Tag Archives: terrorist

All Posts, American Foreign Policy, donald trump, islam, Terrorism, war

Do something – even if it’s wrong?

President Trump’s top advisers are considering hiring mercenaries to replace US Troops in Afghanistan.  Erik Prince, founder of Blackwater Security (who is also the brother of  Trump’s Education Secretary Betsy DeVos), Steve Bannon and Jared Kushner are promoting the idea that mercenaries can succeed where our armed forces have not, by imposing a stable government in that nation.   Blackwater is the same contractor that caused so many problems in Iraq.

How did we get to this point?

After 9-11, President Bush and many Americans seemed intent on “Doing something, even if it’s wrong.”  Secretary of State Colin Powell warned “If you break it, you own it.” meaning that  if we deposed Saddam Hussein, we Americans would be responsible for assuring the security of the Iraqi people until a stable, democratic government could be established.

Based on the mistaken notion that Iraq threatened us and our allies with weapons of mass destruction, we became the occupying power that deposed Saddam Hussein and destroyed the authority of Iraqi institutions; but we did not successfully replace them.  The US proved that we could remove a Middle East dictator quickly and efficiently.  That seemed to inspire rebellion and revolution against repressive governments across the region.  But rather than freedom and democratic government, the result was a power vacuum where competing ideologies and religious sects fought to impose their will on the rest of the population.

Arguably, the principal glue that held Iraq together was the rigid and sometimes cruel control imposed by the dictator that we had deposed. The nation fell into anarchy and chaos, an ideal environment for extremists to spawn ISIS and other terrorist groups.  A multitude of Iraqi religious and political groups fought for power.  No one succeeded in uniting the people.

Inspired at least in part by events in Iraq, a spirit of revolution spread.  The governments of Libya and Egypt fell.  Syria is in a protracted civil war with Russia propping up the dictator while the US insists that he give up power.  It seems unlikely that either of those outcomes would result in a free and stable nation.

Revolutions across the Middle East and North Africa have produced a horrendous refugee crisis.  Individuals and families have fled nations where they fear becoming victims of violence, starvation, abuse and disease.  Anarchy – the collapse of government – has allowed the most despicable aspects of human nature and behavior to thrive.  Children have been taught to decapitate others for practicing a different version of religion while other innocents are sold as sex slaves.

The refugee crisis spread to Turkey, then across the sea to Cyprus, Greece and into Europe.  That has created instability in the European Union.  Some nations, led by Germany, have welcomed refugees and tried to create opportunities for them.  Hungary, Poland and others strongly disagree and want to reject refugees.  The UK’s decision to secede from the EU was motivated in part by a desire for a strong national border and control over who crossed it. Back in the US, Americans elected a President who campaigned on the promise to ban Muslim immigration.  Just as in Europe, Americans are bitterly divided about whether to admit refugees from the greatest human tragedy of our lifetimes.  Without our invasion of Iraq, would any of it have happened?

As citizens of a free and democratic nation, we Americans are individually and collectively responsible for the actions of our government.  “If you break it, you own it” should have clear and personal meaning for each of us.  The cascade of events across the Middle East and North Africa and the direct line to today’s conditions should have taught us how actions intended as controlled and limited wars can spiral out of control.  We can’t change the past, and it’s hard to see how more “help” from us will be well received.

We now have a President who seems fond of saber-rattling and doesn’t like constraints (including the prohibition of torture) so he is considering turning the American military role in Afghanistan over to private contractors (mercenary corporations).  Americans would pay the bills while corporations and foreign governments set the rules of engagement as they see fit – unleashed from the Geneva Convention and other moral standards that govern American armed forces.

If President Trump hires mercenaries, we Americans will be individually and collectively responsible for the actions of our hired guns.  There are two adages to remember.  “If we break it we will own it.” and “Forewarned is forearmed.”

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND READING:

NY Times report of trump Administration considering mercenaries for Afghanistan

Colin Powell on US Policy in the Middle East

Colin Powell on the Pottery Barn Rule in Syria

All Posts, Christianity, Congress, Constitution, islam, randolph county north carolina, religion

In which God do we trust?

2 Comments

Before 1954, our pledge of allegiance described America as, “…one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all…”  Then Congress added “…under God…”    Two years later, they adopted “In God we trust” as our national motto. Now a movement is under way to place that motto on public buildings and patrol cars.  Why?  And why now?

