Ot-Our Other Arab War- The one 200 years ago

Our Arab War, The One 200 Years Ago - Dennis Byrne is a Chicago-area writer and public affairs consultant January 5, 2004 For those who think it is always wiser to put together an international panel of negotiators to try to talk foreign enemies into being nice, I present to you, our Arab war. The one 200 years ago. The one in which diplomacy failed miserably. The one in which Europe refused to help. The one we conducted alone. And won. The Barbary Wars Talk about forgetting the lessons of history. One of the first ones we learned 200 years ago was that "diplomacy" and "multilateralism" sometimes must end and direct action must begin. Back then, pirates from the North African states of Morocco, Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli routinely plundered and seized our ships, demanded ransoms for captive crews or sold our sailors into slavery. European shipping routinely suffered the same fate. Europe's answer was "let's negotiate," which meant sitting down with some pasha and asking him how much money he wanted to leave them alone. Then forking over millions.

Thomas Jefferson thought that approach ridiculous, inviting never-ending blackmail. As the American minister to France, he strongly urged a multinational alliance to "reduce the piratical states to peace." Pick them off one at a time "through the medium of war," so the others get the message, and they'll give up their piracy too. Some European powers were "favorably disposed," as Jefferson said, to a joint operation. But guess who had reservations? France. (No kidding, you can't make up this stuff.) France, because of its own interests, was suspected of secretly supporting the Barbary powers. So, the plan collapsed in favor of a policy of continued negotiations (read: appeasement) - meaning supplicating the blackmailers to tell us how much money they wanted for the ransom of ships and sailors and for annual tributes

. When Jefferson became president in 1801, he finally could do something about it himself. He simply refused Tripoli's demand for a tribute. That provoked Tripoli to declare war on us, as if this young, upstart pup of a nation had any right to stand up for its principles. Jefferson's response was a no-nonsense piece of clarity. He sent a squadron of ships to blockade and bombard Tripoli. The results of these efforts were somewhat mixed. But on Feb. 16 of this year, we will celebrate the bicentennial of Lt. Stephen Decatur leading 74 volunteers into Tripoli harbor to burn the previously captured American frigate, The Philadelphia, so it could not be used for piracy. It was considered one of the most heroic actions in US naval history. The next year, Marines bravely stormed a harbor fortress, an act now commemorated in the "Marine Corps Hymn" with the words ". . . to the shores of Tripoli." Eventually, Morocco, seeing what was in store for it, dropped out of the fight And the threat of "regime change" in Tripoli led to a treaty of somewhat dubious benefits for the United States.

Demonstrating the need for perseverance and patience, a series of victories in 1815 by Commodores William Bainbridge and Decatur finally led to a Treaty ending both piracy against us and tribute payments by us. We even extracted monetary compensation for property they seized from us. Meanwhile, Europeans, continuing their multilateral, diplomatic approach kept paying and paying and paying.

Lessons? No, it doesn't prove that diplomacy and international cooperation never work. But it demonstrates a principle: The United States, when confronted with weak resolve from the international community against enemies, sometimes needs to stand alone for what is right. And it sometimes works. By coincidence, Tripoli today is the capital of Libya, whose leader Moammar Gadhafi, noticing the pounding that the United States gave to tyrants in Afghanistan and Iraq, abandoned his own weapons of mass destruction program. Perhaps Gadhafi, unlike some of our own blindly antiwar academics, commentators and politicians, has read history, especially as it happened in Libya.

One more footnote: France finally settled the hash of the Barbary Coast states in 1830 when it simply went in and took over the place. The official provocation, according to France, was some sort of an insult to the French consul in Algiers. France, demonstrating its superior humanitarian instincts, remained there as a colonial power for a century. Unlike the United States, which, wanting only to protect its citizens and its ships, got out when it won. "

Gunner

Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends of every country save their own. Benjamin Disraeli

Reply to
Gunner
Loading thread data ...

This has little to do with your present problems. If you wish to avoid terrorist attacks, America merely has to stop acting in Israel's interests. Moreover, the freedom fighters aren't sponsored by any government and they can't be curbed by one. Look at Iraq for example.

.
Reply to
Raul

Yes, I noticed that Libya gave up its nukes. I also noticed that Israel kept theirs. Is this one sided?

Reply to
Nick Hull

There are a couple of elements of this editorial that relates to the present situation:

" Eventually, Morocco, seeing what was in store for it, dropped out of the fight And the threat of "regime change" in Tripoli led to a treaty of somewhat dubious benefits for the United States. "

and:

"France finally settled the hash of the Barbary Coast states in 1830 when it simply went in and took over the place. The official provocation, according to France, was some sort of an insult to the French consul in Algiers. France, demonstrating its superior humanitarian instincts, remained there as a colonial power for a century. "

The French couldn't get out because they couldn't establish a local government stable enough to last on its own.

