"Millions For Defense, Not One Cent For Tribute"

This just in:


The "tribute" referred to was the millions paid in the 18th century, shortly after independence, to ransom American hostages - now lacking the protection of the British Navy - from the Barbary pirates of the Ottoman Empire.

This tribute was a substantial proportion of federal revenues at the time. President Jefferson didn't want to pay it and sent the little U.S. fleet and its Marines into action. Together with Arab allies and foreign mercenaries, U.S. forces reached "the shores of Tripoli" and subdued its pasha into peace. This task was repeated under President Monroe a decade later, and this time piracy was ended permanently.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

It certainly does. The motto is attributed to Representative Robert Goodloe Harper in 1798, so this 1841 "NOT ONE CENT" - actually a token that circulated as a sort of currency - commemorates the accomplishments of the two previous generations. These naval actions were controversial two centuries ago, but at least Congress understood the need for flexibility by commanders in distant theaters, and the importance of the country's image abroad:

...In operations at such a distance, it becomes necessary to leave much to the discretion of the agents employed, but events may still turn up beyond the limits of that discretion. Unable in such a case to consult his government, a zealous citizen will act as he believes that would direct him, were it apprised of the circumstances, and will take on himself the responsibility. In all these cases the purity and patriotism of the motives should shield the agent from blame, and even secure a sanction where the error is not too injurious....

A nation, by establishing a character of liberality and magnanimity, gains in the friendship and respect of others more than the worth of mere money. [President Thomas Jefferson, Special Message to the House and Senate, January 13, 1806.]

In the present age of our hyper-critical media always on the attack against any Administration that actually defends America's interests, I believe that an effective way to counter its disruptive influence - Jim Hoagland in today's Washington Post actually cites image and not substance as threatening - is the presence of American soldiers and diplomats abroad, and the reputation they establish for themselves and their country.

Update 12/15/05: Mightier Than the Pen

It appears this former reporter thinks so as well:

I happened to meet a Marine Corps colonel who'd just come back from Iraq. He gave me a no-nonsense assessment of what was happening there, but what got to me most was his description of how the Marines behaved and how they looked after each other in a hostile world. That struck me as a metaphor for how America should be in the world at large...

...I decided to do my first physical training and see what happened...I met a Marine...and started training with him. Pretty soon I filled out the application...

In a way, I see the Marines as a microcosm of America at its best. Their focus isn't on weapons and tactics, but on leadership. That's the whole point of the Marines.

Update, 1/6/06

A related, Mudville-inspired post here.

Note, 2/13/07: Attention university students! Apparently this is a popular post for college essays and mid-term papers. I suggest you reference it correctly.

Second Response to Hareega

Today Reega posts terrible pictures of Iraqis children in the aftermath of terror attacks. She asks:

Will these Iraqi children remember the day people were allowed to vote more than the day they lost their parents ?

Will they think of this was as a war on terror or a war of terror?

This war has transformed each of these children to a potential "Bin Ladin" when they grow up.

Can't Americans stop singing "we didn't start the fire" for just one day?

This is my response:

If you read my blog, especially the entries starting with Why is the U.S. in Iraq?, you would see that this American doesn't think the question applies. It isn't that "we didn't start the fire"; it's that Iraq was already run by a terrorist before the U.S. invaded and civilian casualties have dropped by a factor of at least five (and are still dropping) since. It's just that photographers can now snap away at the remaining carnage with far less fear for their lives.

Nevertheless, your point is a good one. But in a sense this dilemma doesn't apply. I agree with your characterization: Iraqis get democracy in exchange for U.S. and Iraqi soldiers killing Al-Qaeda. But had America invaded with three times the force -- enough to suppress any "insurgency" -- the long-run shame of Iraqis may have generated the destructive impulses you fear.

Al-Qaida would then have stayed away from Iraq and attacked elsewhere, rather than slowly eroding its strength through fighting in Iraq. Only a few years ago, Al-Queda planned to devastate Jordan with chemical attacks that would have killed tens of thousands. Last month's attack accomplished only a fraction of this carnage -- and the attackers were relatives of terrorist leaders, a sure sign that the noose is tightening. Imagine how much worse Al-Qaida's attacks would be around the world if the U.S. never invaded Iraq in the first place.

