In the USA the headline from last night’s final presidential debate was Trump’s steadfast refusal to accept the result of the election should he lose. The flagrant disregard for democracy made it perhaps appropriate that this was the debate to really zero in on Middle East policy.
During the debate Trump and Hillary clashed on the battle for Mosul, bombing of Aleppo, ISIS and immigration.
Trump was taken to task on his mistruths from the last debate, when he controversially claimed that Russia and Assad were fighting ISIS, and had taken the city of Aleppo. Moderator Chris Wallace confronted Trump outright with the inaccuracies: “you said several things in that debate which were not true, sir,” he said. “You said Aleppo had basically fallen… You also said Syria and Russia were fighting ISIS”
Trump didn’t only stick to his guns – he even produced more mistruths for the American public and punditry to struggle through.
“Aleppo is a disaster, it’s a humanitarian nightmare, but it has fallen, from any standpoint,” he said. “What do you need, a signed document?”
He continued to claim the catastrophe in the city was because of Hillary Clinton who, he said, caused the bloodshed by fighting Assad – a man who turned out to be “much tougher and much smarter than her and Obama”.
“They are being slaughtered because of bad decisions,” he said. “If she did nothing we’d be in much better shape”
*Nobody* could look at this and think it makes sense: Trump's full answer on Syria, Aleppo and Assad #debate https://t.co/9Nyu6MtYYq pic.twitter.com/DCAD6ExbA3
— Claire Phipps (@Claire_Phipps) 20 October 2016
The extent to which the US administration’s contributions have affected the current situation in Aleppo is, of course, debatable. But the government is not fighting Assad outright, and idea that the indiscriminate bombing of the east of the city, carried out by Russia and the regime, is the fault of the American actions is somewhere between a stretch and an absurdity.
Confusion about international security aside, Trump’s statement about refugees was deemed not just foolish but deeply dangerous and inhumane. His description of Syrian refugees being “not probably, definitely in many cases ISIS aligned” is false: refugees are carefully vetted and there’s currently no evidence to suggest any in the US are Daesh operatives.
Trump says we have "ISIS aligned" syrian refugees in America. (This is a terrible charge to make without evidence, of which he has zero).
— Adam Servianski (@AdamSerwer) 20 October 2016
The candidates also discussed Iraq, and the imminent retaking of Mosul. Trump argued that the Obama administration had missed out on the element of surprise in the retaking of the city – and even accused Clinton of timing the Mosul offensive to coincide with the election in order to boost her popularity.
In both candidate’s rhetoric, the battle for Mosul was cast as an American operation – repeatedly saying “we” would take the city – although Trump argued that the winner of the advance would be Iran.
"But you know who the big winner in Mosul gonna be?" @realDonaldTrump #Debatenight #debate pic.twitter.com/8IohRkPsoh
— Voice of America (@VOANews) 20 October 2016
Clinton’s rhetoric on Syria was much more pro-intervention than Trump. She argued that a no-fly zone “could save lives and could hasten the end of the conflict” – although she recognised that there were “legitimate concerns” over just what the tactic might mean. Those worries are a sticking point for many observers, who align Clinton’s “hawkish” attitude with broader tradition of intervention that they believe could prove disastrous for global security.
Hillary Clinton should explain how she intends on implementing a no-fly-zone in Syria and how it won't cause WWIII https://t.co/muBxgcrerl
— Max Abrahms (@MaxAbrahms) 19 October 2016
Trump responded by telling the audience that ISIS was now in 32 countries, although it wasn’t clear which countries he was talking about or where his information was from.
BS