Congress was clearly motivated by a desire to distinguish us from the officially atheist and communist USSR.  Their trust didn’t extend to national defense.  They were simultaneously building an arsenal of nuclear weapons to assure that we could destroy the Soviet Union if they attacked us.  Although congress didn’t specify which god they trusted, it was a conservative Christian initiative.  The reason seemed to be that many Americans took comfort in the idea that God would protect a Christian nation.

Previously, the unofficial motto of the United States was “E pluribus unum” which translates as “One from many”.   It referred to one nation emerging from thirteen colonies which had diverse values, religious traditions and laws.  It has also been used to describe American national unity among people of various races, cultures, beliefs and religions.

Today’s environment seems similar to that of the 1950s.  Fear that Muslim and Latino immigrants will bring terrorism and crime is front and center in our political discussions.  A second, and perhaps more powerful concern is that many Americans see the US as a “Christian nation” and they fear that we are becoming something else. The Christian Action League which lobbies to have the motto placed on patrol cars and public buildings obviously thinks the motto refers to the god of evangelical Christians.  So do many of the local groups who get financial support from the In God We Trust Action Committee.  It has national and state organizations that encourage and pay for the signs and decals.10997332_1007764762586557_3133498777921262665_n

It seems appropriate to ask, “How is trust in god visible?  What does it mean on a public building?”  If the nation trusts a god, what is it that we are trusting that deity to do?  Regardless of belief (or non-belief) I’d bet that most of us will call for help from a skilled law enforcement officer in a crisis rather than waiting for one deity or another to fix the problem.

I went looking for answers in holy books of the world’s two largest religions.  The Christian Bible has a great many admonitions to trust God and live by his rules. Beyond that it is unclear what trust means.  The texts that I found are about living life with trust in God – fearlessly.  None suggested advertising trust on money, buildings or law enforcement chariots.

In the Quran I found similar messages.  Since few Americans are familiar with that book, here are a couple of examples, [3:159-160] “… GOD loves those who trust in Him.  If GOD supports you, none can defeat you.  And if He abandons you, who else can support you?” “[11:123] To GOD belongs the future of the heavens and the earth, and all matters are controlled by Him. You shall worship Him and trust in Him.”  As with the Christian Bible, trust seemed to be about living life with trust in God – fearlessly, not about public displays.

What then, is the motivation for public displays?

Until I hear a more convincing rationale for the signs and decals there are three possibilities that come to mind.

  • Perhaps proponents hope that signs or decals will convince their God to intervene in the world to protect them.
  • Perhaps they want to offend non-believers and those who worship a different version of God.  Maybe they think they can discourage other beliefs by posting their own on law enforcement vehicles and public buildings.  (That kind of thinking is exactly why we have a constitutional amendment prohibiting government preference for any religion.)
  • Another possibility is that the proponents lack sufficient trust in their own God so they seek validation and support in the form of government-approved signs.

Maybe there are other reasons that are best stated by those who have made decisions to put the motto on display.   I prefer “E pluribus unum”.  It describes the confidence of a nation that will be great in the future as it has been in the past rather than the fears of a nation whose faith is weak.

 

All Posts, American Foreign Policy, budget, deficit, Terrorism, war

WE NEED MORE UGLY AMERICANS

1 Comment

Who was “The Ugly American“?  Most of us know the phrase, but few are aware that the original Ugly American is the hero of the novel by the same name.  Published in 1958, the book described American diplomacy in the fictional Southeast Asian nation of Sarkhan.  Obvious similarities to actual events in nations where the US and the Soviet Union competed for influence (especially Vietnam) made the book a hot topic of discussion in the press and the congress.

The “Ugly American” was Homer Atkins, an American engineer who went to Sarkahn with a desire to help local citizens improve their own lives.  Doing hard, physical work in the fields to design and build simple devices like a bicycle-powered irrigation pump often left Atkins sweaty and dirty, and that “always reminded him that he was an ugly man”.  “Ugly” was a title that he applied to himself, not to others.

