Angry Planet - The security costs to barring refugees and creating civilian ‘safe zones’

Episode Date: February 7, 2017

President Donald Trump signed an executive order temporarily restricting travel from seven Muslim-majority countries and halting the U.S. refugee program. One week later, after several legal challenges and protests at America’s airports, a federal judge blocked several key provisions of the order. Moral, legal and ethical questions aside, the ban would create national security challenges for America. This week on War College, Joshua Hampson of the Niskanen center walks us through the possible military implications of the executive order. According to Hampson, Trump’s plan plays into the propaganda of the Islamic State. He also critiques Trump’s new plan to solve the refugee crisis - creating “safe zones,” in Syria. Safe zones need protection – the Srebrenica genocide is a stark reminder of what happens when they aren’t – and the kind of camp Trump is talking about creating would require a major troop presence to keep safe.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/warcollege. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Love this podcast? Support this show through the ACAST supporter feature. It's up to you how much you give, and there's no regular commitment. Just click the link in the show description to support now. The views expressed on this podcast are those of the participants, not of Reuters News. I would say that there's a greater risk to not accepting refugees than to accepting refugees. President Trump issued an executive order temporarily halting refugees from entering the United States. He's also advocated for protected civilian zones in conflict areas.

Today's guest examines these policies and whether they truly serve U.S. security interests. You're listening to Reuters War College, a discussion of the world in conflict, focusing on the stories behind the front lines. Hello, welcome to War College. I'm your host, Matthew Galt. Joshua Hampson is the Security Studies Fellow at the Niscannon Center, where he focuses on international security, U.S. outer space policy, defense, and foreign policy issues. He's here today to talk to us about the security implications of the refugee crisis and immigration. To be clear, we are not here today to talk about the moral, ethical, or legal ramifications of some of the incoming administration's proposed policies. Today we're going to view these things strictly through a national security lens.

Joshua, thank you so much for joining us. Thank you for having me. So just before 5 p.m. Eastern, last Friday, as of this recording, so I think two Fridays ago, as of the actual episode's release, President Trump signed an executive order title, Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States. I assume you've had a chance to read it? I have, yes. And do you think, as outlined, it'll keep America safe? No, I don't. I think there are several issues.

with it. First, I just want to outline what the main things it does. Other than some reviews of immigration and visa processes, the executive order bans immigration from seven countries temporarily for 90 days. These countries are Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen, and Iran. Those countries do have issues with terrorism, but the executive order does not address some countries that have issues with terrorism as well, such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Saudi Arabia, whose citizens have conducted terrorist attacks in the United States. So first off, there's an issue just in general with terms of the scope of the executive order on that side. The executive order also deals with refugees. It suspends the entire refugee program

globally for 120 days, and orders a review of the process to see whether or not it could be made more strict. So those are the two main things that the executive order does. And the reason why I don't think as framed it will keep America safe is, firstly, the issue with scope. It only addresses seven countries, and it doesn't address some of the countries that have had citizens who have come over on visas and committed attacks while in the United States. It also, the way that the executive order was implemented, causes some problems in terms of countries that we work very closely with on counterterrorism operations. So it's alienated, for example, the Iraqi parliament. They've put into place, well, they've voted on a reciprocal ban, which could affect

our contractors who are supporting our military operations in Iraq. The way the process was done also hurts people that have helped us fight terrorism in specific places. for example, Iraqi interpreters in their families who have been threatened and in danger after working with us have experienced problems either coming in themselves or trying to get their family members into the United States. And so it tells those people that working with us is not necessarily honored. And it also told permanent residents that possibly the word of the United States wasn't good, people who had already gone through the visa process and already had been vetted, were having problems coming in, and they're concerned about coming in.

