In all of the hoo-hah about taking more Syrian refugees, what I can't seem to find is any concrete benefit that would accrue to the United States. They don't have unique skills, it doesn't cement any important, but fragile alliances, they don't come from an allied nation who has fallen to an enemy. I short, what's in it for us?
To ask the question is to earn a derisive label. Profit-monger, perhaps? Self-centered, maybe? Whatever it is, by bringing it up, you're putting your own interests ahead of needy people. You're just as bad as Exxon, General Electric and Koch Industries* - organizations who only care about the bottom line.
So I guess we should take in the Syrian refugees because we're moral, caring, compassionate people. At least that's what it seems like to me. Too bad that to do this, we'd have to borrow yet more money from our kids.
* - But not Apple. Apple is not evil. Apple is hip and cool.
1 comment:
"What's in it for us?" Consider this: if we look at the recent terrorist attacks, what is their objective? They aren't to convince countries to stop fighting ISIS, if anything the airplane bombing and Paris attacks are convincing the French and Russians to fight them more (and, unless ISIS is composed entirely of brain-dead maniacs who can't see what normally happens in response to terrorist attacks, they knew that this is what would happen). But, the big effect that these attacks are having is to convince everyone that letting in refugees is dangerous, and to turn them back.
Which is my point: ISIS doesn't want these refugees to leave. If they leave, who will ISIS steal or extort food, money, and supplies from? Whose sons will they brainwash and recruit? Whose daughters will they rape? Who will they force to maintain and repair their equipment, or move their supplies, or hide behind when the bombers come? In short, who will they lord it over? How are they supposed to be the dictatorial overlords of the whole area if everybody leaves them behind in the desert? And if they can't get all the refugees back, at the very least they want them to be stuck locally in non-productive tent camps, where they are a problem for their immediate opponents to deal with.
Going into a panic and treating the refugees like poison is exactly what ISIS wants us to do. Do we want to oblige them?
And as far as saying "it doesn't cement any important, but fragile alliances", I don't know. How do you feel about Turkey? They've got an estimated 2.1 million refugees to deal with, and last I heard, they were one of our stronger allies in the region.
Post a Comment