Who Are We?

"All That We Share," a production of Denmark's TV2Danmark, was published January 27, 2017. The video is described by the network as follows: "We live in a time where we quickly put people in boxes. Maybe we have more in common than what we think?" (The video was brought to my attention by Gregory Johnson, Resources For Life.)

Trump has in an instant damaged American soft power but we have also seen lawyers flock to American airports to give free advice, while an American judge has ruled that those with green cards and visas can enter. It is heartening to see American soldiers who served in Iraq standing up for interpreters who worked with them. . . . We have seen the worst of Trump's America but also the best of America in the actions of lawyers, judges and people demonstrating for visitors and refugees. . . . President Roosevelt described the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 as a day of infamy. Trump's ill-considered and fruitless actions amount to a self-inflicted day of infamy for America and will long be remembered as the moment that pointlessly alienated America's allies and assisted its enemies.

-- Excerpts from Gary Kent, "America's Sad Day of Infamy," Rudaw [a newspaper and media network based in Erbil, Kurdistan Region of Iraq], January 30, 2016 (for additional excerpts, see below.)
____________________
There is little more that can be or need be added to the world's overwhelming negative responses to President Trump's mean-spirited, ill considered, negligently executed, serious blow to our national security and international reputation from his "Executive Order" restricting immigration by refugees and other individuals from seven designated Muslim countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen). Made all the worse because he excluded from the ban Muslim countries in which he is doing business, and "Christians" from the seven designated countries (which looks like a violation of the First Amendment's "establishment" and "free exercise" of religion prohibitions).

But I think it is important for all who have access to a blog, or other means of communication, to take a stand at this time for American values. The excerpts from Gary Kent's piece from Kurdistan, recognizing the efforts of Americans to come to the aid of those most adversely and unfairly impacted, is one more reason why public opposition to Trump's action is helpful in retaining as much as possible of America's reputation as a nation of welcoming people. Kent's reaction in this regard is consistent with what I have heard from delegations from Turkey and Russia with whom I met yesterday and today. [Photo credit: AFP.]

So here are some truncated random thoughts about this disaster.

Putting "Terrorism" in Perspective. Obviously, we want, and have every right, to minimize the death and injury of Americans, and damage to our property, from what we call "terrorist acts." (1) But to the extent we're concerned about death, injury and property damage, that which is occasioned in America from "terrorism" is almost statistically insignificant compared with the 400,000 who die from tobacco-related disease, the result of alcohol and drug abuse, or the roughly equivalent numbers (about 35,000) who die from guns or automobile accidents. (2) And to the extent we do care about "terrorist acts" (or "hate crimes" involving death or serious bodily injury) many-to-most are caused by (a) those who would self-identify as "Christian" or non-believers rather than as Muslims, and (b) those -- including Muslims -- who were born in the U.S., or are otherwise legally here rather than refugees or new immigrants. (3) The handful Trump describes as "radical Islamic terrorists" in the U.S. have for the most part (and perhaps exclusively) been known to law enforcement and were "radicalized" here in the United States. In short, the return on this investment of time, effort, money -- and loss of American goodwill -- is not likely to produce much return.

[Since writing this I came upon a CNN presentation, consistent with what is written here, including the fact that you have only a 00.00003% chance of being killed in a foreign-born terrorist attack in the U.S. A.J. Willingham, Paul Martucci and Natalie Leung, "The Chances of a Refugee Killing You -- And Other Surprising Immigration Stats," CNN Politics, January 31, 2017. And see, Philip Bump, "The White House would like America to focus on terror attacks. Let's add context," Washington Post, February 8, 2017.]

Putting the Seven Countries in Perspective. I'm not going to do the research and produce the links to document what follows in this paragraph. But I believe it is a fair reading of what I've seen so far to say that (1) none of the seven countries Trump has chosen (originally singled out by President Obama for other reasons) have produced Muslims who have carried out terrorist attacks in the U.S., (2) he has excluded from his designated list countries those that have produced terrorists who attacked America (e.g., most of those involved in the 9/11 attacks on New York's Twin Towers came from Saudi Arabia), and (3) he has also excluded Muslim countries in which he has business interests. Whatever else one may think of this travel ban, this approach is simply irrational in terms of the stated purpose of the exercise: "to keep Americans safe." If there really were a serious likelihood of a flood of immigrants and refugees coming into the U.S. to do us harm -- because of their Muslim religion -- for which there is no evidence of which I am aware or to which Trump hinted, then the ban should have been applied to all countries with substantial Muslim populations. If a selection of countries was to be made, it would have made more sense to select those, based on past history, most likely to produce those wishing to do us harm rather than these seven.

