Come January 20, president-elect Donald Trump will change American foreign policy in the Middle East for the better by voicing opinions which break from the policy decisions of the Obama and Bush administrations.
Donald Trump has said his main goal will be to combat terrorism in the region, specifically referring to the Islamic State (ISIS) and the Al-Nusra Front. Donald Trump has said he will collaborate with powerful nations in the region and end support for terrorist-aligned rebel groups in Syria. Donald Trump's decisions in Syria will make him far more effective than president Obama at combating terrorists in the Middle East.
The U.S. has not been successful in the Middle East because regime change does not work! It has been evident since the major failure of the Soviets in Afghanistan. The major difference since the Soviet-Afghan war is that Russia has learned from history, while the U.S. and its NATO allies have not.
History has shown that regime change is ineffective, especially when there is not a suitable alternative government. Supporting "moderate rebels" for political reasons is how Al Qaeda and ISIS first originated.
Nearly half of Syrian rebel fighters are embedded with hardline or jihadistfactions, and U.S. military aid regularly ends up in the hands of the extremists. Recent examples of the damage regime change causes are the major U.S. failures in Libya and Iraq.
The intervention in Libya has been coined by many as Obama's worst mistake. As the military intervention toppled a regime which valued order and fought adamantly against terrorism. What ensued was nothing short of anarchy and the development of a jihadist breeding ground. Obama has even admitted the U.S. had not adequately planned for after the removal of the Gaddafi regime.
A former member of the U.S. Congress and a vocal critic of regime change, Ron Paul has said in a floor speech in 2012 that deposing Assad would be a mistake, and that U.S. security interests are best served by staying out of the internal strife in Syria.
U.S. regime change uses the pretext of protecting civilians for invading and toppling legitimate foreign governments. Yes, authoritarian regimes like Libya and Syria have killed protesters, but does this require extensive military action to wipe out entire governments and a country's infrastructure? Libya and Syria were secular leaders in the region in protecting women's rights; protecting minority religious rights including Christians, and were examples of the most functional social services and economies in the region.
What is the difference between Libya or Syria and a major buyer of U.S. military equipment, Saudi Arabia? A country known for sponsoring extremism in the region, a country that does not support the principles Western democracy stands for. Saudi Arabia violates human rights laws with brutal executions and the mass bombing of civilians in Yemen. The deaths of civilians in Yemen continues today, with the U.S., Canada and other NATO allies complicit in these crimes.
Trump's support is for the Syrian people; its institutions, its freedom of religion, not the head of the Syrian government. Bashar Al Assad is just one man who along with Russia, has said that he would step aside after the war. Russia has been far more effective in fighting ISIS in Syria than Nato, due to its cooperation with the legitimate government and military of Syria.
There is no force more effective than the Syrian Army (SAA) in fighting terrorism in Syria. The Syrian military has been steadfast in their fight against terrorism, even after years of conflict against brutal factions with an endless supply of foreign manpower and weapons, funneled into Syria by nations like Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
Obama chose to follow the disastrous blueprints from Libya and support the non-existent "moderate opposition." The opposition in Syria, have been accused of mass executions, kidnappings, chemical attacks, attacks on hospitals and schools, and torture.
Referring to the strict Sharia law some rebels follow, Amnesty quotes a Syrian lawyer as saying: "I was happy to be free from the Syrian government's unjust rule but now the situation is worse."
The mainstream media coverage of Syria has been one-sided, to put it mildly, as war crimes by U.S.-funded rebels are not reported. Western media has also neglected to show the many tons of aid Russia provides the Syrian people, or the reconciliation centre set up by Russia to find peace for many Syrian towns.
The U.S. and its coalition have not delivered significant aid to the Syrian people, yet continue to provide military aid to jihadists while civilians are facing the bombing raids. This follows the U.S. policy of regime change -- to bomb civilian-populated areas and not provide adequate assistance in what takes place after, the rebuilding of lives and infrastructure.
Had a Clinton administration won the general election and followed her plan for a no-fly zone, a direct conflict with Russia would have most likely ensued, possibly triggering a global conflict. Clinton and Obama have a number of foreign policy disasters to answer for.
Trump has presented some policy decisions which have raised questions, yet his Syria policy will combat terrorism and help ensure global security.
With the imminent defeat of rebels in Aleppo, the Syrian Army looks poised to return order to the country as this will be Syria's greatest victory so far in the conflict. Down the road, Syria can seek constitutional reform and the replacement of Bashar Al Assad after ISIS and Al Nusra are defeated in Syria and Iraq.
If president-elect Trump sticks with his policy on Syria, not only will the U.S. and Russia see a much-needed reset in relations, he may alter the U.S. policy on regime change and support for armed extremist groups, which would be best for global security.
Follow HuffPost Canada Blogs on Facebook