Reacting to San Bernadino, The Good and the Bad

Last week something terrible happened here in the U.S.  Religious extremist violently attacked known unarmed people in San Bernadino, CA.  Note, I could have said Muslim extremists, because they were Muslim, but that is not my point here.  People had their living days on earth cut off, I will personally never understand why people die when they die--I am not God--but we can know how they died  In this case, they died at the hands of religious extremists who see the world as a cosmic war of good vs. evil where they represent the good and everything else is evil.  They died at the hands of intolerance, religious extremists are intolerant of all who do not accept their specific understanding of their specfic religion--hence Muslims extremists have killed as many Muslims as they have Atheists, Christians, Hindus, and Jews.  Also I must truthfully say they died as a result of semi-automatic gunfire. 

How should we react to such an event?  I was taught by my dear ole dad (D.o.D) to react with common sense rather than fear--do not let fear or common sense stop you from doing what you want to do he often told me, which was his way of saying "think about it, don't be stupid."  For my two cents, I have thought about it, and divide a few of the reactions into two categories, good and bad.

The good:

The U.S. House of Representatives is tightening restrictions on non-visa entry into the U.S.  Currently we allow citizens of a number of countries with valid passports to enter the U.S. without a Visa if they are staying less than 90 days.  The House passed a bill that would require a Visa for anyone who has traveled in a list of hot spots for extremist training and violence.  This action is great, a real actual security measure that can be taken.

Rand Paul's reaction to Donald Trump (see below): in an interview with Katie Couric, Rand Paul stated that having a religious test for immigration and entry into the U.S. is wrong, stricter scrutiny is good.  Paul did say (before some of you get angry) that it would be foolish not realize that there is a religious "aspect to the war" (his words).  Again, I feel it more important to realize it is an extremist religious aspect and not representative of the vast majority, just as Timothy McVeigh was an extremist whose actions were not representative of all Christians.

The bad:

Gun Grabber talk/ammo panick talk.  So the people used guns to shoot other people.  So they used "military style" guns to shoot other people.  So they possessed about 5000 rounds of ammo.  Guns are tools, I am going to use an old statement that will not assuage the gun grabbers, but one that still remains true, "Guns do not kill anyone, people kill people".  Tools can be used however we desire to use the tools, does taking away one tool mean that people cannot use other tools to complete their chosen task.  Honestly, how many of you rednecks out there have hammered with whatever heavy object or metal object, or shoe, happened to be handy?  How many of you have used a pocket knife as a screwdriver?  In 2011, according to FBI crime statistics, more people were killed by hammers and clubs than by rifles (don't know about all guns, but rifles seems relevant as the San Bernadino shooters were using rifles--but again don't let common sense stop you from thinking whatever you want to think--thanks D.o.D).

Donald Trump.  I could probably just stop with mentioning his name.  The demand to stop all Muslims from entering the country is XENOPHOBIA plain and simple.  Do not let fear run your life.  Resist the urge to make hasty reactions to bad things.  Sure, we all are alarmed that Muslim extremists just committed another act of terror in the U.S.  But, the answer is not to ban all Muslims from entering the country--since when do we punish the innocent for the acts of the guilty (ok, aside from the fact that the U.S. people pay for the acts of Congress and the President regularly, and back in the day the whole class got a swat from the paddle because a few people were talking).  Do we not still hold to the principle of justice that says all people are innocent until proven guilty?          

Boots or Sneakers on the Ground in Syria--Does it Change the Game?

The big news of the past few days is that the U.S. will be sending Special Forces troops (U.S. Army contingent in U.S. Special Operations Command) to Syria to work with rebels there who are anti-ISIS, anti-Al-Nusra, anti-Assad.  What does this activity represent? 

I do not believe it represents an intent to escalate U.S. activity in the area.  We will continue to provide air strikes, limited ammunition to some allies, some intelligence support and other logistic support.  I also do not believe that it represents a caving-in to the "we have to do something/we have to do more" crowd.  In fact, I am not really sure that this action has any immediate impact on Assad, Al-Nusra, or ISIS.

