Posted on 09/12/2001 9:12:07 AM PDT by Fury
If you are a reader of right-wing opinion websites, you will by now have heard the voice of the Paleos, loud and strong.
This is a judgment on us for our interventionist foreign policy...
It is time to examine the U.S. relationship with Israel. The lives of every Israeli is not worth one drop of American blood...
Who has reason to hate this country? Only a few hundred million people — Arabs, Muslims, Serbs, and numerous others whose countries have been hit by U.S. bombers...
Nobody is bombing Helsinki or Rome. Nobody is bombing Ottawa or Sydney...
On the day after Pearl Harbor, ex-President Herbert Hoover sat down and wrote to friends: "You and I know that this continuous putting pins in rattlesnakes finally got this country bitten."
That last one is from Pat Buchanan, who will be on TV a lot these next few weeks, and whose royalty statements (the bit of paper your publisher sends you twice a year to let you know how much money your books have earned you) will be bringing great cheer to the Buchanan household for a while to come.
Now, I don't mind Paleos. I understand the appeal of their vision: A busy commercial republic, minding her own business, with no troops stationed beyond her shores, the champion of liberty in every land, but never its guarantor. Heck, I used to belong to a Paleo e-mail list. I know all the arguments. (Pur-leeze don't send me reminders.) The strongest one, so far as I am concerned, is the one that says you can't maintain liberty as the Founders understood it when you are practicing Empire. You'll be hearing this a lot, too, over the next few weeks. In calling for their government to better protect them against these horrors, many people won't much mind if, in order to do so, the government closes down some of our liberties. Yes, yes, I know the arguments.
I dropped off that Paleo list, after much thought, because I just didn't share that vision. I say again, I see its appeal, and I have a lot of sympathy for it: I just don't share it. For one thing, it would be sort of dishonest, at a personal level, for me to do so. If not for the U.S.A. having been willing to send troops abroad to fight, I should not now be here writing this. If alive at all, I should be out working in the fields under some Gauleiter für Ostmittelengland. To a lot of us raised in the rest of the world, having America as a remote, self-absorbed champion of theoretical liberty is all very well; but we kind of like the guarantor stuff, too. Sure, the United States is under no obligation to pander to our preference, however gratifying she may find it: but there are some strong practical reasons to favor American interventionism, too. Would the world have been a better, or a worse, place this past few decades, if America had stood aloof from the world wars? Would America herself have been safer, more secure, more prosperous? It seems pretty plain to me — though certainly arguable (but again, please don't post me the arguments, I've heard them all) — that the answers are: "worse," and "no."
There were other things, less substantive things, that turned me off the Paleos. For example, though most of them are thoughtful and rational people, there is quite a high proportion of lunatics among them. (There is a certain proportion on any email list, of course; I am just saying the Paleos have more than average for an intellectual discussion list.) And even setting aside the lunatics, there was a sort of crabby, ill-mannered, claustrophobic atmosphere about the whole thing that started to grate on me after a while. No, I'm not a Paleo. Republic or Empire? Empire, please.
I understand, of course, that Americans at large, even those who have never even heard of the Republic vs. Empire debate, are schizophrenic about the matter. Huge numbers of Americans couldn't care less about the world beyond their shores. They want nothing to do with it. They go to Florida for their vacations, or at the very furthest Hawaii. Passport? Who needs it? I am talking about un-intellectual Americans — decent, good-hearted, Christian family-loving folk, who just can't see why the affairs of Albania or Zimbabwe are any damn business of theirs, much less why they should send off their beloved children to be killed in such places.
Yet there are other Americans who understand, what I believe is true, that the Republic option is, at bottom, an empty fantasy. Public opinion supported the Vietnam War almost to the end of it; it was the elites and the intellectuals who turned against it, not ordinary Americans. People understand, I think, that however much Americans might wish to leave the world alone, the world will not leave America alone. Great wealth and great success generate great envy and great hatred. And America's high ideals, if clutched jealously to America's chest, while those abroad who believe them are hunted down and slaughtered without help, will whither and die. Idealism, like terrorism, has — can have — no borders. We know that our way of life is far superior to Islamic Fundamentalism, Chinese Communism, "Big Man" Kleptocracy and Bureaucratic Welfarism. Knowing that, the urge to assist — assist by some practical means — those in other places who believe the same thing, will sooner or later prove irresistible to a bold, fearless, liberty-loving nation. (And if those adjectives no longer apply to this country, I have made a major life error.) American idealism cannot be contained.