Was Trump's travel ban an "anti-Muslim" action? He appeared to be stirring up Islamophobia among his supporters during his campaign, promising to do something like what he has just done. And even more telling is what Rudy Giuliani reports regarding his exchange with Trump. Amy B. Wang, "Trump asked for a 'Muslim ban,' Giuliani says -- and ordered a commission to do it 'legally,'" Washington Post, January 29, 2017 ("Former New York mayor Rudy W. Giuliani said President Trump wanted a 'Muslim ban' and requested he assemble a commission to show him 'the right way to do it legally.' Giuliani . . . appeared on Fox News late Saturday [Jan. 28] night to describe how Trump's executive order temporarily banning refugees came together. . . . 'How did the president decide the seven countries?' [Fox News host Jeanine Pirro] asked. . . . 'I'll tell you the whole history of it,' Giuliani responded eagerly. 'So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, "Muslim ban." He called me up. He said, "Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally."'")

Putting the Process in Perspective. The chaos and crises that have followed Trump's action is as good a case study as could be found of why we have government departments and agencies to aid the White House staff and president. Why we have a professional, well-educated, experienced, dedicated, patriotic civil service, bringing their well-informed experience and judgment to bear on why and how some proposals should be pursued and others should not. It appears Trump's idea was not vetted; those who could have helped were not consulted; those who would have to execute it were not informed. For someone who claimed the ability to bring sound American business practices to government, this looked more like someone headed for bankruptcy -- as indeed Trump did when he couldn't even make gambling casinos profitable.

This could go on and on, and you may think it already has. There is much more that could be said, none of it positive. It would be bad enough if imposing travel bans on another country's entire population of a given religion were merely ineffective. In this case, it's much worse. The backlash has already started. Iran has launched a missile, other countries' cabinet officers have been turned away, our universities' international students are nervous, those with "green cards" were initially turned away (before that insanity was walked back), those who served our military as interpreters are not being provided the protection they were promised, American overseas military and tourists are at greater risk, global commerce and airline operations are suffering.

Welcome to the world of government by tweets. Sad.

Who are we? If you didn't watch the video at the top of this blog essay when you began reading, watch it now. That's who we are. That's who we need to rise up and demand we will continue to be.


Additional Excerpts from Gary Kent, "America's Sad Day of Infamy," Rudaw, January 30, 2016

Many feared the worst of President Trump while others hoped he would become more presidential. Such hopes have been dashed by his edict on "extreme vetting" that Times columnist Roger Boyes says is "the bluntest of blunt instruments, sledgehammer-politik." . . . It was announced on Holocaust Memorial Day which reminded people of restrictions preventing Jews escaping the Nazis in the 1930s and ending up in death camps. . . .

Quick footwork by Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, who persuaded the American authorities to modify the presidential decree so it largely does not apply to British citizens, will slightly lessen the issue. But expect more heartbreaking stories of family division, people being unable to visit dying relatives, start jobs while hundreds of Iraqi interpreters are reported as being in a visa limbo. Daesh must be rubbing its hands in glee. . . .

Our fear last year was that this would chill investment as people found out that going to Kurdistan would complicate later visits to the US. International business groups have expressed fears that the latest ban will harm them. No one denies that the US has the right to patrol its borders and to prevent terrorists from entering the US. But there is no evidence that current measures are failing or that a blanket ban is necessary. . . .

Trump has in an instant damaged American soft power but we have also seen lawyers flock to American airports to give free advice, while an American judge has ruled that those with green cards and visas can enter. It is heartening to see American soldiers who served in Iraq standing up for interpreters who worked with them. We will see in the near future whether further changes can be made and whether the State Department can induce Trump to find a face-saving formula to rescind the order soon. . . .

Trump will probably continue to govern in this disruptive, defiant and divisive manner and this presents big difficulties for America's allies. . . . [Former British Foreign Minister Alistair Burt] suggested that a diplomatic excuse for postponing Trump's planned state visit to the UK in the summer might be wise.

