Skip to comments.When the Founding Fathers Faced Islamists ( History ... The Barbary Pirates )
Posted on 05/28/2008 10:00:46 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
John McCain and Barack Obama are now engaged in a long-distance dispute over whether talking to Americas enemies is integral to Americas security (with neither one wishing to talk to poor Hillary Clinton any longer).
McCain has not so subtly assailed Obama as an appeaser for his stated willingness to sit down with the Iranian leadership about its nuclear weapons program and sponsorship of jihadism in Iraq and never mind for now if that leadership consists of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Ali Khamenei. Meanwhile, Obama has repeatedly labeled McCain a kind of hyper-Bush militarist of the shoot first, sign treaties later school of foreign policy. McCain has hinted at Chamberlain and Munich, always a histrionic conversation-ender in matters of these sort, and Obama has sheepishly downplayed the Iranian threat by contrasting it against the Soviet one, and, without any hint of irony, indicating Kennedys talks with Khrushchev in Vienna, and Reagans momentous mini-summit with Gorbachev in Reykjavik as proof that toughness and diplomacy are not mutually exclusive concepts. (One witty editorial in The New York Times reminded Obama that Camelots finest hour was not its Austrian kibitz with the Russian premier, an event that laid all the psychological bricks, so to speak, for the erection of the Berlin Wall and the Cuban missile crisis.)
Oddly though, in their rush to analogize by way of chivvying each other, neither candidate has actually pulled an example relevant to the region of the globe now under discussion.latter eventually winning out.
(Excerpt) Read more at pajamasmedia.com ...
Michael Weiss recounts the experience the Founding Fathers had with the Barbary Pirates in this PJM article. I'm sure most of you know the story of how the North African states extorted Western countries based upon Islamist principles, but it's important to remind ourselves that the Islamist war against the West (and everyone for that matter) is not a new one.
What I find interesting in the article is that in the early years of the Republic we actually did negotiate with the petty Islamist rulers of North Africa. In fact, one year we paid nearly 20% of the national budget as tribute in return for promises that US shipping would be left alone. The attacks didn't stop, of course. For as soon as we paid off one tyrant others demanded the same. Lesson learned?
Or Tehran, as the case may be.
Ya think Oliver Stone would make a movie about this?
Amazing how history repeats itself. But the real Americans, like Adams and Jefferson, unlike the FAUX AMERICANS that have infested Washington, knew that FREEDOM IS NOT FREE — IT MUST BE FOUGHT FOR, as our freedom was.
Appeasers are coming at us from every direction.
What I find interesting - and maybe one of your links mentions it - is that this episode puts the Treaty of Tripoli in context. This treaty is often cited by secularists as being a definitive statement about ‘separation of church and state” because it contains a passage that America is not founded on the Christian religion. No matter what influenced America’s founding, reliance on this passage in the treaty would be about as misplaced as citing a modern-day hostage video as proof of certain facts. The pirates were taking our sailors hostage and demanding tribute. The US was not the military might it is today. So a treaty was signed, which the pirates violated, causing the US to use force.
Far from conclusively proving America’s totally secular nature, it’s evidence that radicals in that hare of the world have been a problem for the US just about since its inception.
Thanks for that link....Good stuff...
To my way of thinking it is also an excellent come-back to those who state our founding fathers didn’t believe in foreign entanglements if the situation warranted it.
Jefferson was very much involved in taking it to the Barbary Pirates in his day. I don’t see any reason why we should avoid doing something similar.
The article overlooks the most important part about either of the Barbary Pirates war. That the Marine Corps led by Lieutenant Pressley Obannon kicked some butt and solved the problem. Oh, the Navy had a little part in it also. Semper Fi!!! : )
Nine days after the Thomas Jefferson took office; his administration received a demand from the Pasha of Tripoli to increase the amount to tribute that was paid him, or else he would declare war. Jefferson's inclination, despite his party's policy of dismantling the Navy, was to respond with force. This inclination was further supported when a ship, the "George Washington," under the command of Captain William Bainbridge, was forced to convey the yearly tribute to Constantinople, after having brought it to Tripoli.
