Marines at the Battle of Derna, 1804
Posted on 12/20/2005 6:48:03 AM PST by SemperFi-USMC
http://www.shfwire.com/stories.phtml
Ye Olde War on Terror, 19th Century Style By Isaac Wolf, Scripps Howard Foundation Wire
WASHINGTON – Just how far back does the war on terror date?
All the way to America’s founding, when North African pirates plundered U.S. merchant ships under the banner of Islam, according to a new book, “Victory In Tripoli.”
Written by Joshua E. London and published in August, the book details the buildup to the war, which ran from 1801 to 1805, showing how North African leaders encouraged piracy of American merchant ships. “Victory” focuses on post-Revolution American politics, recounting how the mounting pirate attacks convinced the U.S. of the need to create and deploy an iron-fisted navy.
The historical connection to America’s contemporary war on terror is implicit. But London refrains from including an explicit comparison to American foreign policy today.
London, of Washington, who has worked as a speechwriter and freelance journalist, spent three years researching and writing the book, including a trip to Tunisia and several U.S. archives.
London says he kept explicit parallels out of the book for good reason. “I wanted to let the reader make up his or her own mind,” he said. “Too many history books try to prove a point about contemporary society – they don’t leave any room for the reader to think for themselves.”
In this sense, it provides a portrait of how U.S.-Islamic relations have changed in the past 200 years.
Mollified by bribes from Europe, the North African pirates refrained from attacking U.S. ships until after America declared independence and lost its umbrella protection from England. Describing the Tripoli War as necessary, London said the need to militarily defend Mediterranean commerce was essential for America’s fledgling economy. In the current war on terror, by contrast, America is working to defend from attacks on its home soil.
A similarity between wars is that both were sprung on an unprepared U.S., London said. “In Iraq, mistakes that were made were mistakes of warfare. You have to adjust to your enemy, you can’t go by what bureaucrats have on paper,” he said. “And that’s what happened with the pirates. We thought we would send some ships in, flex our muscles and everything would be fine. It didn’t turn out that simply.”
An aspect of the Islamic world that hasn’t changed has been the importance of religion and tribalism, London said. “We are used to thinking of things in a different way – religion doesn’t mean same to us as it means to them,” London said. “That’s something we ignore at our peril.”
One lesson of the Tripoli War is that the pirates would break a treaty with the U.S. whenever they could find a reason to, London said, adding that the only way to enforce treaties was by brute force.
“Our lesson in the Middle East is that the moment we’re not prepared for war, there’s no peace,” said London, who supports a permanent U.S. military presence in the Middle East. “We either have to be there militarily or get out – and I don’t mean just get our troops out, but forget about all of our interests in the region.”
The Tripoli War was the first time the U.S. used regime change to alter global politics, London said, adding that U.S. policy in the Middle East has included colonization and “our version of oil for fraud” since then. “We have a confused and involved history in the Middle East,” London said.
The Tripolitan War gave us one of our greatest heros: Stephen Decatur. "My country, in her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but, my country, right or wrong."
oil for fraud?
Is that a typo?
Always amazes me how little baby US threw down the gauntlet w/these Moslem @%!!$#$#!^$ pirates while the rich, powerful (literally) Europeans continued to pay bully money to them so they wouldn't get beaten up. Our ancestors had serious guts as well as morals back then.
What you are saying is very true, they were mostly Saudis that attacked us. That should not get you zotted, I think. His point is that we are not going to appease terrorists because they are constantly provoked regardless with their fanaticism. Saudi Arabia is irrelevant to his point.
Yes, we were in Saudi in 2001. We were there at the request of a sovereign Saudi government, to protect them against the possibility that Saddam would try to annex them like he tried with Kuwait 10 years earlier. This fact provided no moral justification to jihadis anywhere to fly planes into buildings and kill innocent people as they sat at their desks.
It was mostly Saudi nationals, but also included others (including the delinquent 1). It was MOSLEM, more than anything else. Don't forget that Osama is Saudi, but he hasn't been hosteling there for a long time.
Let's not forget either that a very long time ago, right after the outrageous attacks, Bush was pilloried - even then - for calling out an "axis of evil" of IRAQ as well as IRAN and NORTH KOREA. Well before Iraq was actually invaded. Funny thing is how when Iraq was invaded, libs were saying, "why not Iran? Or N. Korea? They're worse!" Truth is, libs just don't ever like standing up for the US or anything related to it, so you bet if Bush actually went after Korea, he'd be getting the same garbage from them.
