What Would Jefferson Do?

   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.