The US' first step was to send a small squadron, three frigates and a schooner, to show the American flag off the coast of Tripoli. Then, the American squadron instituted a loose blockade of Tripoli. One squadron was commanded by Commodore Dale, and was relieved by a squadron led by Commodore Richard Morris. Neither squadron did much more than show the flag. Morris was relieved, and replaced by Commodore Edward Prebble, who was on board the flag ship "Constitution." For the first time, the squadron included shallow draft ships, which had the capacity to provide inshore bombardment.
Prebble was determined to take a more active approach than his predecessors. He made a show of force off the coast of Tangiers, and sent the "Philadelphia," under the command of Captain Bainbridge, to blockade Tripoli. On November 1, the "Philadelphia" pursued a Tripolitan ship toward the harbor. While pursuing her, the "Philadelphia" ran aground. All attempts at refloating her failed, and her crew of 307 was forced to surrender. The Tripolitans later managed to refloat the frigate.
Prebble then faced a major dilemma: what should he do about the captured ship and its crew? He developed a plan to destroy the ship as she lay anchored in Tripoli Harbor. He had earlier captured the "Mastico," a Tripolitan ketch. The "Mastico" was renamed the "Intrepid," and, on February 16, 1804, Lt. Stephen Decatur led the ship straight into Tripoli Harbor. He and the crew managed to overpower the guard on the "Philadelphia," and succeeded in setting it on fire without any casualties.
Prebble then began an intensive blockade on Tripoli, as well as successive bombardments of the harbor. Prebble was replaced with Samuel Barron, who was quite ill. Barron was in turn replaced by William Eaton, who hired a mercenary Arab army in Egypt. They crossed the desert and successfully captured the Tripolitan coastal town of Derna. The war was then brought to a negotiated end.
Not sure...See #12...will look for more .
I have posted a number of times on free republic concerning how the current war in Iraq has many parrallels to the Barbary Pirate Wars. Specifically that it was a war protecting our trade (free flow of oil), the Congress authorized the use of force against this confederation of states. Most importantly, it was conducted by a President who was a founding father (Jefferson) and many in the Congress were founders who signed the Constitution and voted on the BOR. This example clearly tells us that the majority of the founding fathers would not have had a problem with this current war. In fact, I think people like Jefferson would have seen the need for it.
Thanks for tossing us a bone :)
When the United States of America gained independence from Great Britain there was an unexpected problem - piracy. Removed from the protection of the world's greatest navy, US ships were prize targets for pirates all cross the seven seas. In 1783, the same year that the Treaty of Paris was signed, corsairs from the Barbary States began to attack American shipping in the Mediterranean.
Inundated by many other problems which required immediate attention - border wars with Indians, navel conflict with Revolutionary France - the US Congress capitulated to demands for tribute. Within the next fifteen years, treaties were ratified with each of the four Barbary states: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Tripolitania (one of three regions which were combined to form Libya).
By the time Thomas Jefferson was appointed president (1801) the situation had changed: a treaty had been signed ending naval war between the US and France, and the American ship George Washington, transporting the yearly tribute to Algiers, had been ordered to sail on to Constantinople to deliver the money directly to the Ottoman sultan. (To add to the humiliation, Captain William Bainbridge was instructed to fly the Ottoman flag whilst in harbour at Algiers.) America had, by this time, paid over $2,000,000 in tribute and ransom to the Barbary States - but this was only one-fifth of what was expected.
Angered by delayed and undersized payments the Barbary State regents demanded more. The escalating situation was finally brought to a head by the Pasha of Tripolitania, Yusuf Karamanli. On May 14, 1801, he ordered the flag staff (flying the 'Stars and Stripes') standing in front of the US consulate to be cut down. This symbolic act was taken as a declaration of war against America.
A squadron of four ships were being made ready at that time in the US. Under the command of Commodore Richard Dale they were dispatched to the Mediterranean. On the 17th of July, 1801, a blockade was imposed on the harbour at Tripoli. Although there were a few naval successes against the corsairs, the squadron proved too weak to effectively control the situation. The US envoy to Tripoli, James Cathcart, continued discussions with the Pasha hoping to reach a compromise on the amount of tribute now being demanded - a one-off payment of $250,000 and an annual tribute of $20,000.
