One of the fundamental divisions within the conservative movement concerns the extent and application of foreign policy. So-called "neo-conservatives" believe that American interests are best served by actively shaping the actions of other countries through a combination of trade, foreign aid, and even war, when necessary. I often take issue with that approach, as it leads to misguided attempts at nation-building by people who don't really know the players on the ground. Ron Paul-style libertarians, on the other hand, believe that America should "get back to the vision of the Founding Fathers." Libertarians seem to believe that government should be small in all things, as if it is a barely acceptable evil that the people keep around because it makes them feel better about themselves (you know, the same way most people feel about rabid Ron Paul fans). They make the argument that the Founding Fathers would not have engaged in the War on Terror and would instead have tried to remain at peace with all nations. This view is clearly based on a romanticized view of history and not the historical record.
Most libertarians hold Thomas Jefferson, out of all the Founding Fathers, in particularly high esteem. After all, the government he envisioned was much more constrained than the government envisioned by many of his peers. So it may come as a shock to them that Jefferson was not only the first President to go to war against Islamists, but he was also the first President to use military action without explicit declaration of war by Congress. Merchant seamen from all Christian nations (yes that includes the United States) were under attack from a nasty group of state-sponsored terrorists; I mean pirates. Along with future President John Adams, Jefferson was sent to negotiate with the ruler of Algeria and later reported to Congress that the reason Americans were under attack was, "…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, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise" (1). Congress decided to pay tribute to avoid the attacks, but it had very little effect other than to drain America's coffers. So when Jefferson became President, he decided that enough was enough. It was time to make the Barbary pirates regret enslaving Americans.
Although libertarians argue that he waited to attack Tripoli itself without some measure of support from the legislature (2), and indeed no direct military action was taken prior to Congress's approval of such measures, it does not change the fact that President Jefferson sent a military force to hostile territory with orders to defend themselves if attacked. Essentially, he skirted his own conscience regarding the Constitutional question by provoking an attack to give the American sailors an excuse to put the pasha out of business. But the corsairs would not attack military vessels when there were so many unprotected ships ripe for the picking, so Jefferson had to obtain Congressional approval to engage in military action.
Of course, always one to quit while he was ahead, Jefferson was eager to end the conflict and withdraw the troops (sound familiar?) and in fact paid sixty thousand dollars to the pasha to free the enslaved Americans (1). Just to clarify that, while holding the superior military advantage (American troops had captured an important fort and were advancing inland), Jefferson decided to pay the enemy leader to allow the war to end. Talk about useless foreign aid! Despite an agreement from the pasha forbidding further raids, the attacks on American shipping began anew almost as soon as the Navy headed home. The failure to secure the victory resulted in the Second Barbary War a decade later under President James Madison, who at least was able to achieve enough of a victory so that the pasha paid America to end the war. The Muslim promise to stop attacks on American shipping fell apart almost as soon as the ink was dry. It took a substantial shelling of Algiers in 1816 and ultimately the colonization of Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya (boy, none of those countries are in the news any more) to end the capture of American merchant sailors once and for all (1). That is the unfortunate truth that many in America do not want to face: Islam is only a "religion of peace" when its adherents have been completely stripped of their ability to make war.
For all you libertarians out there, I hope you are able to look past the admittedly lame humor to the salient points that I am trying to make. I can understand the logic behind many libertarian arguments, even if I personally disagree with one or two. I have several close friends who are major Ron Paul supporters, but they also understand just how important our alliance with Israel is (how they reconcile these two positions is beyond me). So don't think of this as a personal attack on your beliefs, and if you see an error in my reasoning please leave me a respectful comment. I am planning on at least one more article about the Founding Fathers and Islam, so I would appreciate the input. So run to the nearest Wal-Mart, buy yourself a bracelet, and ask, "What Would Jefferson Do?" You may be surprised by the answer.
References:
1. Walden, Andrew. "Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, John Adams and James Madison: Young America's Fight with Islamism." Islam Watch; January 15, 2007. http://www.islam-watch.org/ThomasJefferson/Founding_Fathers_Fight_Islam.htm; accessed April 23, 2011.