We have seen the worst of Trump's America but also the best of America in the actions of lawyers, judges and people demonstrating for visitors and refugees. . . .

[Professor Eliot Cohen, a former adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice] writes in The Atlantic that: "Precisely because the problem is one of [Trump's] temperament and character, it will not get better." Cohen argues it will worsen as power intoxicates Trump and those around him, and probably end in calamity such as substantial domestic protest and violence, broken international economic relationships and major alliances, and one or more new wars, even with China. He would not be surprised if Trump is impeached.

More optimistically Cohen concludes that "There is nothing great about the America that Trump thinks he is going to make; but in the end, it is the greatness of America that will stop him." The ban may be further modified or lifted but leaves a lingering bad taste.

President Roosevelt described the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 as a day of infamy. Trump's ill-considered and fruitless actions amount to a self-inflicted day of infamy for America and will long be remembered as the moment that pointlessly alienated America's allies and assisted its enemies.

# # #

Syria, Terrorism, Craziness and Common Sense

If you're looking for material regarding University of Iowa, its new President Bruce Harreld, and the Iowa Board of Regents, CLICK HERE.

Sober Risk Assessment Needed to Respond to Terror
Nicholas Johnson
Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 28, 2015, p. A11
There’s so much craziness involved in our response to “terrorism,” and potential Syrian refugees. Where to begin?

Let’s start with risk assessment.

It turns out that fear of dying in a terrorist attack is like a two-pack-a-day cigarette smoker with a fear of flying.

About 3000 people died in the Twin Towers collapse, September 11, 2001. But that number die every month of every year from guns. An equal number die every month in automobiles. Over 7000 die every month from alcohol related causes. Tobacco contributes to 40,000 deaths a month – a risk for our cigarette smoker 10,000 or more times greater than airlines. [Photo credit: Unknown]

Your risks from the most bizarre accident you can imagine is greater than your risk of a terrorist act.

Will we have more U.S. radical jihadist terrorist attacks? Probably; mostly home grown. Can we stop all of them? Of course not. Would more NSA surveillance of Americans help? Probably not. There was advance intelligence about terrorists’ suspicious flight training, and Osama bin Laden’s intention to strike New York. The Russians told us about the Boston Marathon bombers. ISIS’ attacks in Paris were masterminded by someone well known to authorities. Making the haystack bigger doesn’t make the needle easier to find.

It has been suggested that we admit Christians from Syria, but not Muslims – indeed that all U.S. Muslims be issued identity cards and entered in a database.

There are so many thing wrong with such violations of our values and Constitution. We don‘t punish religions. Moreover, if we’re going to do it anyway, we need to single out Christians not Muslims. Christians have committed multiples more domestic terrorist acts than Muslims.

When emotions run high, we need to recall our shame at refusing to welcome German Jewish refugees before World War II. Provoked by politicians, Americans’ fear the Jews might be communists caused our government to turn the Jews’ boats around and send them back to their death at the hands of Nazis.

If we’re going to respond to events in Paris with anything beyond what we’re already doing, refusing to take Syrian refugees is one of the worst things we could do. Not only will it fail to make us safer, it will help to make ISIS stronger.

Focusing on Syrians rather than Europeans is like focusing on Afghans after planeloads of Saudis, funded by other Saudis, brought down the Twin Towers. Not only were the Paris bombers Europeans, not Syrians, as such they could easily enter the U.S. as tourists.

Nearly 35 million foreigners visit our country every year – many don’t even need visas. If we don’t fear admitting those 35 million, without vetting them, by what logic do we refuse to take 10,000 Syrians who have gone through years of the most intense vetting imaginable?

Since 9/11 we have admitted 785,000 refugees into our country. During those 14 years only three have been arrested on terrorism-related charges. That’s 0.0004 of 1 percent. There’s no credible reason to believe our vetting of Syrians will be significantly less successful.

Over 10 million Syrians have left their homes. Europe has welcomed them. We can’t accept 1/10th of 1% of that number?