In 1803, an enlarged squadron was sent to the Mediterranean under the command of Commodore Edward Preble (of the 44-gun frigate Constitution). On the 31st of October 1803, one of Preble's ships, the frigate Philadelphia, ran aground on a reef near the harbour. Captured by Tripolitan gunboats, the frigate was floated free and taken into port. Captain William Bainbridge and the ship's 307 crew were imprisoned.
On the 16th of February, 1804, Lieutenant Stephen Decatur led a raid on the harbour in a previously captured ketch, renamed Intrepid. Although the main aim of the raid was to retake the Philadelphia, Decatur had to settle with burning the frigate to the water line. The raiding party escaped before an alarm was sounded. The British Admiral, Lord Nelson, described the raid as "the most daring act of the age." Unfortunately the crew of the Philadelphia remained in prison, and the Pasha was now asking for $200,000 for their release.
Commodore Preble, who considered the Barbary regents to be "a deep designing artfull treacherous sett of Villains" decided that a show of force was necessary. Two ineffectual and one highly successful bombardments on Tripoli were undertaken in August 1804. On the 4th of September, Preble once again used the captured ketch Intrepid, this time sacrificing it as a fire-ship in the hope of destroying the Pasha's fleet. Unfortunately for Preble, the ship was spotted by enemy gunners and blown up in the harbour entrance. None of the crew survived the premature detonation. Although the attack was a failure, the harbour was seriously compromised and the Pasha's fleet severely restricted.
Discussing the History of appeasement and the Barbary Pirates.
I wouldn't have had the stomach for that.
Hitchens on Thomas Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates.
I want to include the first portion for the references:
************************EXCERPT* see Link at post #20 ******************
Jefferson Versus the Muslim Pirates
Americas first confrontation with the Islamic world helped forge a new nations character.
When I first began to plan my short biography of Thomas Jefferson, I found it difficult to research the chapter concerning the so-called Barbary Wars: an event or series of events that had seemingly receded over the lost horizon of American history. Henry Adams, in his discussion of our third president, had some boyhood reminiscences of the widespread hero-worship of naval officer Stephen Decatur, and other fragments and shards showed up in other quarries, but a sound general history of the subject was hard to come by. When I asked a professional military historiana man with direct access to Defense Department archivesif there was any book that he could recommend, he came back with a slight shrug.
But now the curious reader may choose from a freshet of writing on the subject. Added to my own shelf in the recent past have been The Barbary Wars: American Independence in the Atlantic World, by Frank Lambert (2005); Jeffersons War: Americas First War on Terror 18011805, by Joseph Wheelan (2003); To the Shores of Tripoli: The Birth of the U.S. Navy and Marines, by A. B. C. Whipple (1991, republished 2001); and Victory in Tripoli: How Americas War with the Barbary Pirates Established the U.S. Navy and Shaped a Nation, by Joshua E. London (2005). Most recently, in his new general history, Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present, the Israeli scholar Michael Oren opens with a long chapter on the Barbary conflict. As some of the subtitlesand some of the dates of publicationmake plain, this new interest is largely occasioned by Americas latest round of confrontation in the Middle East, or the Arab sphere or Muslim world, if you prefer those expressions.
In a way, I am glad that I did not have the initial benefit of all this research. My quest sent me to some less obvious secondary sources, in particular to Linda Colleys excellent book Captives, which shows the reaction of the English and American publics to a slave trade of which they were victims rather than perpetrators. How many know that perhaps 1.5 million Europeans and Americans were enslaved in Islamic North Africa between 1530 and 1780? We dimly recall that Miguel de Cervantes was briefly in the galleys. But what of the people of the town of Baltimore in Ireland, all carried off by corsair raiders in a single night?
Some of this activity was hostage trading and ransom farming rather than the more labor-intensive horror of the Atlantic trade and the Middle Passage, but it exerted a huge effect on the imagination of the timeand probably on no one more than on Thomas Jefferson. Peering at the paragraph denouncing the American slave trade in his original draft of the Declaration of Independence, later excised, I noticed for the first time that it sarcastically condemned the Christian King of Great Britain for engaging in this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers. The allusion to Barbary practice seemed inescapable.