In 1958 the Soviet Union was spreading communist ideology into emerging nations around the world.  They portrayed the US as an empire-building colonial power enriching itself and capitalists by dominating smaller nations.  Our diplomatic corps was focused on influencing rulers (often dictators), business owners and military leaders.  The Soviets were interested in the general citizenry, especially any movements to depose rulers or to create wealth among peasant classes and divide them from rulers.  As far away as Vietnam and as close to home as Cuba, the Soviet approach was succeeding.

After reading “The Ugly American” a Senator from Massachusetts was so impressed that he bought a copy for every one of his Senate Colleagues and encouraged them to read it.  Less than two years later, that Senator became President John Kennedy.  Only six weeks into his presidency, Kennedy created the Peace Corps by executive order.  Its mission was to recruit highly qualified volunteers, educate them about local language, customs and issues, then send them to emerging nations as representatives of America.   Kennedy’s decision to create the Peace Corps was inspired by The Ugly American and based on his belief that talented young Americans working alongside local residents without compensation would be excellent ambassadors for our nation and our values.

Today, the Peace Corps remains active and successful, but it is woefully undersized to address needs and opportunities around the world. The Peace Corps budget for 2016 is $410 million.  For comparison, the Department of Defense spent $437 million on military bands in 2015.  The estimated cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars (including derivative costs such as benefits for veterans) for the years 2003-2014 is $5 trillion.  That is almost $52 million per hour.  Eight hours of these wars costs more than a full year of Peace Corps funding.

The Ugly American argued that, “…we spend billions on the wrong aid projects while overlooking the almost costless and far more helpful ones…”.  Today budget deficits are massive and our world seems increasingly dangerous. We should re-examine our spending, the results that we are getting, and our national values.  Despite great sacrifice, uncountable deaths and heroic effort, military intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan,  and throughout the Middle East has not produced peace, safety, prosperity or stable nations.  Instead we see civil war, poverty, terrorism and refugees that no nation wants to accept.  Americans and Europeans now fear home-grown terrorists who have been nurtured by brethren in the nations that we have invaded.

The three Middle Eastern nations with a history of Peace Corps involvement, Jordan, Morocco, and Tunisia have plenty of problems but seem more stable and less susceptible to anarchy and terrorism than their neighbors. We’ve supported a wealthy and radical dictatorship in Saudi Arabia that seems increasingly vulnerable to popular uprisings because oil revenues are down.  The most stable large nation in the region appears to be Iran – the only one that has avoided our efforts at military driven nation-building.

One can only wonder what the Middle East might be like today if we had consistently offered Peace Corps style nation-building that helps individuals and families improve their own lives based on their own values rather than regime change and military solutions.  People of the region might be more inclined to treat us well if we send “Ugly Americans” to help them build the kind of nation that they want rather than arming them to fight each other.  Under the circumstances, it seems like an idea worth trying.

All Posts, budget, guns, health

GUNS IN AMERICA – WHAT SHOULD WE DO?

My thinking would be described by many people as “liberal”; yet  I’m happy to have many friends who are very conservative. We’re friends, but when we talk about public policy we often preach our ideas without really listening to each other.

As I watched the CNN town hall meeting “Guns in America” I saw a remarkable opportunity squandered.  Anderson Cooper of CNN did a good job asking hard questions.  So did some of the invited guests.  President Obama responded clearly but he didn’t take time (or have time during the program) to really draw out opponents of his policies and understand their concerns.  He preached.  So did many of the questioners who were more concerned with getting their points across than with understanding the President’s thinking.  It did not appear that anyone learned something new or changed their minds in any way.

Watching that meeting prompted me to write this experimental column.  I hope to use it to listen rather than to be heard.  I’m inviting all who are interested in the debate about gun ownership to think it through and then clearly state what you want from our gun related laws.  I’ve designed a short survey that also allows comments in your own words.  You can access it HERE or  at the end of this column.  I will compile  responses and report them in a future post – one that I hope will enlighten us all about how others see this issue.

Here is some background information on the subject:  Our Constitution provides a right to keep and bear “arms”.  It doesn’t mention guns.  Our three major national laws governing arms were passed in 1934, 1968, and 1993.  The first law severely restricted private ownership of machine guns, sawed off shotguns and various kinds of guns that were designed to be disguised as canes or other devices.  It was passed in response to violent organized crime during the prohibition era.    The 1968 law prohibited gun possession by various kinds of criminals and other individuals thought to be dangerous.  It also regulated gun commerce and importing “Saturday night specials”.  The “background check” system that is operated by the FBI originated with the 1993 “Brady Bill”.  The combined laws also ban ownership of “destructive devices” like chemical weapons, grenades, and bombs.  The FBI has a good summary of current rules  on its website.

