Using the past to justify the invasion of IRAQ

[rah]

Read this one in the paper this morning. Keeping in mind that I am pro-invasion, even I thought this was a bit of a stretch, but it was entertaining and worth reading. When every other reason seems in doubt, tweak the past. If you look back far enough, something will seem similar.

*******

Dennis Byrne. Dennis Byrne is a Chicago-area writer and public affairs consultant
Published 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 U.S. 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 anti-war 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.

----------

E-mail: dbyrne1942@earthlink.net


Copyright © 2003, Chicago Tribune

[chequita guevara]

Dennis Byrne is punk, and I don't mean that in a good way.

[Spiffor]

I love it how the writer manages to both attack the Arabs (for being Barbarians only out to plunder our riches and blackmail us), and France (for being greedy backstabbing bastards pretending to be all-peaceful whereas they really are a bunch of bloodthirsty conquerors)

Patriotic w@nking has become a form of art

[DanS]

Funny stuff. The untold story is that we continued to pay tribute to them for decades after bombarding Tripoli.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Patriotic w@nking has become a form of art

[Nubclear]

So what does this teach us about history?

200 years ago every single person posting on this forum was dead. Well, to be more specific, not alive.
Things change, obviously

Patriotic w@nking has become a form of art

I liked the part how the writer praised the troops in there.

It was considered one of the most heroic actions in U.S. naval history. The next year, Marines bravely stormed a harbor fortress,

[Theben]

Obviously we should've gone into Iraq 200 years ago.

[Kropotkin]

[O]n 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.

Who are "we"? I mean, really, who celebrates that?

Notice the cute way he's handling the later French colonization by pointing out that the americans got out when they had won. What is the US doing now?Are they not stayning in an effort of demonstrating its superior humanitarian instincts, ie the establishment of american style democracy .

It's really popular these days for people to use historical anecdotes to show a point. They often take it a bit to far.

[Drogue]

DP damn connection

[Theben]

Nice 10 min double post there

[Spiffor]

Don't correct the DP, it strokes my ego

[rah]

Now the real question is "what was his motivation for writing this?"

1. Justify the US invasion.
2. Do a little French bashing.
3. #1 and #2 was just icing on the cake.

[Drogue]

I have a really bad connection. I got a 24 min one the other day click on "submit reply" and it does nothing, so I go to a different window and to do something else while I wait, and come back, it's still there. Thinking I must not have clicked, or it hasn't sent, I click again. It worked the first time, but didn't go to the thread

[Theben]

Originally posted by rah
Now the real question is "what was his motivation for writing this?"

1. Justify the US invasion.
2. Do a little French bashing.
3. #1 and #2 was just icing on the cake.

4. To remind us that mods can still create pointless threads...

[germanos]

Originally posted by rah
Now the real question is "what was his motivation for writing this?"

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

The guy has learned his lessons: the conclusion is always in the last paragraph

[Tattila the Hun]

"...simply refused Tripoli's demand for a tribute. That provoked Tripoli to declare war on us..."

This should be at Civ: Strategy section, in "AI declared war on me, what do I do?"


"...or sold our sailors into slavery."

And this was prior 1801? I'm too lazy to check out, but how many slaves were there in the USA at that time? It's a pity that the african tribes didn't have frigates to send to shell Norfolk. The courageous Impi marines would have stormed the weak American defences easily!

[laurentius]

heres your 'heroic' men of the year http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle5365.htm

[Verto]

We've already had that joke posted before.

[VetLegion]

...or sold our sailors into slavery."

And this was prior 1801? I'm too lazy to check out, but how many slaves were there in the USA at that time? It's a pity that the african tribes didn't have frigates to send to shell Norfolk.

Good point as to how 'moral' the whole thing was.

Regarding the article, I completely fail to see the analogy to Iraq.

Better one would be British-French war against Egypt, although that ended in a failure, and Iraq did not.

[Stuie]

Originally posted by VetLegion
[q]
Regarding the article, I completely fail to see the analogy to Iraq.

Really? It's the same exact situation except for the slaves, the ransom, the ships, the pirates, Thomas Jefferson, and the fact that they declared war on us.

[VetLegion]

Ah, if you put it that way

[MrFun]

Originally posted by rah
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.

E-mail: dbyrne1942@earthlink.net


Copyright © 2003, Chicago Tribune

Yeah -- because United States and the European countries had their hands clean when it came to slavery, right??

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MrFun
Yeah -- because United States and the European countries had their hands clean when it came to slavery, right??

We also declared war on the UK for forcing our sailors into slavery.