Mark Alexander tackles the Trump vs. Dem on Border Security: The Wall,
Dem hypocrisy over the Wall and government shutdown. ALSO, he takes a relatively
brief look at plus and minus of troop withdrawal from Syria.
JRH 1/3/18
******************
National Security Debates on the Border and Beyond
Two
national security issues are casting a long shadow over 2019.
January 2, 2019
“
The
bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable
Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom
we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by
decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.” —
George Washington
Unfortunately,
the last week of 2018 was marred by a couple of political confrontations that
are casting a long shadow over the new year. Most notable among those issues
are two significant national security issues.
The first of
these is a rather straightforward interruption of some “non-essential
government bureaucracies” beginning on 22 December, which President
Donald Trump implemented
after Democrats failed to provide sufficient federal funding to secure our border
with Mexico.
The second
is a policy shift in the Middle East — much more a chess move than the
mainstream media’s typical portrayal of this policy
change as a game of checkers.
Regarding
the border security/shutdown showdown
I have
covered in detail how
all Democrat Party leaders, including incoming House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-NY) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY),
have repeatedly
advocated for border security and strong
immigration laws — until it was no longer politically
expedient to do so. Democrats oppose securing our southern border for two
reasons: first,
because Trump supports it, and
second, because these illegal immigrants and their progeny represent the
Democrat Party’s most promising and powerful source of new votes.
Thus, by
advocating for open borders, Democrats hope to create a
socialist-voter pipeline by
flooding our nation with illegal immigrants who are likely to require
long-term, taxpayer-funded government assistance.
However, an
unforeseen problem with this strategy is that a growing number of Latinos and
Hispanics in our country now, legal and illegal, don’t want the job and wage
competition from more illegals flooding in from Mexico and Central America.
Democrats say they support a “living wage” but then advocate, in effect, an
open border, which ensures that millions of working men and women will never
break free of the minimum wage.
The
Democrats’ refusal to secure our border with Mexico, and their so-called “
sanctuary city” agenda, has,
over the years, invited millions of illegal immigrants to invade our southern
border, many of them using children as human bargaining chips in order to stay
in the U.S. Some are seeking economic welfare, while others pose a significant
threat to our citizens.
Three recent
and tragic deaths should constitute a low benchmark in the never-ending
border-security debate.
In late
December, there were two deaths of immigrant children in Border Patrol custody.
The first was an eight-year-old boy whose Guatemalan mother declared, according
to
press reports, that the boy’s
father brought the sick child with him “because they figured he’d have an
easier chance of gaming the American immigration system to gain an illegal
foothold here.” His sister said, “We heard rumors that they could pass [into
the United States]. They said they could pass with the children.” Another
Guatemalan child, a seven-year-old girl who was sick when she and her father
were apprehended by the Border Patrol, also died.
President
Trump noted correctly, “Deaths of children or others at the Border are strictly
the fault of the Democrat … immigration policies that [encourage] people to
make the long trek thinking they can enter our country illegally. … The two
children in question were very sick before they were given over to the Border
Patrol. The father of the young girl said it was not their fault, he hadn’t
given her water in days. The Border Patrol needs the Wall and it will all end.
They are working so hard and getting so little credit.”
But there
was another death in December, also the direct result of Democrat inaction on
border security, that should be a rallying point for all Americans.
The day
after Christmas, Newman, California, police officer
Ronil Singh, himself a
legal
immigrant from Fiji, was murdered by an
illegal immigrant.
Arrested for that murder was Gustavo Arriaga, a Mexican national with reported
ties to the violent Surenos gang and previous arrests that
should have resulted in his deportation.
Tragically,
California’s incomprehensible “sanctuary” restrictions prevented his arrest
from being reported to immigration officials. In other words, Democrats opened
the door for Officer Singh’s murderer to enter our country, and Democrat
policies prevented him from being rightly deported. Seven other illegal
immigrants have been arrested in connection with Singh’s murder. (A week
earlier, another illegal immigrant in California
murdered two people in a crime spree.)
