Opinion: We have a moral responsibility to accept Syrian refugees

As for the question of risk in admitting refugees, it’s important to maintain some perspective.

LIKE ALL soldiers deployed to the Iraq war in 2006, I was trained to adhere to the laws of armed conflict. Soldiers must attempt to mitigate these consequences through “due care” for civilians, often by accepting more risk upon themselves: clearing an insurgent compound in a populated area, for instance, with a squad of soldiers instead of dropping a bomb.

I think of these principles when I hear politicians debate how the U.S. military should respond to the crisis in Syria and whether this country should admit more refugees from that country. Many politicians are pushing for American troops to become more involved in the Syrian civil war while also rejecting that this country has any responsibility to accept Syrians fleeing the war.

But if Americans are going to continue to support a military intervention in Syria, then we also must accept some risk in mitigating the consequences of war on innocent Syrian bystanders. Otherwise, based on the moral laws of armed conflict, we will be waging an unjust war.

Now, I agree with most observers that the Assad regime and the Islamic State are the root causes of the refugee crisis, not the United States. But it’s undeniable that war and conflict destroy lives and displace people.

In Syria, the insurgents live among the people, making it a daunting task for U.S. and coalition forces to distinguish civilians from combatants. As any reasonable person would do, the Syrians are attempting to remove themselves and their families from a dangerous environment. We’ve seen this before in wars that we have participated in. During the 2007 surge in Anbar province in Iraq, U.S. soldiers and marines were battling to regain Ramadi from the grip of al-Qaeda in Iraq. The city of 500,000 was nearly emptied of civilians, due to the heavy fighting. The Iraqis then, like the Syrians today, fled the fighting for safer lands.

As for the question of risk in admitting refugees, it’s important to maintain some perspective. Only two percent of the accepted refugees are single men of combat age. The United States has resettled 784,000 refugees from around the world since Sept. 11, 2001, based on State Department figures. In those 14 years, exactly three resettled refugees (non-Syrian) were arrested for planning terrorist activities.

According to a November 2015 ABC News/Washington Post poll, approximately 73 percent of Americans supported U.S. airstrikes in Iraq and Syria to combat ISIL, a significant majority in favor of the president’s decision to use force. In contrast, only one third of Americans believed that we should continue to take in Syrian refugees at current or increased levels, according to a November 2015 YouGov poll.

Since the beginning of the U.S. intervention, only about 2,000 Syrian refugees have been welcomed into the country. Many in Congress also echo this sentiment by advocating for a more aggressive military strategy in Syria while dueling with the administration on accepting refugees. This is a clear violation of the doctrine of “Double-Effect” and “due care” to mitigate the harm being done to the Syrian people.

We hold soldiers accountable to these principles, in bello, regardless of the justness for going to war. Understanding that these are the moral responsibilities of soldiers leads one to ask, what of the American people? Regardless of one’s approval of President Obama’s leadership or the soundness of his decision to go to war against the Islamic State, each American citizen is part of a social contract by virtue of living here and being afforded collective security and social welfare. Like soldiers participating in war, the American people are not able to pick and choose the wars that our leaders wage. The American people certainly might not be liable for leaders starting an unjust war, but they should still be responsible for aspects of how the war is waged and ultimately ended.

Moral responsibility calls for Americans to address the implications of their support for military action and intervention in Syria, and then mitigate the associated collateral effects, namely the huge increase in refugees. Like the soldier on the battlefield, the American people ought to accept some collective responsibility for their support for the Syrian war and take “due care” to lessen Syrian civilians’ suffering.

We’re willing to bomb, but not provide refuge to those trying to escape from the bombing. What does that say about our national character?

Steven Katz was an active duty Army officer from 2003-09. He served two tours of duty to Iraq in ground combat leadership positions: 2004-05 in Tikrit and 2006-07 in Ramadi. He earned the Bronze Star and Combat Action Badge during the surge in Anbar province. He holds a master’s degree in public policy from Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government. This appeared in The Washington Post.