Obama's Mistaken and Incromprehensible ISIS Strategy

[Steve R.]

At a news conference today Obama offered two themes that appear superficially reputable on the surface.

• That the West accept refugees from the Middle East.
• That the solution to defeating ISIS resides with the local residents and local nations.

Each of these advocations are true when viewed individually. However, when taken together it is counter intuitive.

Each refugee that the West accepts will leave a radical Islamist behind. Given that trend, it will be the radical Islamist who will eventually constitute the local residents. Instead of the local residents contributing to the defeat of ISIS, the remaining local residents will be establishing and supporting a radical Islamic state.

Moreover, the local nations, have been reluctant to undertake substantive contributions to fighting ISIS. Again, the diaspora of refugees means that an ISIS state is emerging as its own nation state. Should the local nations finally decide to become more proactive, they may find it much more difficult to defeat ISIS.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Last night CNN reported this administration will be accepting 10,000 by years end. 65,000 total according to secretary of state John Kerry. How will they vet people who have no known documentation?

 

[Alc]

At a news conference today Obama offered two themes that appear superficially reputable on the surface.

• That the West accept refugees from the Middle East.
• That the solution to defeating ISIS resides with the local residents and local nations.

Each of these advocations are true when viewed individually. However, when taken together it is counter intuitive.

Each refugee that the West accepts will leave a radical Islamist behind. Given that trend, it will be the radical Islamist who will eventually constitute the local residents. Instead of the local residents contributing to the defeat of ISIS, the remaining local residents will be establishing and supporting a radical Islamic state.

Moreover, the local nations, have been reluctant to undertake substantive contributions to fighting ISIS. Again, the diaspora of refugees means that an ISIS state is emerging as its own nation state. Should the local nations finally decide to become more proactive, they may find it much more difficult to defeat ISIS.

Some fair points, but the fourth paragraph has a touch of the Glenn Beck about it. One can't just assume that a trend will continue ad infinitum.

Firstly, not every person who wants to leave will be able to do so. No-one, as far as I've heard, has suggested allowing unlimited immigration into the US or any of the many other countries currently accepting refugees. At some point people will be forced to stay against their will.

Secondly, just because someone stays it doesn't mean that they support the current regime . Do you support everything Obama says? Clearly not, but you still choose to live in the country in which he's in charge.

Thirdly, the victims of ISIS can't win here, can they? If they leave, they're quitters who should have fought back and retaken control. If they stay, they're supporters of ISIS.

Fourthly, "Each refugee that the West accepts will leave a radical Islamist behind" assumes equal numbers of radical Islamists and other people. To use an analogy, if a maniac starts firing a gun in a crowded movie theatre, each person who runs for cover is not leaving behind one insane counterpart. He/she is leaving behind the decidedly dangerous individual - a marked minority - who is trying to kill them. The "good" people may outnumber the "bad" 100-1, meaning that even if 98% of them left, the number of people against the violence would still be double the number in favor of it.

Finally, lets say that somehow all of what you describe comes to pass and we can say without any doubt that all non-ISIS supporters have left the area and everyone still therein is 100% a fundamentalist, dead set on wiping out the West and our evil ways, surely that's a good thing? For the first time in history, it would be possible for the US, the UK, or anyone else to bomb any enemy out of existence without any fear of innocent civilian casualties.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The problem is, as always, that people in any conflicted region (such as but not limited to the ISIS-affected nations) MUST decide that their country is worth fighting for. If it is not, then the only remaining choices are oppression, death, or departure.

The "refugee" part of Obama's strategy allows people to "vote with their feet" because they don't have the resources to stand up to what is an essentially barbaric regime for which human rights have no meaning. Eventually, the ISIS state will either die from internal attrition or will tick off one of their neighbors bad enough to start a war of extinction. The problem, as always, with a war of extinction is that if the incoming forces are from a really distant land (like the U.S.A.), the folks in the neighboring countries will wonder when THEY would be targeted. But if the attacking forces are local, then the neighbors see it in a different light.

In the final analysis, your choices will always be whether you value your life or your homeland more. Now, with no disrespect to the people of the ISIS-affected areas... what is there about a poverty-stricken, low-technology region with limited health and educational resources to actually want to preserve? Particularly since ISIS, being extremely violently against educating females, makes it hard for families seeking to improve their lot in life. Despite what Sharia law actually says, the ISIS interpretation of Sharia seems to be highly exclusionary.

So... why would the refugees WANT to stay in an area where families are doomed to yet another generation of ignorance because of the dim view ISIS takes on schooling? Why would they fight?

Obama, as a lame duck president, cannot do any more than suggest a third strategy, but it is implied in the refugee strategy. Just let ISIS have a region with no infrastructure and no work force to be oppressed. They will eventually try to expand into an area where they won't be allowed to win because it is worth someone else's while to stop them. But for now... things have to develop a bit more.

 

[Steve R.]

@Alc: Fair comments, as my comments were quite general. I didn't want to write a book covering all aspects.

