Dear America,
I have tried to research the issue of Syrian refugees, or even Syrian
immigrants, committing acts of terror, but so far I haven't found anything comprehensive. However, in the information that I have found, there is no
reference to a single instance of a Syrian--refugee, naturalized citizen,
green card holder or citizen of the United States from birth whose ethnic origins go back to Syria--committing an act of terror or being tied to one. There have been
several Bosnians, Uzbekistani's, Somali's, Pakistani's (like Farouk and
Malik in San Bernardino) and people of other extractions, notably including
at least two recent home-grown American military veterans and several
misguided all-American boys and girls, but no Syrians. So, how is
barring Syrian refugees from entering the country supposed to serve to
prevent acts of terror? In fact, if Syrians are prone to committing acts
of terror, the things we are doing seem to have been 100% effective in
preventing them from doing so, so how is barring them from entering this
country as they flee from war going to do any better? Further, how is monitoring Mosques going to serve any purpose? As to excluding Muslims from immigration to the United States, we have to consider excluding all Christians too if that kind of classification is to be employed, because the statistics show that more Americans have been killed in terror attacks by Christian fundamentalists than by Muslim fundamentalists in the United States. And if we are going to be guided in this exclusionary fervor by events worldwide, we had better start considering excluding Belgians and naturalized Frenchmen before we turn to excluding Syrians if we are being guided by propensity for terrorist activities. So much for Donald Trump, but as for President Obama and the efficacy of his policies, consider this.
In his speech this past week, he outlined and explained his rationale for policies, including limited involvement in the campaign against ISIL, in clear detail. The implications of his speech were these. If Islamic extremism is going to be defeated in the middle east, the people of the middle east have to accomplish it or it will never endure. Further, with a coalition of military forces acting, the exposure of the United States to terrorism is diluted, and without focus, the ISIL campaign becomes one against The West, not just us. But to the extent that we are to continue to be involved in the battle against jihadist terrorism--to augment it with our military might either in the form of air power or men on the ground--congress must assent in order to legitimate the national effort rather than excusing itself from taking a position by continuing to point at The President with every criticism of his limited approach. If they want more, they have to say so, and since the power to declare war reposes solely on them according to the constitution, which conservative Republicans claim to be bound by, their declaration in some form, even a new AUMF since there is no formally recognized nation to declare war on, is a sine qua non for the legitimacy of the American effort in Iraq and Syria. Finally, The President propounded a mandate for Muslims around the world. If they want to be included in this society and all others without distinction from everyone else, they must become active proponents of the extirpation of Islamic jihadism. It is not sufficient for them to occasionally do so by condemning a specific act of terror. They must become open and declared activists in the repudiation and exposure of jihad perpetrators here and abroad, including vocal and constant condemnation of ISIL en masse. The Muslim community must state its position and restate it constantly, as the rest of the civilized world does, in order to be believed. To live among us, they must show that they are with us, and thus become an integral part of "us" not just as Americans, but as members of international society.
So as for Trump, Graham, Cruz and the rest of the xenophobes running for the Republican presidential nomination, they have nothing to add to President Obama's formulation of a plan to defeat ISIL...or at least they haven't added anything yet. They can call Mr. Obama's strategy whatever they like, but they have yet to come up with a better idea...or even a civilized one.
Your friend,
Mike
Leave a comment