“Whenever a man does a thoroughly stupid thing, it is always from the noblest motive.” Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray
President Obama still is refusing to dip more than a toe in the water to defeat ISIS in Syria. Nevertheless, he wants the rest of the world to open its doors to the Syrian population as it flees the war-torn country.
Worse still, he is doubling down on his plan to bring tens of thousands of Syrians here to be resettled among our population, even though our intelligence chiefs have informed us there is no way to adequately screen out radical Muslim terrorists hell-bent on our destruction.
Compassion is one thing: Stupidity is quite another. In the wake of the Paris terrorist attacks, many countries are rethinking their plans to take in these Syrian migrants, since at least one of the attackers was among the recent arrivals and others were never successfully assimilated into the French population.
To date, the U.S. has contributed far more aid, about $2.9 billion, than any other country to help the people affected by this war — money that we have to borrow to provide. Must we put our entire population at risk to make up for the fact that, under this president, we have wimped out in the war against ISIS?
It’s bad enough that we haven’t secured our own borders. There is little doubt that terrorists have been among those arriving through Mexico. How many are there currently in the United States? We have no idea. Suffice it to say, it is enough to keep the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security busy 24-7.
It is little wonder that more than half the nation’s governors now object to having the Syrians relocated to their states, although they may be powerless to stop it. However, Congress can by refusing to allocate money for the relocation effort, as it did for the closing of Gitmo.
So how many Syrians have already been shipped to the U.S? Somewhere in the neighbor of 2,000, many without the knowledge of the governors of the states involved. Another 10,000 are slated to come here in the current fiscal year. However, this administration has indicated it may take in as many as 100,000 per year after that.
What about China and Russia, the two countries that pose the biggest threat to our security? How many of these Syrian migrants have they agreed to take in? Zilch, nada!
Japan, another rich country, also has refused to be shamed by the west into accepting any of these people. The country correctly stating that “fleeing conflict does not meet the definition of refugee” as codified by the refugee convention.
So what about the countries in the Middle East, the ones with the most at stake? How many of these refugees have they taken in?
Israel, by far the country most vulnerable to terrorists, wisely refused to resettle any of these people.
What about the oil-rich countries in the gulf? To date they have offered no resettlement places. Saudi Arabia has offered resettlement only to migrants who had families there. Some others have allowed Syrians already in their countries to extend their stays but that’s it.
Our friend, the United Arab Emirates, has admitted no Syrians but has done Obama a special favor and agreed to take five hardened terrorists released from Gitmo last weekend off our hands. That’s right! As incredible as it may seem, Obama just rewarded the Islamic jihadists who facilitated the Paris attacks by releasing five of their own.
The message: Attack a western country and the U.S. will go weak-kneed and release more prisoners.
The most alarming threat posed by these Syrian migrants is the number of young men of fighting age that are coming with this flood of immigrants, which begs the question: If these men are not for ISIS, they must be against it. Therefore, they have an interest, if not an obligation, to fight to regain their country.
If the U.S. and its western partners are serious about eliminating this threat, shouldn’t we be setting up camps in Europe and the Middle East to train and equip these men to lead a fighting force to invade Syria? And what about the women? Liberals are all for putting other women in combat, so why not train Syrian women too?
Is this about compassion, changing the culture of our country or unloading another group of welfare-dependent immigrants on the United States? It should be about destroying ISIS and taking in large groups of un-vetted, fighting-age Syrian refuges with not lead to that end.