What If There Is No Solution?

Food prices are going through the roof for basic commodities. This is causing instability in many places around the world. Spengler says there may be no solution.

From the Straits of Gibraltar to the Hindu Kush, instability will afflict the Muslim world for a generation, and there is nothing that the West can do to stop it. Almost no-one in Washington appears to be asking the obvious question: what should the United States do in the event that there are no solutions at all?

No one, that is, but US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who told Washington Post columnist David Ignatius March 22 that "the unrest has highlighted 'ethnic, sectarian and tribal differences that have been suppressed for years' in the region, and that as America encourages leaders to accept democratic change, there's a question 'whether more democratic governance can hold ... countries together in light of these pressures'." The implication [Ignatius writes]: ''There's a risk that the political map of the modern Middle East may begin to unravel too, with, say, the breakup of Libya.''

Well we used to know how to handle these problems. And it was ugly.

In the bad old days of imperialism, the rapacious Europeans looted their colonies, and sometimes, though no fault of their own, left them in better condition than they had found them. That is not true everywhere; in the Congo, the kings of Belgium left nothing but a trail of pain.

India, though, was first unified by the British, who gave it a civil service, the example of a parliamentary system, a railroad system, and a national language; although the British interest in the subcontinent was predatory not philanthropic, India benefited in some respects from the Raj. The British, rather like Goethe's devil, were the spirit that always wanted to do evil but at least sometimes did good.

His outlook for the future is quite gloomy.

As I said of Egypt in my February 2 essay: we do not know what kind of state will follow Basher Assad. We only know that it will be a failed state.

Well what about Imperialism? Maybe we should bring it back. This article from October 2001 makes that argument.

America has no alternative but to wage war against states that habitually aid terrorists. President Bush warns the war may be long but he has not, perhaps, yet grasped that America may have to accept long-term political obligations too.

For the nearest historical parallel -- the war against piracy in the 19th century -- was an important element in the expansion of colonialism. It could be that a new form of colony, the Western-administered former terrorist state, is only just over the horizon.

Significantly, it was the young United States that initiated this first campaign against international outlaws (most civilized states accepted the old Roman law definition of pirates as "enemies of the human race").

It makes me think of Somalia in the current age. Which brings to mind another thought. Should we consider Islam in some of its forms "the cult of the pirate"?

I want to raise the Google score of that phrase so I'm going to repeat it:

Islam is the cult of the pirate.
Pass it on.

Back to Imperialism.

Pirates were the main reason Congress established a navy in 1794. In 1805, American marines marched across the desert from Egypt, forcing the pasha of Tripoli to sue for peace and surrender all American captives -- an exploit recalled by the U.S. Marine Corps anthem: "From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli."

It was reinforced in 1815 when Commodores Stephen Decatur and William Bainbridge conducted successful operations against all three of the Barbary States, as they were called.

This shamed the British into taking action themselves, and the following year Admiral Lord Exmouth subjected Algiers to what was then the fiercest naval bombardment in history -- 38,667 rounds of cannon balls, 960 large-caliber shells and hundreds of rockets. However, these victories were ephemeral. The beys repudiated the treaties they were obliged to sign as soon as American and British ships were over the horizon.

It was the French who took the logical step, in 1830, not only of storming Algiers but of conquering the entire country. France eventually turned Algeria into part of metropolitan France and settled one million colonists there. It solved the Tunis piracy problem by turning Tunisia into a protectorate, a model it later followed in Morocco. Spain, too, digested bits of the Barbary Coast, followed by Italy, which overthrew the pasha of Tripoli and created Libya. Tangiers, another nuisance, was ruled by a four-power European commission.

So colonialism was in part a response to piracy. But colonies are expensive and hard to manage.

In any case just mounting punitive expeditions doesn't solve the problem.

Britain had learned from experience that "covenants without swords" were useless, and that the sheikhs would only stick to their treaty obligations if "enforcement bases" were set up.

Hence Britain found itself becoming a major power in the Middle East, with a colony and base in Aden, other bases up and down the Gulf, and a network of treaties and protectorates with local rulers, whose heirs were educated at the British school of princes in India.

The situation in South-East Asia and the Far East was not essentially different. Amid the countless islands of these vast territories were entire communities of orang laut (sea nomads) who lived by piracy. Local rulers were too weak to extirpate them. Only the Royal Navy was strong enough.

But that meant creating modern bases -- hence the founding of Singapore. That in turn led to colonies, not only Singapore but Malaya, Sarawak and Borneo. The Dutch had been doing the same.

So piracy led to colonialism. That is something I never learned in history class. Evidently no one notified Howard Zinn either.

So what will the US be doing in those areas for the next few decades?

America and her allies may find themselves, temporarily at least, not just occupying with troops but administering obdurate terrorist states.

These may eventually include not only Afghanistan but Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Iran and Syria. Democratic regimes willing to abide by international law will be implanted where possible, but a Western political presence seems unavoidable in some cases.

I suspect the best medium-term solution will be to revive the old League of Nations mandate system, which served well as a "respectable" form of colonialism between the wars. Syria and Iraq were once highly successful mandates. Sudan, Libya and Iran have likewise been placed under special regimes by international treaty.

Countries that cannot live at peace with their neighbors and wage covert war against the international community cannot expect total independence.

I might go a little farther and not allow them any independence. To start. Gradually as the colonies become prosperous and a moderately honest civil service is formed the reigns can be loosened. But to allow them to go slack prematurely (as was done in far too many places post WW2 - at America's insistence I might add) would be a grave mistake.

So let me add another phrase to finish this post off:

Islam is the cult of outlaws and pirates.

Pass it on.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Pirates

The immediate pirate crisis is over with the killing of three pirates, the capture of a wounded fourth and the recovery of Captain Phillips unharmed physically.

