with it. European states, individually and collectively, therefore have a direct stake in the outcome. The closeness of Trump to Russia, after all, regardless of the causation, is a daily worry for those who share a border with Russia and rely on NATO, especially American, military forces for deterrence. Without it, RAND estimates, they will last barely 60 hours.

Under the worst scenario of a breakout of a new civil war, Europe has four basic options: First, Do nothing. As scholar Edward Luttwak previously suggested, the option always exists to just ‘give war a chance’ and see what happens and adapt to the new circumstances at the end. Second, Lend Lease. As the US did during the Second World War before it engaged, it provided material for the war effort. Third, volunteers. Like the International Brigades in the Spanish Civil War, Eagle Squadrons of the Second World War, The Crippled Eagles in Rhodesia, or more recently as the ISIS and anti-ISIS fighters in Iraq and Syria, Europe could allow its citizens to fight in America. Whether it would allow fighters for both sides is another question altogether, however.

Or, finally, would the satirical epigraph at the start of this post prove prescient—would Europe mobilize to defeat this new Confederacy? Would it make a stand on its own values and strategic interests? Suffering under a long history of continual strategic failure, with Iraq and Afghanistan only being the latest examples, it would take a significant shift in elite, military, and popular imaginations to make this happen. Regardless of what choice could be made, each option comes with its own risks and rewards. But with greater risk comes greater reward. And choosing the lesser options can mean Europe will further erode its ability to secure itself, and perhaps fall (further) into its own pit of darkness once more.

As Cathal Nolan made clear in his estimable history of battle, ‘moral and material attrition’ are the ‘main determinants of outcome in wars among the Great Powers.’ Simply, those who mobilise the most usually win. Without a doubt, the right-wing in the US, both government and non-government, remains the most ready, willing, and able to engage in large-scale violence. But they are also the smallest demographically, weakest economically, and the obedience of large parts of the US Government to Trump can no longer be counted on, let alone in the event of a full outbreak of violence. Thus, the choices Europe makes early on matters. And the decision, to reverse Churchill’s hope, for the Old World to ‘step forth to the rescue and the liberation of the [new]’ might be required if it is to avoid conflagration on its own soil.

Michael C. Davies is a Ph.D. candidate in Defence Studies at King’s College London, focusing on the theory and practice of victory. He previously conducted lessons learned research at the U.S. National Defense University where he co-authored three books on the Wars of 9/11 and is one of the progenitors of the Human Domain doctrinal concept. He is also the Coordinating Editor with the Strife Journal.