To fall back on my own origins again, I come from a nation that actually did practice Empire, very successfully, but eventually decided it was too much trouble and cost, and gave up on it. Certain things followed, one by one. For example, we lost the ability to defend ourselves. From WWI onwards, we were essentially a U.S. protectorate, and still are today. For another, my country sank gradually into a mentality of fatalism and defeat in which no vigorous action against our enemies became possible. To see what I mean, look at Britain's response to Irish terrorism, about which I have written many times in this space. Here I was banging away on NRO last June, for example:
The fault for that tragedy [i.e. a fascist takeover of Ireland] will lie squarely with politicians in London, Dublin and Washington, who for thirty years have refused to do what the leaders of civilized nations must do when faced with terrorism in their own jurisdictions: hunt it down and exterminate it, without pause or pity or quarter or apology.
Why have those politicians refused to do that thing? Why are IRA terrorists, who have done the foulest and most beastly things — the kinds of things, though not on the kind of scale, we saw on Tuesday — walking around free in the streets of Belfast and Dublin, having been let out of jail in return for a few vague and empty promises from those who give them their orders? The fundamental reason is not hard to find. Britain, having forgotten its responsibilities as an upholder of civilization, no longer cared to confront civilization's enemies in the way they must be confronted. They put their trust instead in "peace processes," in legalisms and trials, in panels of international do-gooders blathering on about "human rights," in the State Department. They did not put their trust in the thin-lipped, hard-faced, soft-talking men and women who do civilization's dirty work for it. To fall back on Kipling again (I am sorry; but at times like these, Kipling is indispensable), they made mock of the uniforms that guard us while we sleep.
The option that the last few British governments have taken — the Surrender Option — is available to America, too. It may even be taken. I was dismayed to hear the President speak about his instructions to find "those responsible" and "bring them to justice." Mr. President, these are not traffic violations; these are acts of war. Justice must go by the board for a while, as it did when we firebombed German and Japanese cities, incinerating helpless babies and old folk who wished us no harm. Where was the justice in that? Oh, and by the way: "those responsible" are already dead. They killed themselves attacking your country, and were proud and happy to do so. Some Americans — I speak as the father of two Americans — will have to get killed attacking their countries. (Oh, yes, they have countries.) Some of those Americans, likewise, will be proud and happy to do so, on behalf of the nation they love. Dirty business, running an Empire. Dirty business, defending civilization against barbarism. Barbaric business, sometimes — there's a paradox to ponder... But don't think you're the first to ponder it. It was a Roman who said oderint dum metuant, and a Roman who rebuked him for saying it. Dirty business, dirty business. But then, there is always the Surrender Option.
You take it wrong. You are barking up against the old problem of guerilla warfare. Remember how effective it was during the Revolutionary War, and what it did to the French, and the US, in southeast Asia.
I'm asking you, who have come out so strongly against harming innocent people, how you would go about prosecuting a retaliation? I suspect that by trying to turn the question back on me, you are barren of remedies and pregnant with opinions.
What's your solution, my truculent brother? 
What's your solution, my truculent brother?
Simple. Find the scumbags and cause them pain. Leave the innocents alone. We are better than them -- we don't target innocents.
On the Imus program this morning, Congressman JD Hayworth (name?) said the Barbary Pirate problem was the last similar situation faced by this country. That sent me looking for more information, but I didn't find much in a quick search. Anyone know a good source? At any rate, here's an excerpt from Arabnet - History of Algeria. It wasn't a quickly solved problem then either, but reading between the lines here should suggest some of the necessary steps.
The rise and fall of piracy (1400-1830) The demise of the Almohad empire created a power vacuum which led to the rise of piracy along what became known as the Barbary Coast. Coastal cities hired corsairs to seize merchant vessels and gain an advantage in the fierce competition for trade on the high seas.