And so that process of the way it was done caused a lot of alienation for people that we do have to work with. And then finally, the refugee problem sort of plays into some issues of propaganda and messaging in our counterterrorism operations. So when we're dealing with trying to prevent the radicalization of people online, particularly possibly people who are already here, 85% of the suspects who have taken steps toward terrorist-related violence either been. arrested for plots or have committed terrorist attacks in the United States since 9-11 have been U.S. citizens and 50% of them were born U.S. citizens. So we have this issue of radicalization here at home and this executive order doesn't address any of the issues of homegrown terrorism. In fact, it may, through the messaging of it, increase radicalization here. And then there was also

in one of the drafts, there was an issue with safe zones. It was taken out of the final executive order, but he seems to have spoken to Saudi Arabia, at least about safe zones in Syria and Yemen, and there are some security issues there that might be problematic too. All right, there's a lot to unpack there, and I want to move through all of it. First of all, let's talk about refugees a little bit more. It seems as if you're saying that there is a direct danger to the United States and not accepting refugees, or am I mischaracterizing your words? I would say that there's a greater risk to not accepting refugees than to accepting refugees.

I would argue that the vetting process for refugees as it is is very secure. It's the most stringent vetting process we have for anybody coming into the country. And the risks that we've seen out of it have been pretty small and pretty mild in the history of the refugee program as it stands. from 1980 onwards. So on one side, we have that very strict process. On the other side, we have the propaganda messaging problems of the U.S. won't even accept people fleeing war. It's this cultural clash between the West and Islam. And that plays into the messaging that groups like ISIS use in radicalizing people that are already in the United States or already in the Right. There is this concept that Islamic State uses in his propaganda called the Gray Zone,

which are areas in the world where Muslims and non-Muslims coexist peacefully. And so ISIS has seen this and President Trump in general as a win for their ideological struggle. Is that correct? Yes. I mean, it's a win for them on the front that they don't like refugees. Refugees are a sign that their attempt to create a state has failed, they're fleeing the state. And so it's a win in terms of keeping refugees where they can be attacked by terrorist groups in ISIS. And it's also a win on that propaganda front. It pushes people who live in these gray zones closer to being radicalized. And it's on balance, right?

So taking refugees by itself is not, you know, 100% of a counterterrorism policy. But it's not wise to play into the narrative that's being used to rational. radicalized people that are here or in other countries so prominently. I mean, so the administration basically followed what they were saying the U.S. was and what a conflict with the West is for the Islamic State and for terrorist groups. All right, Josh. So one of the things that we've been talking about, as we've been talking about, the refugee problem is the vetting process.

You know, the current administration says that we need to review the vetting process, and he's called for extreme vetting. Could you kind of explain what the refugee vetting process is now? How does it stand currently? As it is currently, or as it was before the executive order, what would happen is that first, someone who wanted to be a refugee under our process would have to go to the United Nations. They'd have to apply to be a refugee under the High Commissioner on Refugees, and the UN would collect data and determine whether or not that person was appropriate to be labeled a refugee.

Once they've done that, that person's application is passed on to all of the countries within the United Nations, well, one of the countries within all of the countries in the United Nations that accept refugees, which is not just the United States. So it's not necessarily clear that someone who's trying to come to the United States for whatever reason when they put an application in will get to the United States. And less than 1% of people who apply to be refugees for the United Nations gets passed to you. United States. Once it gets past the United States, our own domestic processing starts. We collect further information. We process it through intelligence agencies, the Department of Defense,

the State Department, Department of Homeland Security. They do checks with their databases. They take biometric information, which is run through, for example, the Department of Defense's database on fingerprints that they've collected in operations around the world. They additionally do cultural background checks, and they interview the refugee in person. And then once that's process is done and they've determined that the refugee is not a threat, they go through a cultural orientation, they get a medical background check, and then they get passed on to nine private resettlement groups that take it from there in terms of the resettlement to the United States. I mean, that sounds like an awful lot of vetting.

Just a personal question, do you think that that is a good system? Or could it be changed and reformed? And if so, in what way? I think it's a good system. It's, I mean, and it's being reformed and changed as things occur or has been. In terms of if we have a new system that is a better process for searching through data that we've collected, it's implemented, right? So there are ongoing upgrades to that system. I personally think it's a good system.

I struggle to see how it can become more rigorous without essentially shutting down the refugee program, right? We're pushing as close to certainty as we can get in a rather uncertain world, and the track record so far has been remarkably good. Let's talk about that track record for a little bit. Let's get into that. How many refugees resettled in America have? committed terrorist acts? There were three refugees were settled in the United States that were convicted of being parts of plots.