Singh’s brother
Reggie
expressed his family’s grief and
his gratitude for the apprehension of the assailant: “I’d like to thank you
from the bottom of my heart. … I wish I could thank all of the law-enforcement
agencies, Homeland Security in San Francisco, everyone.”
Stanislaus
County Sheriff Adam Christianson, whose agency led the investigation into
Officer Singh’s murder, issued this
condemnation of the California laws that
allowed for this cold-blooded murder: “While we absolutely need to stay focused
on Officer Singh’s service and sacrifice, we can’t ignore the fact that this
could’ve been prevented. … This is a criminal illegal alien with prior criminal
activity that should have been reported to ICE. We were prohibited — law
enforcement was prohibited because of sanctuary laws, and that led to the
[murder of Cpl.] Singh. … This is not how you protect a community.”
This murder
by a violent illegal immigrant — and countless others before it and to come —
demands an answer to the following question: “Sanctuary for whom?”
On these
senseless murders, Don Rosenberg, whose son Drew was killed by an illegal
alien, said, “We relive what happened to our loved ones. It’s just another stab
in the back, particularly in California by our government that doesn’t give a
damn about our families. They don’t care about us. They don’t care that their
policies and their laws are killing people.”
Officer
Singh now joins a tragic and ever-growing list of Americans murdered by illegal
immigrants, including Kate Steinle, Jamiel Shaw, and Mollie Tibbetts, as well
as countless others whose violent deaths apparently didn’t warrant widespread
media coverage. (Two days after Singh’s murder, in nearby Knoxville, Tennessee,
an illegal immigrant was arrested for the
criminally negligent homicide of
a 22-year-old local resident.)
We extend
our prayers for officer Singh’s family and for all law-enforcement personnel
who man that wall 24/7, providing protection for their fellow citizens.
Responding
to the latest instances of violence and the epidemic issues of drug- and
sex-trafficking of minors across our southern border, President Trump, who has
already deployed military personnel to assist with border security, declared
that inaction on securing our border with Mexico will result in
shutting it down entirely: “We
will be forced to close the Southern Border entirely if the Democrats do not
give us the money to finish the Wall and also change the ridiculous immigration
laws that our Country is saddled with.”
Regarding
the enormous financial cost of illegal immigration, Trump noted, “It’s a
national embarrassment that an illegal immigrant can walk across the border and
receive free health care and one of our Veterans that has served our country is
put on a waiting list and gets no care.” Indeed it is.
But on own
southern border, Homeland Security spokeswoman Katie Waldman Tuesday, “Once
again we have had a violent mob of migrants attempt to enter the United States
illegally by attacking our agents with projectiles. The agents involved should
be applauded for handling the situation with no reported injuries to the
attackers.”
Regarding
the so-called “shutdown showdown”
President
Trump has already signed legislation approving $900 billion of $1.2 trillion
for federal agency operating expenses, but the partial shutdown is having a
significant impact on 800,000 people on the federal payroll.
The
interruption of “non-essential government services” and furlough of 380,000
government employees could be viewed as “paid vacation,” as Congress has always
restored back pay retroactively. However, many of those affected live on tight
margins, and missing paychecks means potentially missing loan and mortgage
payments and other bills. They will begin feeling the pinch in January, but
taxpayers, who are footing the bill, are already
bearing the shutdown burden.
The same is true of the 420,000 essential government employees who remain on
the job, most in security positions, who will not receive pay starting in
January, but are guaranteed their back pay. Those employed by government
contractors will not see their back pay restored.
How did we
get here?
In short,
President Trump requested $5 billion in additional border-security funding in
order to begin construction of barriers along our southern border with Mexico.
Before recess, in one of the last actions of the Republican-controlled House
before Democrats take over this week, lawmakers passed a bill approving $5.7
billion in additional funding. But that bill was dead on arrival in the Senate,
which only agreed to $1.3 billion for border security, and none of that for a
border barrier.
