A Non-Bleeding-heart Case for Syrian Refugees

(This is something I wrote shortly after the monstrous Paris attacks nearly a year ago. Just being posted now)

Let me start out by saying this; I do not care truly about the Syrian refugees. Maybe that sounds harsh, but I don’t. Oh sure I care about them in the abstract. I abhor what’s happening in the Middle East and what has been happening in that region for decades. However, do we as a species even have the capacity to truly care about those we never met? I suppose the best of us do, but we have dozens of friends and family in our lives that we truly care about. There are almost 7 billion people in this world, to burden ourselves with every single one, I feel, would make life unlivable.

I say this, because I do not personally know anyone who truly cares about these people. Liberals will, of course, jump on the bandwagon to co-opt pain and suffering, in a vain attempt to make themselves look caring, to combat feeling with which they cannot deal, or a combination of both. But how many of them would invite a Syrian family into their home for even a day? That’s a big question, because it is not in our nature to trust anyone we don’t know, regardless of race, religion, or creed.

Conservatives have made their position pretty clear; keep them out because they could be dangerous. Maybe there’s some sympathy, but the message is “America first”. I can understand that, I’m loyal to a fault. I love this country, and do believe I would lay down my life for it if the situation truly presented itself.

However, this is where I will generally part ways with both conservatives and liberals. And though I don’t have all the answers, I truly believe accepting Syrian refugees is the best option in a situation that is completely void of a perfect solution. So herein lies my reasoning.  

To let them in

We've all heard the potential consequences of letting them in... what are the consequences of not? They'll be sent back? What happens then? Many will die, tragic, but the idea is we must worry about our country first. But what are the other consequences? If, their choices are dying or become radicalized, what do you think MANY will pick?

It's a numbers game; ISIS doesn't want us taking them in. They flee the country there's infinitely less chance they can be radicalized. Not to mention, the message and policy of compassion CAN combat radicalization globally. ISIS, also, does want to promote their perception that this is a war between the western world and Islam.

However, maybe even if ISIS is stronger, then we’ll at least be safer at home. I cannot predict the future, anyone who claims to is either a liar or a politician (yes, I know, synonymous). But I would argue that weakening our values, closing ourselves off from the world will have significantly more damaging effects in the long term. The Economist reported the following: 750,000 refugees have been resettled in America since 9/11. Not a one has been arrested on domestic terrorism charges in the United States of America. To me that is staggering, there are limitless reasons this is true, but I do not plan to dive that deep into politics. I did follow up on that statement, and it did need a little clarification. Seth Jones, director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at the RAND Corporation, testified to Congress in June 2015: “The threat to the U.S. homeland from refugees has been relatively low. Almost none of the major terrorist plots since 9/11 have involved refugees. Even in those cases where refugees were arrested on terrorism-related charges, years and even decades often transpired between their entry into the United States and their involvement in terrorism. In most instances, a would-be terrorist’s refugee status had little or nothing to do with their radicalization and shift to terrorism.” Ultimately there have been three arrests of refugees arrested on terrorist charges since 9/11 (Two were Iraqi refugees arrested in Bowling Green, Ky., in 2011 on suspicion of plotting to send weapons to insurgents to kill American soldiers abroad. The third is an Uzbek refugee who was arrested in 2013 in Boise, Idaho, accused of conspiring to support a terrorist organization, gathering explosive materials, and plotting to carry out an attack on U.S. soil)

Am I saying there is any possible way we can be 100% certain not a single refugee will be an existing terrorist that slips through the cracks, or that one will radicalize later? I cannot possibly say that, but we need to ask ourselves three questions in response. 1) Is admitting refugees in war torn regions part of American culture and values (and I say it is, we admitted 650,000 refugees in WWII)? 2) Are actions of cowards and evil men worth sacrificing our values? 3) More specifically, if .000004% of these refugees (3/750,000) are truly evil, is that small a fraction worth sacrificing our values?

