Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
What’s in it For Us? Why We Should Accept Syrian Refugees
I just woke up and read through most of the hundreds of comments on my last few posts. Thanks to the people who left such kind comments about me. As for those of you who said mean things, I hate you. I’m going on a hunger strike until you give me a safe space where no one will ever say mean things.
Just kidding. But don’t you keep talking about my granny that way.
I’m not sure whether I’m making any progress on changing minds, but this is what I’m understanding from some of your comments, so perhaps I’m understanding (some) of your positions better. At least for some of you, it seems, the anger isn’t about the Syrian refugees per se. It’s about seven years’ worth of anger and frustration with a failed president, the damage he’s done and is doing to us domestically and around the world, and a sense that no matter what he’s for, at this point, we’re against it, because we simply don’t trust him.
I’m with you almost all the way on that, frankly. I don’t know if anyone here’s more angry about our Syria policy — or our foreign policy, generally — than I am. I never dreamt we could have a president whose instincts on foreign policy could be so systematically catastrophic. I’m with you all the way to the last part of the argument, which is that if the president is in favor of accepting these refugees, it’s wrong.
Even stopped clocks, etc.
Before I make the case that there’s something in it for us, start with the basics. Including the internally displaced, some 12 million Syrians have fled their homes. Half children. Four million Syrians are, formally, refugees; most are in Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan. Children affected by the Syrian conflict are at particularly high risk of illness, malnourishment, abuse, or exploitation. Millions have been forced to quit school. Winter is coming: Refugees in settlements have fewer resources than ever before; they need warm clothes, shoes, blankets, heaters, and fuel.
More than 3,200 refugees have perished this year.
More than 240,000 Syrians have been killed, including 12,000 children. A million more have been wounded or permanently disabled. The war has become even more deadly since foreign powers joined the conflict. Syria’s infrastructure has collapsed: Its healthcare, education systems, and infrastructure have been destroyed; the economy is shattered. Syrian children, in particular, have lost their families, suffered appalling injuries, missed years of schooling, seen unimaginable violence and brutality. Warring parties forcibly recruit children to serve as fighters, human shields, and in support roles.
A quick point: Some believe Arab and Muslim countries haven’t admitted refugees. This isn’t true. They’ve not only admitted them, but admitted them to the point that it’s placing huge strain on the stability of their own societies, which could cause this crisis — bad enough as it is — to spread.
It’s not even true that the Gulf countries haven’t admitted them. What is true is that the GCC states aren’t signatories to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, so they don’t recognise “refugees” as a legal category. This makes it hard to figure out how many refugees (as we’d understand the term) are there. This study suggests that it’s probably quite a few.
But the main countries to which the refugees have fled are Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq. Are they safe there? Safer than in Syria, certainly. But in Jordan, at least, given the size of its population, the scale of the influx to Jordan is equivalent to about thirty-three million Mexicans entering the United States. The refugee burden is creating huge social strain, and it puts the greatest demands on the most vulnerable Jordanians.
Food is running out in the camps. The World Food Programme had to drop a third of the Syrian refugees from its program in the Middle Eastern this year, including 229,000 of them in Jordan: The refugees there stopped receiving food aid in September. Forty percent of these children aren’t in school.
Consider the statistics on Syrian refugees in Lebanon. The total population of Lebanon is 4.467 million. It’s accepted more than a million Syrian refugees, so refugees are now 25 percent of Lebanon’s population. Just over half are in school. Only 12 percent have access to health care.
In 2015, according to the Vulnerability Assessment for Syrian refugees in Lebanon,
The number of meals eaten each day by children and adults fell compared to 2014. In one in three households (vs one in four in 2014) members consumed just one or no cooked meals the previous day. Children under five consumed fewer than three cooked meals the previous day in 65% of households versus 41% in 2014. More than a quarter of households (27%) were unable to cook at least once a day on average (7% more than in 2014), mainly due to lack of food to cook (88%) or lack of fuel (12%) …
An even lower percentage of 6-17 month old infants had the ‘minimum acceptable diet’ in 2015 in comparison to 2014 (3% versus 4%). The main limiting factors were insufficient number of meals (83% did not have the minimum acceptable meal frequency) and poor diet diversity.
