Posted on 09/12/2001 9:12:07 AM PDT by Fury
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.