Last week’s terrorist attacks in Paris have triggered a storm of criticism directed at the Obama administration’s plan (announced in September) to settle 10,000 Syrian refugees in the United States. Most Republican candidates for the presidency have assailed the plan, 26 U.S. governors have declared that their states will not accept Syrian refugees, and the Congress’ Republican leadership is moving forward with legislation to make rules regarding the admission of refugees more stringent.
Part of this reaction is in response to reports that one of the Parisian bombers entered Europe by posing as a refugee. Part no doubt reflects a more general – and understandable – concern about possible attacks in the United States. Some of the uproar is surely driven by the usual partisan considerations. The 2016 elections, after all, are less than a year away.
Lost in the furor is the fact that President Barack Obama’s proposed number of admissions – 10,000 – is miniscule. Indeed, given the scope of the refugee crisis engendered by Syria’s civil war, it is not much more than a rounding error. Perhaps four million Syrians have fled their homeland. Most have found temporary refuge in surrounding states (such as Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan), placing immense political and economic strain on their host countries. Syrians have also contributed to a huge influx of Middle Eastern and North African refugees in Europe. About 180,000 Syrians have sought asylum in EU countries this year. While the United States has been generous in its financial support for refugee relief, the Obama administration has been very conservative in accepting Syrian refugees. The cumulative total as of this September was less than 2,000. Indeed, the administration was essentially shamed into making the 10,000 commitment.
Moreover, it is not as though the United States is actually rushing to accept even these small numbers. Processing time – including security checks – takes between 18 months and two years. Unlike the EU, we do not have hundreds of thousands of refugees turning up at our borders. We enjoy the luxury of distance.
Perhaps most worrisome about the debate about Syrian refugees is its context. In the wake of the Paris attacks, the debate is occurring against a backdrop of re-intensified calls for Obama to define “radical Islam” as the enemy and revived talk of a conflict of civilizations. There is much critical scholarly work to be done, to be sure, on defining precisely what we mean by radical Islam. Are we talking about individual belief or communal practice? A political agenda? An approach to democratic politics? An attitude towards Western – and specifically U.S. – strategic involvement and cultural presence in the Muslim world? To what extent is “radical Islam,” however defined, ideological in nature? Or is it instrumentally used to advance other goals? Or (as I suspect is the case) both? Even more urgently, we need to continue efforts to identify the reasons young Muslims, in the Middle East and elsewhere, join groups dedicated to violent action.
In our public rhetoric, however, we should be extremely circumspect in conflating Islam – even by implication – with terrorism. President Obama has been very careful to do so. So was, to his credit, President George W. Bush before him. The reason: such language unnecessarily alienates Muslims around the world who might otherwise be allies in our struggle to neutralize ISIS, Al-Qaeda and similar groups. This is not political correctness. This is simple common sense. In a fight, you need all the friends you can get. Any effort that casts our struggle against ISIS as a civilizational war between the West and Islam plays directly into the hands of our opponents. And so will overheated rhetoric about the threat posed by small numbers of Muslim refugees.
Does such a threat exist? While the modest U.S. refugee program does not offer the possibilities created by the tidal wave of refugees in Europe, it is theoretically possible that ISIS or other groups might attempt to infiltrate operatives into the United States. No program to screen refugees is going to be 100 percent effective. But no effort to screen other travelers — tourists, business persons or students — to the United States is going to be 100 percent effective, either. Unless we are prepared to seal ourselves off from the world, there will always be the risk — however small — that a terrorist will be able to enter the United States. Perhaps we can do more to minimize that risk. But we are not going to eradicate it. And we will be still left with the uneasy task of balancing the advantages of welcoming foreigners, whether for commercial or humanitarian reasons, against the chance that they might want to do us harm.
Interestingly, France – scene of last week’s terrorist attacks – has reaffirmed its commitment to take in an additional 30,000 Syrian refugees. Meanwhile, our panic continues.
Joe Barnes is the Bonner Means Baker Fellow at the Baker Institute. He previously served as a career diplomat with the U.S. State Department, serving in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and South Asia.