Yes. France has a pretty strong military, and remains quite active. They have a pretty heavy hand in Africa.
Much like the contention that there were no terrorists among the refugees, our government will not actually be thoroughly vetting the Syrian refugees the way we do normal immigrants.
Where was this statement actually made?
There may or may not be terrorists among refugees coming from Syria, but I’m reasonably certain that this is not the greatest source of concern for any government. The Paris attacks required explosives, automatic weapons and ammunition, none of which, to anyone’s knowledge, is being hand-carried by refugees across multiple European countries. That means there is some sort of organization already existing in-country.
The French authorities haven’t said much about the provenance of the attackers so far, but if these attacks follow previous patterns most or all of the participants will turn out to have been relatively long-term residents or citizens of one or more European countries, even if ethnically middle eastern. I am aware that one of the attackers had been alleged in early press reports to have arrived from Syria in October, but this kind of thing requires a lot more infrastructure to accomplish than can be done by a couple of mooks fresh off the boat.
We vet refugees that are resettled from a third country.
A correction: Sufism is not a separate sect of the Islam. Except to the Wahhabites, it is no contradiction to be Maleki sunni and follow a Sufi path (tariqa) or a Hanafi and Sufi, etc.
Westerns seem to have gotten the idea Sufism is a specific sect, it is not (although some sufi Tariqa have some to develop in a way they end up being separate, like the Mouride).
Theoretically, yes - we have at least one working aircraft carrier, a fairly decent navy and enough grunts to hold some ground, even do some fairly ninja stuff. I believe we still rely on US for the heavy lifting of transferring the ground pounders to where they need to be however (i.e. you guys have a ton of C-130s lying around everywhere that we can rent).
OTOH, we don’t really have the kind of manpower needed to support *multiple *wars going on at the same time ; and a sizeable part of our force projection is currently tied up in sub-Saharan Africa (in Mali, Chad & CAR). We currently field some 7,000 men down there, out of the ~15,000 the Army is supposed to be able to project. But ~5,000 of the remaining 8,000 are kept as a rapid response force in case of fire close to home (as opposed to committable to a long duration mission far from home).
Which leaves about 3,000 guys we could, in theory, send in Syria (assuming the Army actually has them - the 15,000 number is what the government tasked it to have back in 2013). That’s not much of an army. Besides, as I understand it they’re more like the “cost of doing business” part of the projection force - replacements, training, logistics and so on.
TL;DR : 7,000 blokes (and 70 planes) is the functional upper limit of what the armée française is designed & budgeted to be able to commit outside the EU for an indefinite duration - and we’re already there.
Once again, you have been misinformed:
My source is pretty darn good:
I don’t see where Comey said they would be let in if they don’t meet the vetting criteria.
He acknowledged that we don’t have enough info to do a proper vetting on everyone.
Of course, the standards could be changed from “We let people in if they raise no red flags” to “We only let people in if we are confident they are not members of ISIS” but I’ve seen no evidence of a change of that nature.
Where do you get the idea that “We let people in if they raise no red flags” is the current policy?
Then what is the current policy?
The Daily Caller with their spin is not, The FBI director is only describing the situation, not “admitting” to anything, he actually said that it would be a challenge, not that it was impossible to keep an eye on the refugees.
What he actually said was if the refugees were not involved “making a ripple” in Syria it is more likely that they should be allowed to come.
adaher, you seem to be putting forth a lot of misinformation regarding vetting. Just flat out false statements. I’m not saying your doing it on purpose, but you need to make sure you have your facts correct.
He just quoted the FBI director saying they don’t have the ability to properly vet people.
There is absolutely no need to bring these people into Europe. We can treat them like any other disaster situation and give temporary shelter to them in place or as close to where they live as possible.
Again, the existing process is so rigorous that we have trouble getting the translators that have risked their life in Iraq through it. It’s taken utterly seriously, with multiple agencies involved, and there are no quick work arounds. If it was easy to change, we’d have had those translators in years ago.
Meanwhile, I don’t know if it’s been mentioned in this thread yet, I may have missed it, but Belgium’s made some arrests in the case. Something about a car rented in Brussels was found near one of the attack sites. There was also a car found with a bunch of weapons in it. I’m not sure if those two cars are one and the same.
Seriously, until last year the U.S. was only admitting a few dozen a year, in spite of the tens of thousands who have served with U.S. forces. Part of the approval processinvolves getting a signed recommendation from the U.S. general or chief of mission or flag officer in the chain of command under whom you worked, before you can even try to undergo a background check. If the Federal Government can’t manage to clear these guys, who are very much on the radar, how are they going to clear thousands of civilians who may have had no contact with U.S. personnel?
Does the Navy have marines? Is their still a French foreign legion?
I wonder if France could put together a force with a combination special forces, active army, marines, inactive but recalled, police, and FFL?