Current enforcement practices allow many  purchases at gun shows and from private individuals without background checks.  One of the President’s proposals is to require background checks on all purchases.  Under some circumstances, the law allows corporations and organizations to own otherwise banned weapons like machine guns.  That exception was intended  for purposes like corporate security at nuclear power plants but its use has expanded significantly.   President Obama has proposed re-examining that program.

The context of the current American debate about guns is important.  Gun related deaths have declined but our conversation about them is increasingly heated and emotional.  In 2013 there were 33,169 gun deaths in the US.  Suicides accounted for 21,175; homicides 11,208; accidents 505 and 281 unknown intent.  Gun homicides accounted for 67% of all American murders.  They peaked at over 18,000 in 1993, dropped rapidly until 1999 and have begun to gradually increase in the 21st century.  Most of the shooters are young – under age 25.

saved-Homoffendersbyage

In the US, we have about 3.5 gun homicides per 100,000 population each year.  The other nations closest to that rate are Nicaragua and Barbados.  There are a lot of nations that American tourists might consider dangerous who are doing much better than us:  Chile – 1.02, Greece and Kyrgyzstan – 0 .53, Azerbaijan – 0.27.  Our closest neighbors show an extreme contrast:  Mexico – 14.2 and Canada – 0.51.

These deaths are not confined to someone else’s neighborhood.  There have been shootings and deaths across our nation, ranging from terrorist attacks to invasions of public schools to drive by shootings.  We can accept it and take our chances or we can try to improve.

What do you think we should do?  Please take five minutes to complete the survey.  Perhaps we can have more intelligent conversations if we know each other’s opinions.

CLICK HERE TO COMPLETE THE SURVEY (PLEASE)

 

 

 

All Posts, justice, race, Terrorism

WILL ARMED OREGON PROTESTERS GET EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW?

6 Comments

Every statement but one the following story is true.

In order to cover up other illegal activities, two African-American men set fire to federal property.  The fire spread, eventually consuming over 100 acres of land and property.  They were tried in federal court (because the arson was on federal property) and sentenced to five years in prison.  The length of the sentence was  upheld on appeal.  In response a group of heavily armed black men have occupied a nearby federal government facility.  They have defied orders to leave and are demanding control of a zone where existing governments would have no authority so that they can be free.  One spokesman has said, “It doesn’t have to stop here. This could be a hope that spreads through the whole country, the whole United States. Everybody’s looking for this hope because the government has beat us, and oppressed us, and took everything from us; they will not stop until we tell them no.”

The one untrue statement is that the men are black.  In fact, they are all white; and the story is evolving as this is written.  The original crime was simply hunting deer in a wildlife refuge.  Then the hunters set fire to the land to cover up their crime and burned 139 acres.  Arson on federal land carries a mandatory minimum five year prison sentence.  That may sound extreme, but arson is a very dangerous crime, especially in the Northwest where so many  wildfires have spread out of control.  Certainly arson is more dangerous than some of the drug possession charges that have sent other young men to prison.

Protesters have occupied the Headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife refuge.  Click here to see the protesters describing their  plan to occupy the facilities and land for the long term and their appeal for others to arm themselves, come to the refuge and take the wildlife refuge for their private use.  That constitutes advocating the violent overthrow of our government and treason.

Up to this point in time, law enforcement officials are standing back and hoping for a peaceful resolution – perhaps a wise move, but not one that would have happened in Ferguson or Baltimore.  Imagine the law enforcement response if black men protesting in those cities had armed themselves with assault rifles and occupied a federal building then called for supporters across the country to arm themselves and join the protest.

What if heavily armed Cherokees took over the headquarters of the Smoky Mountains National Park and demanded that the federal government turn it over to them?  (The Cherokees actually had a Supreme Court Decision saying that the land IS theirs.)  Would law enforcement just back away?

This treason is led by the Oathkeepers, a well organized and well armed  national movement with an anti-government history.  They were the heavily armed, military-clad vigilantes who showed up to patrol the streets of Ferguson, Missouri when they felt the police were too easy on black protesters who violated laws.  Clearly the Oathkeepers think that the standard of justice for them is different from the standard of justice for others.