2. Woods, Jr., Thomas E. "Presidential War Powers." Lew Rockwell.com; July 7, 2005. http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods45.html; accessed April 23, 2011.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
The Floodgates Open: North African Refugees Cause Problems for Europe
One of the side effects of the NATO "war" in Libya and the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt has been a massive exodus of Muslims from their homelands. Many in Europe fear that these refugees will further destabilize an already troubled economic situation, particularly among the Mediterranean nations such as Greece and Italy. Add to that the threat of radicalization among the refugees as well as the chances that some active terrorists could slip in with the crowd, especially from Somalia or Libya, and it should be obvious that this is a very hazardous situation.
The Italian island of Lampedusa is currently bearing the brunt of this flood of refugees. Lampedusa is just over one hundred and sixty miles east of Tunisia and has long been a rest stop for African immigrants looking for work in Europe. But the conflicts in North Africa have driven the number of incoming people far beyond the island's ability to reasonably process. According to the German news service Der Spiegel, "the total number of migrants waiting for processing by Italian officials is estimated at more than 7,000" (1). But the facilities on Lampedusa were constructed for a maximum of eight hundred people. When the Italian government attempted to deport many of the refugees, the North Africans rioted and tried to escape the facility (2). Tensions continue to escalate between the citizens of Lampedusa and the immigrants. In response to the massive waves of immigrants, several local women chained themselves to one of the docks in order to prevent new boats from arriving (1). Many more locals have pointed to a recent spike in crime as evidence that the immigrants have to leave Lampedusa.
There is another consequence to this wave of immigrants: the risk of economic collapse. The EU has already seen discord among its member states as Greece, Spain, Italy, and Portugal continue to spend money they don't have. The more disciplined members of the EU, especially Germany, are tired of providing bailouts for these careless nations. The refugee problem will only make things worse. Italy has been overwhelmed and has requested assistance from other EU members, but such assistance has been slow in coming. In retaliation, the Italian government plans to provide twenty-five thousand migrant workers with travel visas that would allow them to freely travel to any country that is a member of the European Union (3). This action has caused an outcry among the Germans and the French. The Germans do not want to weaken their economy further by having foreign workers either take jobs from native Germans or sit around collecting welfare checks. France, on the other hand, already has a sizable Tunisian population and is unprepared for a sudden influx of immigrants.
Actions have consequences. It is ironic that France was at the vanguard of the military action against Libya and now seeks to deny refugees from that same conflict access to their country. While this whole situation could pass without further problems, it is much more likely that the refugee crisis could be the straw that broke the camel's back in regards to EU solidarity. After all, what better way to protect your borders from unwanted immigrants using EU travel visas than simply withdrawing from the EU altogether? I'm sure that many in the German government are considering such actions, as are those in France. My prediction is that we will see a rapid rise in nationalism among European nations who are realizing, too late as the case may be, that the same immigrants that they brought in to fund their lavish pensions seek to fundamentally change the fabric of European society.
Have a question or a suggestion for a new article? Leave me a comment.
References-
1. Peters, Katharina. "North Africans Fleeing for Europe: First Boatload from Libya Arrives on Italian Soil." Der Spiegel Online; March 29, 2011. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,753805,00.html; accessed April 12, 2011.
2. "Muslims Riot on Lampedusa." Uploaded to Youtube on April 12, 2011. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cdbtqE0E7Y&feature=player_embedded; accessed April 13, 2011
3. Xenakis, John J. "Italy Fights EU Over Tunisian Migrants." Big Peace; April 12, 2011. http://bigpeace.com/jxenakis/2011/04/12/italy-fights-eu-over-tunisian-migrants/; accessed April 12, 2011
The Italian island of Lampedusa is currently bearing the brunt of this flood of refugees. Lampedusa is just over one hundred and sixty miles east of Tunisia and has long been a rest stop for African immigrants looking for work in Europe. But the conflicts in North Africa have driven the number of incoming people far beyond the island's ability to reasonably process. According to the German news service Der Spiegel, "the total number of migrants waiting for processing by Italian officials is estimated at more than 7,000" (1). But the facilities on Lampedusa were constructed for a maximum of eight hundred people. When the Italian government attempted to deport many of the refugees, the North Africans rioted and tried to escape the facility (2). Tensions continue to escalate between the citizens of Lampedusa and the immigrants. In response to the massive waves of immigrants, several local women chained themselves to one of the docks in order to prevent new boats from arriving (1). Many more locals have pointed to a recent spike in crime as evidence that the immigrants have to leave Lampedusa.
