Trump May Continue with Obama’s ‘Bloody’ Policies: Ex-Pentagon Official

“It has only been a month into the Trump presidency, and I am hopeful that we may see a more logical approach to the region as the first year progresses. Unfortunately, we may see a grinding and bloody continuation of past policies,” Karen Kwiatkowski,a retired US Air Force Lieutenant Colonel, told the Tasnim News Agency.

Following is the full text of the interview.

Tasnim: As you know, US President Donald Trump has signed an executive order that imposes a 90-day entry ban for citizens of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya, and Somalia, blocks refugees from Syria indefinitely, and suspends all refugee admissions for 120 days. What is your take on the move? Do you believe that the decision can be reversed? 

Kwiatkowski: I think the impact of this blocking and increased “vetting” for these countries and others has been overblown in the media, because this has actually been done at times before under previous presidents, for the past several decades at various times. It does seem unfair today because the refugee situation is a direct result of a longstanding US foreign policy of regime change in the region, and the unwillingness of certain US allies in the region to take in refugees from the war zones. Certainly, any executive order by any president can be reversed or modified, and it is possible President Trump will do that at some time. In terms of legal blocking of the order, while some US courts have criticized and challenged some portions of the executive order, it will likely run out of time before any significant reversal in the courts would be successful, if at all. The orders appear legal and popular among many Americans, in the short term. My thoughts are that President Trump is fulfilling a campaign promise to improve border security and “fight” ISIS (Daesh), and it may be no more nefarious or surprising than that.

Tasnim: President Trump has excluded Saudi Arabia and certain Persian Gulf states in his order. Back in July 2016, the US government released 28 pages of a congressional report on the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which show the Saudi government may have had a hand in the attacks. “While in the United States, some of the September 11 hijackers were in contact with, and received support or assistance from, individuals who may be connected to the Saudi Government…there is information, primarily from FBI sources, that at least two of those individuals were alleged by some to be Saudi intelligence officers,” reads part of the report. What do you think?

Kwiatkowski: Trump’s first executive order simply included the countries named in Obama’s previous order, so he did not “select” those countries, but rather utilized the previous administration’s decision of which ones to include. US allies Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, and UAE were not addressed, even as these countries were home to people involved in the 9-11 attacks. Afghanistan likewise is not included. However, it is longstanding US policy to be inconsistent in identifying so-called “threats” from the region. I do think that once President Trump is able to review our Middle East policy, his tendency will be to question this inconsistency and attempt to change it. Unfortunately, many of the old guard neoconservatives and those heavily invested in ongoing US Middle East policies will oppose change and some of these have been assigned or retained on the Trump national security team. It has only been a month into the Trump presidency, and I am hopeful that we may see a more logical approach to the region as the first year progresses. Unfortunately, we may see a grinding and bloody continuation of past policies.

Tasnim: It is no secret to anyone that President Trump is unpredictable. His stances on global trade, the Paris climate deal and the Iran nuclear deal threaten to unpick key elements of global governance. Europeans say his back-and-forth on NATO is deeply worrying for the future of Europe's security. And his travel ban has sown chaos, undermining the international management of the refugee crisis and fanning the flames of extremism. What do you think? Do you believe that Trump is destabilizing Europe? With Trump in the White House issuing erratic executive orders, do you believe Europe will remain “whole, free and at peace”? 

Kwiatkowski: First, I must say that I do not believe that Trump is totally unpredictable. He made many campaign statements and he is acting upon what he said. If that is unpredictable, (it) is because we may have expected him to lie to his voters, as do most presidential candidates. He has run global businesses and has populated his cabinet with men and women who run global businesses, so I do not believe he is anti-trade, rather he is opposed to complex politicized regional trade agreements. Secondly, I do not think that international management of refugees has been particularly helpful, beyond creating a large number of government connected and funded NGOs and contractors who benefit financially from the confusion and heartbreak of all refugee crises. I also do not see NATO as a stabilizing or particularly helpful organization in the region, in the Middle East or elsewhere. I’m also not sure Europe is whole, free, or at peace today, necessarily. I believe Europe’s troubles, and particularly those of the EU, are related fundamentally to its excessive debt, general declines in overall per capita productivity, and massive government social service commitments to its aging population, and years of largely unrestrained immigration without corresponding employment opportunities for many of the least skilled immigrants. It is concerning to these countries that the Trump administration is demanding they increase their funding of NATO (again, he promised he would do that in his campaign) while those countries have serious economic crises of their own. NATO is an organization without an honest mission, since the Warsaw Pact collapsed in the early 1990s. I think the ball is in the court of the EU and European countries themselves to address their own structural and financial problems.

Tasnim: Some US and European officials have been trading barbs in the past month over Trump’s remarks. The recently inaugurated president has not been shy about sharing his views about the world, in general, and Europe, in particular. On numerous occasions before and after his campaign, he described NATO as “obsolete,” called the EU “basically a vehicle for Germany,” and said other countries would follow the UK's lead and leave the bloc. In a recent security conference in Munich, US officials attempted to give assurances to Europeans that their ties with them will remain unchanged. Why is the 28-member bloc worried about Trump and his policies?

Kwiatkowski: I happen to agree with President Trump that NATO is obsolete. Functionally as well as ideologically, NATO is both sclerotic and obsolete. If it was designed to prevent communism from the East, in fact a friendly type of communism has already succeeded and prevails in many parts of the EU today. This economic condition is increasingly unaffordable for most EU member countries. The Cold War is itself over, despite the best intentions of the neoconservative wing of both Republican and Democratic Parties in the United States to re-ignite it. Russia, as an economy, has less than a 2% share of the global economy, according to this chart. The only reason that I believe the EU leadership is concerned about losing or seeing a reduction in continued US subsidy of NATO and other aspects of the EU is because they are worried about national and EU financial stability and government debt management in member countries. The EU has effectively lost a major contributor/subsidizer economy with Brexit, and several other stronger economies (as well as those heavily impoverished ones at the other end of the EU economic spectrum) may also withdraw, leaving the remaining economically strong EU states holding the debt bag. In a heavily inflated and oversold world of international currencies, this could be disastrous for the Euro. My go-to explanation for most things relating to government is to “follow the money.” Decentralization is badly needed globally, and the pressures for and the political attractiveness of political decentralization is increasing day by day.