Most of the refugees are underage. Food is the most immediate priority, but if you think the Middle East is a hellhole now, imagine what it will be like if these kids get no education. A whole generation will grow up with no skills; they’ll be illiterate, innumerate, and completely unable to rebuild their country if ever the war ends. And the worst part is that the only friendly faces they’ll see — if they don’t see ours — will be Salafi preachers posing as “aid workers.” Children imprint on the people who feed them. That’s how kids work.
We can’t wait five more years to take care of them— five years of a child’s school life is forever; five years of childhood malnutrition will create mental retardation; these will turn into adults who will never be able to create and live in a remotely stable country; and they’ll be a time bomb that makes the era we’re living through now look almost nostalgic.
So obviously, the first priority is getting food and money to Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and the other host countries to help them with the refugees. This is a higher priority than accepting 10,000 refugees ourselves, which is — in truth — a drop in the bucket. It would of course mean everything to those refugees, but it is not nearly enough.
It’s absolutely correct that according to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, the bulk of the refugees in camps in neighboring countries have already received asylum. But what the US is proposing is refugee resettlement. This is a distinct category. Here’s how the European Refugee Fund explains it.
These are the resettlement submission categories:
LEGAL AND/OR PHYSICAL PROTECTION NEEDS of the refugee in the country of refuge (this includes a threat of refoulement);
SURVIVORS OF TORTURE AND/OR VIOLENCE, in particular where repatriation or the conditions of asylum could result in further traumatization and/or heightened risk; or where appropriate treatment is not available;
MEDICAL NEEDS, in particular life-saving treatment that is unavailable in the country of refuge;
WOMEN AND GIRLS AT RISK, who have protection problems particular to their gender;
FAMILY REUNIFICATION, when resettlement is the only means to reunite refugee family members who, owing to refugee flight or displacement, are separated by borders or entire continents;
CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS AT RISK, where a best interests determination supports resettlement;
LACK OF FORESEEABLE ALTERNATIVE DURABLE SOLUTIONS, which generally is relevant only when other solutions are not feasible in the foreseeable future, when resettlement can be used strategically, and/or when it can open possibilities for comprehensive solutions.
Ideally, in the UNHCR’s view, emergency cases, which typically involve immediate life-threatening situations, should depart for resettlement in seven days; urgent cases should depart within six weeks; and normal priority cases should be resettled within a year.
This is not what happens, of course.
The US prioritizes admitting the most vulnerable Syrians, including female-headed households, children, survivors of torture, and people with severe medical conditions. We do have a great deal of experience screening and admitting large numbers of refugees from chaotic environments, including places where our intelligence is limited. This experience antedates the Obama administration. It dates to the Cold War. We have, at least, some bureaucratic continuity and institutional knowledge about how to do this. The DHS has full discretion to deny admission before a refugee comes to the the United States. When in doubt, DHS denies applications on national security grounds and the refugee never sets foot on American soil. (By the way, the Tsarnaev brothers did not enter the U.S. by this process; they arrived in the country on tourist visas and later applied for political asylum. People who arrive on tourist visas are unlikely to trigger screening remotely as rigorous as those who apply for refugee resettlement. And the 9/11 hijackers used tourist and business visas to get into the country.)
So to say that we have no idea who these people are is an exaggeration. It’s much, much more likely that we’re turning away eligible people who were unable to prove their bona fides — refugees often flee without the documents and paperwork required to establish a compelling case file. It’s also very likely that those most at risk of refoulement, most in need of emergency protection (be it for medical reasons or because they’re at risk of rape or starvation) will not be able to complete this arduous process in time to save their lives.
One more point: The Federal Refugee Resettlement Program was created by the The Refugee Act of 1980. It caps the number of refugees that may be admitted at 50,000 per fiscal year, so even if used to its maximum capacity, it wouldn’t significantly alter the ethnic balance of the United States (pop. 318.9 million).