There is another consequence to this wave of immigrants: the risk of economic collapse. The EU has already seen discord among its member states as Greece, Spain, Italy, and Portugal continue to spend money they don't have. The more disciplined members of the EU, especially Germany, are tired of providing bailouts for these careless nations. The refugee problem will only make things worse. Italy has been overwhelmed and has requested assistance from other EU members, but such assistance has been slow in coming. In retaliation, the Italian government plans to provide twenty-five thousand migrant workers with travel visas that would allow them to freely travel to any country that is a member of the European Union (3). This action has caused an outcry among the Germans and the French. The Germans do not want to weaken their economy further by having foreign workers either take jobs from native Germans or sit around collecting welfare checks. France, on the other hand, already has a sizable Tunisian population and is unprepared for a sudden influx of immigrants.
Actions have consequences. It is ironic that France was at the vanguard of the military action against Libya and now seeks to deny refugees from that same conflict access to their country. While this whole situation could pass without further problems, it is much more likely that the refugee crisis could be the straw that broke the camel's back in regards to EU solidarity. After all, what better way to protect your borders from unwanted immigrants using EU travel visas than simply withdrawing from the EU altogether? I'm sure that many in the German government are considering such actions, as are those in France. My prediction is that we will see a rapid rise in nationalism among European nations who are realizing, too late as the case may be, that the same immigrants that they brought in to fund their lavish pensions seek to fundamentally change the fabric of European society.
Have a question or a suggestion for a new article? Leave me a comment.
References-
1. Peters, Katharina. "North Africans Fleeing for Europe: First Boatload from Libya Arrives on Italian Soil." Der Spiegel Online; March 29, 2011. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,753805,00.html; accessed April 12, 2011.
2. "Muslims Riot on Lampedusa." Uploaded to Youtube on April 12, 2011. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cdbtqE0E7Y&feature=player_embedded; accessed April 13, 2011
3. Xenakis, John J. "Italy Fights EU Over Tunisian Migrants." Big Peace; April 12, 2011. http://bigpeace.com/jxenakis/2011/04/12/italy-fights-eu-over-tunisian-migrants/; accessed April 12, 2011
Monday, April 4, 2011
Death Before Dishonor
On a recent trip to the local hardware store, I noticed a bumper sticker on an old Chevy pickup truck. It showed the Marine Corps emblem in the background with the words "Death Before Dishonor!" written in bold print in the foreground. I know several people who would point to that bumper sticker and say, "Aha! The Marines are just as worried about someone offending their honor as Islamic terrorists. That shows they are both extremists." But such moral equivalency is intellectually dishonest.
On March 20, 2011, "Pastor" Terry Jones fulfilled a long-standing threat to burn a Koran in public. In retaliation for such an offense, at least twenty people have been killed in violent riots in Afghanistan so far. Included in this total are seven United Nations workers based in the city of Mazar-i-Sharif who were targeted simply because they were foreigners (1). Two of those workers were beheaded, in accordance with the dictates of the same book that Terry Jones set on fire. In addition to the bloodshed, the rioters destroyed cars and burned shops to the ground. It is unclear exactly what these activities have to do with protesting the desecration of their holy book, but I'm sure that the falafel stand had it coming. Terry Jones has been excoriated by the international community for sparking the riots, but he steadfastly refuses to take the blame. To be fair, the man is an idiot with connections to the other idiots at Westboro Baptist Church. However, that does not mean that his little act of disrespect warranted such a reaction from the Muslim world.
