I like CATO and have a lot of respect for much of what they do, but there are issues where they are at odds with Objectivists. They are short of a moral code that makes them safe from altruism with its call for sacrifice. This is a very long post... feel free to jump to end where I put a bit of summary.
------------ ... addressing the root causes of either the Syrian conflict or the rise of ISIS is beyond the scope of what the United States and its allies can reasonably do.
That's kind of condescending. This probably comes from the belief that poverty (or global climate change) are part of the root causes of terrorism. CATO sometimes shows that elements of progressive belief-system sometimes sneak in as the foundation for a 'libertarian' political policy statements. Reasonable people understand that radical Islamic terrorism is an ideology and THAT is the root cause of the part of the Syrian mess that effects our national security, and we MUST understand it to make ourself safe from it.
------------ Calls on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to negotiate with rebel fighters have proven wholly ineffective to date, while greater military involvement in Syria is neither wise nor justified on U.S. national-security grounds.
Negotiating with al-Assad isn't needed. The author of this article doesn't think we have a national security issue, so they dismis military involvement. Until there is an understanding and agreement on America's national interests regarding security from threats of major, on-going terrorism (which would be the goal - to be free of these threats), then it is premature to discuss the means.
------------- a new strategy—one both morally superior to the current do-little approach and practically superior to additional military intervention. In short, the United States and its European allies should plan to take in all refugees fleeing violence in Syria, with the help of other willing nations around the world.
I think that this is nonsense built upon the altruistic goal of sacrificing to help others along with a degree of delusional thinking about the existence of real threats from all forms of immigration that is likely to bring jihadists into the country.
-------------- Proposals by American hawks such as Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain to use U.S. ground troops to confront ISIS or remove Assad from power are clearly misguided. After all, the United States simply does not have enough of a national-security interest in either goal.
This is a straw-man argument. Our "goal" should't be to confront ISIS with U.S. ground troups or to remove Assad from power. Our goal is to remove the threat of Islamic terror directed at the United States, and we can do that without dealing with Assad and without large numbers of U.S. ground troups. What I don't see in this article is a solution to the problem that Islamic terrorists will one day launch a successful biological, chemical or nuclear attack that will kill Americans in the hundreds of thousands.
--------------- Russia’s new military campaign in Syria now makes U.S. intervention far more complicated and hazardous—by adding heightened U.S.-Russian hostilities to the list of potential consequences.
Yes, this is true. It is now more complicated. But a strong, sensible America leader would be able to put together a real alliance - one with real commitments by NATO countries, and by some of Arab nations as well. It would be the alliances that would call for the creation of a buffer zone between Turkey and Damascus where the Syrians could resettle (on the condition that adopt a neutral position regarding the Syrian civil war. It would grant Russia the alliance's sanction of their role in protecting their interests in Syria. The no-fly zone would be solely to make the Syrian resettlement area safe from arial attack. Syrians would stay in Syria. It would be in the interest of all nations (Jordan, U.S., Turkey, Germany, etc.) to not have to take in these refugees. In this protected area, they wouldn't live forever on welfare, or in tents, but would start their own productive communities - building lives and a future.
---------------- And finally, escalating the U.S. military campaign is unlikely to make things better. Though it would probably, in the short run, alter the balance of which groups suffer the most casualties, the central lesson from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is that even an extended U.S. military presence cannot promise an end to conflict.
It is true that you can't stop an ideological war with guns alone. But that doesn't change the fact that military is needed for already radicalized jihadists that exist in large numbers in a given area (such as ISIS).
------------------ Though U.S. military action can topple governments, destroy buildings, and kill people, it cannot defeat ideas or prevent the spread of extremism and the mobilization of extremist groups.
That's true. We need a 'war' on radical Islamic ideology. But that takes generations and in the meantime we need to use force to defend ourselves against those who are not going to decide to be peaceful. The fact the military alone won't do the trick is NOT a sound argument to say it should be not be exercised.
------------------- Even if such an effort were practical, partial solutions like this are likely to lock civilians into refugee camps to the detriment of both the refugees and the United States. In such camps, refugees often suffer serious health risks, predation from their neighbors, economic difficulties stemming from prolonged unemployment, and mental-health strain related to all of the above. Moreover, many refugee camps have also become sources of radicalization and political violence. In short, such camps produce terrible results.
This is true because of the concept of bringing in people in large numbers over short periods of time: They don't assimilate. Also, refugees are supported by governments. Fed, housed, and given medical care. They arrive and rapidly become dependent - and often stay that way. We, with a large, and strong group of allies, should carve out a sizable section of Syria and make it (in effect) a new country for the refugees. We only contribute help in the form of helping them starting to take care of themselves and becoming independent as individuals and protected from air strikes as an area.
--------------------- An open-door policy would finally provide concrete benefits to these people, and represent a morally superior alternative to forcing refugees to remain in dangerous camps or sending them back to deadly conflict zones.
Moral by what standard? Is it our moral standard that if providing a concrete benefit to someone in another country can be envisioned, then we are morally obligated to provide it? Do we need to feed, house and care for every person in every country whose standard of living is miserably low? Nonsense.
--------------------- The cost numbers are silly. The $15,700 per year per refugee for 4 years is nonsense. The costs of an attempted vetting would use up all or more of that budget by itself. Survellance costs for just one person out every 2 or 3 hundred would use up tens of thousands of law enforcement hours. The article is using "resettlement" as a descriptor that doesn't include the costs of support since all refugees draw on welfare in the beginning and large numbers remain on welfare. The added costs involve education, health-care and other tax-payer funded costs. --------------------- In summary, I tried to knock down all of the specific arguments, but I'd sum it up by saying this: 1.) While people differ on the nature and the threat of on-going radical Islamic jihadism, it is foolish to discuss solutions with them. 2.) It's only under Altruism's acceptance of sacrifice that generates this concept that we are morally obligated to take in refugees, 3.) Pay attention to the fact that the U.S. government's function is to provide adequate security against terrorism, and 4.) Recognize that focusing on the military the way the article did is a straw-man argument. There are other options.
| 