To see what’s in it for us, first look at what’s in it for the refugees in the countries of first asylum. Resettlement helps not only those who are resettled, but those who aren’t. It encourages host states to continue to offer asylum and adhere to the principle of non-refoulement. It affects the behavior and attitudes of countries of asylum; it encourages them to provide refugees with access to health care, employment, education, freedom of movement and residence; it decongests camps; it reduces demands on scarce resources; it reduces rape; it increases enrollment in education and vocational training. It facilitates remittances from resettled refugees to those in countries of asylum. Experience from many conflict zones shows clearly that the longer refugees are left to languish in despair in camps, the more prone they become to radicalization. Our acceptance of refugees says to both these refugees and the countries hosting them that we have skin in the game; we’re watching what’s happening; we aren’t leaving them on their own to drown.
Another key point: ISIS hates the refugees. As Aaron Zelin, documents amply at the excellent site Jihadology, the exodus of refugees
… is anathema to ISIS, undermining the group’s message that its self-styled caliphate is a refuge. If it were a refuge, then hundreds of thousands of people would surely be settling in its lands instead of risking their lives on miserable journeys to Europe. The hostile reaction to refugees, therefore, only bolsters ISIS’s contentions and risks spurring future, avoidable tensions.
As for ISIS’s actual gestures regarding refugees, the group released twelve videos between September 16 and 19 aimed at inserting itself into a discussion highlighted by deaths at sea and, especially, the crushing image of Alan Kurdi, the child who washed up dead on a Turkish beach. These videos were released by the group’s respective “provinces” in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen and aimed both at warning potential refugees of the risks and costs of traveling to Europe and urging them to take refuge in its caliphate.
For example, in its video from Wilayat Salah al-Din (Iraq), ISIS argues that Muslims should leave the infidel’s lands for the lands of Islam, but not vice versa, and that happiness can only be found in the ISIS caliphate. Moreover, in a message from its Wilayat al-Janub (Iraq), ISIS declares that Muslims cannot live or seek refuge in non-Muslim lands and that doing so amounts to apostasy, in effect legitimizing the refugees’ spilt blood. ISIS’s Wilayat al-Furat, on the Syria-Iraq border, militates against migration on the grounds that refugees would be subject to human laws rather than sharia. As a result, according to Wilayat al-Raqqa (Syria), the migrants’ children would abandon Islam — even though Europe’s Muslim population has continued growing in recent decades through various waves of migration. Another claim holds that Europe is only accepting Muslim refugees as a tactic to increase the Shiite, Druze, and Christian population to defeat ISIS in Syria. Based in northwestern Syria, ISIS’s Wilayat al-Barakah notes further that accepting refugees allegedly forces Muslims to work for Europe’s interests, thereby weakening Islam.
ISIS wants nothing more than for them all to be forced back into Syria, where they can either kill or conscript them. And this is happening now: Facing European pressure and bribery, Turkey is pushing refugees back into Syria — in direct contradiction to the principle of non-refoulement:
During the second half of October 2015, Human Rights Watch interviewed 51 Syrians in Turkey who had fled airstrikes and other violence in Syria. … They described men, women, and terrified children trying to clamber at smuggler crossings across steep terrain at night for many hours surrounded by gunfire.
“Turkey’s border closure is forcing pregnant women, children, the elderly, the sick, and the injured to run the gantlet of Turkish border officials to escape the horrors of Syria’s war,” said Gerry Simpson, senior refugee researcher at Human Rights Watch.
It’s utterly short-sighted. What do you think will happen to them when they’re forced back? They’ll either be killed or they’ll be conscripted to fight for ISIS. What kind of strategy is it to hand ISIS the conscripts it wants?
So what’s in it for us? What’s in it for us from a strictly realpolitik perspective is that — in my view — we need to extirpate ISIS, root and branch. I hope I’ve convinced you that they do mean to kill us. Some of you were dubious when I said this before, but it sounds as if you’re mostly sold on that one now. And I hope I’ve convinced you that only a total border closure of a kind that’s simply not feasible could prevent them from reaching the United States. The way they’d be apt to reach the US is through a normal tourist or business visa, not the refugee resettlement program.