And this brings us to the crux of the matter. When a Marine says "Death before dishonor!" he is referring to the noble aspiration to die before bringing dishonor upon oneself. In other words, "I would rather die than abandon my mission, my fellow Marines, or my country." It is the choice to avoid the easy way out and to continue along the honorable path despite the dangers. Honor was once held in high esteem by all of Western culture, but our modern age has largely forgotten it or passed it off as archaic nonsense. In Western civilization, honor's focus was internal, ensuring that the individual kept himself according to whatever code guided his or her life.
But in Islamic culture, honor is almost entirely external. That way of thinking goes along the lines of, "If you offend me, then you must suffer as a consequence." Islam has its own version of "Death before dishonor!" found in Koran 2:217: "Idolatry is more grievous than bloodshed" (2). It doesn't matter whether someone actually did or did not do the act they stand accused of committing. Perception is everything. So no pictures of Mohammed (even in a bear costume), no books that view the Koran or Islam with a critical eye, no women walking around the city without a male escort, and no one of a different faith inside the "holy" city of Mecca. It is the Islamic sense of "honor" that inspires teenagers to strap explosive vests to themselves to destroy Israeli checkpoints. It is the same sense of "honor" that leads fathers and brothers to brutally murder their own flesh and blood because of some perceived slight that was brought upon the family. It is the same "honor" that causes people in Gaza to hand out sweets in celebration of the cold-blooded murder of an Israeli family, including an infant (3). Not all Muslims react in such ways, but that way of thinking has been so deeply embedded in the culture that it is difficult to pull away from it. The inherent volatility of Islamic culture makes it extremely difficult to understand many of the motives that drive militants to action, and the aversion to honor of any kind in our own diplomatic corps makes things even harder.
On January 21, 2011, two Indian Christians were taken into custody by the mutaween, or religious police, of Saudi Arabia (4). The authorities pressured the two men to convert to Islam and demanded that they reveal how many Christian groups were working in the capital city of Riyadh. In addition, the police destroyed and trampled on Bibles and other Christian materials that the men had in their apartment. They have still not been presented with formal charges despite spending over seventy days in prison (the court sentenced them to forty-five days, again with no formal charges). What was the Christian response? Have we taken to the streets, looting and burning anything in our path in a fit of rage? Have we called for the assassinations of the policemen or judges that were involved in this case? Have we burned the Saudi flag or King Abdullah in effigy? No, no, and no. Christians have prayed for their fellow believers in the Middle East to maintain their faith in the face of persecution.
The courageous men and women who stand firm for Christ are the ones who show true honor. They need our prayers, they need our support, and they need their stories to be told to the world. One of the imprisoned men told his pastor, "If I have to die for my God, I will die for Him here."
Death before Dishonor!
References-
1. "'Hold Islam accountable': U.S. pastor defiant after his Koran-burning publicity stunt led to two UN staff being beheaded and five others murdered." Daily Mail Online; April 2, 2011. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1372442/Pastor-Terry-Jones-defiant-Koran-burning-led-2-UN-staff-beheaded.html; accessed April 4, 2011
2. Dawood, N.J. The Koran (1956). Penguin Books; London, England
3. Levy, Elior. "Gaza celebrates; Fayyad condemns terror attack." YNetNews; March 12, 2001. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4041106,00.html; accessed April 4, 2011
4. "Two Indian Christians Languish in Saudi Prison." Compass Direct News; March 28, 2011. http://www.compassdirect.org/english/country/saudiarabia/article_99127.html; accessed April 4, 2011
On March 20, 2011, "Pastor" Terry Jones fulfilled a long-standing threat to burn a Koran in public. In retaliation for such an offense, at least twenty people have been killed in violent riots in Afghanistan so far. Included in this total are seven United Nations workers based in the city of Mazar-i-Sharif who were targeted simply because they were foreigners (1). Two of those workers were beheaded, in accordance with the dictates of the same book that Terry Jones set on fire. In addition to the bloodshed, the rioters destroyed cars and burned shops to the ground. It is unclear exactly what these activities have to do with protesting the desecration of their holy book, but I'm sure that the falafel stand had it coming. Terry Jones has been excoriated by the international community for sparking the riots, but he steadfastly refuses to take the blame. To be fair, the man is an idiot with connections to the other idiots at Westboro Baptist Church. However, that does not mean that his little act of disrespect warranted such a reaction from the Muslim world.