"Unlike the United States, which, wanting only to protect its citizens and its ships, got out when it won."

When deal>

Reply to
Glenn Ashmore

Ah yes, comply with their wishes and they will leave us alone. But wait, what if they aren't "they", but a bunch of different groups who have conflicting wishes? What if they can't get along or agree among themselves, who do we placate? Placate one, anger the other, you still have terrorism. Our policies are our business, and if we are attacked we retaliate and remove the attacker and their "ability" not "intention" to do us harm.

Reply to
6e70

And now all of Moslem Algeria is moving to France and in 50 years France will be a colony of Algeria.

The Independent

Reply to
Jim Dauen

It is interesting how time changes things. At the time we were a newly formed and weak country. We were going against more powerful forces that profited by attacking us.

Now we are the powerful force who profits from attacking weak countries. They have engaged in some audacious attacks against us to stop us from what we are doing.

Will they win and dissuade us from our making a mess of their lives? They seem pretty determined.

Pete.

Reply to
Peter Reilley

Bullshit. Israel is merely the present excuse. The West is "invading" Islamic countries with Barbie Dolls, "BayWatch", female anchors on the news programs, and the Internet. Give up Israel, and one of those will be the next excuse.

"Dar Al-Harb" and "Dar Al-Islam"

BTW, The only reason we are sitting on Israel is to keep them from conquering the oil producing countries and jacking up the prices. Otherwise we'd stop holding them back and they'd cleanse the middle east of Moslems as thoroughly as the Moslems have cleansed the countries they have invaded of Jews and Christians. (And that's ALL Moslem countries except Saudi Arabia.)

Reply to
Offbreed

Israel has one small problem in that respect. We are their supply line. I have no doubt that Israel could defeat any Arab army and probably all of them together so long as we supply the arms and money. The IDF fights very bravely when it can sit high in the air and fire missiles. When their tank units are well equipped they will go into Palestinian areas and kill indiscriminately.

If they were equipped just like the Palestinians would they be so brave? Or would they hop the next plane for home?

Pete.

Reply to
Peter Reilley

What airliners has Israel blown up? How many tour ships has Israel hijacked? How many Jewish suicide bombers has Israel recruited and financed?

Israel would be a hell of a lot bigger if they were morally equivalent to Libya.

Reply to
Offbreed

Well put.

Dead peoples got no intentions.

Reply to
Offbreed

Which opens the door for a discussion of the treaty that followed - -

"Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary" (p. 364).

"Article 11. As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries" (p. 365).

Reply to
Beecrofter

Hardly surprising when you recall that the first country to recognize the United States as an independant nation was Morocco. Maybe someday we'll decide to return the favor.

Al Moore

Reply to
Alan Moore

I'm not yet convinced that is necessary. It will always remain an option, but I'm willing to give the current approach sufficient time to work.

Reply to
Jeffrey C. Dege

Precisely. However Islam leaders do not want to go their way and let us go ours. They don't want freedom. They don't want our popular culture to exist even in our country. They don't want any other religion to exist anywhere. They don't want to tolerate people with no religion.

They don't want democratic rule (or even our approximate version) - they want a theocracy, and a theocracy where the mullahs follow their narrow lines of interpretation of their own religion. If you don't like it they will cut off some body parts or bury half your body and stone you to death. It's Allah's will.

It seems to me that 9-11 was an attack on us by Islam because of religious differences. Their decision - not ours. The choice now is to 1) let it go, 2) buckle under and appease them, or 3) point out to them this isn't going to fly.

I would read that treaty as voluntarily broken by fundamental Islam leaving us free to defend ourselves.

-- W§ in m.s -

formatting link

Reply to
Winston §mith

Indeed the Islam was invading the West more than two centuries before the crusades. Check the date on the battle of Tours.

Reply to
mongke

What, exactly, were the Turks doing, when the West began the crusades?

Reply to
Jeffrey C. Dege

"Winston mith" wrote

Depending on how you define "tolerate", you could just as well be talking about Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.

-- TP

Reply to
tonyp

Ah, but Israel wasn't a state then.

The information about the Dayr Yasin massacre came from the British who then ruled Palestine. The information about the '48 war came from the UN High Commission and the intelligence services of several nations, including Britain, France, and the US. The Library of Congress has it all on file.

Gary

Reply to
Gary Coffman

As far as I know, neither has advocated using suicide bombers as a means of winning world domination.

Strider

Reply to
Strider

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.