Bear in mind, ISIS is not trying to take over our 3 million square miles, or kill our 300 million people. This is not your grandfather’s war. ISIS is just trying to terrorize us, to make us fearful. When we build more chain-link fences and hire more security guards, when we can’t enter an airplane – or even a college football stadium – without being frisked or x-rayed, they’ve won.

Our military presence in the Middle East has helped them recruit far more suicide bombers than we’ve ever killed. And our leaving Syria’s young people with no option but to join ISIS will do the same.
___________________
Nicholas Johnson, Iowa City native, managed sealift to Viet Nam when serving as U.S. Maritime Administrator, and maintains FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com Contact: mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org

# # #

Syria's Refugees: Job One and Job Two

Syria’s Refugees: Job One and Job Two

Nicholas Johnson

The Gazette, November 1, 2015, p. C4

“I didn’t think we could just sit here idly and say, ‘Let those people die.’ We wouldn’t want the rest of the world to say that about us if we were in the same situation. Do unto others as you’d have them do unto you.”

-- Iowa’s Governor Robert D. Ray, welcoming Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laotian immigrants, 1975 (post Viet Nam War)

In March, 2011, Syria’s President Assad fired on peaceful Syrian, Arab Spring demonstrators. By July the demonstrators were joined by defectors from Assad’s army, renamed themselves the Free Syrian Army, and were engaged in a civil war. Soon Iran was supporting Assad; Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States came to the aid of the rebels.

Five years later, it has become a regional version of a World War III. In addition to Syria, it involves the countries of Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Turkey – and now Russia and the United States, among others. Other state-like groups include al Qaeda in Syria, Hezbollah, ISIS, Kurds, the anti-Assad rebels – plus another 100 factions – all of which switch sides and membership from time to time. Then there is the Islamic division, with Sunnis supporting the rebels and Shiites supporting Assad.

Nearly a quarter-million Syrians have been killed – most of whom were innocent civilians neither wishing for nor participating in this war. There are uncounted millions who have been injured, deprived of food or health care, and are missing family members. Homes and businesses have been destroyed, as have entire cities, leaving many without shelter or access to supplies.

The UN estimates 7.6 million Syrians (out of a pre-war population of 23 million) are now displaced within Syria, in addition to the 4 million Syrian refugees who have been able to leave.

Few if any of us have ever experienced anything remotely like what they have been through, and continue to experience.

But as we try to imagine what it must be like, one cannot watch the news of their lives, whether in Syria, or on their way elsewhere, and not be emotionally moved. What can we Iowans do to help from halfway around the world?

Iowans, like Americans in the other 49 states, have been, and continue to be, enriched by the diversity and skills of our new arrivals. The UI alone has students from 112 countries. And as the opening quote from former Governor Robert Ray reveals, Iowa has a proud history of welcoming those in need of a new home during Iowa’s recent, as well as its early years.

So it’s pretty clear what those of us within the Gazette’s circulation area can, and should do. We need to encourage our public officials to continue Iowa’s tradition – the presidential candidates, our Governor, legislators, county supervisors, and city council members. We need to work from within our churches, social service agencies, civic clubs and other organizations to build consensus – and collaboration – encouraging and preparing for their arrival.

That’s today’s job one in this crisis.

But job two still looms: trying to learn from this experience what America has apparently been unable to learn from our unwelcome military incursions into Viet Nam, Afghanistan, and Iraq – among many other countries.

The West created the Middle East. In May 1916, Mark Sykes (British), and Francois Georges-Picot (French), with Russia’s knowledge, came to a secret understanding to demolish the Ottoman Empire and draw new boundaries for French and British-administered areas.

World War III is not World War II. “Terrorism” is not a nation. If we wanted to treat it as such after 9/11 we should have been bombing and invading Saudi Arabia rather than Afghanistan and Iraq – since that’s where the money and airline hijackers came from. Our incursions have created more terrorists than have been killed.

The computer WOPR (War Operation Plan Response) in the movie “War Games” ultimately called off a thermo-nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia after being frustrated by its inability to win at tic-tack-toe. As it concluded, “the only winning move is not to play.” We have not been as wise as that computer.

The answer? It can fit on a bumper sticker: “Whatever is the question, war is not the answer.”
_______________
Nicholas Johnson, a native of Iowa City and former FCC commissioner, maintains http://nicholasjohnson.org and http://FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com. Contact: mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org

# # #