Foreign Policy Lessons From Fighting Muslim Pirates (Medved)

Wednesday, August 06, 2008

Foreign Policy Lessons From Fighting Muslim Pirates

by Michael Medved

Most Americans remain utterly ignorant of this nation’s first foreign war but that exotic, long-ago struggle set the pattern for nearly all the many distant conflicts that followed. Refusal to confront the lessons of the First Barbary War (1801-1805) has led to some of the silliest arguments concerning Iraq and Afghanistan, and any effort to apply traditional American values to our future foreign policy requires an understanding of this all-but-forgotten episode from our past. The war against the Barbary States of North Africa (Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli—today’s Libya) involved commitment and sacrifice far from home and in no way involved a defense of our native soil. For centuries, the Islamic states at the southern rim of the Mediterranean relied upon piracy to feed the coffers of their corrupt rulers. The state sponsored terrorists of that era (who claimed the romantic designation, “corsairs”) seized western shipping and sold their crews into unimaginably brutal slavery. By the mid-eighteenth century, European powers learned to save themselves a great deal of trouble and wealth by bribing the local authorities with “tribute,” in return for which the pirates left their shipping alone. Until independence, British bribes protected American merchant ships in the Mediterranean since they traveled under His Majesty’s flag; after 1783, the new government faced a series of crises as Barbary pirates seized scores of civilian craft (with eleven captured in 1793 alone). Intermittently, the United States government paid tribute to escape these depredations: eventually providing a bribe worth more than $1,000,000—a staggering one-sixth of the total federal budget of the time – to the Dey of Algiers alone. When Jefferson became president in 1801, he resolved to take a hard line against the terrorists and their sponsors. “I know that nothing will stop the eternal increase of demands from these pirates but the presence of an armed force, and it will be more economical & more honorable to use the same means at once for suppressing their insolencies,” he wrote. The president dispatched nearly all ships of the fledgling American navy to sail thousands of miles across the Atlantic and through the straits of Gibraltar to do battle with the North African thugs. After a few initial reverses, daring raids on sea and land (by the new Marine Corps, earning the phrase in their hymn “….to the shores of Tripoli”) won sweeping victory. A decade later, with the U.S. distracted by the frustrating and inconclusive War of 1812 against Great Britain, the Barbary states again challenged American power, and President Madison sent ten new ships to restore order with another decisive campaign (known as “The Second Barbary War, 1815). The records of these dramatic, all-but-forgotten conflicts convey several important messages for the present day: 1. The U.S. often goes to war when it is not directly attacked. One of the dumbest lines about the Iraq War claims that “this was the first time we ever attacked a nation that hadn’t attacked us.” Obviously, Barbary raids against private shipping hardly constituted a direct invasion of the American homeland, but founding fathers Jefferson and Madison nonetheless felt the need to strike back. Of more than 140 conflicts in which American troops have fought on foreign soil, only one (World War II, obviously) represented a response to an unambiguous attack on America itself. Iraq and Afghanistan are part of a long-standing tradition of fighting for U.S. interests, and not just to defend the homeland. 2. Most conflicts unfold without a Declaration of War. Jefferson informed Congress of his determination to hit back against the North African sponsors of terrorism (piracy), but during four years of fighting never sought a declaration of war. In fact, only five times in American history did Congress actually declare war – the War of 1812, the Mexican War, The Spanish American War, World War I and World War II. None of the 135 other struggles in which U.S. troops fought in the far corners of the earth saw Congress formally declare war—and these undeclared conflicts (including Korea, Vietnam, the First Gulf War, and many more) involved a total of millions of troops and more than a hundred thousand total battlefield deaths. 3. Islamic enmity toward the US is rooted in the Muslim religion, not recent American policy. In 1786, America’s Ambassador to France, Thomas Jefferson, joined our Ambassador in London, John Adams, to negotiate with the Ambassador from Tripoli, Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. The Americans asked their counterpart why the North African nations made war against the United States, a power “who had done them no injury", and according the report filed by Jefferson and Adams the Tripolitan diplomat replied: “It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.” 4. Cruel Treatment of enemies by Muslim extremists is a long-standing tradition. In 1793, Algerian pirates captured the merchant brig Polly and paraded the enslaved crewmen through jeering crowds in the streets of Algiers. Dey Hassan Pasha, the local ruler, bellowed triumphantly: “Now I have got you, you Christian dogs, you shall eat stones.” American slaves indeed spent their years of captivity breaking rocks. According to Max Boot in his fine book The Savage Wars of Peace: “A slave who spoke disrespectfully to a Muslim could be roasted alive, crucified, or impaled (a stake was driven through the arms until it came out at the back of the neck). A special agony was reserved for a slave who killed a Muslim – he would be cast over the city walls and left to dangle on giant iron hooks for days before expiring of his wounds.” 5. There’s nothing new in far-flung American wars to defend U.S. economic interests. Every war in American history involved an economic motivation – at least in part, and nearly all of our great leaders saw nothing disgraceful in going to battle to defend the commercial vitality of the country. Jefferson and Madison felt no shame in mobilizing – and sacrificing – ships and ground forces to protect the integrity of commercial shipping interests in the distant Mediterranean. Fortunately for them, they never had to contend with demonstrators who shouted “No blood for shipping!” 6. Even leaders who have worried about the growth of the U.S. military establishment came to see the necessity of robust and formidable armed forces. Jefferson and Madison both wanted to shrink and restrain the standing army and initially opposed the determination by President Adams to build an expensive new American Navy. When Jefferson succeeded Adams as president, however, he quickly and gratefully used the ships his predecessor built. The Barbary Wars taught the nation that there is no real substitute for military power, and professional forces that stand ready for anything. 7. America has always played “the cop of the world.” In part, Jefferson and Madison justified the sacrifices of the Barbary Wars as a defense of civilization, not just the protection of U.S. interests – and the European powers granted new respect to the upstart nation that finally tamed the North African pirates. Jefferson and Madison may not have fought for a New World Order but they most certainly sought a more orderly world. Many American conflicts over the last 200 years have involved an effort to enfort to enforce international rules and norms as much as to advance national interests. Wide-ranging and occasionally bloody expeditions throughout Central America, China, the Philippines, Africa and even Russia after the Revolution used American forces to prevent internal and international chaos. The Barbary Wars cost limited casualties for the United States (only 35 sailors and marines killed in action) but required the expenditure of many millions of dollars – a significant burden for the young and struggling Republic. Most importantly, these difficult battles established a long, honorable tradition of American power projected many thousands of miles beyond our shores. Those who claim that our engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan represent some shameful, radical departure from an old tradition of pacifism and isolation should look closely at the reality of our very first foreign war—and all the other conflicts in the intervening 200 years.