Even if you don’t agree that our aim should be to annihilate them, surely you’d agree that we don’t want the Caliphate to spread, as its apt to do if any more of this region collapses into complete chaos and civil war. The refugee crisis is putting a sufficient burden on neighboring states that this is a not a possibility to be ruled out.
Here’s something else that’s in it for us: The refugees are a rich source of human intelligence about Syria — which we desperately need: The FBI seems to think so, anyway. (I assume they approved this message.)
The Syrian refugees offer a rich pool to enhance our domestic human source capabilities, and have several advantages over contacts developed abroad. For one thing, the FBI — the agency responsible for domestic intelligence — already has established relationships within many immigrant communities. These existing relationships allow the FBI to more easily build and vet new ones with newly arrived populations, allowing us to create a wider intelligence “net” with which to gather information and uncover potential domestic plots. In addition, refugees, like the immigrant populations they are integrating into, have a personal reason to help the U.S. — they are grateful to be here and have a vested interest in helping the country they now call home. During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, thousands of Iraqis living in the United States provided valuable information that assisted intelligence and military on the ground in Iraq. Last, but most important, they can easily see, hear and speak with the people we most want to know about in the U.S., which is something that we can’t replicate through mass data collection alone.
Another strategic point: to defeat ISIS (not just “contain” them), we need the cooperation of the states neighboring Syria. It makes perfect sense to me that Turks and Jordanians are outraged to hear, “We’re not taking in a single refugee. We’re too precious for that.” It makes even more sense to me that the Lebanese feel that way: They’ve taken in a truly destabilizing number of people, and they have recent experience of a civil war borne of the undermining of their own sectarian balance.
Fewer than 2,200 Syrian refugees have been admitted to the U.S. since the war broke out in 2011. We’re the world’s wealthiest and most powerful country, we seem to be saying — but we won’t do a thing about Assad; we’ll hit ISIS from the air every now and again when the mood strikes us, and we can’t even handle taking in a fraction of the number of refugees that Lebanon has. Why should anyone listen to us about anything if we either hate and fear the Syrian people so much that we would allow their country to be destroyed, and wouldn’t even allow 10,000 refugees from this conflict to live among us? Or if we believe ourselves too incompetent to differentiate between refugees fleeing from war criminals and terrorists from war criminals and terrorists themselves? That message doesn’t even suggest “leading from behind,” it suggests “let anyone else lead — these Americans are utterly hapless.” That’s a dangerous message to send, even if it’s true. And if someone else leads — and someone else will, because international relations abhors a vacuum — don’t complain if the world is modeled in their image; because it will be. Headline yesterday:
Meanwhile, Turkey has shot down a Russian jet. (You may not care about Syria, but it cares about you.)
Admitting 10,000 refugees is a drop in the bucket. It is completely insufficient, from a humanitarian point of view. It will not save them all (although it would make all the difference in the world to them). But yes, it is an important gesture. People in that part of the world do believe, for good reason, that we’re powerful and wealthy enough to do something to help Syria if we choose to do so. But they see that we don’t choose to do so. It’s unreasonable to expect them to be sympathetic when we say that we don’t choose to help, and what’s more, we’re too scared of ISIS to allow any Syrian, however desperate, to come to America. The message comes through exactly as ISIS wants it to: We just hate them. That message makes it all the harder to mobilize our allies to go after ISIS, Al Qaeda, and their various affiliates. And if we don’t go after them, they will not be content to stay in place.
Is that enough?
But what else is in it for us? Well, there’s knowing we’re the country that saves families like this. That’s an anecdotal argument; I’m sure you can also find articles about Syrians who aren’t so winsome and aren’t clear about the principles of liberal democracy. But that’s really up to us: If we teach them how to be good Americans — if we insist upon it, in fact — I’ve got confidence that they’ll learn. We’ve assimilated more; we’ve assimilated weirder; we’ve assimilated worse.
