Provoke, Overreact, Polarize (POP): terrorist outrages depend on the reaction of the victim to work

Trump is easy to provoke and never considers how his actions look from the point of a view of a small town in Yemen, and this pattern could lead to World War III if Jihadis unify behind a POP strategy

In 1990, the Tamil Tigers attacked a police station in Sri Lanka, killing perhaps as many as 774 policemen. The strategic reason for the attack was to provoke an overreaction on the part of the government, which would involve atrocities against the Tamil population, thus pushing the Tamil people into the arms of the Tigers and making the logic of “us versus them” unavoidable. Up until this attack many or most Tamils did not support violence or the Tigers.

In 2001, Al Qaeda attacked New York, killing 2,996 people. Again, the purpose was to provoke an overreaction, and George Bush obliged by invading Iraq. While Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden did not reap the benefits of the polarization, Daesh/Isis did. The strategy worked again, if you consider Jihadis in all their incarnations as a single force.

Donald Trump has very publicly imposed a travel ban. When the news of the ban reaches rural Yemen, it may be something like “Islam has been banned.” People might get distorted news that Trump banned the religious itself in the United States. Now, Muslims have to gather their belonging and walk to Canada, expelled. News does not travel linearly to rural, isolated areas. To this day, most Afghanis have no idea who Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden were or why NATO invaded Afghanistan. Here are some people who had never even heard of the Taliban.

While starting up this stupid travel ban, in the most blunt, public way possible, Trump has not discontinued the equally stupid and counterproductive Obama era drone program. Now, when Trump bombs some location in Syria or Yemen, it will be pretty clear why he is doing it: he wants to kill all the Muslims. He’s forced the Muslims in America to leave, or something. People will believe the worst interpretation of the travel ban, even if the courts have in fact voided the ban. Then you look up (in Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Libya, etc.) and see an American plane or drone dropping a bomb. It’s all very clear. The Americans are the new Rome, the great Satan, and they want to kill our children, every single one of them, or force us to convert to Christianity.

You live in a village. You know the Americans are attacking someone in the area. You know that America hates Muslims. So, reluctantly, you join the Jihadis to protect your religion, your land and your family.

The more moderate people in the rural areas will have no case and have to shut up or flee. The cities will be burning wrecks and not the kind of place where a reasonable, educated, fact-based conversation can occur.

As Jihadis win among Sunnis in Syria, Yemen, Libya, etc. they will butt heads with the Shiites supported by Iran and Russia and get turned back. They will then have nowhere else to turn their increased energy and power than the Gulf States, including Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. A charismatic figure will unify the Jihadis who will be position to do a pincer move on the Gulf, set up a Jihadi state that controls 50% of the world’s oil and begin some kind of great war with America, settle their differences with the Shiites, and World War III will be under way.

The best way to avoid this possibility would be to end the drone program and other military strike campaigns that have little chance of changing anything on the ground but can help Jihadis tie together a misinterpretation of the travel ban and the clear evidence of war.

If Hillary were president the situation would likely be even worse.

So, it would be great in American presidents would stop taking the bait and stop interfering in Muslim countries. Trump is a blunder buckethead with his travel ban. It looks terrible. But it’s only a potential catastrophe because of the history of intervention under Clinton/Obama.