By Jonathan S. Tobin
Monday, April 10, 2017
President Donald Trump confounded most of his critics and
even some of his supporters last week by attacking Syria. Trump came into
office promising to stay out of foreign entanglements and advocating outreach
to Russia. So the decision to punish Moscow’s Syrian client shocked those on
the right who liked the sound of Trump’s “America First” isolationist rhetoric.
For mainstream conservatives who hope that his administration will discard his
campaign rhetoric on foreign policy, the decision to strike was a tonic.
For Democrats, Trump’s move is particularly painful. It
throws a wrench into their efforts to portray the president as a moral imbecile
or a puppet who was essentially elected by Russians and is now ruled by them.
If Trump is going to act like a commander in chief able to make carefully
calibrated decisions that starkly contrast with his predecessor’s feckless and
immoral dithering on Syria, and if he does this while also offending Russia,
the Left’s “resistance” strategy and their truculent anti-Russia tone begin to
look less effective.
Deprived of the standard talking points they’ve been
using to assail Trump since the inauguration, most Democrats are flailing. Some
are joining Rand Paul in saying that no president should be able to order a
strike without a congressional vote. There is some merit to that argument, but
it’s not one most Democrats like, given that they support such actions whenever
their party controls the White House. Plus, few liberals have any real enthusiasm
for a strict interpretation of the Constitution.
Instead, they are falling back on something they do care
about: refugees. Democrats are claiming that Trump may have been right to
punish the butcher of Damascus for atrocities that President Obama ignored. But
there is a disconnect, they say, between his military action and his
immigration policies. According to both Hillary Clinton and MSNBC’s Rachel
Maddow, anyone who has compassion for the victims of the Syrian regime’s
nerve-gas attacks — as Trump clearly demonstrated — must also be willing to let
refugees from that country enter the United States.
While Trump is often guilty of inconsistency, this is a
specious argument. America’s role as the world’s only superpower does obligate
it to act when the international order is threatened by atrocities. The leader
of the free world can and must send a message to rogue regimes that they can’t
use weapons of mass destruction with impunity. But this doesn’t mean that
everyone affected by those governments automatically gets a ticket to enter the
United States.
If the U.S. were to admit all refugees from countries
where it has fought wars or aided one side or another in a conflict, there
would be no limit to those who would have a right to enter the United States.
As a matter of law and tradition, the entry of refugees is governed by factors
that relate to whether their plight is a special humanitarian concern to
Americans, whether there are reasonable alternatives for resettlement, and
whether the particular refugees are admissible to the United States. While one
may claim that Syrians qualify as a focus of humanitarian concern, they
arguably fail under the latter two categories.
The Syrian civil war is one of the greatest human-rights
catastrophes of the last half-century. Last year, the United Nations said that
13.5 millions Syrians needed assistance inside their country, including 6
million who had been forced from their homes. In January, the U.N. claimed that
more than 4.8 million Syrians had fled their country. Many are eager to leave
the Middle East and start new lives in more prosperous lands where there is no
war. But it’s absurd to think that it’s the West’s responsibility to take in
what amounts to close to 22 percent of Syria’s pre-war population. The only
rational long-term solution for Syrian refugees is to end the war, not to
facilitate Bashar al-Assad’s effort to depopulate his tortured country.
Nor is there an immediate need to transfer large numbers
of Syrian refugees out of the region to the U.S. Most are living in camps in
Jordan or Turkey where conditions are not ideal but apparently livable. Large
numbers who are able to leave the camps have already fled to Western European
nations such as Germany, which have opened the floodgates to Middle Eastern
refugees. Whether that policy is wise or without costs is a matter of debate
for Europeans. But no matter what one thinks about that question, what the
Europeans have done makes it difficult to argue that the United States must
follow suit.
Trump was accused, not without some justice, of appealing
to prejudice during his campaign when he called for a flat, if temporary, ban
on entry into the U.S. of all Muslim immigrants. If religion were the only
argument against letting in the Syrians, as Trump’s critics assert, the critics
would be right. But their effort to ignore the security question is
disingenuous. As events in Europe have shown, if you let in large numbers of
people from countries where radical Islam has taken hold, it is a given that a
certain number of them, even if it is small, will be potential threats.
The notion that refugees pose no threat at all is based
on sentiment rather than evidence or common sense. While Assad and his Russian,
Iranian, and Lebanese allies as well as ISIS terrorists have victimized the
people of Syria, the country has become a hotbed of Islamist extremism. Indeed,
the depredations of pro-Assad forces have bolstered support for radical
factions such as ISIS. It’s also true that Syria has collapsed as a normal
country. As a result, it’s impossible to effectively vet Syrians who wish to
come to the U.S.
Democrats who have taken up the argument about opening
the door to impossible-to-vet Syrian refugees in the wake of last week’s events
that, for once, gave Trump favorable press coverage are simply trying to change
the subject. Instead, they should support policies that will actually do
something to help the refugees go home to a nation no longer ruled by Assad.
Genuine compassion means backing measures to force Assad’s ouster, something
that will, in turn, lessen support for ISIS. Until that happens, the U.S. must
be ready to aid the refugees where they are and ready to use force to punish
Assad for violating international norms. Trump must also apply diplomatic and
economic pressure to send the same message to Assad’s Russian and Iranian
enablers. Anything else said about Trump and Syrian refugees is pure political
hypocrisy.
No comments:
Post a Comment