When Senate
Democrats denied additional border-barrier funding, including a $2.5 billion
compromise offer from Vice President Mike Pence, Trump ordered the partial
shutdown. For how long? According to the president, “I can’t tell you when the
government is going to reopen. … [Not until] we have a wall, a fence, whatever
they’d like to call it. I’ll call it whatever they want. But it’s all the same
thing. It’s a barrier from people pouring into our country.”
Trump drew
attention to the necessity of security walls by mentioning one in particular:
“President and Mrs. Obama built a 10-foot Wall around their D.C.
mansion/compound. I agree, totally necessary for their safety and security. The
US needs slightly larger version!”
Of course
Trump will not approve that ploy, as noted by Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee
Sanders: “Pelosi released a plan that will not re-open the government because
it fails to secure the border and puts the needs of other countries above the
needs of our own citizens. The Pelosi plan is a non-starter because it does not
fund our homeland security or keep American families safe from human
trafficking, drugs, and crime.”
The
president has
called key members of Congress to
the White House today for negotiations. But the biggest obstacle to border
security is, as Trump noted, this: “The Democrats don’t want to let us have
strong borders, only for one reason. You know why? Because I want it.”
Regarding
our military presence in Syria and Middle East policy
Whether in
domestic or foreign policy matters, Trump has shown a penchant for
strategic unpredictability that
inevitably comes with varying degrees of perceived instability — which he
happens to thrive on.
In 2016,
Trump laid out his priorities for defeating the resurgent
Islamic State, along with his
policy objective in Syria: “What we should do is focus on ISIS. We should not
be focusing on Syria. You’re going to end up in world war three over Syria if
we listen to Hillary Clinton. You’re not fighting Syria any more, you’re
fighting Syria, Russia and Iran, all right?” He added that dealing with Syrian
leader Bashar al-Assad was “secondary … to [ISIS].”
A week
before Christmas, the White House announced President Trump’s “slow and highly
coordinated pullout of U.S. troops” from Syria. According to Trump, “We have
won against ISIS … Our young women, our men, they’re all coming back and
they’re coming back now. We won.”
Trump elaborated,
“American and coalition forces have had one military victory after another over
the last two years against ISIS, including the retaking of both Mosul in Iraq
and Raqqa in Syria. We’ve liberated more than 20,000 square miles of territory
… and liberated more than 3 million civilians from ISIS’s bloodthirsty control
… I made it clear from the beginning that our mission in Syria was to strip
ISIS of its military strongholds; we’re not nation building. … Our presence in
Syria was not open-ended, and it was never intended to be permanent. The men
and women who serve are entitled to clear objectives, and the confidence that
when those objectives are met they can come home and be with their families.
Our objective in Syria was always to retake the territory controlled by ISIS.
Now that we have done so, the nations of the region must step up and take more
responsibility for their future.”
He
concluded, “There will be a strong, deliberate, and orderly withdrawal of U.S.
forces from Syria — very deliberate, very orderly — while maintaining the U.S.
presence in Iraq to prevent an ISIS resurgence and to protect U.S. interests,
and also to always watch very closely over any potential reformation of ISIS
and also to watch over Iran.”
Notably, he
reiterated: “I never said that I’m gonna rush out. … ISIS was all over the
place when I took over. It was a total mess in Syria. We’ve almost eradicated
all of them. We think all of them will be gone by the time we get out.”
Clearly,
containing Iranian and Russian influence in Syria is important, but not the job
of the U.S. military. Trump is, in effect, telling Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt and
Israel, this is their task – that we will provide weapons and aid, but not
boots on the ground. The intended net effect of this policy is to strengthen
the alliances between Arabs and Jews in the region, who all have an interest in
preventing the expansion of Iran’s Islamist influence.
Predictably,
criticism of Trump’s decision came in droves from both sides of the aisle.
