I agree there were many acts of terrorism -- and I blame prior administrations (primarily Clinton's) for not responding appropriately and possibly preventing 9/11. It is, however, 9/11 to which the "global war on terror" is being fought as a response, as acknowledged by several pro-war commenters on FR. Finally, I'm not a student of the Barbary Wars, but Jefferson clearly did not launch a "global war on piracy" on a promise to attract all of the world's pirates to one place, wipe them out, and bring to the world a pirate-free utopia.
What would an appropriate response be in your opinion?
I never argued that the Barbary Wars were the same as the War on Terror. However here's a nice link. I think you'll see that there were some similarities as well as some differences. It was interesting to me how Jefferson, the non-globalist tried to work with "the world community" first before "going it on his own".
Maybe some view the WOT as a reponse to 9/11.
I do not. I view 9/11 as the straw that broke the camel’s back. The wake-up call that made it impossible for Americans to ignore the threat any longer.
The problem with Ron Paul’s approach to foreign threats is that we would have to maintain a defense against a growing threat. He would have us ignore threats as they grow until they were obvious, severe, and immediate. Waiting that long in a world made small by cheap transportation is a recipe for disaster. This is a case where a good defense requires a good offense, and pre-emption is cheaper and safer for the homeland than waiting for the inevitable attacks to come to us.
I'm thinking that a military run by libertarians would bring us back to the days of Thomas Jefferson. A small fleet of wooden ships and some powder kegs of gun powder.