Stephanopoulos to Pelosi: Why No Up or Down Vote on Drilling?

Stephanopoulos to Pelosi: Why No Up or Down Vote on Drilling?

By Noel Sheppard
August 3, 2008 - 13:41 ET

It seems that even ABC's George Stephanopoulos is getting fed up with Congressional Democrats blocking efforts by Republicans to expand offshore oil drilling in order to bring down gas prices.

On Sunday's "This Week," Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Cali.) was asked repeatedly why she refuses to allow this issue to come to a vote.

The look of disgust on Stephanopoulos's face as Pelosi mumbled non sequitur after non sequitur was almost more telling of his sense of frustration than the number of times he asked virtually the same question: "Why won't you permit a straight up or down vote?"

Readers should prepare themselves for an alternate reality, for Madame Speaker was quizzed on Sunday like never before (video available here, rush transcript from closed captioning, photo courtesy ABC News):

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, HOST: You've been getting a lot of heat for not allowing a straight up or down vote expanding drilling off the coasts of the United States. Why won't you permit a straight up or down vote?

NANCY PELOSI, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: What we have presented are options that will really make a difference at the pump. Free our oil, Mr. President. We're sitting on 700 million barrels of oil. That would have an immediate effect in ten days. What our colleagues are talking about is something that won't have an effect for ten years and it will be 2 cents at the time. If they want to present something that's part of an energy package, we're talking about something. But to single shoot on something that won't work and mislead the American people as to thinking it's going to reduce the price at the pump, I'm just not going to be a part of it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Except it’s not just Republicans that are calling for this. Members of your own caucus say we must have a vote. Congressman Jason Altmire, let me show our viewers right now, says, “There is going to be a vote. September 30 will not come and go without a vote on the opening the Outer Continental Shelf. The message has been delivered. The issue can't be ignored any longer.” He says he speaks for a lot of Democrats. He's talked to the leadership and a vote must happen.

PELOSI: Maybe it will, as part of a larger energy package. Let's step back, call a halt and put this in perspective. What we have now is a failed energy policy by the Bush/Cheney, two oilmen in the White House. $4 a gallon gasoline at the pump. And what they're saying is let's have more of the same. Let's have more of big oil making, record profits, historic profits. You see the quarterly reports that just came out, who want to be subsidized who don't really want to compete. Let them use the subsidies to drill oil in protected areas. Instead we're saying, free the oil. Use it, don't lose it. There's 68 million acres in lower 48 and 20 million more acres in Alaska where they're permitted where they could drill anytime. This is a diversionary tactic from failed energy policies.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But if you feel you have the better arguments, why not give a straight up or down vote for drilling?

