I feel absolute anger and disgust about events in the Middle East.
We invaded Iraq believing this would make the Middle East safer for our closest ally, by interposing a mighty American force between Syria and Iran, terrifying both these countries into submission to our will.
Then more recently we assiduously helped to destabilize Syria in order to prevent its attacking our closest ally.
More generally the "Global War On Terror" has fueled the growth of Muslim terrorism in numerous African countries.
These policies have created millions of refugees from all the above countries, as well as millions of casualties. EuroNews has reported estimates that the eventual tally of refugees may come to as much as four million.
The issue of refugees has caused enormous political problems for Barack Obama.
Many Republican politicians, as usual disgustingly opportunistic, are seizing on President Obama's offer to take a pitifully few 10,000 refugees by saying, quite correctly, that there is a grave danger that some of the refugees may be terrorists. Mr. Obama cannot now appear to flip flop by reversing his offer.
There are two things I think the President should do:
First, don't in any way retract the offer. Say this is an enormous humanitarian crisis our European allies are struggling to cope with and that we must share some of the burden in helping devastated and vulnerable people in dire need. Say that once again the Republicans are playing politics, say that the problem of terrorists mingling with refugees is obvious to any dimwit, and that we already have in place rigorous procedures to prevent this from happening. Say that in order to be admitted to our country, every refugee must submit to rigorous screening, and, if admitted, will be followed by security forces until the terror threat subsides. For example, a condition of entry for refugees might be that they sign a contract forcing them to wear electronic tracking bracelets, and that they accept warrantless wiretaps, bugging of their homes, and all other forms of surveillance.
Second, for humanitarian reasons, and because we are a great people, and because we will look bad in the eyes of the world if we fail to take a significant role in solving the refugee problem, (and because we know in our heart of hearts that we are the proximate creators of the refugee problem), we should absolutely throw large amounts of intelligently spent money into creating adequate refugee camps (and, later, a permanent settlement) outside the boundaries of the United States. It is important to stress there are estimates that there will be as many as 4 million refugees, which is not a small number. It is inconceivable we could manage such huge numbers in a short of time. Refugee camps will to a considerable extent be necessary. In this effort we should receive vast financial help from the Germans who, 1930-1945, created the entire problem that we have inherited.
The refugee camps should be temporary accommodation, well equipped and not squalid.
Alternative 1 — emptying the refugee camps:
One alternative, that might be attractive to European governments who wish to reduce problems of assimilation, would be to very rapidly develop a well designed city complete with industries and proper infrastructure and housing, which should then absorb all the people from temporary camps, within a very brief time span. Syrians tend to be a very capable and enterprising people - think Steve Jobs. Such a city should thrive.
Let the temporary camps surround the proposed city. Let the refugees build the city. Do not let the refugees become listless dependents. Employ them in designing and building the city. Provide them with tools, building materials and strong technical assistance. Perhaps confine this activity to a region of maybe 200 square miles, cordoned off. Maybe make this a special zone, with controlled exit and entry.
To manage such an effort, appoint a top U.S. army general, a logistic genius with the charm and persuasive ability of a Dwight Eisenhower, given sufficient funds and with a position from which he or she could not easily be removed, and with a mandate to carry out the mission in minimum time, with the right to bully and cow any opposition that stands in the way.
Alternative 2 — emptying the refugee camps:
Another alternative, more conventional, would be to place the refugees in existing towns and cities, outside the conflict areas. Some ideas: Try to distribute them in small numbers to each destination, to prevent emergence of a large community capable of incubating terrorists. Send them to destinations outside the countries they resent most. If they have relatives already residing in a particular location, let them go there. The more I think of it let the Germans bear the whole financial burden and not start whining it’s the fault of their grandparents: they will never pay enough reparation for what they did.
One problem with Alternative 2 is that the refugees mingle with the general population in cities. This poses a considerable security risk. The advantage of Alternative 1 is that the refugees can police each other. Of course, if refugees are absorbed in existing towns, it would make sense to hire substantial numbers to police their compatriots.
Alternative 3 — emptying the refugee camps:
One obvious solution, not mentioned above, is retaining the refugees in camps until it’s safe for them to return to their native countries. This would be very unpopular among most refugees, and also might mean very lengthy stays in camps.