One immediate effect of the American Revolution, however, was to strengthen the hand of those very same North African potentates: roughly speaking, the Maghrebian provinces of the Ottoman Empire that conform to todays Algeria, Libya, Morocco, and Tunisia. Deprived of Royal Navy protection, American shipping became even more subject than before to the depredations of those who controlled the Strait of Gibraltar. The infant United States had therefore to decide not just upon a question of national honor but upon whether it would stand or fall by free navigation of the seas.
One of the historians of the Barbary conflict, Frank Lambert, argues that the imperative of free trade drove America much more than did any quarrel with Islam or tyranny, let alone terrorism. He resists any comparison with todays tormenting confrontations. The Barbary Wars were primarily about trade, not theology, he writes. Rather than being holy wars, they were an extension of Americas War of Independence.
Thank you for the Link
Gerard W. Gawalt is the manuscript specialist for early American history in the Manuscript Division, Library of Congress.
Ruthless, unconventional foes are not new to the United States of America. More than two hundred years ago the newly established United States made its first attempt to fight an overseas battle to protect its private citizens by building an international coalition against an unconventional enemy. Then the enemies were pirates and piracy. The focus of the United States and a proposed international coalition was the Barbary Pirates of North Africa.
Pirate ships and crews from the North African states of Tripoli, Tunis, Morocco, and Algiers (the Barbary Coast) were the scourge of the Mediterranean. Capturing merchant ships and holding their crews for ransom provided the rulers of these nations with wealth and naval power. In fact, the Roman Catholic Religious Order of Mathurins had operated from France for centuries with the special mission of collecting and disbursing funds for the relief and ransom of prisoners of Mediterranean pirates.
Before the United States obtained its independence in the American Revolution, 1775-83, American merchant ships and sailors had been protected from the ravages of the North African pirates by the naval and diplomatic power of Great Britain. British naval power and the tribute or subsidies Britain paid to the piratical states protected American vessels and crews. During the Revolution, the ships of the United States were protected by the 1778 alliance with France, which required the French nation to protect "American vessels and effects against all violence, insults, attacks, or depredations, on the part of the said Princes and States of Barbary or their subjects."
After the United States won its independence in the treaty of 1783, it had to protect its own commerce against dangers such as the Barbary pirates. As early as 1784 Congress followed the tradition of the European shipping powers and appropriated $80,000 as tribute to the Barbary states, directing its ministers in Europe, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, to begin negotiations with them. Trouble began the next year, in July 1785, when Algerians captured two American ships and the dey of Algiers held their crews of twenty-one people for a ransom of nearly $60,000.
Thomas Jefferson, United States minister to France, opposed the payment of tribute, as he later testified in words that have a particular resonance today. In his autobiography Jefferson wrote that in 1785 and 1786 he unsuccessfully "endeavored to form an association of the powers subject to habitual depredation from them. I accordingly prepared, and proposed to their ministers at Paris, for consultation with their governments, articles of a special confederation." Jefferson argued that "The object of the convention shall be to compel the piratical States to perpetual peace." Jefferson prepared a detailed plan for the interested states. "Portugal, Naples, the two Sicilies, Venice, Malta, Denmark and Sweden were favorably disposed to such an association," Jefferson remembered, but there were "apprehensions" that England and France would follow their own paths, "and so it fell through."
Paying the ransom would only lead to further demands, Jefferson argued in letters to future presidents John Adams, then America's minister to Great Britain, and James Monroe, then a member of Congress. As Jefferson wrote to Adams in a July 11, 1786, letter, "I acknolege [sic] I very early thought it would be best to effect a peace thro' the medium of war." Paying tribute will merely invite more demands, and even if a coalition proves workable, the only solution is a strong navy that can reach the pirates, Jefferson argued in an August 18, 1786, letter to James Monroe: "The states must see the rod; perhaps it must be felt by some one of them. . . . Every national citizen must wish to see an effective instrument of coercion, and should fear to see it on any other element than the water. A naval force can never endanger our liberties, nor occasion bloodshed; a land force would do both." "From what I learn from the temper of my countrymen and their tenaciousness of their money," Jefferson added in a December 26, 1786, letter to the president of Yale College, Ezra Stiles, "it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them."