Militia movements of this kind have been involved in far more American  law enforcement deaths than Muslim terrorists and they are near the top of the FBI’s list of domestic terrorist organizations.  Will our laws be enforced, or has right wing anti-government treason become acceptable in America?  We will soon know the answer.

 

All Posts, Christianity, Congress, islam, justice, religion, Terrorism, war

WILL PEOPLE CONSENT TO BE GOVERNED?

3 Comments

Some Americans have begun to speak of the USA as a failing nation.  I don’t agree. Our internal divisions are nothing new; they have persisted throughout our history. We succeed because most of us remain committed to working out our differences for the common good. We are justifiably worried about anarchy and terrorism, but they too have always been present. From the British point of view, our Revolutionary War heroes were domestic terrorists.  From the point of view of many colonists, the war was a justified and necessary step toward freedom.  The principal difference between terrorism and a “just war” is which side you are on.

Anarchy and terrorism lost when colonists created a new government based on “the consent of the governed”.  Within it they argued, debated and compromised to create something that the great majority of them would support.  That kind of political struggle is at the core of “consent of the governed”.  Our constitution protects the rights of individuals over the wishes and whims of majorities but our government is strong enough to make laws for the public good. That balance makes consent of the governed possible.

Terrorism emerges when extremely angry people who don’t get what they want through politics decide to use violence instead. An early example was the whiskey rebellion of 1791. Congress levied a tax on distilled spirits to pay off war debts. Farmers who made whiskey from their surplus corn were so opposed to the tax that they banded together and killed tax collectors. President George Washington personally led an army of 13,000 to put down the rebellion and enforce the law.  Our civil war, the biggest threat the nation has faced, was organized by slaveholders because they knew they were losing their political struggle to preserve slavery.

Americans’ ever-changing attitudes bring debate, conflict and changed laws. There was violence (terrorism) in opposition to the constitutional amendment that allowed women to vote. Our electorate was once dominated by religious extremists who passed laws to ban birth control and racially segregate society. As attitudes and beliefs changed, those laws have been repealed or found unconstitutional. The same can be said of the Prohibition Amendment that banned alcoholic beverages. Examples of terrorists in those causes include organized criminal gangs (alcohol) and KKK (segregation). 20th century arguments over civil rights, union rights, abortion rights, and the Viet Nam War brought violence and uncountable deaths.  As the issues were addressed some very angry people resorted to violence.

We shouldn’t expect today’s challenges to be easier than those faced by prior generations. Terrorists continue to attack both freedom and the government that protects it.  A majority of us now see marriage equality as a right, and our Supreme Court has determined that it is protected by our Constitution. That change was preceded by decades of homophobic violence. In 1973, women gained the legal right to control their own bodies, including the right to make their own decisions about ending a pregnancy. “Lone wolf” terrorist Eric Rudolph bombed the Atlanta Olympics to protest abortion rights and government protection of homosexuals. Timothy McVeigh, a “Christian” white supremacist, bombed the Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City as revenge for government support of civil rights.

Today we still have angry people who think their needs are not being addressed.   That includes Americans who lack adequate education and skills. They face a bleak economic outlook; suffer from depression and die younger than previous generations. Many African-Americans think that new voting laws are designed to reduce their influence. Some religious conservatives say their nation has been stolen by a majority that won’t accept literal interpretation of scripture as a basis for laws. Readers can probably add to the list of reasons why people are angry. In Biloxi, Mississippi a restaurant customer was enraged when a waitress told him that smoking was not allowed.  He shot her dead on the spot.  She might be angry too if she could talk to us.

So much anger makes it difficult to listen, to understand, and to accept our differences.  It also feeds the desire to control others through laws or violence rather than nurturing the individual freedoms that we cherish. Our “culture war” will continue in legislatures, courtrooms, and in our streets. Yes, there is terrorism, but there is also hope.  I remain optimistic that we will listen, learn, acknowledge our differences; and then find sufficient agreement for future “consent of the governed”.  Then we can move on to argue about another set of issues.  It’s what Americans do.

 

All Posts, islam, religion, Terrorism, war

IS THIS A TIME FOR WAR?