PELOSI: Because the misrepresentation is being made that this is going to reduce the price at the pump. This is again a decoy, it’s not a solution.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, if you’re right, why not let it be debated out and have the vote?

PELOSI: We have a debate every single day on this subject. What you saw in the Congress this week was the war dance of the hand maidens of the oil companies. That's what you saw on the Republican side of the aisle. Democrats and Republicans are not right there on party lines on this issue. There are regional concerns, as well as some people concerned about what this means back home for them. But we have a planet to save. We have an economy to grow. And we can do that if we keep our balance in all of this and not just say but for drilling in unprotected and these protected areas offshore, we would have lower gas prices.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So what exactly are you trying to say? You say you might allow a vote as part of a comprehensive package, but you won’t allow a vote on --

PELOSI: We have put on the floor. Free our oil. Strong bipartisan support for that. Use it, don't lose it. Strong bipartisan support for that. End undue speculation, strong bipartisan support for that. We've talked about these things. Invest in renewable energy resources so that we can increase the supply of energy for our country. Strong bipartisan support for that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Yet you brought those measures to the floor in a way under the suspension of the rules so that it couldn't be amended with a drilling proposal.

PELOSI: Well, we built consensus and have a strong bipartisan. This is what’s going to make a difference to reduce the dependence on foreign oil, to stop our dependence on fossil fuels in our own country. To increase the supply of energy immediately to reduce the price at the pump to protect the consumer. So this is a policy matter. This is very serious policy matter. It's not to use a tactic of one -- one tactic in order to undermine a comprehensive energy package to reduce our dependence on foreign oil which is a national security issue. To reduce our dependence on fossil fuels in our own country. Now, will we be talking about natural gas that's cheaper, better for the environment --

STEPHANOPOULOS: But why not allow votes on all that? When you came in as Speaker you promised in your commitment book "A New Direction for America," let me show our viewers, you said that “Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, fair debate consisting of full amendment process that grants the Minority the right to offer its alternatives.” If they want to offer a drilling proposal, why can't they have a vote? (underlines added by Lee for emphasis.)

PELOSI: They'll have to use their imagination as to how they can get a vote and then they may get a vote. What I am trying to, we have serious policy issues in our country. The President of the United States has presented this but for this our economy would be booming. But for this, gas would be cheaper at the pump. It's simply not true. Even the President himself in his statement yesterday and before then has said, there is no quick fix for this by drilling.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And Senator Obama has agreed with you. He says, listen. This is not the answer. Drilling is not the answer. But he said over the weekend that he might be willing to sign onto drilling as part of a comprehensive proposal.

PELOSI: What Senator Obama said is what we want a President to say. Let's look at all of the options. Let's compare them. And let's see what really does increase our supply. Protect our environment, save our economy, protect the consumer, instead of a single shot thing that does none of the above. Why we give subsidies to big oil to drill instead of letting them --

STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to move on to other issues. Just to be clear, you are saying you will not allow a single up or down vote on drilling. But you will allow a vote on a package that includes drilling?

PELOSI: No, what I'm saying to you is, as far as I'm concerned, unless there is something that -- you never say never to anything. You know, people have their parliamentary options available to them. But from my standpoint, my flagship issue as Speaker of the House and 110th Congress has been to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reverse global warming. I'm not giving the gavel -- I'm not giving a gavel away to a tactic that will do neither of those things. That supports big oil at the cost and expense of the consumer. (underlines added by Lee for emphasis.)

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you’re not going to permit a vote, you may get beat, but you're not going to permit a vote on your own?

PELOSI: Again, we take this one step at a time. But while we're spending all of this time on a parliamentary tactic when nothing less is at stake than the planet, the air we breathe, our children breathe.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But that’s what I don’t understand. If you could get votes on everything else that you care about which you say there is strong bipartisan support, why not allow a vote on the drilling as well?