Perhaps the most controversial of the president’s assertions was “We won,”
leaving many to ask what, exactly, did we win? Amidst the flood of opinion
still pouring in from critics and supporters alike, what follows are the most
valid pros and cons of the Syria departure.
Supporting
the departure:
1. Troops
in Syria, an Obama-era decision, were never congressionally authorized, so the
departure is a win for the Constitution. National Review analysts
Andrew McCarthy and
David French, who otherwise
have a difference of opinion on the Syria withdrawal, both agree that the
Iraq/Afghanistan Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) did not
extend to Syria. French notes, “President Obama should have gone to Congress
and sought the necessary authorization to respond.” Likewise, McCarthy
declared: “[If] you want to fight that enemy in an elective war, the
Constitution demands that the people give their consent through their
representatives in Congress.”
2. We’ll
continue to monitor Syria and deny it as a safe haven for terrorism, according
to President Trump. One of the foremost critics of the decision to leave Syria
was initially Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). However, Graham reversed course after
meeting with the president, stating: “[I] feel a lot better about where we’re
headed in Syria.” He noted that Trump remains stalwart in his commitment to
preventing Syria from being a safe haven for terrorist cells, saying, “He
promised to destroy ISIS. He’s going to keep that promise. We’re not there yet,
but as I said today, we’re inside the 10-yard line and the president
understands the need to finish the job.”
3. To
Be Determined? If Trump has taught us anything over the last two years, it’s
that there’s always a bigger plan in play than what he and the ardently
anti-Trump media reveal. Time and again, we’ve seen his decisions turn out
better than expected. So we’re going to leave this last “pro” space open —
there’s something else at play here that has yet to become clear, and we trust
that it’s in our nation’s best interest. Again, Trump is playing chess while
the media sees only checkers.
Against
the departure:
1. The
U.S. will be less equipped to counteract its strategic enemies. The conflict in
Syria is deeply complex, but of the numerous parties invested in the outcome —
Syria, Iran, Russia, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, the Kurds, and the
U.S., to name a few — our ability to influence outcomes in the region may be
weakened as a result of Trump’s decision to depart. Policy analyst Colin
Dueck
notes: “A sudden and unexpected
drawdown of U.S. forces can only reduce America’s leverage against a range of
adversaries and competitors including ISIS and the Taliban.” Though we retain
the ability to influence the outcome through political and economic means, we
are less equipped to influence change without troops on the deck.
2. Our
allies will be less secure as a result, as will our myriad interests in the
outcome of the conflict. Even with a reported footprint of only 2,000 troops
(assuredly, some of our presence in the region is undisclosed or classified),
our presence in Syria helped to assure safety and security to our regional
allies by checking our enemies. As The Jerusalem Post’s Caroline Glick
writes: “Despite their
relatively small numbers, the U.S. forces in Syria have had a massive strategic
impact on the power balance in the country. Deployed along the border triangle
joining Syria, Iraq and Jordan, the U.S. forces in Syria have blocked Iran
taking over the Iraqi-Syria border and so forging a land bridge linking Iran to
the Mediterranean through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.” Now, in our absence, Israel
and Jordan will have to become better equipped to prevent the flow of
logistics, personnel, and ideology from Tehran to Beirut, the West Bank, and
the Gaza Strip.
3. There
was speculation about Defense Secretary James Mattis’s
resignation before the Syrian
shift, but he certainly signaled his disagreement with Trump’s decision. As
David French
wrote, “Our nation has lost its
foremost warrior in protest [of the decision].” Although Trump will surely
identify a capable defense secretary to follow in “Mad Dog’s” footsteps, his
departure struck a blow to the perceived stability of our military policy.
Mattis was the member of Trump’s National Security Council with the most
familiarity with military policy in the Middle East, beginning with his command
of Task Force 58 during
Operation Enduring Freedom, the
invasion of Afghanistan after the
9/11
Islamist attack.