2 Comments

What should we Americans do about ISIS and other radical Islamists – the ones who want a Caliphate; attack non-believers and violently enforce their religious beliefs on others?  They are as much a problem for most Muslims as they are for the rest of us.  In this dangerous time we should not see all Muslims as radical Islamists and  we must avoid poorly considered, emotional decisions that could make matters worse.

Our world’s mood is changing quickly since the brutal attack on civilians in Paris and the bombing of a Russian airliner.   Western nations are questioning whether to accept Middle Eastern refugees. Many citizens of nations that have been attacked want revenge and want to feel safe from future attacks.  But are revenge and safety are compatible?

Most Americans are in agreement on two goals.  First, protect our citizens and our nation from attack.  Second, encourage people of other countries to develop free and peaceful societies.  Our disagreements are about how to achieve those goals.

Every strategy has risks.  No one can know the best plan with certainty but we do have history as a guide.  It demonstrates that military action alone will not defeat  radical Islamists.  War against them has produced anarchy (civil disorder and the collapse of government).  Anarchy is fertile ground where they can spread their beliefs.  One important example is Afghanistan where a Soviet invasion in 1978 brought on total collapse of the Afghani government.  Over  100,000 Soviet troops, fully equipped with modern weapons, tried to impose a pro-USSR government.  After ten years they withdrew, having been defeated by the Mujahedeen and Taliban.  The anarchy they left behind allowed the radical Islamist Taliban to take charge.  Americans have been fighting the Taliban since 2003 and still have not defeated the ideology or created a stable government.

In Iraq, the American invasion and removal of Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship has produced a similar result.   The near collapse of Assad’s Syrian dictatorship created an opening for ISIS there.  Radical Sunni Islamism has morphed from Al-Qaida and Taliban to ISIS and it has spread among Muslims beyond the Middle East into Northern Africa, North America, and Europe.  There is no example where invasion and military occupation have produced good outcomes.  Why would we expect a different result if we invade again?

Critics of President Obama have persuaded many Americans that we have no strategy but he has clearly articulated one.  It is a long term plan focused on two goals:  (1) American safety and (2) development of free, peaceful societies.  Click here to hear the strategy.   It recognizes that ISIS brutalizes non-compliant Muslims even more than it does westerners.  It coordinates our military actions and our foreign policy to encourage Muslims to fight ISIS and replace anarchy with the rule of democratic civil law.  The strategy has had both successes and failures; and it is too early to know whether it can succeed.

Hatred of western civilization fuels ISIS and other radical Islamists.  Without it, they can’t recruit and they can’t convince other Muslims that the West is their enemy.  Today’s battle is against an ideology not a nation.  When we destroy a Muslim nation, even one as bad as Saddam’s Iraq or Assad’s Syria with a massive invasion, we feed radical ideology.  The critical question is whether the President’s strategy can effectively fight ISIS and encourage non-Islamist Muslims to do the same without creating more hatred of the west.

The financial cost of war in Afghanistan was a contributing factor to the collapse of the Soviet Union.  Americans are already saddled with a dangerously large national debt.  Since we have no will to raise taxes, it is all but certain that future warfare will be paid for with borrowed money – probably measured in trillions of dollars – as was the failed war in Iraq. When we calculate costs, we must also remember that any “boots on the ground” will belong to loyal Americans risking their lives to protect ours.

My conclusion is that  encouraging moderate Muslims and their governments to defend themselves from radical Islamism; providing them with military support and intelligence and maintaining our internal security at a high level is our best course of action.  That, in general is the President’s strategy.  I would stick to it until it succeeds or until someone comes up with a demonstrably better idea.  Another war is likely to be a disaster in both human and financial terms.

All Posts, Christianity, islam, justice, religion, Terrorism, war

Who is the stranger at my door?

There are times when it can be unpopular, expensive and even dangerous to practice ideals that we cherish and preach.  Those, to borrow a phrase from Thomas Paine, are the times that try men’s (and women’s)  souls.  Responding to millions of refugees from war, repression and poverty who seek survival and opportunity in western democracies will try the souls of Americans.