And this brings us to the crux of the matter. When a Marine says "Death before dishonor!" he is referring to the noble aspiration to die before bringing dishonor upon oneself. In other words, "I would rather die than abandon my mission, my fellow Marines, or my country." It is the choice to avoid the easy way out and to continue along the honorable path despite the dangers. Honor was once held in high esteem by all of Western culture, but our modern age has largely forgotten it or passed it off as archaic nonsense. In Western civilization, honor's focus was internal, ensuring that the individual kept himself according to whatever code guided his or her life.
But in Islamic culture, honor is almost entirely external. That way of thinking goes along the lines of, "If you offend me, then you must suffer as a consequence." Islam has its own version of "Death before dishonor!" found in Koran 2:217: "Idolatry is more grievous than bloodshed" (2). It doesn't matter whether someone actually did or did not do the act they stand accused of committing. Perception is everything. So no pictures of Mohammed (even in a bear costume), no books that view the Koran or Islam with a critical eye, no women walking around the city without a male escort, and no one of a different faith inside the "holy" city of Mecca. It is the Islamic sense of "honor" that inspires teenagers to strap explosive vests to themselves to destroy Israeli checkpoints. It is the same sense of "honor" that leads fathers and brothers to brutally murder their own flesh and blood because of some perceived slight that was brought upon the family. It is the same "honor" that causes people in Gaza to hand out sweets in celebration of the cold-blooded murder of an Israeli family, including an infant (3). Not all Muslims react in such ways, but that way of thinking has been so deeply embedded in the culture that it is difficult to pull away from it. The inherent volatility of Islamic culture makes it extremely difficult to understand many of the motives that drive militants to action, and the aversion to honor of any kind in our own diplomatic corps makes things even harder.
On January 21, 2011, two Indian Christians were taken into custody by the mutaween, or religious police, of Saudi Arabia (4). The authorities pressured the two men to convert to Islam and demanded that they reveal how many Christian groups were working in the capital city of Riyadh. In addition, the police destroyed and trampled on Bibles and other Christian materials that the men had in their apartment. They have still not been presented with formal charges despite spending over seventy days in prison (the court sentenced them to forty-five days, again with no formal charges). What was the Christian response? Have we taken to the streets, looting and burning anything in our path in a fit of rage? Have we called for the assassinations of the policemen or judges that were involved in this case? Have we burned the Saudi flag or King Abdullah in effigy? No, no, and no. Christians have prayed for their fellow believers in the Middle East to maintain their faith in the face of persecution.
The courageous men and women who stand firm for Christ are the ones who show true honor. They need our prayers, they need our support, and they need their stories to be told to the world. One of the imprisoned men told his pastor, "If I have to die for my God, I will die for Him here."
Death before Dishonor!
References-
1. "'Hold Islam accountable': U.S. pastor defiant after his Koran-burning publicity stunt led to two UN staff being beheaded and five others murdered." Daily Mail Online; April 2, 2011. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1372442/Pastor-Terry-Jones-defiant-Koran-burning-led-2-UN-staff-beheaded.html; accessed April 4, 2011
2. Dawood, N.J. The Koran (1956). Penguin Books; London, England
3. Levy, Elior. "Gaza celebrates; Fayyad condemns terror attack." YNetNews; March 12, 2001. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4041106,00.html; accessed April 4, 2011
4. "Two Indian Christians Languish in Saudi Prison." Compass Direct News; March 28, 2011. http://www.compassdirect.org/english/country/saudiarabia/article_99127.html; accessed April 4, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)