The
departure of Mattis will also have a significant impact on the morale and
well-being of our men and women in uniform, who rightly held him in high
regard.
It should be
noted that Gen. Mattis also disagreed with President Trump on other important
matters of policy: walking away from the Obama administration’s Paris climate
agreement and tearing up its Iran nuke deal; moving our nation’s embassy in
Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem; engaging with North Korean leader Kim
Jong-un; banning certain “transgender” individuals from U.S. military service;
and using U.S. troops to defend our southern border.
In summary,
our military analyst, Lee Crockett, concludes that Syria, Iran, and Afghanistan
constitute a complex tapestry of international politics and warfare.
According to
Crocket: “The Syria conflict is incredibly complicated, and it is a microcosm
of the geopolitical conflict between Iran, China, Russia, and the West. One
possible outcome could be that the unification of both parties against the
pullout could result in a congressionally approved AUMF for any further
involvement in Syria. But if history has taught us anything about prolonged
wars (see Vietnam, 1964-1973, and Afghanistan, 2001-present) it is that simply
pulling chocks and bringing the troops home has resulted in America failing to
accomplish its desired ends.
"In
1964, we sought to prevent communism from bleeding into South Vietnam and
beyond. Two administrations and three presidential terms later, our national
resolve on the importance of South Vietnam faltered, and we abandoned South
Vietnam to a communist takeover in 1975. We entered Afghanistan in 2001 to
erode the nation’s status as a safe haven for terrorism. Two administrations
and three presidential terms later in 2013, our national resolve on the
importance of Afghanistan to our national security faltered, and we abandoned
Afghanistan to the resurgence of the Taliban and Islamism.
"President
Trump wisely returned to Afghanistan in force in 2017, though we returned to a
nation that was not only war-torn but also being overrun again by the Islamist
Taliban. In 2014, we entered Syria (unconstitutionally though it was) to
counteract the Islamic State and prevent the region from harboring terrorist
cells. Now that President Trump has decided to depart, have we truly accomplished
our initial objective, or will the Syrian departure result in a regional
failure to secure our national interests — suffering the same fate as Vietnam
and Afghanistan at our allies’ expense?”
The
criticism of Trump’s unfolding military strategy in Syria was punctuated by a
surprise Christmas visit by the president and first lady to Al Asad Air Base in
Iraq.
To the
resounding cheers of military personnel, Trump asserted: “Our faith and
confidence in you is absolute and total. … You are the warriors who defend our
freedom. You are the patriots who ensure the flame of liberty burns forever
bright. That’s who you are. … To everyone at Al Asad Air Base, and every
American serving overseas, may God bless you, may God protect you, and may God
always keep you safe. We love you. We support you. We salute you. We cherish
you. And together, we pray for justice, goodness, and peace on Earth.”
On that, we
can all agree. Above all the political rancor, I ask you to join us in daily
prayer for God’s blessing upon our nation, especially for the protection of and
provision for our uniformed Patriots and their families, and wisdom for our
nation’s leaders.
Note: Thank
you to all who supported
The Patriot Fund’s 2018 Year-End Campaign —
we will provide an update on Thursday. This campaign accounts for almost 50% of
our annual operating revenue and sustains our publication from November to
April.
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Pro Deo et Libertate — 1776
__________________
The Patriot Post Mission
The Patriot
Post is steadfast in our mission to extend the endowment of Liberty to the next generation by advocating for individual
rights and responsibilities, supporting the restoration of constitutional
limits on government and the judiciary, and promoting free enterprise, national
defense and traditional American values. We are a rock-solid conservative
touchstone for the expanding ranks of grassroots
Americans Patriots from all walks
of life. We are not sustained by any political, special interest or parent
organization, and we do not accept advertising to ensure our advocacy is not
restrained by commercial influence. Our mission and operation budgets are funded
entirely by the contributions from Patriots like you. Please support The Patriot Fund today!