Current Vetting Process

The process of vetting refugees is already significantly more extensive than virtually any other way to legally enter this country:

• “Apply through the United Nations High Commission of Refugees, which collects documents and performs interviews. Incidentally, less than 1 percent of refugees worldwide end up being recommended for resettlement, but if you’re one of them, you may then be referred to the State Department to begin the vetting process,” 
• “More information is collected, and you’ll be put through security screenings by the National Counterterrorism Center, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security” 
• “If you’re a Syrian refugee, you’ll get an additional layer of screening called the Syria Enhanced Review, which may include a further check by a special part of Homeland Security—the USCIS [United States Citizenship and Immigration Services] fraud detection and national security directorate.” 
• “After the interview process with USCIS officers and you’ll also be fingerprinted so your prints can be run through the biometric databases of the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense” 
• “A health screening” 
• “Refugees are then enrolled in cultural orientation classes—all while your information continues to be checked recurrently against terrorist databases to make sure that no new information comes in that wasn’t caught before”

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U-t3GetV_Q

These steps are conducted before the refugees are typically allowed in the US. This process typically takes 18 to 24 months once you’ve been referred to the UN by the United States.

Numbers vs Sensationalism

How long will a thwarted terrorists attack be in the new cycle? An hour, a day at the most? How long will a successfully excited Islamic terrorist attach be in the news? A week? A month? Two? This is just starching the surface of my point. I could not tell you the exact number of terrorist attacks in America since 9/11, that point is much debated, but what is not debatable is that it is still more likely that you are killed by a lightning strike or drowning in your bathtub than a terrorist attack in this country.

Am I saying no action is warranted, am I blind to the potential threat global terrorism produces? Of course not. What I AM pleading for is some perspective. Now I am not one to blame the media, the media is a business, they give their audience what they want to see. So if people cannot see that a great deal of it is sensationalism and exaggeration they can’t really blame anyone but themselves.

What I am saying, is that I personally do not fear death by terrorism any more than I fear my bath tub. That is not coming from spoiled sheltered place. I simply am not swayed by anecdotal stories or fear mongering. I am generally not convinced on any large scale issues until I see the numbers to back it.

Are the Muslims within our own boards that wish us harm? Of course, am I convinced that it is the majority of them because I see a video on youtube, of course not. But more to that point, Muslims in this country are a mere 1% of the population. It is simply a logistically impossibility at this time for Sharia Law to be enacted, or for them to take over the country in an organized capacity.

I’m not here to debate the current cultural status of this country; nor am I here to convince anyone Muslims are decent people one way or another; I am simply sticking with the statistics.  

Christian Nation

This will be difficult for me to address, this is a topic of which I feel is critical to the situation. Let me simply ask this question first, would Christ turn away the Syrians? As Christians we cannot possibly say he would. But here’s the follow up question, should our government be governing by Christian morals? I was taught about the separation of Church and state in basic civics in school. However, it seems in recent past there has been significant debate on whether or not we are currently or were founded as a Christian nation.

I think it means a lot of different things to different people. Few truly want a theocracy; however there have been many who express the opinion that God’s law effectively trumps man’s law. I believe that, but on a personal basis. I do not believe God’s law should directly dictate the laws, policy, and actions we as a nation create and follow. The growing sentiment seems to be to the contrary. But our laws allow divorce, intoxication, premarital sex, coveting, blasphemy, and not giving to the church or charity. I could go on, but I think we see potential complications in enacting laws that forbid such actions in a free nation.

 If we do, however, decide that we want to let scripture run our foreign policy, then we have almost no choice to let refugees in our boarders (see Luke 6:27, Exodus 23:5, etc). Again, can good Christians, believe that Jesus would turn these war torn people away? Would he say the risks are too high? We all know the answer. But therein lies my point, that’s why I believe biblical law should apply to each individual person, because when you start in on a larger scale things become much more complicated than “love your enemy”. I’ll leave this particular subject at that.  

Fear

I’ll finish off with what most drives the debate, fear. There are times when it is an important emotion. It tells us when to flee, when to go on the defensive, or when to leave the bar because really let’s be honest that girl would have been trouble down the road anyway and it’s really better to be warm in bed with a book… alone…. wait where was I? Fear is innate within all of us, and there’s nothing wrong with that, the problem arises when fear takes over logic, reason, good nature, etc.

