By George Friedman Feb. 1, 2017

As long as illegal immigration is permitted, the foundations of American culture
are at risk.

Last week, President Donald Trump temporarily blocked both “immigrants and nonimmigrants”
from seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States. From the beginning
of his presidential campaign he has spoken at various times and in a variety of ways of taking a
step like this. Having done it, the action created uproar in part because it was done without
adequate preparation, and in larger part, because it was done at all. The mutual recriminations
over this particular act are of little consequence. What is important is to try to understand why
the immigration issue is so sensitive. The uproar over Trump’s action is merely one of many to
come, which also will be of little consequence.
Trump has pointed to two very different patterns. One is immigration to the U.S. by Muslims. The
other is illegal Mexican immigration. Both resonated with Trump’s supporters. It is interesting to
consider other immigration patterns that have not become an issue. One is immigration to the
U.S. from India. The other is immigration from China and other parts of Asia. Both have been
massive movements since about 1970, and both have had substantial social consequences.

Trump’s executive order effectively banning citizens from seven Muslim majority countries. KONRAD FIEDLER/AFP/Getty Images
Indian migration to the U.S. has been one of the most successful in American history in that it
has been among the least disruptive, has generated minimal hostility and has been
extraordinarily successful economically. Today, Indian-Americans are the wealthiest single
ethnic group in the United States. They are hardly invisible, as they are present in all professions
and as corporate executives.
Chinese and East Asian immigration is more complex. Chinese immigrants began coming to the
U.S. in the mid-19th century. They came as laborers supplied by Chinese contractors and were
crucial in building American railroads alongside – and in competition with – Irish immigrants. The
Chinese were exploited and brutalized and didn’t get citizenship. But after the 1970s, their story
matched the Indians’ – the Chinese were not quite as wealthy, but they did well.
About 3.7 million people of Indian descent live in the U.S., many of them second-generation
immigrants. About 4 million people of Chinese descent live in the U.S., with somewhat more
complex backgrounds. There also are 3.3 million Muslims and 35.8 million people of Mexican
descent, including an estimated 5.2 million of the 11 million who are in the U.S. illegally,
according to Pew Research Center.
If there was a strain of intense, anti-immigrant or racist sentiment in the United States, it would
be directed against Indians and Chinese just as much as Muslims and Mexicans. There would
also be a persistent strain from previous Irish immigration in the 19th century, and of Italians,
Jews and other Eastern and Southern Europeans who flooded into the United States between
1880 and 1920. To the extent that racism exists against any of these groups, the antiimmigration fervor is marginal; century-old immigrant cohorts have become mainstream. They
are not the ones marginalized – their detractors are.
It is the example of the Chinese and the Indians that blows up the theory that Americans have
an overarching anti-immigrant sensibility that Trump is tapping into. It also raises serious doubts
that Trump is anti-immigrant. I have searched and may have missed it, but I didn’t find that
Trump made anti-Chinese or anti-Indian statements, as opposed to anti-Muslim and anti-Mexican
statements. If it were classic anti-immigrant sentiment, the rage would be against Indian
immigrants who have emerged as a powerful and wealthy ethnic group in a startlingly short
time. But there is minimally detectable hostility toward them, which means that the immigration
situation in the United States is far more complex than it seems.
The issue is not whether Trump and his followers are generally anti-immigrant. The question is
why they are so hostile toward Muslims, who roughly total the same number as the Chinese and
Indians, and to Mexicans, who vastly outnumber these groups. I wish the explanation were more
complex, but it is actually quite simple in both cases.
The United States has been at war with Muslim groups since Sept. 11, 2001. When the U.S. has
gone to war with foreign powers, there has been a surge of hostility toward immigrants from
that foreign power’s country. During World War I, German immigrants in the United States who
still spoke German came under suspicion and were pressured to adopt English. During World
War II, Germans who had maintained close and cordial ties to Germany prior to the war were
harassed, and in some cases, arrested under suspicion of espionage and subversion. Japanese
citizens of the United States were arrested and sent to detention camps out of fear that they
might be conducting espionage or sabotage for the Japanese. During the Cold War, post-war
émigrés from Soviet satellite nations were distrusted by the FBI, which feared they were sent by
the Soviets as spies and saboteurs.
When there is war, there is suspicion of the enemy. When there is suspicion of the enemy, there
