The rise of terrorism has become a major issue and very defining one in the U.S election campaigns while both presumptive candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton pursue their own path dealing with it.
Hillary Clinton as the continuant of Obama’s policies relies on Middle East allies in the war against ISIS and since her campaign is funded by the oil rich Saudi Arabia, Hillary is fond of the Saudi royals and has strong ties with the Kingdom.
Hillary Clinton should change her approach from a blind supporter of the royals to a critic of Saudi policies and she must persuade the United Nations to oblige them to stop investment on radicalization.
However, What Hillary can’t solve is that not only the Kingdom has no desire in fighting radicalized warriors, but they are also apparently the very preachers of it. Saudi Arabia is already funding 24000 madrasas in Pakistan only, what has been called “Tsunami of money for Wahhabism ideology” by Senator Chris Murphy. A true dilemma.
Donald Trump on the other hand, is famous for Islamophobic rhetoric in order to soothe the American patriots angered by Terrorist attacks in recent months and gain their votes. He has vowed to ban all Muslim migrations to the country and is a strong supporter of profiling Muslims resident in the United States.
Crushing Muslims and disparaging them is the main feature of Trump’s tactic towards Muslims which is really dangerous for the future of democracy in the U.S, causing oppressed Muslim communities to become a threat, much less they might think of retaliation.
Both democratic and republican candidates should come up with stronger and more effective plans to use in their foreign policies after being elected by the people or the outcome of U.S election is the rise of terrorism. Same old thinking, same old results.
Links:
1- http://www.vox.com/2016/6/14/11380320/donald-trump-terrorism-election-political-science
3- http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/14/politics/paris-attacks-2016-presidential-candidates/