Since the U.S. force is small, it can only succeed in establishing peace and democracy with active Iraqi participation, the Iraqis can take much pride in their accomplishments -- but as the world can see, the children are being attacked by the terrorists as a result of U.S. sensitivity to these matters.



I expect neither excessive "love" nor hatred from Iraqis; both Americans and Iraqis are acting out of self-interest. I can hope the children who survive these horrors will have the opportunity to mature in a free society and thus may be free from the destructive impulses you fear. The children of the Holocaust do not dream of killing Germans.

Do you have any better answers, Reega?

[Photograph added 12/8/05]

Sabotaging the Soviets

Economic sabotage during the final decade of the Cold War. What makes it especially scrumptious is that the Communists thought they were secretly stealing deliberately flawed technologies from the West. Cute. (Hat tip: Wired)

It does sound a little like a "B"-grade movie plot, or an old episode of Mission Impossible. Who knows, maybe that's what inspired President Reagan to approve it!

A French Immigrant Looks at Thanksgiving

What a strange holiday that is! A day to offer our thanks, in a complete secular way (if one chose so), for what we have. There is no equivalent anywhere in the world.
I did not always celebrate Thanksgiving. It seemed a weird celebration with strange food...

An American diplomat, Dr. Demarche, writes that July 4th and Thanksgiving are the two holidays he misses most. Christians celebrate it, my family celebrates it, Muslims celebrate it. Even some American Indians celebrate it, for it was also a celebration of the friendship of peoples, before darker incidents occurred to sunder them.

It is a truly American holiday, for why did so many peoples leave their homes for America in the first place, if not to better their lives? And so we give thanks with prayer and such a feast that Thanksgiving is, as Art Buchwald wrote, the one day of the year that Americans eat better than the French do.

Dr. Sanity: "Moral Exibitionism"

Scratch the surface of a moral exhibitionist, and you will find an opportunistic idealogue who actually believes in nothing and stands for nothing.

And my response in the comments. (The Assistant Village Idiot also has an interesting perspective on things.)

Is it all DeGaulle's Fault?

After all, he created the unique DeGaullist philosophy that justified France's cynical opportunism, maintaining that France must operate independently of its "allies" or else risk internal political fracture. France, then, would partly oppose the U.S. geopolitically to extract maximum political advantages for itself, and let others bear higher costs for ends that France itself desired, yet would not admit publicly.

DeGaulle either wouldn't admit, or implicitly accepted, that such a policy would be a moral cancer that would eat into the French soul: if France cannot articulate its true desires and interests, how can its people tell what France truly stands for, good or evil, brotherhood or selfishness?

Clearly this disease is as much a part of France's domestic politics as it is of its foreign policy. Will the French elite change, do nothing, or depart? They can no longer comfort themselves by thinking Aprés moi, le deluge.

French Muslims & American Blacks

Marc over at American Future has a discussion on the parallels between the U.S. Civil Rights Movement that has largely permitted black integration and France's current troubles. Here is my contribution:

The American solution consisted of several steps:

1) The Civil Rights Act of 1964 dismantled legal barriers.

2) Suspension of the Draft (1970) meant that blacks (I use "black" because I know too many white African-Americans) could no longer complain that military service was an unjust burden for people without equal rights.

3) Massive increases in welfare payments (~1972?) paid off the masses.

4) Affirmative Action (starting mid-70s) allowed blacks to feel they could get a step up in the world as they couldn't before.

5) Welfare reform (1996) removed the rent-seeking ennui at the root of minority dissatisfaction. (The welfare state is very boring and offers no opportunity for jobless men on the dole to prove themselves.)

Sometime in the next ten years I hope Affirmative Action will be eliminated, except as a monitoring function. Then, after seventy years - three generations - America's Civil Rights Revolution will be complete.

For I date the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement to 1943, when the Tuskeegee Airmen demonstrated in World War II that blacks could fly and fight just as well as anybody else, that they could be entrusted to kill white people and be patriotic Americans. The lesson bit deep in the military and spread from there.

France doesn't have the luxury of a seventy-year time frame. The Tuskeegee Airmen started the Civil Rights Movement with a demonstration of their patriotism. What are the rioters in France demonstrating?