Holman wrote:Anonymous Bosch wrote:
It's their country. Uncomfortable as it may seem, the fact is, we're going to need someone to inhabit said hell hole. If not ISIS, Assad and his adherents, or Syrian refugees, then who?
Really? This is something
we need?
In terms of US foreign policy and interests? Absolutely. Call it
realpolitik if it makes you feel less squeamish. But there's a growing impetus for the US to do something about ISIS and the festering fustercluck in what was formerly Syria and Iraq. Perhaps that means sticking with containment, continued bombardment of ISIS, and encouraging the Russians to take the lead. Perhaps it'll mean a full partnership with Russia to destroy ISIS, and bolstering the governments in those countries to keep the jihadis from returning. Or perhaps America takes the lead, coordinates with trusted allies to intensify airstrikes in preparation for a NATO ground invasion of both Syria and Iraq, and fights an all-out war with ISIS to destroy it entirely. In
all of those scenarios, ISIS, Assad and his adherents, and Syrian refugees, will be crucial to their success or failure, and how favourably they play out for US interests. So let's not pretend otherwise.
Holman wrote:More than they need to escape religious violence, secular violence, random violence, and an economy that is no more?
I don't recall any particular quantification of need. But it's irrelevant, anyway; it's not as if the relocation of 0.25% of the Syrian refugee population to American soil is likely to solve the underlying problems and misery. While that may be great for the select lucky few, what about the plight of the other 99.75% of Syrian refugees, also hoping to escape religious violence, secular violence, random violence, and an economy that is no more?