It is undeniable fear has historically lead to erroneous actions, even when it was rooted in fear of losing something we hold dear. There seems to be a lot of fear coursing through our country these days, and without diverting too much from the main topic, I would very strongly argue a lot of that fear is manufactured. I will do my best not to place blame, because blame is often the ugly step sister of fear.

More specifically, I do believe fear in the wake of cowardice acts is the worst possible reaction. I cannot stress this enough, terrorists in almost all forms use this reaction to fuel their goals. If a terrorist takes out a theater of concert goers, it is undeniably and universally tragic. But they want us to change our lives after for the worse, that is their much larger goal. The breakdown of any countries values makes them weaker in every aspect.

Foreign Policy Matters: Cowboy Down

As the United States and its coalition partners ramp up military actions in Libya, many Americans have responded, understandably, with consternation.  Further, coalition partners, like the United Kingdom, face similar domestic economic issues and do not understand see the value in interceding in the Libyan crisis.  The average cruise missile launched at Gadhafi’s military machine costs one million dollars.  Why are these expensive actions necessary?  Why did Obama seek out United Nations and Arab League approval before that of the US legislature?  What is the end-game?

While the punditry—on both sides--failed to reasonably examine and question presidential decisions in the military endeavors in Afghanistan and Iraq, they have been more than willing to latch on to the situation in Libya.  Judith Miller, former New York Times columnist and current columnist for Newsmax—a moderately-conservative publication, posed, basically, the same questions I have—the same questions she didn’t seem to think needed answering in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, or the same ones, in regards to Obama’s strategy towards Afghanistan, that got my Op-Ed pulled from the Greeley Tribune.  Questioning the strategy—moreover, asking for it—in Afghanistan was largely unpopular and uninteresting to many Americans.  Concurrently, Obama’s changes to the overarching strategy in Afghanistan failed to draw much political interest from the opposition and the punditry.  The situation in Libya is seemingly more appealing to the punditry; Obama is beleaguered, politically, and the republicans desire his constant capitulation.  As my dad so poignantly stated today, “They want him to check with daddy.” 

Judith Miller wondered why Obama was not as willing to intercede in other Arab/Muslim states that are uprising against their dictators.  While she did directly advise that Obama not adopt a uniform policy/strategy for dealing uprisings in the Middle East, she did hint at a grandiose strategy for the region.  She suggested supporting the toppling of each respective regime.  But, in doing so, Ms. Miller failed to recognize that the current instability is, somewhat, a negative reflection on US foreign policy; the US has supported regimes simply because of their benevolence towards Israel.  The United States needs to support popular movements against dictators, no matter where they may be or what the perceived consequences may be, all over the world. 

Obama is drawing much criticism—much of it is fair, but much of it’s imbecilic—over his administration’s foreign policy.  Many have expressed trepidation over what they view as weak, self-effacing foreign policy aimed repairing America’s reputation amongst the global community, a reputation that atrophied during the Bush administration.  George W. Bush’s foreign policy failures—ill advised and poorly managed military endeavors, reticence to condemn Israeli military action in 2006—resulted in the squandering of what may have been the pinnacle of America’s power within the international political economy. 

Many Americans, pundits, politicians, and voters, alike, have suggested that Obama’s overtly diplomatic approach to foreign policy will weaken America’s power on the global stage.  Many of these suggestions are, at best, somewhat misguided, or, worse, farcical.  Foreign policy is difficult to understand.  Most pundits rarely engage in discussing foreign policy, and, what’s more, if they do so, they’re discourse is usually superficial and self-serving.  Foreign policy wonks tend to be academics and intellectuals, and, therefore, most Americans may find it difficult to stay meaningfully informed regarding international affairs.  There is no intent, on my part, to be condescending.  How many people do you know who regularly pore over issues of Foreign Policy Magazine or The Journal of Foreign Affairs?  Having tutored students in the past, I can tell you that introduction level courses in international relations or foreign policy deter many undergraduates from those very subjects.  Unfortunately, however, the current tone of the GOP and many conservative pundits is one of anti-intellectualism.