Two of them were involved in a plot that was not targeting the United States. And then I believe there was, I believe the attack at Ohio State was a Somali refugee. There were no deaths in the attack. But I'm not sure what process they had gone. through to come in. I think they'd come out of Pakistan. So that's the, I think that's, that that's it. Out of, out of hundreds of thousands of refugees that we've accepted since 9-11, and even going back earlier to the 1980s start of this refugee program, there are four connected people and no deaths. Some people would push back on that and mention the

Zarnov brothers who are responsible for the Boston bombing. Right. Um, There was an awful lot of confusion about the Boston bombers, in part because the media kept referring to them as refugees, even though they'd gone through a different process. The Zarnov brothers were asylum seekers, which means that you come into the United States on a different visa, and once you get here, you claim asylum for political or oppressive reasons, and then that application gets processed. So the Zarnov brothers did not go through the refugee process, which can take up to two years. And during that process, the refugees are not in the United States. Right. And it's also, I think, important to point out that, A, like you said, they were here on a tourist visa and state-seeking asylum. And also, they weren't from the regions that are covered in the executive order, correct? That's correct. They came out of Ferguson, and they were Chechen Americans.

and so they weren't what people would tend to consider a risk in terms of immigration, which speaks to the complexity of dealing with a global terrorism problem, right? Which is why I think this specific focus of this executive order, when paired with the way it was implemented, doesn't keep us safer and causes some security problems in itself. All right, we're going to take a break real quick. War College listeners, and in just a minute, we will be back with more from Josh Hampson on the security implications of Trump's executive order regarding immigration and refugees. Welcome back to War College listeners. We are talking with Josh Hampson about the security

implications of the executive order regarding immigrants and refugees. So I want to jump into something that may be a little odd, but are there national security benefits? to accepting refugees? I would argue that there are, and I think it gets back to that propaganda and messaging issue that we were talking about earlier. When you're dealing with a global terrorism network that's trying to now focus is almost explicitly on radicalizing people within the countries that they're fighting, dealing with propaganda is a major concern in

in a counterterrorismperation. And so when you have a group of people who are fleeing violence who are well-vetted that you can take in, it does several things. It pushes back against this idea that there's a war between the West and Islam. By saying, no, we will accept people who we understand to have humanitarian needs, and we do know that they have been properly vetted. And then additionally, those people that come in can be part of a sort of counter message. When you're coming out of a community that has a big focus on familial groups and extended families are incredibly important,

what you do for one person can help or is consider doing for the family. And so helping one person and having them have a life in the United States spreads, you know, I mean, it spreads throughout their families and their communities, and it can help counter messages that otherwise might radicalize people, particularly if you contrasts with not taking refugees at all. Kind of going off of that, I want to talk about what some of the alternatives look like. I know that we've teased safe zones a little bit. So let's get into that and talk about safe zones and refugee camps. Is Trump has talked about establishing safe zones in areas such as Yemen. and I'm wondering if you can tell me what safe zones are like and if they are effective.

So safe zones are a, the idea that he's proposing is that we'll set up these territories within Syria or Yemen and we will put refugees there and we will protect them there from terrorists. And that way we don't have to worry about people sneaking through our refugee process. There are two problems with safe zones. The first being that they require quite a lot of protection. This was a conversation that was had after the Paris attacks. A lot of people proposed safe zones for similar reasons. And the Department of Defense quoted number on ground troops needed to protect a safe zone

was 15 to 30,000 soldiers. So the question that we get into is, particularly if you have an active war zone, which both Syrian Yemen are, are we going to put in 30,000 ground troops to protect that safe zone? Are we going to put American soldiers at risk to basically fight off a running war between the regimes in those countries and rebels in those countries? And at the same time, we'd have to institute a no-fly zone because of the barrel bomb attacks that have occurred. But primarily, it would be about the ground troops. Most of the deaths that have occurred in Syria, for example, have been committed by ground troops or artillery.

So the question is, again, are we going to put that number of troops in? How are we going to deal with the complexities of protecting refugees not only from terrorists, but from the Assad regime? And then once you get into the question of the Assad regime, it might pull in Russia. And so it's a major escalation in the conflict. And it's not clear that it would not have worse security effects for us than taking refugees. I think it probably would. And then the second issue in play is the fact that these safe zones and refugee camps tend to be rather horrible in terms of their conditions.