is fear that émigrés might be in the United States on false pretenses. Historically, émigrés have
been caught in the middle to some extent because their loyalty is questioned. In war, there is
rage as the casualties mount, particularly if sabotage and terrorism are carried out in the
homeland. This is hardly new or difficult to understand. If those of us old enough to recall the
terror after 9/11 will do so, we can remember the fear and uncertainty not only about what
comes next, but also whether the next terror team already was present in the United States.
After 15 years of war and many Americans dead, this has congealed into a framework of distrust
that may well go beyond the rational. The detention of the entire Japanese community was not
rational. Nor was it something that cannot be understood. It is hard to calibrate what you ought
to be afraid of in war, but you know that something dreadful might happen. Are all Muslims
warriors against the United States? No. Do you know who is or isn’t? Also no. Wars, therefore,
create fears. There is nothing new in the American fear of Muslims in the context of war.
The Mexican situation is different. There was a war, but it was long ago, and fear of war is not
the driving issue. Rather, the driving issue is illegal Mexican immigration. There is a great deal of
homage paid to the rule of law. Congress passed a law specifying the mechanics of legal
migration. Some 5 million Mexicans broke the law. Whether this has harmed the U.S. economy
or not, the indifference to enforcing the law by people who are normally most insistent on the
rule of law has created a sense of hypocrisy. At the same time that the middle and lower-middle
classes feel as though their interests are being ignored, the presentation of illegal aliens as
“undocumented immigrants” reveals a linguistic maneuver. The “illegals” are transformed into
the merely “undocumented,” implying a minor bureaucratic foul-up.
The anger is not only directed at the Mexicans. It is part of the rage against those living in the
bubble, who present themselves as humanitarians, but who will encounter the illegal aliens, if at
all, as their servants. And rightly or wrongly, some suspect that open support for breaking the
law is designed to bring cheap labor to support the lifestyles of the wealthy at the expense of
the declining middle class. The fact that the well-to-do tend to be defenders of illegal aliens
while also demanding the rule of law increases suspicions.
There is a somewhat deeper layer. As long as illegal immigration is permitted, the foundations of
American culture are at risk. It is not simply immigration, but the illegality that is frightening,
because it not only can’t be controlled, but also the law is under attack by those who claim to
uphold it. The fear that a person’s livelihood is being undermined and his cultural foundation is
being overwhelmed creates deep fear of the intentions of the more powerful.
The issue appears to have little to do with NAFTA and other economic concerns. The U.S. and
China have equally intense economic issues, but there is minimal tension over Chinese
immigration. The economic and immigration issues seem only tenuously connected.
It is rare that an issue of such emotional impact as Muslims during a war with Muslims, or
immigration in violation of the law, would not cause tension. As we saw with President Franklin
D. Roosevelt and the Japanese, things that are obvious to those living decades later are not
obvious at the time. Indeed, it is a failure of imagination to be unable to empathize with the fear
felt after Pearl Harbor. In our time, the failure to empathize comes from those who feel immune
to illegal immigration or the 15-year war. It is part of the growing fragmentation of American
society that different classes and regions should experience these things so differently, and that
each side has so little understanding of the other.
It is the president’s job to bridge the gap. But regardless of his wishes, the president is trapped
by the upwelling of feeling on questions of immigration by Muslims at a time of war, or the
refusal of government at all levels to enforce the law. But what is not true is that this represents
a generalized hostility to immigrants or even racism. If it did, the Indian and the Chinese
immigration in recent generations would have encountered a very different greeting. This issue
is about two groups. The response may well be extreme and clumsy. But after many years of
ignoring the anxiety that both issues generated, or dismissing it as racism, it inevitably ratchets
out of control. In fact, neither issue is mysterious, unprecedented or subject to cautious
management, given the passions on all sides.

Terrorism is a specific strategy that’s employed to advance the strategic goals of the groups which use it. Here’s why.

BY ELLIOT FRIEDLAND Wed, February 1, 2017

Illustrative picture. (Photo: © Clarion Project)

Terrorism is often thought of as a plan to kill as many people as possible, lashing out in blind fury against anyone who does not share the extremist beliefs of the terrorist organization. But it isn’t. It’s a strategy of carefully-deployed violence that seeks to advance the goals of the terrorist organizations which choose that path.

Here are four reasons why terrorism has become the tactic of choice for Islamist groups which choose violence.