You're right. Already I'm getting drawn into off-topic discussions!
Also, the bin Ladin's were originally from Yemen. They emigrated to Saudi Arabia to work after the oil was discovered there in the mid-20th century.
This comparison to the Barbary pirates has been used countless times to support our war in Iraq. What I have never seen addressed is the motivation for attacks against the U.S. Are we to believe that what motivates Islamic terrorists today is what motivated the Muslim pirates 200 years ago?
Most, but not all of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi.
and as I recall, U.S. forces certainly WERE in Saudi Arabia on 9/11.
Withdrew from SA 8/2003 or thereabouts.
OBL using the excuse of troops on Sacred Saudi Soil is every bit as disingenuous as those who pretend that the sole reason we invaded Iraq was WMDs.
We were attacked because (multiple choice)
...we are The Great Satan,
...we support Israel,
...we are the prime symbol of technological prowess that makes the Arab world look backwards and ignorant in comparison,
...we are infidels
...we have religious tolerance (except for Christianity)
...our women are scantily clad, sexually active and self-assertive
...because we have a free press
Doesn't f*cking matter why they attacked us.
All that matters is the fact that they started it-- and we'll finish it.
And the funny thing is, that if they DID win, they'd kill all the liberals first.
We took care of the Barbary pirates, we'll take care of Al Qaeda, too.
Most, but not all of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi.
and as I recall, U.S. forces certainly WERE in Saudi Arabia on 9/11.
Withdrew from SA 8/2003 or thereabouts.
OBL using the excuse of troops on Sacred Saudi Soil is every bit as disingenuous as those who pretend that the sole reason we invaded Iraq was WMDs.
We were attacked because (multiple choice)
...we are The Great Satan,
...we support Israel,
...we are the prime symbol of technological prowess that makes the Arab world look backwards and ignorant in comparison,
...we are infidels
...we have religious tolerance (except for Christianity)
...our women are scantily clad, sexually active and self-assertive
...because we have a free press
Doesn't f*cking matter why they attacked us.
All that matters is the fact that they started it-- and we'll finish it.
And the funny thing is, that if they DID win, they'd kill all the liberals first.
We took care of the Barbary pirates, we'll take care of Al Qaeda, too.
Has anyone read this book?
The genius of the Bush strategy is that is is not about one little country but about the broader Middle East. Some want to parse the subject and quibble about whether we should just be in Afghansitan or say that Saudis attacked us. Such thinking would no be producing the sweeping results that the Bush policy is. Just watch. Israel will be able to make peace with Palestine, for instance. We have Iran surrounded and are creating armies on its borders. Then, maybe we can elect a president who can concentrate on doestic affairs.
It would help if you would be clear about what it is you are asking. Are you saying the Constitution doesn't allow us to defend ourselves?
--- Has anyone read this book? ---
Yes, I have read it. I think it is an excellent history and a great read. There are some very good reviews of it on Amazon.com. Here is what I had written for Amazon.com:
"I got this as a gift from my father, who bought a copy for himself based on a review he read in the National Review magazine. I'm not much of a writer, so I'll simply cite that review for this truly fun and rewarding book. It is well written, is a good length, and makes a great gift!
"Here is what Michael Potemra of National Review (National Review: October 24, 2005: page 66) said about this excellent volume of history:
"In 'Victory in Tripoli: How America's War with the Barbary Pirates Established the U.S. Navy and Shaped a Nation' (Wiley, 276 pp., $24.95), Washington-based writer Joshua E. London tells an exciting story of the War on Terror -- circa 1800. The Mediterranean pirates were demanding tribute from U.S. vessels; little over a decade into the existence of the new federal government, an American administration struggled over how to respond. President Thomas Jefferson understood, early on, what was necessary: 'I know that nothing will stop the eternal increase of demands from these pirates but the presence of an armed force.' But there would be much failure and frustration before victory finally came. Indeed, while the 'Shores of Tripoli' are remembered to this day in the Marine Corps hymn, America's triumph there in 1805 did not put an end to the pirates' terrorism; further U.S. force would prove necessary. London's fascinating account gives us cause for hope that even long, twilight struggles can, after twists and turns of ugly politics, end in victory."
Also, here is another review written by a military historian named John B. Dwyer:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles_print.php?article_id=5014
Finally, here is an article written recently by the author:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/london200512160955.asp
Much obliged. And if you will indulge this ex-USAF SSgt, Semper Fi!
Understod. If Iraq is successful, then Syria and Iran are surrounded by states unfriendly to their aims.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.