What I will add, as my own counter nit-pick, is that some of the refugees will turn-out to be terrorists who will commit terrorist acts in the West. We have already begun to see, in the West, the rise of unrestrained police powers to combat terrorism. The wholesale acceptance of refugees (some of whom may be terrorists) without proper vetting may continue the slide of the West towards becoming various police states.

As another counter nit-pick, which I missed, the refugees are not standing up to defend their country:

The problem is, as always, that people in any conflicted region (such as but not limited to the ISIS-affected nations) MUST decide that their country is worth fighting for. If it is not, then the only remaining choices are oppression, death, or departure.

Based on Obama's avowed strategy of avoiding US military involvement and enabling local participation in fighting ISIS; the Obama administration should supply each able bodied adult male and female refugee with a gun and send them back to fight ISIS.

PS: It is my understanding based on what I have read that France has already "lost" national control of certain urban areas to the Muslims. How true it is, I do not know, as I have not witnessed it.

 

[Alc]

PS: It is my understanding based on what I have read that France has already "lost" national control of certain urban areas to the Muslims. How true it is, I do not know, as I have not witnessed it.

This bit isn't true. the same thing was said for Belgium, areas of the UK and - I have no doubt - other European countries. One of the news channels even got an "expert" on to say how why it happened. It was pure nonsense and scaremongering, in an attempt to boost ratings.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Much like "Obama is a Muslim", "ISIS has taken over control of Western cities and no one can stop them" is an absolutely false bit of political conspiracy theory that JUST WON'T DIE.

 

[MarkK]

Power seeks more power. To consolidate power, groups characterize opposing groups as threats, and all evidence to support this narrative is amplified by the flag-waving home-team cheering subjects. Ra-ra-ra.

The people always lose in this exchange, and the rulers always win. Our rulers will leverage these events to consolidate their power, surveilling us, building weapons, and dropping bombs. And those same bombs that raised morale in London, Berlin, and Tokyo in the early 40's, will raise morale among our "enemies," making it easier for them to recruit. Perfect.

Their atrocity justifies our atrocity.

Terrorism is the war of the poor. War is the terrorism of the rich.
- Peter Ustinov

 

[Alc]

Much like "Obama is a Muslim", "ISIS has taken over control of Western cities and no one can stop them" is an absolutely false bit of political conspiracy theory that JUST WON'T DIE.

I definitely remember it being said about "ordinary" Muslims long before ISIS made the headlines. When I was growing up, it was nonsense about black people taking over certain areas of the UK, then Pakistanis. They may have said the same thing about those coming to the UK from Eastern Europe, but I'd emigrated by that point.

It's a sad fact of life that people will always find a way to manipulate the scared and/or stupid with this stuff.
Note: NOT the last sentence was not directed at SteveR, I realize he was just passing on what he'd heard and that he said as much.

 

[Alc]

What I will add, as my own counter nit-pick, is that some of the refugees will turn-out to be terrorists who will commit terrorist acts in the West. We have already begun to see, in the West, the rise of unrestrained police powers to combat terrorism. The wholesale acceptance of refugees (some of whom may be terrorists) without proper vetting may continue the slide of the West towards becoming various police states.

(red font is my own)
I'm guessing you have a background in preparing press statements for politicians (joke). This paragraph started out stating facts - thereby ensuring that what gets into the reader's mind first is that the statement is true - then repeated the facts as possibilities, by which time it just acts as reinforcement of the idea.

This point is a nice safe one to make, as it can only ever be proved right. If even one of the refugees does turn out to be dangerous, the idea stands. If they don't? Well, it's only a matter of time. There is no possible way to vet everyone entering a country under ANY status. Nor is there an fully effective way to vet people born and raised in a country. If there were, violent crime of any type would be a thing of the past.

I haven't seen any statistics and don't have time to search at the moment, but I'd be interested to see what proportion of worldwide terrorist attacks in the last 20 years were:
a) Carried out by natives of the victim country
b) Carried out by people there under student/work/other visas
c) Carried out by people there illegally
c) Carried out be refugees
If I see any genuine evidence that refugees are, statistically, more dangerous than the other three groups then I will certainly revise my opinion.

 

[Frothingslosh]

I was just reading a news article - which I can't find now, of course - that said that of the 750,000 refugees accepted into the US since 9/11, precisely zero have turned out to be terrorists. Of all the terrorist attacks in the US over the last fifteen years - whether they were officially called terrorism or not - very, very few have been perpetrated by anyone other than a conservative white male US citizen. The 2010 car bomb incident was by a Muslim, yes, but he came from a wealthy family, moved here openly in 1997, and in fact was a US citizen when he attempted to blow up that car and everyone around it. It's also interesting to note that he stated that his reason for trying to kill so many innocent people was because that US drone strikes were already killing women and children with impunity.

Native-born folks, on the other hand, are an entirely different story. We can't go two weeks without someone, usually a young white male, shooting up a school.

