Category Archives: Foreign Policy

Where The Syrian Refugee

Syrian Refugee

Much discussion, emotion and hand wringing is due the issue of the refugee fleeing  home due to the war in that nation.

The question is – “What do we do with these people?”

There is only one answer – “Let them in.”

There can only be one answer that America can offer when the world is confused and is searching for the way forward.  When people everywhere don’t know what to do, when they doubt themselves and others and are in a desperate search for the noble, the honorable and the compassion – they always, whether they like it or not, look to America as the beacon that shows them the way.  That shines through the storm clouds and leads them to safe harbor?

And why is this the case, always the case?

Because it is who we are.

Period.

It is normal and easy to be afraid; the desire to close the gate and lock the door is common, understandable.  But we are UNcommon.  Ours is not the easy way – our way has always been fraught with peril and dangers.  And we have always, ALWAYS demonstrated the strength of our will and our way.  It is why people who are afraid come here – it is why the world immigrates to America and not the other way around.

Now, can we take steps to be more safe than less?  Sure.  Should states have rights in who they let in?  I think so.  Are there methods that we can employ to make this easier?  Absolutely.

If we are afraid of the militant – we can require that any refugee be part of an intact family.  We can accept mother, father and children.  It could be said that the most at risk Syrians are the widows and the orphans – the families who have lost their men due to the conflict.  Certainly the widow and her orphaned children can be accommodated?

Further – we know that we can’t take ALL the refugees fleeing Syria.  There are very real concerns that an immigrant population may grow to a size that makes assimilation next to impossible.  It has been forever a unique American experience that anyone can become American.  The corollary to this phenomenon is that there is an implicit expectation that the immigrant make every effort to hustle that process along as fast as she can.  So we take those that we are able and pray for those remaining outside our door.

But we take those that we can.  Because, to fail in this regard is to walk away from the very thing that makes us great.

Truly great.

I am reminded of the charge of the gentle craft that brings me comfort monthly:

Remember that, around this alter, you have promised to befriend and relieve every brother who shall need your assistance.  You have promised, in the most friendly manner, to remind him of his errors and aid a reformation.  These generous principles are to extend further.  Every human being has claim upon your kind offices.

Do good unto all.

Pino’s Take On Ukraine

I admit to being ignorant on the history of the Ukraine and have absolutely no understanding of the history of the region or the nation.

However, I have done some investigation.

In recent history Crimea was part of the Soviet Union and was given to Ukraine in 1954 – some say as a gesture of goodwill.  With most of the population of the peninsula considering themselves Russian – it is very reasonable that there is significant desire on the part of the people to want to become part of Russia again.

Recent events in the Ukrainian capital forced the sitting President to flee the country and take up shelter in Russia.  The pro-Russian government has been replaced with a pro-Western government.  There is little doubt that Yanukovitch was corrupt and needed too be out of office.  Less clear to me is that a reasonable course of action given that state of affairs is to protest and forcibly remove a sitting elected official.  Elections, they say, have consequences and the method that a reasonable citizenry use to affect leadership is done at the ballot box.

Add this up and the events begin to make more sense.

Russia sees an ally thrown out by a coup and replaced with a government much less friendly.  They, Russia, feels that their strategic interests are at risk specifically in Crimea.  In an effort to solidify those interests, including the port of the Black Sea fleet, Putin moved into Crimea claiming he was acting in the defense of Russian citizens.

While Putin’s claims of caring for the citizenry of Crimea rings somewhat false given no threatened violence combined with Putin’s clear disregard for human rights, there is a valid point – that the region is historically Russian.

Added to this reality is the fact that I resonate with the argument that the revolt in Kiev was not the best response to a desire to change leadership.

What does this mean for the US?  Well, as has been pointed out by virtually everyone – there is little we can do to influence Putin as it pertains to the peninsula; we most likely have to live with the fact that Crimea will eventually become part of Russia – but given the make-up of the people living there, this is a relatively painless eventuality.

What we need to do is identify where we and the rest of the EU will draw its line as it pertains the rest of Ukraine at large.  And then send troops – to guard that line and train the Ukrainian army.  Additionally, it is time to address the President’s decision to abandon the missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.  Clearly The Bear is stirring and if we want to be taken seriously we need to act in a manner commensurate with a growing Russian threat.

Syria – To Bomb Or Not

Syrian Flag

Our “Red Line.”

Obama created such a line when he warned Assad:

“We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people,” Obama told reporters at the White House. “We have been very clear to the Assad regime — but also to other players on the ground — that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.

“We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region that that’s a red line for us and that there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front or the use of chemical weapons.”