And yes, it is grotesque to hear Obama lecture Republicans about how they should have compassion for Syrians. His foreign policy has been based on the principle of total bloodlessness toward them and an utter indifference to the destruction of their country, and he’s the one who might have been able to do something before this degenerated into hell on earth.
But a policy based on that principle isn’t improved when both parties jump on the bandwagon. That’s just doubling down on the cruelty and the strategic folly — and two wrongs don’t make a right.
Published in General, Islamist Terrorism
The amount of feels in these posts is entering the comically absurd. Since the Syrian war began the US has accepted 2000+ refugees, of which, only 53 have been Christian and 1 Yazidi and in this latest round 875 have been admitted with only 3 Christians among them. All the while 20+ Chaldean Christians from Iraq who are seeking asylum are in the process of being deported as we speak.
So you care so much for those people we have to admit 10,000 random refugees most of which are
muslimFBI vetted muslims from UN camps (where Christians have been driven out) in the hopes of saving maybe a few hundred more? That’s some heart right there!Sure. Everyone knows that. Do you think baby boomers would trade their SS and Medicare benefits for some massive military operation, assuming we had the luxury of choosing one or the other? I’m not seeing it.
Fact is we have to cut everything as far as I can see… then cut some more.
“Food is the most immediate priority, but if you think the Middle East is a hellhole now, imagine what it will be like if these kids get no education.”
Two things. First, if food is the problem, let’s get them food. Much cheaper and safer than bringing 10,000 of them here and supporting them for life. And it will help many more than 10,000.
Second, these kids already get no education. I do not count a Madrasa, where they are taught nothing but to read the Koran, hate Americans, and kill Jews as an “education.”
Even lefty Aaron Sorkin got this right:
The pre-war literacy rate in Syria was about 96 percent. Arabic was the medium of instruction; English and French were taught from grade 1 as the primary second language. At the secondary lower level, final exams of the 9th grade were carried out nationally; these results determined if the student went to “general” secondary schools or technical secondary schools, including industrial, agricultural, commercial and computer science schools. The final exams of the 12th grade (the baccalaureate) were carried out nationally, like in France, and determined university, college and specialization.
Before the conflict, 93 percent of children were enrolled in primary school and 67 percent in secondary school. Now, 90 percent of Syrian children are estimated to be out of school. More than 3,000 schools have been damaged or destroyed since the conflict began.
From al-Monitor, usually very reliable:
Bob – what I meant was the church has been on the front lines across the world in the worst conditions running schools, medical clinics, etc. The bishops of the Middle East have been trying to tell people about the threats, the ethnic cleansing – priests and nuns killed – that never makes the news. Churches burned. Interestingly, Muslims will enroll their kids in the Catholic schools because they know its a better education – they are aware of the religious teachings and don’t care. Our government and other governments across the world said never again after WWII – but never again is back. Clinton was involved in the Serbian conflict – all presidents do something when it reaches a crisis point. That’s what I meant.
Here is some more for the mix. Headline from The Washington Examiner: “Coming soon: More immigrants from Muslim nations than population of D.C. — 680,000”
So, yes Claire, my increasingly negative view of Syrian immigration is strongly related to 7 years of Obama policies, which threaten in existential fashion, the nature of the United States as it was founded. It has become clear to me that is his intention and will be his legacy, should public opinion not reverse his actions.
No fair! I did a clickbait post It’s Raining Men on this and its been a total failure.
Can’t get through all the comments; forgive me if I’m re-plowing the field.
Claire –
After 70% of your response, we read “So what’s in it for us?” While characteristically cogent and engaging, you’d have thought someone was arguing that refugees have an easy life, or that it’s good for children to be in refugee camps. No, it isn’t, but that wasn’t the question was it?
Apparently I should rephrase the question.