 

[Alc]

I was just reading a news article - which I can't find now, of course - that said that of the 750,000 refugees accepted into the US since 9/11, precisely zero have turned out to be terrorists. Of all the terrorist attacks in the US over the last fifteen years - whether they were officially called terrorism or not - very, very few have been perpetrated by anyone other than a conservative white male US citizen. The 2010 car bomb incident was by a Muslim, yes, but he came from a wealthy family, moved here openly in 1997, and in fact was a US citizen when he attempted to blow up that care and everyone around it. It's also interesting to note that he stated that his reason for trying to kill so many innocent people was because that US drone strikes were already killing women and children with impunity.

Native-born folks, on the other hand, are an entirely different story. We can't go two weeks without someone, usually a young white male, shooting up a school.

It's sort of like the fear around shark attacks. The actual risk is waaaay lower than people's fear of it would suggest, but it's very difficult to shift the perspective once it's in your mind.

 

[Steve R.]

I was just reading a news article - which I can't find now, of course - that said that of the 750,000 refugees accepted into the US since 9/11, precisely zero have turned out to be terrorists.

Absolute statements such as that are risky to make. It takes only one case to disprove. Both of the Boston Marathon bombers received US asylum. But as you point-out (based on elapsed time and numbers) the probability of any refugee being a terrorist appears low. Nevertheless, ISIS and recent events in Europe point to a need to be vigilant.

 

[Alc]

Out of interest, does anyone know what ISIS' feelings are on admitting to being a Muslim? By that, I don't mean that al Muslims are in ISIS, I mean that if a member were in danger of being caught, do his beliefs mean that he is honour bound to admit to being a Muslim even if it blows the mission? Or could he openly insult Mohammed and claim to be a Jew or Christian, then later get forgiven?

 

[Rx_]

Here is a GAO (US Government Accounting Office) document used for budgeting purpose. Some immigrants (see numbers) are actual criminals. Some are involved in organized criminal activities. While the vast majority of immigrants are honest hard working people, it doesn't discount the reality of the dangerous ones are much more common than shark attacks or the other hyped examples.
http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdf
The detailed numbers indicates that most of the statements made on this thread are just emotional excuse for watching too much sensational TV commentary.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Absolute statements such as that are risky to make. It takes only one case to disprove. Both of the Boston Marathon bombers received US asylum. But as you point-out (based on elapsed time and numbers) the probability of any refugee being a terrorist appears low. Nevertheless, ISIS and recent events in Europe point to a need to be vigilant.

They sought political asylum in 2002 while here on vacation due to the Russian persecution of their ethnicity. That is a far cry from refugeeing out.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

Out of interest, does anyone know what ISIS' feelings are on admitting to being a Muslim? By that, I don't mean that al Muslims are in ISIS, I mean that if a member were in danger of being caught, do his beliefs mean that he is honour bound to admit to being a Muslim even if it blows the mission? Or could he openly insult Mohammed and claim to be a Jew or Christian, then later get forgiven?

I would think they would do and say anything - they do lots of things that mainstream muslims certainly wouldn't do, and justify it with twisted logic.

I don't know how admitting being a muslim is likely to blow his mission though?

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

They sought political asylum in 2002 while here on vacation due to the Russian persecution of their ethnicity. That is a far cry from refugeeing out.

Its not that different - they sought sanctuary from their homeland and turned on their hosts.

Though yes - as long as checks are made on those coming all good, they are after all mostly overwhelmingly refugees from these ISIS pathetic inadequates (I wont gratify them with horrific names), and we should absolutley help the refugees.
I would also have powers if certain serious crimes are committed by those who come - anyone can be returned back to whence they came. That's probably illegal in international law though.

 

[Alc]

I would think they would do and say anything - they do lots of things that mainstream muslims certainly wouldn't do, and justify it with twisted logic.

I don't know how admitting being a muslim is likely to blow his mission though?

As their behavior is based on religion, I wondered if their beliefs would allow them to do so. Would sinking to the levels of the heathens not invalidate the whole reason for what they're doing?

It wouldn't. Far from all Muslims are members of ISIS, but as far I've heard there aren't exactly a large number of ISIS members who are Jewish, Sikh, Church of England, etc. If someone was 100% not a Muslim, it would probably rule them out of suspicion in a lot of cases.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I read an interesting piece in yesterday's NY Times on the Web regarding how the problem with ISIS is merely one example of polarization caused by humanity's inability to be accepting of all. Some of us can be open-minded and can forgive people for being different, but the "huddled masses" that operate more by mob psychology than by individual rational behavior are the ones to fear. They turn to religion or become politically radicalized because they feel isolated. Joining a highly exclusionary group is their answer. It gives them a sense of belonging, though when that group later becomes violent, it isn't such a good thing.

I think it is sad but true: We have not yet outgrown that evolutionary relic, the saurian tendency of strict territoriality, the supremacy of me-and-mine over you-and-yours. It manifests itself in the ISIS outbreaks, but also in hyper-excited sports fans whose team just lost (or won, doesn't seem to matter). Religious zealots picketing funerals as a protest for allowing gay people to join the Army? Gimme a break! (But this is exactly what the looney-tunes of the Westboro Baptist Church do.)