NBC interviews Kirk Johnson, founder of the List Project

Here is an interview with Kirk Johnson, whom we have posted on before. A few highlights:

Once Iraqi families get here, is it “happily ever after?”  
No, and I’m wrestling with how to grow the project to address this. Most of them are thrilled to be here, but what I see regularly is: A family comes, it’s the first time they’ve known peace, and from my own experience, PTSD wreaks havoc after you leave.

Iraqi refugees come with milk-and-honey ideas of what the U.S. will be like. In this context there is a great “coming down” when they realize they won’t find a high-paying job immediately. There is a recalibration that happens that is not always that smooth. 

To his credit, Johnson seems to be trying to find personal help for the Iraqis rather than the kind of bureaucratic solutions the resettlement agencies usually use.

Is it true that some recent refugees have even gone back to Iraq?
Some have signed up to go back to Iraq as interpreters…When they’re being offered $130,000 to do that, they go against all reason, but there is desperation to make ends meet. Titan L3 was doing a lot of recruiting — this is the main firm finding interpreters for our troops. So we’re going to bring different NGO’s (Non-Governmental Organizations) to help these highly educated refugees so they don’t make “panicked” decisions.

Maybe they think it’s worth it to go back. Maybe it isn’t as dangerous. It seems presumptious to assume these are “panicked” decisions.

Our position has always been that the goal should be for the U.S. to help the Iraqis who helped us and are endangered, with the goal of their returning home when it is safe.  I have to agree that we have not fulfilled our obligation to the translators and other Iraqis who put themselves in danger by working for Americans. Johnson made the interesting suggestions that we have an airlift and fly them to Guam, where there are Americans and they would be safe. I don’t know how Guam feels about that, or what they would do when they get there, but maybe this is worth looking into, assuming the goal is for them to return home. I always think of the recent interview with the president of the Red Crescent:

The interviewer asked him, “Is opening doors internationally a viable option?” And he asked if the United States owes it to Iraq to take in refugees.  Here is Mr. Hakki’s reply:

“If we allow Iraqis to go somewhere else, then who is going to build Iraq?”

He added that there are certain cases in which the people cannot go back, but whenever they can, they should. He says the displaced persons should be encouraged to solve their situations, and the Iraqi government should make it easier for the outside refugees to go back.

Then there is the statement of Prime Minister Malaki:

“We hope that our children, especially the experts, who are obliged to emigrate, would return,” he told reporters at a press conference with Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt.

I repeatedly quote these statements because it is so important to keep this goal in mind, especially when almost everything in the media ignores the possibility and focuses only on the United States’s supposed obligation to bring the refugees here. It is better for us, and far better for Iraq, to do everything possible to make it possible and desirable for the Iraqis to return.