1.- Defeating America Militarily is Almost Impossible

“I lead the strongest military that the world has ever known. And I will never hesitate to protect my country or our allies, unilaterally and by force where necessary” – Former US President Barack Obama, 2015

America’s military budget is larger than that of the next seven countries combined. In 2015, America spent $598 billion on defense spending, compared to $567 billion for China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the United Kingdom, India, France and Japan (the next seven countries in descending order of expenditure) combined. This is not including discretionary spending, veterans’ benefits and a host of other costs. Out of those countries, five are allies.

On the battlefield itself, American soldiers go to war equipped like no other army. They have reconnaissance in the air, support teams that can call in airstrikes or artillery support, body armor, night vision, sophisticated communications systems etc. They can use as much ammunition as they want. Their training enables set-piece maneuvers to carry out a variety of operations with minimal casualties and maximum efficiency in defeating the enemy. In the most recent raid in Yemen, US soldiers killed 14 Al-Qaeda fighters for the loss of one man. This is not even counting America’s very large nuclear arsenal.

Faced with this enemy, terrorist groups can never hope to win knockout victories on the battlefield. Even in the far-fetched scenario of total conventional war between all the Muslim countries together against the United States and its allies, they would most likely lose and lose hard.

Terrorism provides a way to strike back without having to take on that military might directly.

2.-Terrorism Is Much, Much Cheaper Than Waging War

In 2016, the Department of Defense estimated the cost of operations in Iraq at $11 million per day. A single hellfire missile costs $110,000, while the Predator drones which fire them cost just over $4 million each. For America, going to war is extremely expensive.

Comparatively, a terrorist attack can be extremely cheap. Larger-scale operations such as the 9/11 attack cost a lot more, of course, but terrorist groups have largely abandoned those in favor of small-scale attacks that anyone can carry out.

For example, the Nice truck attack, which killed 84 people in an attack against a crowd gathered on the promenade for Bastille Day, costs very little. The terrorist just had an ammunition magazine, a fake pistol, a dummy grenade, a replica Kalashnikov rifle, and a replica M16 rifle. The total combined cost of that attack pales in comparison to even one airstrike.

ISIS openly brags about this in its propaganda. It talks about how America and its allies are being bled economically by having to pay eye-watering sums to fight cheap terrorist attacks. Western countries are almost universally suffering sovereign debt crises at the same time. America alone is over $19 trillion in debt, and taxpayers are feeling the pinch. Combined with an economy that is recovering from the 2008 recession slower than expected, the middle classes are increasingly opposed to expensive anti-terrorism measures as they see the cost to their own pockets.

Terrorism is a way of waging economic warfare against the West.

3.-Modern Media Magnifies the Impact

With the ubiquity of camera-phones, live-streamed footage, recordings and images from the scenes of terrorist attacks are a feature of every major attack. To take just one example, the Berlin truck attack was recorded by a dashcam mounted on a nearby car, to provide footage of the truck speeding into the Christmas market. This amplifies the trauma experienced by the target population.

Research conducted by the National Center for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), concluded that “Those who watch more media coverage are also at higher risk for PTSD and associated problems.” Terror groups have multiple goals in stressing the target population. Firstly, they wish to inflict a sense of helplessness that governments are powerless to stop the attacks, unless they give in to the demands of the terrorists. Terrorists also aim to divide societies, as different factions compete to come up with solutions. We see in Europe and America increased division and hatred between different political groups, with different solutions to the problem of terrorism.

They also have the goal of gaining media attention for their cause. After every attack, news about the terrorists and their goals dominates the headlines, bringing the focus of the world onto who the terrorists are and what they want. This allows them airtime to spread their views. If people are not able to see clearly that the ideology driving the terrorism must be uprooted at the source, they may be inclined to listen to the terrorists’ propaganda.

Terror attacks dominate the headlines allowing the group to get its message out, and magnify differences within the target population creating discord, fear and tension, thus furthering the group’s goals.

4.-An Anti-Muslim Backlash Could Force Muslims to Choose Extremism

ISIS regularly speaks in its propaganda about “eliminating the gray zone” and forcing everyone in the world to choose a side.

Attacks against Muslims, such as the one which just took place in Quebec in which six worshippers were gunned down, are welcomed by ISIS. They aim to isolate Muslims from their broader communities and thus turn to more extreme groups for protection. This is what terrorist groups like ISIS want to happen, and it is to the credit of the Muslim communities of America and Europe that so far no such thing has occurred.