Jefferson's plan for an international coalition foundered on the shoals of indifference and a belief that it was cheaper to pay the tribute than fight a war. The United States's relations with the Barbary states continued to revolve around negotiations for ransom of American ships and sailors and the payment of annual tributes or gifts. Even though Secretary of State Jefferson declared to Thomas Barclay, American consul to Morocco, in a May 13, 1791, letter of instructions for a new treaty with Morocco that it is "lastly our determination to prefer war in all cases to tribute under any form, and to any people whatever," the United States continued to negotiate for cash settlements. In 1795 alone the United States was forced to pay nearly a million dollars in cash, naval stores, and a frigate to ransom 115 sailors from the dey of Algiers. Annual gifts were settled by treaty on Algiers, Morocco, Tunis, and Tripoli.
When Jefferson became president in 1801 he refused to accede to Tripoli's demands for an immediate payment of $225,000 and an annual payment of $25,000. The pasha of Tripoli then declared war on the United States. Although as secretary of state and vice president he had opposed developing an American navy capable of anything more than coastal defense, President Jefferson dispatched a squadron of naval vessels to the Mediterranean. As he declared in his first annual message to Congress: "To this state of general peace with which we have been blessed, one only exception exists. Tripoli, the least considerable of the Barbary States, had come forward with demands unfounded either in right or in compact, and had permitted itself to denounce war, on our failure to comply before a given day. The style of the demand admitted but one answer. I sent a small squadron of frigates into the Mediterranean. . . ."
The American show of force quickly awed Tunis and Algiers into breaking their alliance with Tripoli. The humiliating loss of the frigate Philadelphia and the capture of her captain and crew in Tripoli in 1803, criticism from his political opponents, and even opposition within his own cabinet did not deter Jefferson from his chosen course during four years of war. The aggressive action of Commodore Edward Preble (1803-4) forced Morocco out of the fight and his five bombardments of Tripoli restored some order to the Mediterranean. However, it was not until 1805, when an American fleet under Commodore John Rogers and a land force raised by an American naval agent to the Barbary powers, Captain William Eaton, threatened to capture Tripoli and install the brother of Tripoli's pasha on the throne, that a treaty brought an end to the hostilities. Negotiated by Tobias Lear, former secretary to President Washington and now consul general in Algiers, the treaty of 1805 still required the United States to pay a ransom of $60,000 for each of the sailors held by the dey of Algiers, and so it went without Senatorial consent until April 1806. Nevertheless, Jefferson was able to report in his sixth annual message to Congress in December 1806 that in addition to the successful completion of the Lewis and Clark expedition, "The states on the coast of Barbary seem generally disposed at present to respect our peace and friendship."
In fact, it was not until the second war with Algiers, in 1815, that naval victories by Commodores William Bainbridge and Stephen Decatur led to treaties ending all tribute payments by the United States. European nations continued annual payments until the 1830s. However, international piracy in Atlantic and Mediterranean waters declined during this time under pressure from the Euro-American nations, who no longer viewed pirate states as mere annoyances during peacetime and potential allies during war.
For anyone interested in the further pursuit of information about America's first unconventional, international war in the primary sources, the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress holds manuscript collections of many of the American participants, including Thomas Jefferson, George Washington (see the George Washington Papers), William Short, Edward Preble, Thomas Barclay, James Madison, James Simpson, James Leander Cathcart, William Bainbridge, James Barron, John Rodgers, Ralph Izard, and Albert Gallatin.
Yes, we followed the European pattern, necessitated by virtue of our inability to project force. A problem we solved, leading to a standing navy. Appeasement was rejected.
Regarding the Constitution and Declaration of War...and the Barbary Pirates...FR Thread by Freeper Congressman Billybob
Posted on Thu 19 Sep 2002 10:59:47 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob
By John Armor From the Washington Politics & Policy Desk Published 9/19/2002 11:31 AM
HIGHLANDS, N.C., Sept. 19 (UPI) -- The United States does not legitimately go to war because the president says so. Or because the United Nations, or NATO, or any other organization says so. Or even because some other nation commits an act of war against it.