According to DHS statistics (summarized here), about 1.63 million immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries were admitted to the U.S. between 2001 and 2013. From Syria there were over 35,000. It gets better:
According to … the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, chaired by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), this trajectory has grown sharply just over the five most recent years. Counting all of the green cards issued to foreign nationals of predominantly Muslim countries between FY 2009 and FY 2013 alone, the subcommittee found that 680,000 individuals have been granted legal permanent residence in America.
If 10K more Syrians enhances our security, please tell me what we gained from the previous 35K or (if you prefer) the 1.6 million ‘others’ from predominantly Muslim countries who preceded them? We’ve been doing what you want: how’s it helped?
You mention “realpolitik” and “extirpating” ISIS—this mass Muslim immigration since 2001 contributed how (specifically)? ISIS emerged coincident with increased (and accelerating) Muslim immigration.
(More)
This Claire is what I am talking about, our veterans, and homeless and these people should come first in all circumstances.
(Continued)
It’s specious to argue FBI informant needs make this influx beneficial. Shall we increase Sicilian immigration as a means of eliminating the mafia? Has Mexican immigration helped J. Edgar’s crew stem the drug trade?
I see a contradiction in imagining we can exterminate ISIS (that’s what extirpate means), yet also saying it’s impossible to prevent them from reaching the U.S. They’re THAT good; but wiping every last one off the planet is an achievable goal?
The abject foolishness of this argument, however, is it amounts to this: it’s really difficult to stop burglars, so just invite them in.
Radical Islam is founded upon a worldview; you can’t eliminate an immaterial worldview. Fortunately, you don’t need to. Instead the goal is to make today’s totalitarians as pointless as the remnant of yesterday’s. There are Nazis, Stalinists and Maoists around today; wiping every one of them out is not required for us or our progeny to live peaceable, secure lives.
Nor do we have to prevent every last Radical Islamist from reaching our shores. We have to make them combat ineffective when inevitably they do get here. One of the ways you do that is limiting the number you have to monitor . . . keeping the threat manageable, not expanding it and thereby manifestly aiding our enemies in their pursuit of murder and mayhem.
Jim,
Haven’t forgotten you brother, but I am out and about for a little while. I have a reply to your question in my head, just need to turn it into trons and find the links.
Later,
Stew
Claire – We will stipulate for the record that it’s an abject tragedy when children are unable to get an education. Why is it in our national security interests to pluck 10K out of the cr@p sandwich their own people / government / relatives put them in? We understand it’s a fine humanitarian gesture . . . that’s not the question. You are supposed to be making the argument it serves our security interests, are you not?
I don’t think you can make that argument for the simple reason that it really doesn’t serve our interests.
The best that can be said is that we have some vaguely defined obligation to help suffering people, especially children. Is that true regardless of what it means to our own security? Regardless of costs? Of course you don’t believe that. So what makes this situation different from countless others around the globe? We. Did. Not. Start. The. Syrian. War! Children are un- or under-educated in most every African village, right?
Also, it would make some of our allies’ leaders and opinion makers happier if we share their Syrian Refugee Blues. But that does not translate into anything significant for us . . . if it does, go ahead and make that argument–thus far, I’ve not discerned that you have.
Testify, HVTs. You are on fire in this thread.
As I pointed out in comment #1, there is no actual “what’s in it for us” content in the post. Charlotte is right, HVTs. You’re crushing it.
In The Theological Aspects of Islam that Lead to Jihad Robert Spencer patiently explains why you cannot extinguish the insatiable demands of Islam, Jihad or ISIS. Perpetual grievance is not a bug; its a feature.
Pseud, try this on:
Jihad is exploding now because current conditions match its formative conditions — an escalating war between factions under the fading hegemony of a distant power.
Islam was literally built to thrive in a world gone to Hell.
“For the Muslim Brotherhood, as it is for ISIS, the final objective is not Paris or New York, but the city of Rome, center of the only religion, which Islam, since its very birth, has wanted to annihilate.” — Roberto De Mattei
Man, wouldn’t it be great to have Constantinople?
Yes, it would be wonderful to restore the capital of Eastern Christendom.