Many influential and prolific foreign policy wonks have been conservatives.  Colin Powell had the transcendent ability to engage aptly in diplomacy and still engage the American public in rhetoric that made foreign policy more readily digestible for the average American.  But, like other scholars and seasoned diplomats, Powell, as Secretary of State, was forced to take a backseat to seasoned political infighters and overly hawkish individuals within the administration.    Bush had already made up his mind on invading Iraq and he was seemingly only interested in information from his administration that made the case for war.  While George H.W. Bush had instructed his Secretary of State, James A. Baker III, with building the largest coalition he could—this would prove a logistical nightmare for military planners, George W. Bush was not interested in building a tangible coalition.  Moreover, George H.W. Bush charged his staff at the State Department to gain UN approval, while George W. Bush thumbed has nose at the UN after they failed to return a favorable vote on the actions he wished to pursue. 

The criticisms that Obama is being too diplomatic and that his administration’s approach to foreign policy will weaken America’s stature are eerily similar to George W. Bush declaring that John Kerry would make America less safe.  Unbridled unilateralism—cowboy foreign policy—does fetch increased national security or a greater influence within the international political economy.  For example, while many regard Reagan as a foreign policy hawk who imposed his will on other states, his dovish qualities that allowed him to engage in discourse and negotiations with the Soviet Union that yielded foreign policy and national security gains.  On the other hand, when Reagan dubiously asserted that he would turn Latin America into a “beacon of freedom,”, it represented the derisory and ill-fated hawkish stances that, nearly three-decades later, still pervade American foreign policy.  Propping up regimes simply because they postulate Western sympathies, and, currently—especially amongst Arab states, assert benevolent positions towards Israel. 

Once again, Judith Miller delivers sterling points when discussing the situations in Syria, Yemen, and Bahrain.  But, ironically, she indicts Obama for playing politics, while admitting that the challenges in dealing with those other states would be logistically and politically stupefying.  Bashar al-Assad has shown the requisite benevolence towards Israel, and, therefore, disrupting his government would be politically perilous for Mr. Obama—the US-Israel lobby is one of the most powerful in Washington.  Any intervention—political or otherwise—in Yemen would be nearly as challenging as the AfPak situation.  Bahrain, a tiny state that has enjoyed largesse of oil wealth, is a state with over a million citizens that are ruled by a constitutional monarchy.  As Ms. Miller recognizes, American intervention in all of theses states would leave an enormous footprint in the region, and, therefore, specifically tailored responses to each situation is an imperative.   

Consulting, as well as seeking the approval of, the Arab League, from a foreign policy standpoint, seems to make sense.  The Arab League, like any regional alliance, has economic and political goals, but they can also provide insight into regional values and, to an extent, valuable intelligence.  The US should take advantage of the different diplomatic apparatuses—America still has the clout to do whatever it wants.  And, ultimately, it’s unilateralism that weakens American power, not diplomacy.

No matter what Glenn Beck claims to have “read,” it is laughable—or worse—to think that he can provide any meaningful insight into the situation in the Middle East.  Most states have a vast network of diplomats and statesmen across the globe who have spent years in their respective theaters getting to know the populations.  The US State Department is no exception.  Every presidential administration has an immense array of talented diplomats and statesmen at their disposal.  Also, the American president has to know that they have the power to act unilaterally, if so desired. 

As is the mission of this blog, the desired position is somewhere in the middle; American foreign policy is best conducted when policy makers are willing to engage in diplomacy, but still willing to represent American interests when diplomacy fails.  That being said, however, when receiving criticism from your peers, policy makers should never ignore diplomatic criticisms; rather, policy should evaluate criticisms as advice.  Anyone who thinks they fully understand themselves is a fool, and, correspondingly, anyone who believes they know more about another is an imbecile.  The truth is always somewhere in the middle.