War Preferable to Immigration Controls

Robert Tracinski has some ideas about how to deal with Syria:

If Syria seems too far away, too brutal, too primitive, too wrapped up in its own internal strife between equally unappealing factions—well, that’s exactly what I thought about another conflict a few years back. It was the mid-1990s, and the conflict was in Afghanistan. And that part about how this was irrelevant to American interests? That didn’t end well.

It turned out that the chaos in Afghanistan was not so remote as to be none of our business, because it provided a breeding ground, safe haven, and international recruiting program for terrorists who wanted to attack the United States. We found that out on September 11. Well, actually, we found it out before then, when al-Qaeda staged big attacks on US citizens and assets in East Africa and Yemen. But it took September 11 to make the threat undeniable.

So here we are, sixteen years later, sitting back and watching the Islamists recreate exactly the same conditions. There is a zone of constant warfare and chaos that allows terrorists to establish themselves. There is a new safe haven where a brutal terrorist group seizes state power, or quasi-state power, and puts themselves forward as a champion of Islam and a model of successful jihad. They call on supporters from around the world to rally to their banner, and then they support or incite terrorist attacks back home in the West—in Paris, in Brussels, in Sydney, in San Bernardino and Orlando.

I’m just a dumb engineer, but wouldn’t stopping terrorists trained in Syria from carrying out attacks in the United States involve limiting the ability to travel from Syria to the US and enhancing the screening of those that do? In other words, doing that very thing that Trump tried to do and was struck down by regional courts citing the effects it would have on tourism?

I’ll believe the US and European nations are taking the threat of Islamic terrorism being imported into their countries seriously when they put far greater controls on who comes in and what they do once they are there. But Tracinski has a better plan:

For example, when it comes to pushing the Russians out of Syria now that they’re ensconced there, there’s a straightforward model for that: Afghanistan. Of course we shouldn’t challenge the Russkis directly, because that would risk escalation into a great power war. But we can give very substantial covert support to select groups of rebels—far more than the half-hearted, going-through-the-motions efforts so far—and make Syria a quagmire the Russians can’t sustain. Russia is a shrunken shadow of the Soviet Union and in far less of a position to maintain a serious effort in Syria over the long term.

What could possibly go wrong?

All of this to avoid having to admit that the immigration policies of the United States and Europe have failed and are endangering its citizens.

Share

15 thoughts on “War Preferable to Immigration Controls

  1. Lol. We don’t want Syria to turn into the next Afghanistan, so let’s do the exact things that turned Afghanistan into Afghanistan! What a plonker

  2. Anyone betting that Swedens immigrationn controls are at the heart of this afternoons problem?

  3. “watching the Islamists recreate exactly the same conditions”: ah, but which Islamists? The ones supported by the CIA, the ones supported by the State Department, or the ones supported by the Pentagon?

    And which of them ran the false flag operation (if that’s what it was) that brought the cruise missiles a-flying? Wheels within wheels, that’s Syria.

  4. Tracinski was a foaming at the mouth never-Trump at The Federalist. He is a supreme example of the neocon supporting cuck journalists who sold out the conservative side years ago. He has to hold to that position now as it is all that he has. As a result he makes no sense at all. He is useful as so far as to identify what the supporters of John McCain consider strategic planning.

  5. Hats off the the American military on one thing though. They got that “mission” planned and organised remarkably swiftly after the putative cause occurred. Remarkably.

  6. @dearieme – probably because Trumper didn’t feel the need to plot each target himself

  7. When I first heard about the vehicular jihad in Stockholm I had a bet that it wouldn’t be long before the ‘not all Muslims…’ and ‘we must not let this stop us taking in refugees..’ Tweets would start to trickle out. I bet it’d be before the bodies were removed.

    Not even close. It was before the blood on the streets had cooled to ambient temperature.

  8. Let me try to understand this for a moment;

    1. The democratically-elected president tries to implement a temporary immigration ban on unvetted immigrants from countries known to harbour terrorists? Activist judges overturn it.
    2. The same president tries to overturn failing healthcare legislation to follow up an election promise? Blocked by the House.
    3. The president decides not to follow the constitution and declares war without the permission of Congress? 50+ cruise missiles launched within 24 hours and both the Democrats and Republicans cheer.

    We have a fucking big problem, don’t we?

  9. This doesn’t make sense to me. Yes, Afghanistan turned into a bloody trap for the Soviets but – the (inevitable?) flip side – it also became a breeding ground for international terrorists. Now Tracinski is suggesting the same solution for Syria.

    Besides, Syria is already a “quagmire the Russians can’t sustain.” Not for long, anyway.

  10. Of course we shouldn’t challenge the Russkis directly, because that would risk escalation into a great power war. But we can give very substantial covert support to select groups of rebels—far more than the half-hearted, going-through-the-motions efforts so far—and make Syria a quagmire the Russians can’t sustain

    Yes, if we want to needlessly slaughter a large number of Russian sons and fathers. Never mind risking direct war.

    Funnily enough, I’d rather we didn’t.

  11. Yes, if we want to needlessly slaughter a large number of Russian sons and fathers. Never mind risking direct war.

    Exactly. I’m no fan of the Russian government, but I do have a lot of time for the Russian people as individuals as I find them. If we’re going to talk about Afghanistan, we should at least acknowledge that those who bore the brunt of the Soviet failures were young conscripts who had no chance, we brutalised by their own comrades and the system that put them there, and whose families were lied to as a matter of policy. I doubt things would be much different this time around.

  12. I’m not sure if it’s a uniquely western thing, but I think WW2 has created a mindset in much of the west of all wars being about “goodies” and “baddies” and all “baddies” as being Hitler. Terms get thrown around like “genocide” with abandon. But wars like WW2 are, I think, an aberation along with the Napoleonic wars and the Falklands.

    The reality of most of the Middle East is that it’s more like LA gang violence. You can’t look at the Crips and the Bloods and think either is the better party. If one gets shot by the other, that’s not an act of murder, it’s an act of victory.

    Iraq has pretty much defeated ISIS, but really, that’s about Hezbollah getting involved. So, Hezbollah are now the Iraqi army. So, Hezbollah will start doing what they did in Lebanon and making demands of the government. They’re the good guys? Hezbollah?

Comments are closed.