PELOSI: Because the President will not allow any of these other things to go forth. Why are we not saying to the President, why don't you release oil from the SPR in ten days to have the price at the pump go down? Why are you opposed to any undue speculation in the oil markets? Why do you not insist that people who have leases on our land with permits ready to go use those? The oil companies don't want competition. And what we would do by saying, go ahead, give them the subsidies. Allow them to drill in areas that are protected now, instead of where they're allowed to drill, is to diminish all of the opportunity that we have for an electricity standard for our country. Where we set out standards that makes the competition for renewable energy resources better. Which says to the private sector, invest here because there is a standard that they have to honor. If you just say it's drill, drill, drill, drill and we're going to subsidize it, what is the motivation for the private sector to come in and say we're going to support these renewable energies, wind, solar, biofuels. Plug-in cars. Natural gas and other alternatives.

Although Stephanopoulos never addressed the revolt that happened in the House on Friday when Pelosi adjourned the session for a five week vacation, he is to be commended for doing a fairly good grilling on Sunday.

As for Pelosi, Americans should be embarrassed by her disgraceful performance. If she represents the best House Democrats have to offer at this moment in history, we should all be fearful of the future.

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.

Where has all the humility in service gone?

The article below is interesting and indicative of character. It used to be that in the good old days whether by pretense or actual character, our public leaders used to portray themselves as public servants - there to serve us . It was an honor to serve with humility , given the gravity of the position.

Now, I'll grant you that running for President of the United States takes some egotistical standing - one must have full confidence that they can run a country - pretty bold! However, the ego is tempered by the realization that any misstep can cost lives and ruin millions of household incomes. It is a solemn understanding - one that should not be taken lightly.

That's why the arrogance of Barak is so stunning. He is indicative of a "me-centered" narcissistic generation that doesn't understand how things work - they only understand how it impacts them. He appears to be running for what it brings him - prestige, power, affluence.

His lack of concrete ideas (those that cannot be changed) and inability to articulate thoughts without pre-written speeches (composed by others but delivered by him) clearly put him in the danger category for leadership.

Read the warning signs.

Lee

------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 3, 2008, 4:34 PM

O-Force One

Posted by Allison O'Keefe| 216

From CBS News' Allison O'Keefe:

Barack Obama’s new campaign plane is nothing short of grand. Well, for the candidate that is.

Obama’s section of the plane rivals that of any first class. Recently the front cabin of the Boeing 757 was retrofitted to install four individual chairs that resemble La-Z-Boys. They are free-standing and made of plush leather with pockets on the sides. There is also a booth which seats four for a meeting or a meal.

His chair has his name and campaign logo embroidered on the back top -- “Obama ‘08” on one line and “President” underneath. To one side is a small table stacked with newspapers ready for the candidate’s arrival. The table of the booth is always covered in snacks and cheese and is where Obama spends most of his time during flights meeting with staff and sitting for the occasional interview.

“Typically the candidate's cabin is like business class -- roomier and less chaotic than the staff and press areas, but still short of the accoutrements of a pro team's charter,” says Politico’s Mike Allen, a frequent campaign flier.

After looking at a few photos of Obama’s cabin, Allen quipped, “Air Force One may seem a tad claustrophobic.” Check it out for yourself:

(CBS/Allison Davis O'Keefe)

(CBS/Allison Davis O'Keefe)

(CBS/Allison Davis O'Keefe)

There are five sections on the 757, the first of which is Obama’s section, which can seat up to eight people at a time, although rarely are all eight seats taken. Depending on the destination or length of trip, Sen. Obama is joined by body man Reggie Love and a few senior staff members or perhaps a key Senate colleague. Recently, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., hitched a ride from Washington, D.C., to her home state for a full day of campaign events.

The next two sections are outfitted with expansive business class seats for senior and junior level staff including Obama’s media team, which films all of the candidate’s events for promotional purposes.

The back two sections are traditional coach seats where the Secret Service, reporters, cameramen and some of the communications staff sit. It is a rite of passage each election cycle for the party’s nominee to retrofit an aircraft to distinct specifications. While the campaign pays for their share of the plane, the news media also pay thousands of dollars to fly with Obama for each leg of his campaign.

CBS News’ John Bentley, who's covering the John McCain campaign, reports that McCain flies in a slightly smaller Boeing 737, which has four compartments: the first class area, where he sits; the “straight talk” area for interviews; a business class section for staffers; and the back of the plane, where the press and secret service sit.

In McCain's spacious first class area, there are 12 plush leather seats for the candidate, his wife and senior staffers. The “straight talk” area features a long leather bench and another first class seat which McCain sits in when he talks to the press – or would, if he used the area.

Since they acquired the plane with its specially modified area, McCain has spoken to the press there precisely once, over a month ago. All of these sections are separated by curtains, which are always shut as tightly as possible as soon as the plane takes off in order to keep the different sections of the plane from interacting with each other.