Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi Assassinated In Spite of Donald Trump?

Donald Trump will undoubtedly use the death of Islamic State founder and leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to his full political advantage, just short of concocting a description of how he himself  singlehandedly assassinated Baghdadi. And while it is indeed a military victory to have eliminated the terrorist leader, we shouldn’t jump to the conclusions that the Islamic State is dead, let alone that Donald Trump is solely responsible for its demise. Nor should we conclude that, by getting rid of al-Baghdadi, this somehow exonerates Trump for withdrawing troops from Syria.

In fact, as a result of Trump’s recent decision to remove troops from Syria, his earlier decisions to reduce U.S. military presence in that part of the world, and his cuts in military funding for reconstruction and stabilization, security in that area has become tenuous, and this impacts not only the Middle East, but global and U.S. security.

Over the next few days and weeks, Trump is expected to proclaim ISIS has been obliterated, and terrorism wiped out. But because Baghdadi established a global presence with decentralized decision-making, eliminating Baghdadi himself may have little immediate effect on ground functions in Syria and Iraq.

According to Javed Ali, a former White House counterterrorism director, “No one expects (al-Baghdadi’s) death to spell the end of the organization that at its peak controlled territory the size of Great Britain and instigated terrorist attacks across Europe… In the annals of modern counterterrorism so far, what history has shown is these types of strikes do not lead to the strategic collapse or organizational defeat of a terrorism organization.”

The New York Times said that Trump’s decision to withdraw forces from northern Syria disrupted prior meticulous strategizing, forcing the Pentagon to press ahead with a raid before losing the ability to “control troops and spies and reconnaissance aircraft disappeared.” In other words, “Mr. al-Baghdadi’s death occurred largely in spite of Mr. Trump’s actions.”

Around the world, some news outlets have also speculated that Baghdadi’s death could result in large-scale retaliation. The Sun of London posted this headline: “Baghdadi’s death could trigger (a) wave of revenge attacks on US and Europe and spark ISIS 2.0, experts warn.”

What we can be certain of is that no matter what the results of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s death, Donald Trump will spin them to his advantage, and his supporters will go along, unquestioningly.

Lindsey Graham praises Trump in death of ISIS leader |
Fox News [2019-10-27]

Donald Trump: Isil leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi ‘died like a dog’ | 
The Telegraph [2019-10-27]

 

Mulvaney: ‘Get Over It;’ Democrats: ‘We Don’t Think So, Mick’

Though “Get over it” seems to be the Trump administration’s response whenever they’ve been caught in a lie, called out on wrongdoing, or…caught placing the country at risk, Mick Mulvaney may have been the first to say the actual words out loud and in public.

During an October 17 press conference, Mulvaney, Donald Trump’s acting chief of staff, admitted that Trump used U.S. Congress-appropriated military aid as leverage to further his personal political agenda. Trump, he said, withheld the aid, badly needed by Ukraine to resist Russian aggression, in order to pressure Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy to investigate a conspiracy theory about the hacking of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) during the 2016 election. A quid pro quo, in other words.

“We do that all the time with foreign policy,” said Mulvaney. “I have news for everybody: Get over it. There is going to be political influence in foreign policy.”

The Department of Justice, however, distanced itself from Mulvaney’s claims that Trump had its blessing for this particular “foreign policy” exchange.

“If the White House was withholding aid in regards to the cooperation of any investigation at the Department of Justice, that is news to us,” a DOJ official told the Washington Examiner.

Others, too, including some GOP lawmakers, were aghast at Mulvaney’s admission. 

“Totally inexplicable,” said one, who requested anonymity. “He literally said the thing the president and everyone else said did not happen.”

After you’ve denied a whistleblower’s allegations, what else can you do, though, when a rough transcript of the phone call between Trump and Zelenskiy, along with a number of current and former State Department officials and White House employees, confirm the whistleblower’s account — that not only was there a quid pro quo, but it was to benefit Trump personally? If you’re Mick Mulvaney or Donald Trump, you brazenly change your tack to “Yeah, we did it. Get over it.”

Though Mulvaney argued that every administration makes deals like this with foreign governments  — seeking concessions in exchange for aid — it is done to aid the interests or protection of the United States. In this case, however, Donald Trump sought to use the U.S. military aid to further his personal political ambitions.

According to U.S. law, “soliciting anything of value” from a foreign government in connection with an election is illegal. Asking a leader of a foreign country for a “favor” — to dig up dirt on a political opponent — is illegal (let alone, unethical). A U.S. president using his office to further his personal interests is impeachable. 

Shortly after throwing Trump under the bus, Mulvaney tried to walk back his words, claiming the press had misrepresented what he had said. Everyone in the room, however, heard what Mulvaney said, and there are multiple video records of what he said.

Considering the recent and upcoming testimony of several diplomats and other U.S. Foreign Service officials, including today’s scheduled testimony from acting U.S, Ambassador to Ukraine William B. Taylor, Jr., it’s clear that lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives do not intend to just “get over it.” 

Mulvaney: ‘Get Over’ Political Influence in Foreign Policy | Bloomberg Markets and Finance [2019-10-17]

Fleischer: Mulvaney made a ‘terrible mistake’ by contradicting Trump |
Fox News | [2019-10-18]