Aftermath
George Packer gets down to the nitty gritty in the only article in The Non Republic’s “special Iraq issue” that deserves to be called a contribution. The only remaining relevant question for US policy is whether and how to save the lives of “Iraqis who have had anything to do with the occupation and its promises of democracy [who] will be among the first to be killed: the translators, the government officials, the embassy employees, the journalists, the organizers of women’s and human rights groups.” Packer points out that
Our current approach essentially traps Iraqis inside their country, where they will have to choose, like Osman, between jihadists and death squads.
He urges
We should start issuing visas in Baghdad, as well as in the regional embassies in Mosul, Kirkuk, Hilla, and Basra. We should issue them liberally, which means that we should vastly increase our quota for Iraqi refugees. (Last year, it was fewer than 200.) We should prepare contingency plans for massive airlifts and ground escorts. We should be ready for desperate and angry crowds at the gates of the Green Zone and U.S. bases. We should not allow wishful thinking to put off these decisions until it’s too late. We should not compound our betrayals of Iraqis who put their hopes in our hands.
There are serious security concerns with opening the floodgates to Iraqi refugees, which is why Jordan, among other countries, has already started restricting their influx. Refugee flows include a certain number of spies, as shown by the aftermaths of the Russian Revolution and World War II. Any sizable influx of Iraqi refugees will almost certainly including terrorist sympathizers or outright terrorists.
In other words, doing right by America’s local allies in Iraq means incurring a small but measurable personal risk here at home. Safer for us to leave them behind to die. Will a country that has spent so much time since 2002 declaring its concern for Iraqi well-being decide to incur that risk or not?
Comment by Tequila —
November 28, 2006 @ 12:07 pm
Hell, you know the answer to that one already.
Comment by Somebody or other —
November 28, 2006 @ 12:46 pm
The Democrats cannot ‘cut and run’ in Iraq. Someone, probably James Carvelle, is telling them right now, “If you force Dubya to withdraw our troops from Iraq, they will tattoo that on our foreheads in 2008″. And they believe him. And that’s all they care about. Morality is just a word they campaign with.
Here’s a suggestion I have for what to do with the Iraq mess — pull the troops out. (Duh.) Spend, say, a trillion dollars setting up air transport from Iraq to the U.S. Any Iraqi national who wants to can come to America. We’ll give them a green card, find them a place to live, help them find work, give them a grant to set up their own business.
Or, if they want to stay there, we have this little package for them. Kind of an ‘Iraqi survivor kit. A generator, a year’s worth of MREs, a couple of M16 A1s and a few thousand rounds of ammunition, a Kevlar helmet and vest. Some water purification tablets. A good pair of boots. A box of Hershey bars. A signed apology from Dubya for, you know, breaking their fucking country.
James Dobson will insist we throw in a Bible; that’s fine, the apology will only be good for one bowel movement, anyway.
All of that, and a slightly shot up Humvee for them to haul the loot home in. (Hey, it’s not like we’ll be using them any more.)
In exchange, we get them to sign one of those releases that Lucy used to circulate in the PEANUTS strip absolving us of all blame. Everybody goes home happy.
Of course, then the goddam Negroes and the friggin’ Injuns will be all like “Well, where’s OUR Hollywood movie check?” but, you know, scroom. They, at the very least, have frickin’ electricity. They should count their blessings. And vote Democrat, dammit.
Comment by neil —
November 28, 2006 @ 1:00 pm
I’d sure like to see statistics on Iraqi immigration to the U.S. over the last decade or two. My guess is that since 2003 or at least 2004, it’s been utterly impossible for any Iraqi to get a visa to the U.S. other than for government dignitaries. But does anyone know for sure?
Comment by Jim Henley —
November 28, 2006 @ 1:08 pm
Packer says “200 visas” last year, I believe.
Comment by neil —
November 28, 2006 @ 1:15 pm
That was refugee visas. Is that the only kind? Also, are military-age men eligible for refugee visas?
Comment by Rich Puchalsky —
November 28, 2006 @ 3:52 pm
“Will a country that has spent so much time since 2002 declaring its concern for Iraqi well-being decide to incur that risk or not?”
Not.
This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.