The neo-cons have always had a strong foothold here. I can understand their position, but I've never held it. To say we should mind our own business does not mean we should ignore threats. When the Barbary Pirates caused us problems, we attacked and destroyed them, as we should have. When the British impressed our sailors, we went to war with them, as we should have.
But I will say this: men do not commit suicide for a cause against people who have done nothing to offend them. If we were non-interventionalist, we might still inadvertantly offend some people, but the chances of having a group of people or a government engage in a suicide attack are virtually nill, IMO.
At any rate, the attack *did* occur. If I am given sufficient proof by as to who perpetrated this attack, I will be 100% behind any effort to bring justice to those responsible. But whatever happens, we must not attack blindly: we must be very sure and be able to prove to ourselves and the world that the nation we attack is indeed guilty of this act against us.
Tuor
So, when the Japanese began throwing kamikazis at us, we should have just said, "Oh, what the hell. Let them have the Pacific."
I don't see why the US should change its foreign policy because some maniac in Afganistan is offended by it.
...we must not attack blindly: we must be very sure and be able to prove to ourselves and the world that the nation we attack is indeed guilty of this act against us.
I agree again.
http://lawbooksusa.com/art1/article1seceight4.htm § 131. Declarations of war and maritime operations.
No one man or coterie can declare war. That can be done only by the two Houses of Congress, elected by the direct vote of the people. "The genius and character of our institutions are peaceful,'' said the Supreme Court of the United States (1849), "and the power to declare war was not conferred upon Congress for the purposes of aggression or aggrandizement, but to enable the general government to vindicate by arms, if it should become necessary, its own rights and the rights of its citizens." In the foregoing case the question was whether the city of Tampico, Mexico, while in the military possession of the United States in 1847, ceased to be a foreign country so that customs duties could not be laid on imports from it. The answer was No. While the United States may acquire territory, it can do so only through the treaty-making or the legislative power--the victories of the President as Commander in Chief "do not enlarge the boundaries of this Union, nor extend the operation of our institutions and laws beyond the limits before assigned to them by the legislative power." Half a century later a somewhat similar question arose after the war with Spain. Puerto Rico and the Philippines were ceded by that Government to the United States. Did the acquisition change the status of the islands so that they ceased to be "foreign countries" within the meaning of the tariff laws under which duties had been paid by their citizens on their exports to this country? Next, how were they affected by the clause of the Constitution requiring that "all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"? In a series of decisions in what were called the Insular Cases, extending from 1901 to 1905 the doctrine was established that it is for Congress first to determine when territory is to become a part of the United States.
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.