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.
The Refugee Crisis: A Response to Claire
My main objection to the debate over Syrian refugees is that we’ve been debating solutions — or rather, one particular (partial) solution — before articulating either the problem or our objectives. I think Claire’s post this morning greatly improves the debate, but I wanted to tease out the issues a little further.
First, let’s articulate our objectives regarding the Middle East and the Islamic world in general. In the near term, our goal is to defeat the Islamic State; in the longer-term it’s to destroy, discredit, and supplant the ideology of radical Islam with something more amenable to modernity and peace. Everything our government does in the region should be at least compatible with those goals and — ideally — in furtherance of them.
Returning to the Syrian refugees, I see them as posing four distinct (but related) problems that threaten the interests of the United States:
- Over the next few months, the likelihood of a humanitarian crisis as the camps fill and winter sets in;
- Over the next few years, the creation of a particularly disaffected, homeless, and (perhaps, permanently) unskilled population in a volatile and important region with no shortage of those problems; and
- Over the next few decades, the possibility that bad actors will turn these refugees’ desperation and listlessness into violence against the United States and its allies.
- Destabilizing allies like Turkey and Jordan whose help we want in defeating ISIS.
On the assumption that I have the situation basically correct — if you think I don’t, please show me where I’m wrong — all subsequent matters turn on alleviating the humanitarian crisis before the Russians, Islamists, and other bad actors beat us to it, a point Claire admirably made.
(It warrants saying that the Administration’s announced policy to resettle an additional 10,000 Syrians in the United States does not really address the refugee crisis: it’s too small and too slow-moving to make make much of a difference. It’s also worth noting that those who are currently being settled here have already gone through this lengthy process which — as Claire has pointed out — has a decades’ long and fairly successful history. If you’ve objections to the United States having any policy of refugee resettlement, that’s a worthy discussion, but hardly limited to this matter. For the record, I’ve serious reservations about settling a specific number of refugees, rather than letting the situation and judgement dictate who and how many we let it).
While I’ve little doubt there are soft-power advantages to be gained by resettling some refugees in our own country — and that there’s no reason such a thing can’t be done well — there’s only so much that can accomplish, and it has its costs. If we’re interested in stemming the crisis and ensuring that our allies in the region aren’t wholly overwhelmed, it would probably be smart to focus our efforts on picking up the catering bill for those countries providing a venue. This helps the refugees, aids our allies — perhaps not in the way they’d pick — and should provide us with us a much better opportunity to gather useful intelligence about the Islamic State and the Assad Regime, which should speed the refugees’ return as we take back territory.
What to do once the refugees can be confident of their next meal, but before ISIS is defeated? To be honest … I’m not entirely sure, though I doubt there’s any single answer.
Could part of it involve settling some refugees here? Maybe. But let’s not confuse that with solving the crisis as a whole, or analogize it to turning away boatloads of European Jews or Vietnamese boat people.
Published in Foreign Policy, Immigration, Islamist Terrorism
What are you basing this on? Can you cite any prior situations where such efforts yielded this nation any soft-power advantage with the Islamic World?
For example:
What advantages do you believe accrued to the United States due to this resettlement?
How can you know that aid we give to Turkey and Jordan will be used to provide succor to those in greatest need?
I think it would be well served to show how these analogies fail. I think the points against analogizing this crisis to European Jews are stronger but I have yet to find a compelling argument as to why the analogy to Vietnam is not apt.
From people I’ve spoken with, Turkey and Jordan are particularly keen for use to take what refugees we can. Now, that’s not a convincing case for doing so in and of itself, but it’s worth taking into consideration.
Sure. The refugees we’d be taking in under the announced program are ones that we’ve spent years screening. They’re not ones who just arrived in Turkey, Jordan, or Iraq.
So, the analogy would be taking in taking Jewish refugees who had already fled to Britain after screening them.
I would think doing it directly would be best, both for those reasons to remind the people receiving the aid who paid for it.
I think agree with everything you say here. Bringing in the refugees should be the last resort. What we need to do is force our muslim allies in the region to take them in. Where is Saudi Arabia? Where is our new best friend Iran? Have we truly explored creating safe regions for them? If we bring in the muslum refugees, future Islamic immigration should be limited to defer the numbers. Given Europe’s experience with Muslims, I do not support large numbers immigrating to this country.
Funny thing about all of this. Why are we talking about Syrian Refugees? Claire cited something like 3200 people dying. I suppose the refugees number in the tens of thousands. And how many killed in North Korea? How many killed in Africa or Central America? How about Cuba and China?
There are over 400,000 foster kids in the United States right now.
We talk about Syrian Refugees because it’s as easy as a president or governor simply declaring that they be admitted. Once they’re here, they’ll be a drop in the bucket.
ok … so, let’s all do the ice bucket challenge, wear pink gloves, admit 10,000 Syrian refugees and remember to tweet out #bringbackourgirls.