It is not right – in fact a HUGE wrong – it is a redo of the fleeing of Jews from Europe – starting in 1938
Claire the recent bill and the Direct Access program do not constitute an argument for fast-tracking hordes of refugees. They do constitute a great opportunity for a bipartisan fix to exempt DA from unrelated streams. That’s the solution to inappropriate conflations — deconflation.
Some people are extroverts, capable of living in the din of a diverse city.
But a lot of us prefer a quiet life among our families.
Do you know how high a percentage of their income people spend in the USA to avoid the din?
It won’t stop with 10,000 Syrians. After the first 10,000, they will bring 20,000. Then 50,000. Then 100,000. Then 500,000.
Jim,
Entirely true. Bremer’s Coalition Provisional Authority was an utter waste. In fact, allow me to introduce you to Capt Travis Patriquin (KIA 6 Dec 2006) and his presentation on how to win in Anbar. He blames the CPA and the 25 year old MBA’s for making life entirely too difficult for coalition and Iraqi troops. We would have been better off to let the Army civil affairs troops run things – it is their job, after all.
The analysis I pointed out earlier has held true for every modern, successful, counterinsurgency and is based on work by James Quinlivan of RAND (with whom I have had the pleasure to do some small work on nuclear deterrence). Steven Goode (writer of the paper linked) took Quinlivan’s work along the research accomplished by John McGrath to devine a better ratio that includes levels of violence and percentage of native forces to arrive at a better measure of troop levels.
Operational planning follows a very specific process known as The Military Decision Making Process (including the CAPS) and is a pretty solid checklist of the types of questions we have to answer before going to war. The output from the process is an Operational Plan (OPLAN). Included in the OPLAN is a series of alternatives known as either Branch Plans or Sequel Plans. A Branch Plan answers the question “What if?” and needs to address each of the major assumptions in the main plan. An example, we assume Turkey will allow us to stage through Turkey into Iraq. Therefore a Branch Plan is needed if Turkey doesn’t allow us to do this (which they didn’t). While branch plans are innumerable – Sequel Plans are not. There are generally only three Sequel Plans. A sequel plan answers the question “what then” and is used when a campaign is won, won big or lost.
Iraq in May 2003 is an example of winning big (or in this case, catastrophic success, because there was no “win big” plan.) The plan called for about a 6 month war and we owned Baghdad in 21 days.
The CPA plan was adopted to assure the chattering crowd that we weren’t imperialist – so instead of doing the job right we handed over the government to a bunch of over educated 25 year olds and Paul Bremer – with predictable results, Kennedy school of government and all.
Stew
As Merle Haggard said: big city, turn me loose and set me free!
Stew,
Yes, this makes great sense. Hold onto this thought Stew, it could come in very handy. Especially if the JV team keeps on coming. Ever wonder what High School did Obama go to anyway?!
I checked out Captain Travis Patriquin’s presentation. You know you really got to make it simple for somebody from the Kennedy School of Government to understand it.
I’d mention just one thing about the presentation. Wouldn’t it have made it easier to identify the terrorists if you knew before hand that you weren’t looking for terrorists but Jihadists? Of course, when you are dealing with the Kennedy School of Government they’re terribly sensitive about cultural imperialism. Also, incredibly stupid.
Regards,
Jim
Hi Jim,
The military wasn’t PC and the two terms were the same back then. We did acknowledge that they wanted to establish a seperate country known as the Islamic State of Iraq.
Stew
And return the Hagia Sophia? And Let Israel control off of Jersuelum? Yes, yes, yes
Stew,
As I always suspected. The good sense was coming up from the bottom and the complete stupidity was coming down from the top. Unfortunately, when BHO won the presidency he was given a title that he absolutely didn’t deserve, Commander in Chief. That’s a reason why we can’t let somebody like this back in the White House in 2016.
Jihad is more than just the desire to set up a caliphate. It is the very heart of their whole mentality of aggression. Beat terrorism and you win a battle. Beat Jihad and you win the war.
Regards,
Jim