The only legal way for the United States to go to war is stated in the Constitution, which gives Congress the power "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal...." The Framers gave that power to Congress, and only Congress, because they were mindful of European wars begun by kings, without the consent of the people who paid the price in blood and taxes.
So, are we now at war? Contrary to what many careless commentators have said and written for months, we are at war now. Why? Because Congress has already acted as the Constitution requires.
Here is the operative text of Senate Joint Resolution 23, passed by the Senate on Sept. 14, 2001, and included by the House in the Anti-Terrorism Act, passed on Sept. 18, 2001: "This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
"(a) IN GENERAL That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
(The boilerplate and whereas clauses have been left out of the seven US declarations of war that are discussed here.)
Nowhere is the phrase "declaration of war" used. Isn't that necessary?
No. The Constitution requires no particular language, unlike the Presidential Oath, which is specified word for word. Two centuries ago this year, Congress committed us to war against the Barbary Pirates -- Muslims operating on the high seas and across the boundaries of several nations.
Then, as now, the declaration of war applied to those attacking the United States wherever and whenever they could be found. It did not name a nation as the enemy:
"An Act for the Protection of the Commerce and Seamen of the United States, Against the Tripolitan Cruisers.
"... it shall be lawful fully to equip, officer, man, and employ such of the armed vessels of the United States as may be judged requisite by the President of the United States, for protecting effectually the commerce and seamen thereof on the Atlantic ocean, the Mediterranean and adjoining seas.
"...to subdue, seize and make prize of all vessels, goods and effects, belonging to the Bey of Tripoli, or to his subjects,... and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify, and may, in his opinion, require."
(Feb. 6, 1802.)
This 200-year-old declaration is open-ended, in the same way and for the same reasons as SJR 23. The enemy was not the product of a single nation-state, or alliance of states. The declaration of war could not have the clarity of those against Germany and Japan in World War II:
"... that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States...."
"... that a state of war exists between the Imperial German Government and the Government and the people of the United States...."
It does not matter that Congress used broad definitions for current circumstances. The Constitution only requires that a majority of the House and the Senate concur. They have.
The president has no legal role in a declaration of war; however, he has a leadership role. He must present to the Congress and to the people the reasons why the nation should take up arms. President Thomas Jefferson did that concerning the Barbary Pirates. President Franklin D. Roosevelt did that concerning Germany and Japan. President George Bush did that concerning Iraq in 1991. President George W. Bush has done that concerning the terrorists and those who support and harbor them, in 2001.
Congress could have acted with more clarity. Here is the operative text of House Joint Resolution 63, introduced on Sept. 13, 2001, by five members of the House:
"Congress hereby declares that a state of war exists between the United States of America and any entity determined by the President to have planned, carried out, or otherwise supported the attacks against the United States on September 11 , 2001.
"The President is authorized to use United States Armed Forces and all other necessary resources of the United States Government against any entity determined by the President to have planned, carried out, or otherwise supported the attacks ... to bring the conflict to a successful termination."
The same day, nine other members of the House introduced HJR 62, which said:
"... a state of war exists between the United States and
(1) any entity that committed the acts of international terrorism against the United States on September 11, 2001, or commits [such] acts... thereafter; and
(2) any country or entity that has provided or provides support or protection for any [such] entity....
"The President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States... to carry on war against such entities and countries...."
These were free-standing resolutions and used the words "declaration of war." Both of these were tabled and SJR 23 was passed, giving the president the same authority without using those three words.
Had either House resolution passed, even CBS News, the New York Times, and other major media outlets would have noticed, and would not have run stories this year claiming that legal counsel in the White House had concluded that "no authority from Congress was needed" for the president to conduct the war. The correct statement would have been no additional authority was needed, because Congress had already acted.
So, what is the purpose of President Bush's speech this year to the United Nations, and the presentation of the issue of Iraq to Congress this year?
Here is the operative language of the 1991 declaration of war against Iraq:
"Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution."
"(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized, subject to subsection (b), to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution[s] [Citations omitted.]
"Before exercising the authority granted in subsection (a), the President shall make available to [Congress]... his determination that
(1) the United States has used all appropriate... means to obtain compliance by Iraq with the United Nations Security Council resolutions...; and
(2) that those efforts have not been successful...."
