Originally Posted by
Easy Street
I think the West has finally realised that open-ended military intervention to prop up weak societies and governments is not a sustainable strategy given budgetary and societal constraints at home. (I note that the report into the Australian SAS war crimes points to the effect of decades of continual activity, for instance.) If weaker societies or governments do not wish to fall then they must strengthen themselves sufficiently (whether by economic, military or ideological means) to resist whatever aggression they are facing, such that any outside assistance can be limited in scope to that which can realistically be provided under the UN banner. If that means Western states putting greater emphasis on defensive measures against the consequences of hostile regimes establishing themselves overseas, including refusing admittance to any resulting waves of refugees, I think a majority of the Western populace would gladly accept that.
This is a hard argument to make and will upset some people, but the easier it is for populations to flee as refugees, the less likely it is that terrorist takeovers can be resisted. 'War among the people' needs the people to stay and fight back, whether as members of their state's security forces, as part of wider societal resistance, eventually as voters in elections, or whatever. Our much-vaunted Western freedoms came about because people didn't flee in the face of repression, gradually secured greater rights, established functioning states, and then fought to defend them - making enormous sacrifices at every step. It's a harsh viewpoint but there we are. Sorry.
The difference between the 'Then' and the 'Now' is that 'then' the peoples being agressed fought back, 'now' they just run for it. Clearly their 'country' isn't worth fighting for. They need to grow several pairs.