For my two cents, it is a means of sending a message to the Russians.  By embedding U.S. Special Forces with some anti-Assad rebels, we make it difficult for the Russians to continue air strikes and support for Syrian Government ground attacks.  While the Russians are willing to negotiate (as long as Assad remains in power (for now) and Iran is involved) they had not backed down from their activities which were designed to carve out a coastal zone of control for the Assad government.  Now the Russians have to slow down and determine if the "terrorists" they are attacking on behalf of the Syrian government are "good terrorists" or "bad terrorists".  After all, according to the Russians all Syrian rebels are terrorists and all terrorists are bad terrorists.  Laissez les bon temps rouler

Syrian Refugees (er, Excuse Me, Migrants)

I have been bothered in recent weeks by the issues surrounding Syrians fleeing fighting between the government, rebel groups (they are not a cohesive, singular rebel group and include Al-Qaeda linked organizations as well as others), and Daesh.  These Syrians are the good guys in the equation, threatened by the government because of their political views, threatened by the rebels because of their politics, religious actions, social class, ethnic group, and threatened by Daesh because Daesh pretty much threatens everyone around them.  In the last three days I have figured out exactly why I am bothered by this situation.  I am bothered because of the use of the word "migrant".  These people are not just migrants, migrants legal or illegal leave their home to go and get work or a better life in another country by choice and desire.  The Syrians fleeing Syria are doing so out of fear for their life, not fear of their livelihood.

For my two cents, these Syrians, fleeing from Al-Assad and Al-Nussra, and Daesh are refugees.  Refugees are accorded special consideration--don't believe me, read the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocols on the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.  Retired Admiral Stavridis called U.S. actions related to this issue a challenge of character.  I agree, these are refugees for political and religious reasons--the U.S. signed the Convention and Protocol--now we must act in accordance with the principles of character we espoused as a country or show the world we have no character.  I know what I hope we do.

Addition 2 hours Later:  Perusing Foreign Policy online and came across this item by Stephen Walt.  I was heartened to see that a realist in whom there is no guile (to borrow a phrase) also feels angst over the question of what to do and whether we did the right thing vis-a-vis Syria.

Syria

Since 2000 I have followed political conflict in Syria with some interest.  I first started looking at Syria as part of a set of case studies that were first written for my dissertation and in 2010 my case study of ethnic conflict in Syria was published here.  What is not being discussed in the information distribution networks (Retuers, AFP, AP, etc.) is the ethnic dimension of uprisings in Syria.  Syria is 74% Sunni, Shia and Alawi comprise about 13% of the population with the Alawi population being less than 10%.  Most people I meet have no clue about the Alawi population, so here is a little information about the Alawi:

The Alawis are an Islamic ethnic group in which religion is not the primary identity characteristic. Alawis means “those who adhere to the teachings of Ali.” Ali was the son-in-law of Muhammad, the founder of Islam. The Alawis differ with traditional Islam in their rejection of dietary restrictions, and social restrictions. Additionally, Alawis view politics as separate from religion and consider themselves to be secular Muslims. In Syria the Alawis are descendants of an ancient group that populated the area of the coastal plain. They still maintain many Christian (Byzantine) practices—including the celebration of Christmas, Easter and Epiphany. Most Sunnis consider the Alawis as more heretical than Jews. The Alawis are reported in the historical accounts of Alexander the Great’s incursion into the region and in the accounts of the Holy Wars. Physically they differ from other Syrians in that many are blond haired and blue-eyed. Alawites make up less than ten percent of the population but control the government and military.

The Alawis are an excellent example of an advantaged ethnic minority group. By their seizure of power in the Ba’ath party and of the Syrian government under the leadership of Hafez Al-Assad, the Alawis positioned themselves to control a country and to control a society. To maintain his control over Syria, Assad instituted martial law that was still in effect during the years in this study. The primary concern for this group is how to maintain their advantage in the society. This advantage rested in the ability of Assad to stay in power. Until his death in 2000, Assad managed to stay in power by arresting and imprisoning anyone suspected of disloyalty and then releasing prisoners at times when it was necessary to appease factions of the majority population.

Bashar Al-Assad, the son and successor of Hafez Al-Assad, inherited a situation that required constant repression and appeasement of the majority in order to maintain power and control.  Appeasements since 2000 include the Syrian support for Iranian ambitions in the region, and support for Hezbollah (Assad has no real love for Radical Islamic Fundamentalism which views his own people as heretical in their religious and social practices).  Repression and appeasement are at opposite ends of the arc of the pendulum, when appeasement fails, the government swings back--usually too far--to repression, often operationalized at a high level of violence (anybody remember Hama (1982) with 20,000 dead when Hafez Al-Assad went after the Muslim Brotherhood and its primary location of popular support?). 

So, I am not surprised at the reports of government crackdowns on protestors.  The appeasement was offered--less restrictions on public activity.  The stick will be used--crackdown on anti-government protestors.  Who will win?