Before the 20th century, most national borders had little security and they were not major barriers to migration.  Sometimes borders themselves moved.  Californians and Texans lived in Mexico until  wars and treaties moved the borders, instantly making them Americans.  Other than Native Americans and involuntary-immigrant slaves, we are a nation descended from immigrants looking for freedom and opportunity

How will western nations respond to 21st century refugees fleeing from conditions arguably worse than those faced by the Europeans who settled colonial America?  Germany has committed to receive 800,000 mostly Syrian immigrants very quickly.  The great majority of them will be Muslims.  In a recent conversation, I asked a German acquaintance who lives in the US her thoughts about how Germans will respond.  I’ve paraphrased her answer as follows. I’m proud of my country and optimistic that most Germans will welcome refugees and help them assimilate.  But Germany has a significant right-wing population that Americans refer to as neo-Nazis and skinheads who don’t want non-whites or Muslims in Germany.  They will try to intimidate immigrants and some of their tactics may be violent.  Among 800,000 immigrants, there are sure to be a few bad actors, so some conflict is likely.  If even a few Muslim immigrants commit violence that looks like terrorism, it will  frighten many Germans. Public support won’t last long if that happens.    It seemed that she could have been describing America.  Her words and the refugee crisis raise a lot of questions.

  • Are borders that keep out refugees morally defensible?  The EU is confronted by hundreds of thousands of desperate refugees cutting fences and crawling under barbed wire with their children.  Should the EU admit refugees?  Watch them starve at the “wall”?  Shoot them?  The soul of the EU is on trial with such questions today.
  • President Obama has proposed a small increase in the number of refugees to be accepted and wants money budgeted for screening candidates.  Should Congress support that?  Should we do more?  Less?
  • By removing Saddam Hussein as dictator, we spawned civil war in Iraq and removed Iran’s regional competition.  We undermined Assad as dictator in Syria.  ISIS evolved and thrived in the power vacuum that we created in Iraq and Syria.  In this anarchy, there is no western-style democratic movement for us to support.  Do our past actions impose a moral obligation for America to assist the EU by accepting large numbers of refugees?
  • What would refugees from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and other Muslim nations be like as Americans?  Would they accept our freedoms of speech and belief or want to limit them?  Would most accept our limitations on the practice of religious traditions like forced marriage and polygamy? Would some isolate themselves; as a few extreme Christian and Mormon sects have done?
  • Will the 83% of Americans who profess to be Christians “love others” by welcoming Muslims or will they be divided?  What about the other 17%?
  • Should the US just get out of Muslim nations or is there something we can do or undo to turn around the anarchy and brutality that make ordinary families into refugees?

If we accept thousands of refugees, regardless of their race, religion, or national origin, we can expect that most of them will become law-abiding and constructive citizens.  Regardless of screening or religion, we can also expect that there will be a few criminals and radicals in the mix.  (Irish immigrants who self-identified as Christians became our terrorist “Irish Mafia”.  It can happen in any religion.)  Are we willing to accept a few who would behave badly in order to help thousands who have no home, no way to support themselves and no possessions beyond what they can carry?  Do their religion and national origin rule them out as immigrants, or are the refugees the ones Jesus described as “… the least of these my brethren…” to be loved and accepted just because they are human?

Answering such questions may indeed try the souls and consciences of Americans.  The time for decisions is upon us.

All Posts, Congress, islam, israel, Terrorism, war

WHY SUPPORT THE IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL?

1 Comment

Like most readers, I must rely on the judgments of experts as I make up my mind about the proposed agreement with Iran.  This column describes what I’ve learned and why the agreement deserves our support. Continue reading WHY SUPPORT THE IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL? →

All Posts, Congress, islam, israel, Terrorism, war

Will Obama’s Iran Strategy Succeed?

2 Comments

Since the end of WW I, American and European military powers have intervened in the Middle East by re-drawing national boundaries, overthrowing governments, supporting the establishment of Israel, and by fighting wars over oil, corporate profits, and terrorism.

Despite (or because of) the efforts of twelve American Presidents from Franklin Roosevelt to George Bush the region has religious civil war, two nuclear armed states (Pakistan and Israel), and multiple nations unable to govern themselves.  The anarchy has metastasized into northern Africa and southern Asia where residents of failed nations are easy prey for religious radicals and terrorists.

President Obama is trying something new and there is at least a glimmer of hope; but influential American and Israeli politicians are attacking the new strategies rather than helping them succeed.  The principles of the President’s strategy are understood and supported by our allies but American and Israeli right-wingers seem to see only military solutions. Continue reading Will Obama’s Iran Strategy Succeed? →