North African piracy compelled the Spanish to occupy and blockade several ports known to be pirate enclaves, including Algiers which was forced to pay tribute. This Christian occupation of North African ports forced Muslims to seek help from the Ottoman Khalif. The Barbarossas, two sibling pirates, petitioned the Ottoman Sultan for aid against the infidels. In response the Khalif sent a naval fleet which drove the Spanish out of most of the North African ports they were occupying.
In 1518 Khayrad'din Barbarossa became the sultan's official representative in Algeria and Algerian corsairs dominated the Mediterranean with Ottoman protection for centuries. It was not until late in the 18th century that Europeans were able to challenge the Barbary pirates of Algeria with superior naval power and artillery. In 1815 a US naval squadron under Captain Stephen Decatur attacked Algiers and forced its governor to sign a treaty banning piracy against US ships.
Persistent attacks on European shipping caused the British and Dutch to combine their forces against the Algerians and almost totally destroy their fleet in 1816.
This was the beginning of the end. In 1830 the French army invaded Algiers and the French occupation of Algeria continued for 132 years.
The mistake that you make, and that others make in pursuing the false argument, against misunderstood boogeymen, such as the lead article attacks, is in assuming that the Washington/Jefferson foreign policy--which actually dates from 1793, not 1787--ever involved disengaging from the world. We were always engaged. We were not entangled in those engagements. There is an immense difference.
As for the present situation: The nearest analogy is the War that the Marines--then a part of the U.S. Navy--and an American Naval force fought with the Barbary Pirates in 1801, in Thomas Jefferson's first year in office. Then as now, no one suggested that Americans allow their interests to be trampled upon. Surrender was never an option. It is certainly no option for American Conservatives today.
On the other hand, I seriously question the Conservative credentials of anyone who feels a need to label other Conservatives with whom he may disagree on one or two issues with a special handle. That is not helpful at a time when Conservatives again appear to be in the minority--albeit a very large minority, only a hair shy of taking back the country.
It is just sloppy argument for the essayist above to set up his personal druthers as a reason for other people to change their values. If he cannot answer the argument that he patronizes on its merits, he ought to save his reflections on his personal history for his grandchildren. There are very powerful legal, pragmatic and moral issues involved in the debate over the proper role of American Foreign policy. The essayist mentions Rome. Does he really reflect very deeply on what happened to Rome? Or why? Cute insults directed at others do not meet those issues.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
You state the problem and the goal very well. But how do we do this?
I have one idea. As I mentioned, we used guerilla tactics on the English and the Vietnamese used it on the French and us. At no time did the English, French or we consider using it back. They, and we, were too dependent on our might and sneered at such peasant, low cost strategies.
Just for chuckles, what if we designated small guerilla units trained in infiltration, tactics and terrorist SOPS, and equip them with our wealth and backed them with our enormous resources.
We've used surgical strike teams before, but we've never prosecuted a war entirely dependent on them before. Maybe this is the time.
How about not doing it for "chuckles," but because when your enemy is a fluid force that forms when needed and fades into its surroundings, without fixed bases, territory or intallations, you have to have very flexible, mobile units, trained in various forms of infiltration and guerilla type operations, to deal with them effectively. The mistake we made in Viet Nam was in not sending our own guerilla type operatives into the North to disrupt their communications and infrastructure.
Ever since the Boer General Christian DeWet tied up 250,000 British troops with his force of 2,000 Commandoes, from 1900 to 1902, in what is virtually a treeless plane--the Orange Free State is not an ideal setting for Guerilla warfare--the lesson has been obvious.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
You state the problem and the goal very well. But how do we do this?
If you are into warfighting stuff, I suggest looking into "4th generation warfare" theories. This site has some good info on it. Cheers.
Well said, Chief. They remind me too much of the "better red than dead crowd" of the fifties and sixties. I sincerely believe they are more interested in their own comfort than they are in standing up for right.
Who is justifying or making excuses for what the terrorists have done?!?! Please make your accusations more specific behind the safety of your keyboard.
Not only that but it seems flawed in the sense that suicide terrorists obviously place an extremely limited value on life, even their own. That begs the question: how do you put fear in an enemy that has no other emotion than hate?
One thing the author of the article should know, is that the price of empire is terrorism. They go hand and hand as history shows. If American leadership continues with it's past and present policies , then attacks against its interests and citizens are inevitable.
After the War of Independence I'm not recalling any.
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.