This is a declaration of limited war. The power granted by Congress ended when Iraqi troops were removed from Kuwait; because that was the limit of the UN Resolutions. Why was UN participation mandatory in 1991, but not in 2001? Because then the United States was not directly attacked. It could not then invoke Article V of the UN Charter, the right of self-defense for any nation which is attacked.
Asking Congress to act again in 2002 with respect to Iraq is not a matter of the Constitution but of common sense. Congress will have to vote the money for the war. The additional assent of Congress will demonstrate the commitment of the people to prosecute this war to victory. Note that the United States has already conducted acts of war in the Philippines this year concerning two American missionaries who were held captive. This was done under the 2001 authority and without objection.
Will Congress have the integrity to use the word "war" in the new resolution it will shortly pass? It should, because that is what Congress is confirming. Congress should not hide behind "authorization to use military force." We have military forces to fight our wars. As a colleague who served in the 82nd Airborne said, "Our job is to kill people and break their toys."
It will indicate a lack of commitment and candor, if in the 2002 confirmation -- not declaration -- of the war on Iraq, Congress cannot this time utter the word "war."
The Barbary War example not only makes clear we are "at war" today, it also suggests the extent of this war. That war was a low-grade one across international boundaries. It continued until the second "Treaty of Peace and Amity" in 1816. The American people should understand, and Congress should confirm, that this will be a much smaller war than World War II, Korea, or Vietnam, but no less important to national safety, and likely to last about 10 years.
No war has ever begun with clear knowledge of how long it will last or what it will cost. But this war has already begun, already been declared. Now it is the role of Congress to do what is necessary for victory. Congress has sometimes been deficient in this role, beginning in the American Revolution. We will shortly see whether Congress is deficient in this war.
(John Armor is a lawyer who practices in the Supreme Court. His eighth book, "These are the times that try men's souls" (about Thomas Paine), is scheduled to be published next year).
We went over there and kicked their butts.
The clause was inserted in the treaty because the jihadists wouldn’t enter into a treaty with a Christian state, only accept tribute. And was consistant with the times, the US was unique in not having an established state Church, as did all European nations. It wasn’t addressing a mythical separation.
Of course the diplomats stopped O'Bannon and Eaton before they could lay siege to Tripoli with their multi-national force, Arabs and Greeks along with our Marines. They then sold out Eaton and the Bey's brother Hamet, Hamet barely escaping with his life and Eaton dying broke due to unreimbursed debts and expenses of the campaign.
Although Cornwallis' surrender at Yorktown in the Fall of 1781 marked the end of the Revolutionary War, minor battles between the British and the colonists continued for another two years. Finally, in February of 1783 George III issued his Proclamation of Cessation of Hostilities, culminating in the Peace Treaty of 1783. Signed in Paris on September 3, 1783, the agreement also known as the Paris Peace Treaty formally ended the United States War for Independence.
Representing the United States were John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and John Jay, all of whom signed the treaty.
In addition to giving formal recognition to the U.S., the nine articles that embodied the treaty: established U.S. boundaries, specified certain fishing rights, allowed creditors of each country to be paid by citizens of the other, restored the rights and property of Loyalists, opened up the Mississippi River to citizens of both nations and provided for evacuation of all British forces.
Thanks Ernest_at_the_Beach. This is an unusual ping, as the topic pertains to early America.
· Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo ·
· History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·
When I read “Jeffersons War: Americas First War on Terror 18011805”, by Joseph Wheelan I was struck by the similar attitudes and tactics of the enemy to those we encounter today. Some things never change.
The Ambassador [to England from Tripoli] answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners."
Thomas Jefferson and John Adams in their report to Congress
A couple related threads. The London book, Victory in Tripoli, is a good one.
They did conquer the fort at Durna though. After that battle the war was pretty much over. One note, Prince Hamet in grattitude to the Marines presented O’Bannon with the Marmaluke sword which is still the ceremonial sword used by Marine Officers today.
Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, then serving as American ambassadors to France and Britain, respectively, met in 1786 in London with the Tripolitan Ambassador to Britain, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja. These future American presidents were attempting to negotiate a peace treaty which would spare the United States the ravages of jihad piracymurder, enslavement (with ransoming for redemption), and expropriation of valuable commercial assetsemanating from the Barbary states (modern Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya, known collectively in Arabic as the Maghrib). During their discussions, they questioned Ambassador Adja as to the source of the unprovoked animus directed at the nascent United States republic. Jefferson and Adams, in their subsequent report to the Continental Congress, recorded the Tripolitan Ambassadors justification:
Yah, they do. Now the Jihadists are using Western technologies to kill us, even though they claim they want to restore Islam to the status it was before the Infidels came. THAT status has never changed. Stupidity seems to be a prerequisite to being an Islamic terrorist.
Another very good point!
Also good points. thanks.
Straits Times - Asia ^ | OCT 12, 2004 TUE
Posted on Thu 14 Oct 2004 06:59:33 AM PDT by Calpernia
KUALA LUMPUR - Foreign powers must not dictate how Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia protect the Strait of Malacca shipping lanes from threats of piracy and terrorism, Malaysia's Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday.
'The Strait of Malacca is ours to protect and preserve,' said Datuk Seri Najib Razak, who is also Defence Minister, at a conference on improving security in the pirate-infested waters.
'There are those who forget that the countries bordering the Strait of Malacca - each of them sovereign nations in their own right - have the ultimate say over the protection and preservation of the strait,' he said.
Datuk Seri Najib did not name any country in his speech.
However, Admiral Thomas Fargo, commander of United States forces in the Pacific, said in March that an American plan to heighten security in the Strait of Malacca might require a detachment of elite US troops to be stationed nearby.
Datuk Seri Najib said any assumption that foreign countries whose ships pass through the Strait of Malacca can use them for military purposes 'reflects a lack of respect for the rights of littoral states and a misunderstanding of international law'.
Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia all have littoral areas, or coastlines, along the Strait of Malacca. About 50,000 ships ply the narrow passage each year.
The US has warned that terrorists could seize vessels for use as 'floating bombs' to blow up key ports or cities, although no such plots have been reported.
Indonesia's navy chief, Admiral Bernard Kent Sondakh, said in a recent media interview that terrorism and piracy threats in the strait were overblown.
He suggested that foreign governments, including Washington, were playing up the threat because they were interested in controlling the waterway for economic reasons.
'The world economy is now moving toward the Asia-Pacific. Whoever controls the Malacca Strait, the Sunda Straits and the Makassar Straits controls the economy of the Asia Pacific,' Datuk Seri Najib said.
The Sunda and Makassar straits are other waterways in the region.
About 20 pirate attacks were reported in the Strait of Malacca in the first six months of this year.
Joint naval patrols by the adjoining countries have curbed piracy, according to their officials. -- AP
John / Billybob
Given command of the brig Argus in 1803, he took it to the Mediterranean for service in the First Barbary War against Tripoli. Once in the combat zone, Lieutenant Decatur commanded the schooner Enterprise and, on 23 December 1803, captured the enemy ketch Mastico. That vessel, taken into the U.S. Navy under the name Intrepid, was used by Decatur on 16 February 1804 to execute a night raid into Tripoli harbor to destroy the former U.S. frigate Philadelphia, which had been captured after running aground at the end of October 1803. Admiral Lord Nelson is said to have called this "the most bold and daring act of the age".
This daring and extremely successful operation made Lieutenant Decatur an immediate national hero, a status that was enhanced by his courageous conduct during the 3 August 1804 bombardment of Tripoli. In that action, he led his men in hand-to-hand fighting while boarding and capturing an enemy gunboat. Decatur was subsequently promoted to the rank of Captain, and over the next eight years had command of several frigates.
Click here for more.
Random tidbit on the subject...The sword on the Marines’ uniforms is a representation of the sword presented to the US by Egypt as a gift for driving the Barbary Pirates out of the Mediterranean.
Thanks for the ping. Lots of verifiable history in this post.
Somebody forgot to tell Adams and Jefferson that Islam is A Religion of Peace, and that they should observe Islamic holidays like Bush has done.
Thanks Bulldog, got a keeper.