Ken Berwitz
While driving this morning, I had the radio tuned to conservative talk show host Steve Malzberg. He voiced a proposal regarding the Syrian “refugees” (I\’m not sure if it was his or he was quoting someone else) that is so logical and so much more feasible than distributing Syrians around the world, that it is no wonder at all our President and Secretary Of State did not come up with it.
Malzberg suggested that we go into Syria – with coalition partners I assume – take over a significant land area (preferably from ISIS, while “neutralizing” as many of these subhuman murderers as we can), and – using local people/resources – use the cities and towns we liberate to create – and vigilantly guard – camps for displaced Syrians (they would no longer be refugees), whom we would then stock with basic human needs.
That way, Syrians – men, women and children – would be able to stay in Syria rather than migrating around the world…and would be able to go back home if/when the situation in that ravaged country either resolves or improves appreciably.
Is it a great solution? Nope. Is it an OK solution? Sort of.
But is it preferable to the wholesale acceptance of millions of “Syrians” (who knows where they really are coming from), comprised disproportionately of fighting-age men (who knows what their loyalties are) being dumped around the globe in places which do not share their culture or values?
That\’s worth thinking about.