The American captain taken hostage by Somali pirates aboard a lifeboat was freed today after making a second daring escape bid that allowed waiting US forces to open fire on his captors.

Three of the four pirates were killed in the firefight and the fourth was injured but survived and was taken into custody, according to initial reports.

US officials said that Captain Richard Phillips was unharmed and safe aboard the US Navy guided-missile destroyer USS Bainbridge last night.

“I can confirm that Captain Phillips has been safely recovered,” Laura Tischler, a State Department spokeswoman, said.

What I don't understand is why we don't deal with those pirates the way it used to be done.

The wiki gives a short history of our war with the pirates of Tripoli.

By late 1793, a dozen American ships had been captured, goods stripped and everyone enslaved. Portugal had offered some armed patrols, but American merchants needed an armed American presence to sail near Europe. After some serious debate, the United States Navy was born in March 1794. Six frigates were authorized, and so began the construction of the United States, the Constellation, the Constitution and three other frigates.

This new military presence helped to stiffen American resolve to resist the continuation of tribute payments, leading to the two Barbary Wars along the North African coast: the First Barbary War from 1801 to 1805 and the Second Barbary War in 1815. It was not until 1815 that naval victories ended tribute payments by the U.S., although some European nations continued annual payments until the 1830s.

The United States Marine Corps actions in these wars led to the line "to the shores of Tripoli" in the opening of the Marine Hymn. Because of the hazards of boarding hostile ships, Marines' uniforms had a leather high collar to protect against cutlass slashes. This led to the nickname Leatherneck for U.S. Marines.

After the general pacification of 1815, the European powers agreed upon the need to suppress the Barbary pirates. The sacking of Palma on the island of Sardinia by a Tunisian squadron, which carried off 158 inhabitants, roused widespread indignation.

American resolve is still obvious. The question is: why are these pirate harbors allowed to function? Who is selling them fuel? Why aren't they being blockaded? Why aren't they being bombed? Why isn't a punitive expedition on the way? Are the Europeans so weak that they are helpless? In a word - yes. They have no fight left in them. Someone might get killed.

PARIS - Navy commandos stormed a French sailboat held by pirates off the Somali coast Friday in an assault triggered by threats the passengers would be executed. But one hostage was killed in the operation, demonstrating the risks of a military operation against sea bandits.

So what is the French attitude? They intend to finance more piracy.

In a break with French government policy, authorities proposed paying a ransom during 48 hours of fruitless talks, but the pirates, armed with Kalashnikov rifles, rejected the offer, Morin said, without divulging a sum.

The French also offered the pirates a French naval officer to hold in exchange for a mother and child but that too was rejected, the minister said.

The pirates can't operate without fuel and a safe harbor. So obviously you destroy their fuel supplies and their harbor. Sink all the ships in the harbor. Bomb all known pirate hideouts ashore and any other targets of interest for good measure. If piracy doesn't pay there will be a lot fewer pirates.

Update:

You can learn how the pirates of the Caribbean were brought down by reading The Republic of Pirates: Being the True and Surprising Story of the Caribbean Pirates and the Man Who Brought Them Down. And Wars of the Barbary Pirates: To the shores of Tripoli: the birth of the US Navy and Marines might also be of interest.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Defensive Warfare

Some folks say that the only valid warfare is defensive warfare. OK. Have the jihadis promised to attack us? Yep. Have they carried our such attacks? Yep. Next question.

So how do we condone attacking nations when it is the jihadis who are at war with us?

Simple. We had a pirate problem in the Mediterranean in the late 1700s, early 1800s. Did we go after the individual pirates? No. We attacked the nation harboring them. Shelled cities. Attacked forts. Burned shipping. Until the pirate masters decided that the game was not worth the candle. Note that those pirates did their piracy in the name of (wait for it) jihad.

Thomas Jefferson was involved and it was called the War Against the Barbary Pirates.

The Word Is Father To The Deed

There is a discussion going on at Dean's World about Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates. The folks there are trying to figure out if the jihadis of Jefferson's day have anything in common with the jihadis of today. It is a very interesting piece and has lots of interesting quotes such as this one:

…when Jefferson was ambassador to France, and Adams was ambassador to Britain, they met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the ambassador to Britain from the "Dey of Algiers."

Seeking a peace treaty, based on Congress' vote to pay tribute, the two Americans asked Dey's ambassador why Muslims had so much hostility towards America. They later reported to Congress the ambassador told them Islam "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, 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."

Sound familiar?

In the comments maryatexitzero says (excerpted):

I can only interpret Jefferson's beliefs by interpreting his actions. His actions, and the laws he enforced suggest that he realized that the Koran may have been used to motivate certain deeds and actions. He also understood that the deeds and actions were the problem, not the Koran.

So I rephrased that to bring in a bit of modern history.

I can only interpret FDR's beliefs by interpreting his actions. His actions, and the laws he enforced suggest that he realized that the "Mein Kampf" may have been used to motivate certain deeds and actions. He also understood that the deeds and actions were the problem, not "Mein Kampf".

Or as the anarchist liked to say: the word is father to the deed.

Mein Kampf is a best seller in Turkey, and Palestine, and these folks claim it is the #2 best seller in the world, surpassed only by the Bible. Pedestrian Infidel compares Mein Kampf to the Koran. Evidently Oriana Fallaci also thought there were similarities between Mein Kampf and the Koran. The piece on Fallaci lays down the gauntlet:

It remains for those who identify themselves as moderate Muslims to convince violent Muslims that they are misusing the Qur’an – if indeed they are – and should lay down their arms. They have had no notable success in this so far.

Cross Posted at Classical Values