There's no jobs, so there's no way of maintaining employment skills. There's generally very little water or electricity if it exists. all trash collection, sewage, and so they can wind up being places that are just incredibly miserable to live in, which has problems for radicalization as well. If they become stagnant, if they stay there for too long and you can't resolve the political issue that has caused you to create the safe zones or the refugee camps, they can become problematic in terms of reasons for radicalization getting back to that message that we were talking about. So have there been instances where people have been radicalized?

in refugee camps and safe zones? Has that happened or is it ongoing now? I think the biggest example that you could bring up is the Nara al-Barad refugee camp that existed in Lebanon in 2007. There was actually a three-month war fought between the Lebanese military and a group of terrorists within the camp. And, I mean, it was quite violent. They had to go in and clear out the camp. In fact, the inability of the Lebanese military to completely deal with the terrorism network that was in that refugee camp

meant that some of the people who were involved in that became part of the network that created ISIS eventually. So that's the problem that we're talking about in terms of refugee camps being either a source of radicalization or a place where terrorists can hide or run operations because they're large, they're generally ungoverned, and the conditions are generally not very good. And then to go back to the security side of it as well, I mean, you really do have to set up a massive security system to protect camps. When we haven't done that,

you wind up with a lot of problems. So an example would be Srebrenica in Bosnia. We set up a town, well, we declared a town a safe zone, and then we didn't put enough soldiers in peacekeepers to keep it safe. And the Bosnian, Serbian military, paramilitary groups came in and killed 8,000 Muslim boys and men in that town. So those are the two things that you have to deal with in terms of the security issues of safe zones. Right. And just to give the listeners some comparable numbers. Right now, America fields just under 10,000 troops in Afghanistan. And Afghanistan is an active ongoing war zone. The Taliban has been making gains, actually, in the past two years. And the numbers that have been proposed by the Pentagon to keep safe zones safe is 15 to 30,000

troops. So a whole new deployment, almost a whole new front in a war just to protect and police the safe zones and refugee camps? At the beginning at least, yes. And then you get into questions of if we wind up in a conflict with the Assad regime over that safe zone, if attacks on the safe zone kill American troops, do we put more troops in?

How do we handle that? It's a major escalatory thing that I think the administration hasn't necessarily considered, especially since it promised to not get pulled into major ground operations. in the region during the campaign. All right, I've got one more question for you.

And it has to do with Europe. So when we talk about immigration and refugees, a lot of people point to Europe and how they're handling things and how bad the situation is there. But America isn't Europe, and the situations are different, correct? And so how are they different?

That is correct. The U.S. is benefited by geography. We are far away. We don't have a continuous landmass with the area of conflict. And so we get to be selective about the people that we let in. When refugees get fielded to us through the United Nations, we can vet them while they're not in the country,

and we can do it because of the relatively limited number of refugees we let in. Last year we led in around 85,000 refugees, only 12.5,000 of them, were from Syria. So small number. We can do that systematically and we can do it very carefully. The issue that Europe had was it had hundreds of thousands of people taking multiple routes to get to the borders of Europe and then trying to find, if they were stopped from getting in in one area, they would go up, you know, continue north and try to get in somewhere else. And so they were dealing with a completely different situation,

both in terms of the numbers of people they were dealing with and the level of vetting they could do. And so when you see issues in Europe with terrorist attacks, you have to keep that in mind. You also have to keep in mind as well that there have been a lot of European citizens involved in the attacks that we see in Europe. And so they're also dealing with that radicalization message

that we were talking about earlier. And so it's not just a pure, if they could keep everybody out as well, would they be safe? They still have to deal with that homegrown extremist threat as well. Thank you so much for coming on the show today and walking us through the security implications of this travel ban. I really appreciate it. Thank you for having me. Thank you for listening to this week's show. War College was created by Jason Fields and Craig Hedick. Matthew Galt hosts the show and tracks down our guests. My name's Bethel-Hopte and I trim the fat off these interviews so that all you hear are the juicy bits.

To support our show, rate us on iTunes. It'll take you a few minutes, but we'll appreciate it forever. Tweet us ideas for future shows. We're at War underscore College. Till next week.