2007 February 17 Saturday
Why Let Iraqis Settle In US While Sending US Troops To Iraq?

Reacting to the news that Bush wants to scale up immigration from Iraq to get out people who collaborate with the US in Iraq Lawrence Auster sees a direct connection forming between the "invade the world" and "invite the world" policies at the heart of the current US government's approach to foreign and domestic policies.

It used to be that America’s complementary policies of “invade the world” and “invite the world,” though they were going on simultaneously, took place in different “rooms” of our national consciousness, as it were, and most people didn’t associate them with each other or think they were causally related. But now the two policies have moved so close to each other that people can’t help but see their relationship and be troubled. Thus an L-dotter writes:

Not many voters in the USA are going to understand why the Administration should see sending many thousands of American troops into harms way in Iraq and at the same time be allowing thousands of Iraqis to enter the USA as “refugees” from Iraq. That just does not make sense.

What is most notable about all this is just how incredibly different the Iraqis are from America's famed freedom-loving Founding Fathers. Why aren't the Iraqis staying in Iraq to fight for freedom in Iraq? Freedom is worth fighting for if you really love freedom. But how many people really love freedom? Bush, the neoconservatives, and quite a few liberals hold that the vast bulk of the world's peoples love freedom as much as Americans do. This is the universalism at the heart of modern liberalism (and neoconservatism is a branch of liberalism - not of conservatism). In the universalist liberal most people in every country of the world are potential Americans and they are only not Americans due to an accident of birth.

The Iraqis clamoring to leave Iraq rather than fight for freedom against sectarian religious militias and theocratic insurgent bombers tells us that Iraqis differ in some really fundamental ways as compared to America's founding fathers. When American revolutionary Nathan Hale was captured by the British for spying and they decided to kill him in 1776 he made the famous statement:

I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.

How unlike Nathan Hale are the Iraqis. At this point Iraqis are saying:

I regret that I can not leave my country because I care more about my life than fighting for the freedom of my people.

The Iraqis who support the American presence are saying:

I regret the Americans won't give more of their lives to make my neighborhood safe because I do not want to give any lives of my family to restore order.

What amazes me about the intellectual state of America is that there are Americans who are gullible enough to agree with these Iraqis.

Bush wants to let the collaborators come to the US. Some Iraqi collaborators are thinking:

I regret I have but one country to give up for the good life.

Or how about: for collaborators

I regret I do not have control of more of my country to trade for the good life.

Why aren't we telling these collaborators to stay and fight for their own country?

Iraqi exiles in poorer Arab countries such as Jordan and Syria are thinking:

I regret that wealthier countries won't give me more opportunities for an even better life.

How about the perspective of Iraqi Army enlisted soldiers?

I regret the Americans want me to give my life for my country. Why won't they give their lives so I won't have to?

The Iraqis exiles in general are saying:

I regret the conditions in Iraq. But I highly value my life. You don't honestly expect me to risk my life for something as worthless as the government of Iraq, do you?

The secular agnostic and atheist Iraqis:

I think I only have this life. You don't honestly expect me to risk that?

The Iraqi Sunnis are saying:

I regret we do not have many more Sunni lives to give so we can dominate the Shiites once again.

The Iraqi Muslim clerical warrior leaders are thinking:

I regret you have but one life to give for my religion.

The tribal sectarians are thinking:

I regret I have but one life to give for my sect/clan/tribe/extended family.

Al Qaeda bombers are thinking:

I regret I have but one life to give for only 70 virgins.

Then there are the Kurdish pesh merga fighters:

I regret I have but one life to give for my country, Kurdistan.

This is crazy. I say we tell the Iraqis to stay in their own country and fix it. If they refuse then why should our soldiers pay the price and why should we let Iraqis come to America?

Thanks to Bob Badour for helping me rift on Iraqi variations on Nathan Hale's quote.

Update: How about George W. Bush?

I regret the Iraq invasion was not the easy popularity booster I thought it would be and I regret that the Iraqis aren't doing what I think they ought to do to make my invasion a success.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2007 February 17 08:00 PM  Mideast Iraq Human Nature

Kenelm Digby said at February 18, 2007 7:02 AM:

What you have just written blows the gaff on the entire bogus 'political asylum refugee industry', and brings home the fact that the massive and widescale abuse of the Geneva convention on Refugees is merely a modernday facillitation of uncontrolled, unlimited mass immigration - against the will of the peoples of the nations thus afflicted, as their democratic rights inthis matter are abrogated by the spra-national, apparently irrevocal and non-negotiable Geneva convention.
The sooner more people realise this truth, and how their basic, fundamental democratic voice has been rendered impotent and contemptible by this treaty, the better.

Irish Savant said at February 18, 2007 7:29 AM:

Good for Kelerelm Digby. There really IS an asylum industry - in Europe it's lavishly financed by public money. Governments provide vast sums to immigrants' lawyers to that they can sue the government! Key question to ask - how can a genuine asylum seeker manage to get to the US or Ireland for that matter? To do so requires huge cost and invariably travelling through many other less desirable countries first. Check my posts:


Bob Badour said at February 18, 2007 2:48 PM:

It occurs to me we should re-designate Jorge to "King George VII" as the moral successor to George III. George III gave refuge to collaborators like Benedict Arnold too. Jorge follows a grand tradition.

John S Bolton said at February 18, 2007 5:44 PM:

For some reason refugees and even potential ones, have been metaphysically transposed into a class of sacred monkeys, whose every act is that for which no blame may ever be assigned.
Who would regret that they had only one Sirhan or Salt Lake shooter to give for their one world?
The stunningly unprincipled character of the by-definition-ever-blameless refugee might suggest motives like malice or parasite manipulation.
There is not known to be any honor or decency in bringing in enemies; it is irresponsible.
These are moslems, and the moslem as such must wage war of religion on the infidel, or be a supporter of such wars.

clayton said at March 5, 2007 8:19 AM:

Please forgive me if I am wrong here but a few minor difference between the US's war for independence and the current war in iraq.

We started the war for independence against the British, to drive them off our lands and establish our own republic.
Iraq was invaded by a foreign nation, to oust a dictator of an "evil regime".

we were supported in part by another foreign country who had aims at undermining the british rule (that would be the french)

Iraq is currently under siege from a half dozen countries who want to control it from the outside, and under siege from about an untold number of differing factions that want to control it from within.

To compare our situations without contrasting them shows bias, nothing wrong with that,and clearly the argument of immigration is heated, and many people feel it should be stopped period. But painting the picture of iraq as if it's going through what our founding fathers went through is really quite a distortion of reality.
Why not get out, let them figure it out, and if another Saddam pop's up, play whack-a-mol with em until something more friendly to us, the world and their own people comes in to power. It's not like we don't have the capacity to invade, and decimate any power that may arise.

AJ said at September 15, 2015 2:10 AM:

Fast forward, Syrian men refusing to fight for their country.

Post a comment
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
Remember info?

Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©