Terrorism seeks to polarize and cause fear, so that in their panic people run to groups that promise only security, because that kind of tribalism and conflict empowers Islamists to achieve their goals further.

https://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/why-terrorism

Wednesday, February 1, 2017

By Paul McLeary with Adam Rawnsley

Bannon’s world. For someone who ran a media company — and hosted a radio show — before become President Trump’s top advisor, there’s been an air of mystery surrounding Steve Bannon. The USA Today went back and listened to dozens of recordings of the show he hosted for the conspiracy-minded, ultra-right wing Breitbart media company, and found that much of what he said in 2015 and early 2016 has since been parroted by POTUS.

Earlier this week, Trump made Bannon a member of his National Security Council, taking the highly unusual step of installing a political adviser in the middle of his national security team.

In one episode, Bannon said, “you have an expansionist Islam and you have an expansionist China. Right? They are motivated. They’re arrogant. They’re on the march. And they think the Judeo-Christian West is on the retreat” He went on to predict a war between the U.S. and China within the next decade.

He also predicted “a major shooting war in the Middle East” in the coming years. “To be brutally frank, I mean Christianity is dying in Europe, and Islam is on the rise,” he said in January 2016. “Some of these situations may get a little unpleasant,” Bannon said. “But you know what, we’re in a war.”

Keep an eye on Yemen. Some Pentagon officials are looking at Yemen as a place where the Trump administration might allow the military more room for action than the Obama administration, according to the Washington Post’s Thomas Gibbons-Neff and Missy Ryan.

After the weekend’s Navy SEAL raid on an al Qaeda camp that killed over a dozen fighters — along with the 8 year-old daughter of deceased American cleric Anwar ­al-Awlaki, who was killed in 2011 in a U.S. drone strike – along with Chief Petty Officer William “Ryan” Owens, defense officials see more action coming. “We expect an easier approval cycle [for operations] under this administration,” one defense official told the Post. Another former officials with experience in Yemen said that more U.S. troops on the ground in Yemen was “overdue.”

Military clears itself of wrongdoing. Remember back to late 2015, when a group of civilian intelligence analysts at the U.S. Central Command charged that their bosses were tweaking their work to make it look like the war against ISIS in Iraq was going better than facts on the ground warranted? This might surprise you, but a Pentagon investigation due out Wednesday finds little evidence to support those charges. Buzzfeed’s Nancy Youssef first reported the results of the investigation, saying one of the analysts called the report a “whitewash.”

Asking too much of Mattis? Expectations for new Defense Secretary James Mattis are high — with allies and domestic observers expecting him to act as a bulwark against an inexperienced White House’s desire to move fast.

“Mattis is the canary in the coal mine,” signaling the mood of the Trump administration, one foreign official told the Wall Street Journal’s Gordon Lubold and Julian Barnes. That’s a lot to ask of any cabinet member, and let’s not forget that Mattis has bosses: national security advisor Michael Flynn and President Trump, to whom he’s accountable, and whose policies he’s tasked with carrying out.

But the SecDef is wheels up for Asia on Wednesday, stopping off in Japan and South Korea on the first overseas trip of any member of the Trump administration. While there, Mattis will address the North Korean threat, China’s moves in the South China Sea, and calm jittery allies unsure over Trump’s campaign pledges to pull U.S. troops out of overseas bases in the region. Later this month, Mattis will head to an international summit in Germany, where he’ll again be asked to be the leading face for the future of U.S. foreign policy.

Tell us how you really feel. A senior career diplomat “delivered a soaring and thinly-veiled critique of President Donald Trump’s foreign policy in a farewell address Tuesday that pleaded with colleagues to stay in their positions and uphold America’s longstanding policies of openness and liberty,: FP’s John Hudson reports from Foggy Bottom.

“We still owe something to America,” said Tom Countryman, the outgoing under secretary of state for arms control, at a private goodbye party at the State Department. “A policy without professionals is by definition an amateur policy. You have to help make the choices that bring this country forward.”

You down with FSB? A top cybersecurity specialist and his deputy in Russia’s intelligence service, the FSB, are reportedly being accused by the Kremlin of “breaking their oath” by working with America’s Central Intelligence Agency, FP’s Emily Tamkin tells us. “Sergei Mikhailov, allegedly detained at a board meeting last December, and his deputy, Dmitry Dokuchaev, were arrested by the Kremlin on Jan. 27 for treason and illegal hacking. Then, on Tuesday, Russian news agency Interfax, after hearing from unidentified sources, reported that they, along with Ruslan Stoyanov, the head of cybercrime investigations at Kaspersky Labs, and a fourth, as yet unnamed person, are suspected of passing along secret information to the CIA — or of passing it to someone who passed it to the CIA.”