I know that had little to do with the substance of your post. But this whole Syria thing seems to be media driven. I wonder what we’ll all be deeply concerned about next week?
Perhaps a major component of the “Not just ‘no’ but ‘HELL NO'” reaction to the Syrian refugee question is that a significant number of the American people are just completely sick of politicians and bien pensant commentators cramming policies and outcomes down their throats.
The Saudi’s have taken in over 2.5 million refugees since the start of the conflict and currently play host to over 500,000. Since they are not signatories to the UN accord on refugees they are not officially classified as such.
Of those four listed concerns, only this one differentiates the Syrian refugee situation from the rampant starvation, disease, genocide, and brutal oppression that plagues multiple areas of the world every single year.
Pseud pointed out in Claire’s thread that the money Saudi Arabia and its neighbors devote to building mosques in the West and funding jihad around the globe would go a long way to addressing those concerns. As with the funding of education in America, the problem is not resources but priorities.
If Jordan, Lebanon, and other host nations are willing to facilitate Christian and humanist charitable organizations to aid refugees over there, many such organizations are already itching to help.
I appreciate your attempt to bridge the debate.
Establishing safe zones in Syria and Iraq would accomplish all the goals Claire proposes and take no more time.
Actually, I think the Vietnam analogy is more apt. Our decision to pull out of Vietnam – a war that was clearly winnable – resulted in a lot of displacement. Yes, there are huge differences. Not least among them being the fact that those displaced were our allies, and that Vietnam was a more traditional war; we did not have cases of North Vietnamese bombing or otherwise attacking Western cities, or plotting such events in the US. So “terrorism” is certainly a different kind of war. But that doesn’t mean the analogy cannot be useful.
I mostly agree with this.
Tom, did you ever watch these interviews I did with Ilhan Tanir in 2o12? They’ve been OTE, but I think they support your instincts, and they tell something of the story of how we got here.
http://ricochet.com/archives/what-ilhan-tanir-saw-in-syria-part-i/
http://ricochet.com/archives/what-ilhan-tanir-saw-in-syria-part-ii/
http://ricochet.com/archives/let-me-save-you-time-on-syria/
http://ricochet.com/europe-the-refugee-crisis-and-conservatives/
I have no doubt they are keen, but how is that relevant to this decision?
How the US is viewed in Turkey and Jordan is fairly consistent and it is consistently awful. Are you seriously proposing that this gesture will have any other than a token effect, if even that?
Tom – this has nothing to do with your post – how do you find a past story without going through all the posts? I’m looking for the one on Pittsburgh steel mills a couple weeks ago?
I’d agree with Vietnam used as an analogy in that sense.
Where that analogy fails is when it’s used to in the context of people dying or starving (implication: you heartless [expletive], you). Our taking in refugees in the way we’re doing it is not going to meaningfully affect how many people die.
If/when we push take back territory from ISIS, that’s something I’d totally be on-board with. That’s one of the many good reasons get serious about it.
Oh, yes, of course. Even a good analogy fails when used to support a bad argument.
Unless used as an example of moral leadership. Its funny to me that so many people who crow about the moral superiority of America (I agree with this) simultaneously want Saudi Arabia (!!!) to be the moral leaders on this issue. That’s a bizarre upside down world to me.
I think I found it here.
(Sorry, typo guy here. “It think” (third line) = “I think.” Carry on.)
Curses. Corrected.
This story seems relevant. A Palestinian “refugee” (born and raised in Saudi Arabia) was sentenced to beheading for some sort of blasphemy. In the long term, I think artists being able to do their thing (whether in Denmark or Saudi Arabia) without fear should be a clearly-articulated objective vis-à-vis the Islamic world. In the medium term, we should also consider the risk of another effectively stateless population in the Middle East that is not allowed to assimilate even in neighbouring Arab countries (getting to Tom’s points 2 and 3).
“Events, my boy! Events!”
These concerns might soon be rendered moot. A Russian rescue chopper looking for survivors of the jet shot down by Turkey has been been shot down by US-backed Syrian rebels.
Well, crud.
What does that mean, “play host to over 500,000”?
Although we did have US citizens attacking American cities. The money trail behind the hard Left then and now would probably make a very interesting story.
It means there are currently 500,000 displaced Syrians in Saudi Arabia. What the heck do you think it means?
The war was won. It ended on Jan 27, 1973 with the Paris Peace accords. US military forces withdrew in 1973.
The circumstances you refer to are the subsequent invasion of South Vietnam in 1975 and Operation Frequent Wind which was the evacuation of embassy and other at risk personnel on 29-30 April 1975.
Some migrant workers, the Saudis fear reprisal attacks so even those are kept on a tight leash.