Obama’s remarks appeared to ratchet up his stance on the matter. Last month, talking about Syrian forces, he told a VFW convention, “They will be held accountable by the international community and the United States should they make the tragic mistake of using those weapons.”

I’ve long been more hawkish than dovish, and using force has been an easier proposition for me than for many of my friends.  However, I  like to think that there is a clear reason for such force and that the use of force actually accomplishes that reason.

What has changed for me, however, is the role that I see the United States playing in the world.  In the past, that role was one more sympathetic to seeing the US as the world’s police.  I’ve evolved in that view these past years and am more likely to reserve US military intervention for the direct defense of Americas.

That’s not to say that the “crimes against humanity” argument doesn’t resonate with me, it does – just not as loudly.  The world has been relatively clear that it wants a more balanced approach in the use of force; the United States doesn’t need to stand alone.  We are not living in that place where it was good vs. evil, the USSR vs. The USA.  Then it WAS us and only us.  Now, with the larger existential threat no longer looming, the conditions are such that we are too play a part – not the WHOLE part.

And more and more I’m okay with that.  In fact, as the world is becoming an ever growing economy tied together by trade and prosperity, I am feeling more and more confident in common goals.

So, where does that leave us?  Well, the more I think on it the more I am coming to see actions taken by nations that fall into two categories:

  1. Humanitarian Crisis
  2. War Crime

Those lines may blur some because it’s hard to imagine a humanitarian crisis existing that is technically “legal”.  However, for now, I’ll stay with those definitions.

In this context, Syria, as a whole, has been a glaring example of a Humanitarian Crisis long before chemical weapons were deployed.  The people of Syria have been subjected to suffering orders of magnitude more severe than the recent events surrounding the use of chemical weapons.

Additionally, the use of chemical weapons clearly violates international law.

Obama erred in his Red Line.  He erred in two aspects:

  1. The line he drew is a line best handled by international law bodies.  In this case, the UN.
  2. He failed to consider that should he take action, who would most benefit.

No one denies that gassing your own, or some one else’s, now that I mention it, citizens is horrible.  But it is no less horrible than walking up to them and simply shooting them.  If we wanna keep the days of the United States acting as world police, make that case and position your statements with such tone and tenor.  But enforcing international law?

No way.

 

Musings On Syria

Syrian Flag

Syria.

What are we supposed to do?

First, I’m relatively more hawkish than the Left or my Libertarian brothers.  When the time comes for the use of force, I’m very alright with using that force and then walking away – the walking away part is the hard part.  But here in Syria, we have such a different set of circumstances.

First, there are no “good guys” in the fight.  To be sure, there are innocent civilians being impacted in horrible horrible ways, but the aggressive actors are all rotten – we have no natural ally in the field.  Given this, by attacking Syria, we are, by definition, helping Al Qaeda.

Frankly, when asked who we would root for in a war between Syria and Al Qaeda, the only sane answer is “Casualties”.

Second, if a state uses chemical weapons, the line has been crossed and distinct action must take place.  The world is no place for nation states, complete with well functioning chains of command, to be using chemical weapons.  Against an enemy or against its own citizenry.

Good guy or bad guy – that cannot go unpunished.

Which brings me to my third point.  There is no rational reason for the Assad regime to carry out a chemical attack against his own people.  Those that hate him, already do.  And those that support him, again, already do.  There is nothing to gain by the mass murder of that many innocent people.

Assad surly must know that America would strike.  That we would take action and react to that red line.  And that if he was faced with using chemical weapons, it must be in a case that NOT using them was worse than the repercussions OF using them.

And I don’t see a compelling argument that Assad took any advantage by the use of that chemical strike.

I’m sure that a crime against humanity has been committed.  And I’m sure that someone must be held accountable for this crime.  I just don’t think that America should act as the world’s police force and rush to judgement -and sentencing- of this particular crime.

Let the UN handle it.

And you know what?  It would seem that elements of the Left agree with me!

This time, maybe the Obama administration isn’t about to launch cruise missiles against Syria. Maybe there’s still time to prevent it. Right now, those risking their lives on the ground to help the Syrian people are the UN inspectors. If the United States is really concerned about their safety, and recognizes the legitimacy of UN inspectors, the Obama administration should immediately engage with the UN leadership and with the Syrian, Russian and other relevant governments to insure their safety while they continue their crucial efforts. Cruise missiles will make that work impossible. What’s needed now is tough diplomacy, not politically motivated military strikes that will make a horrific war even worse.

I’m not one to source The Nation, but go read Bennis’ article – worth the time.