The more you know. Russian defense ministry has just launched a Arabic language version, and is unveiling a Chinese site next month, according to Kremlin-funded Sputnik.

Welcome to SitRep. Send any tips, thoughts or national security events to [email protected] or via Twitter: @paulmcleary or @arawnsley.

Philippines

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte is making good on his promises to warm relations with China in contrast to the recent tensions between the two countries over disputed territory in the South China Sea. Reuters reports that Duterte said he’s asking China to pitch in to help with the Philippines’s piracy problem in the Sulu Sea. Duterte says he’d be “glad” if Chinese coast guard vessels patrolled the waters, where Islamist militants have kidnapped sailors and held them for ransom. Duterte has argued for a pivot to Russia and China and away from the U.S. following criticism from American officials over his policy of encouraging the vigilante murders of drug addicts.

Ukraine

Russian-backed rebels in Ukraine are increasing their use of heavy artillery, shelling population centers in territory held by the Ukrainian government and raising the question of what, if anything, President Trump intends to do about it. The Washington Post reports that ten people have died in the fighting already, but all eyes are on the Trump administration to see what its policy will be towards the conflict. During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump expressed support for Russia’s annexation of Crimea and skepticism that the Russian troops involved in the operation were actually Russian.

The UN Security Council expressed “grave concern” on Tuesday over the fighting. “The members of the Security Council expressed their full support of sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine,” the Security Council — which includes Russia, and Ukraine on a rotating basis — said in statement. “The members of the Security Council called for an immediate return to a ceasefire regime.”

Syria

President Trump’s policy towards Syria and the anti-Islamic State fight is becoming somewhat clearer following claims from U.S.-backed rebels that they had been provided armored vehicles by Washington. The predominantly Kurdish SDF has been among the most effective American allies against the Islamic State but U.S. support for it has come at the cost of mounting irritation from Turkey, which considers the Kurdish groups that compose the SDF to be terrorists. SDF spokesman Talal Sello called the shipment of the vehicles the marker of “a new phase” in the U.S.-SDF relationship, noting that the Obama administration had been less willing to supply the group with more than light weapons.

Drones

The New York Times got a hold of some of the Islamic State’s internal documents on its drone program. The terrorist group has been using commercial and purpose-built drones to drop small explosive like grenades on Iraqi forces trying to clear out the city of Mosul. According to the documents, the Islamic State has standardized checklists for drone missions as well as documentation showing the various commercial components used to build and equip the devices. A spokesman for the U.S.-led anti-Islamic State coalition told the times that the terrorist group’s drones have killed about a dozen people and injured 50 so far.

Psyop

One of the Defense Department’s flagship counter-messaging programs against the Islamic State is bogged down by incompetence and dubious impact, according to an AP investigation. The program, called WebOps, is supposed to use Arabic-speaking personnel to dissuade potential recruits to the Islamic State and counter their message. But the wire service found allegations that WebOps personnel often have weak grasps of Islam and the Arabic language, have awarded contracts based on nepotism, and provided their own misleading assessments about the impact of WebOps on Islamist militants online.

Business of defense

When the Obama administration greenlit the sale of fighter jets to Gulf countries, it let Kuwait and Qatar’s purchases move forward but held back the sale of F-16s to Bahrain until it improved its human rights record. Now, Defense News reports, it looks like the fine print about human rights is no more and the sale will go through unimpeded. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) says he thinks the Trump administration will approve the $2.8 billion sale without any restrictions.

Book deals

In a move that will surprise few, a Navy SEAL is writing a book. Robert O’Neill, a member of the Navy’s elite SEAL Team 6 and the man that, by some accounts, pulled the trigger on the shot that killed Osama Bin Laden, will be publishing a memoir in April about his life with the special operations unit. Matt Bissonnette, a fellow Team 6 alumni and participant in the Bin Laden raid, also published a memoir that touched on the famous raid only to find himself in legal trouble failing to clear it through pre-publication review. O’Neill’s book, by contrast, has been vetted through the pre-publication review process already.

Photo Credit: Mark Wilson/Getty Images