I did a Google search of the term "conscripting syrian refugees." This concise article was the first search result:
I have the same objections to the term that the author uses to describe ISIS that I had when I first heard it. I also can't help the way that the New York Times presents its publications. Other than that, it seems to me that his argument offers a possible alternative to endless haggling over how many refugees each country should take.
Why are we throwing away a resource like people who are from the places that ISIS and other regimes are taking over? They know their countries. They know the topography. They know and are used to the climate. They know the languages. They know the enemy and have personal reasons to fight.
Why should healthy adults and their families languish in refugee camps year after year instead of the adults being trained to fight and programs being created to take care of their children and older or disabled relatives until they have re-established their control of the places where they're from?
Copyright, with noted exceptions, L. Kochman, November 25, 2015 @ 3:38 p.m.
