#1
As always, Mr. Hitchens does a great job, and this is a story America needs to know and remember - but there's a few points that should be addressed.
First, Jefferson - while not the anti-military and isolationist politician that many would have us believe - was never in favor of a large fleet and Marine regiment (and it stayed a regiment for another forty years or so) and firmly believed that America's destiny lay westward in the vast tracts of the Louisiana Purchase. Jefferson happily allowed his SecTreas, Albert Gallatin, to come within an ace of essentially closing down the USN and the Marines with it - and this while the Barbary Wars were reaching their height. At one point, the USN was down to just nine purpose-built warships (the United States class frigates), and some of those were to have been 'in ordinary', that is, laid up with skeleton caretaker crews.
Next, what the USN was doing in the Med was far from the 'instructions to enforce existing treaties and punish infractions of them' that Mr. Hitchens states. They were there in the desperate hope that the Barbary pirates (who tended to quail away from large heavily armed warships with trained sailors and Marines aboard)would therefore stay away from US shipping. It didn't work for a number of reasons. First, the aggressiveness of the US skippers was in some cases less than what was called for (in one case, USS Constellation watched as a Pirate towed a captured US merchantman past because Constellation's skipper feared ending up aground)and secondly the ROE were utterly unbelieveable - if a Pirate ship was caught, it could be fired upon and even captured, but then HAD TO BE RETURNED. There was one notable exception to that - the case of Mastico/USS Intrepid - and that was very much a case where the leadership on the scene just said 'the hell with it'. But overwhelmingly, the Mediteranean Squadron was not allowed to do a great deal and when it did it was badly hamstrung.
And regarding Consul William Eaton - dear Lord, what an American. BUT - by the time Philadelphia had been captured, Eaton had been out of the Diplomatic Corps for some time due to his utter inability to tolerate the Deys, Beys, Pashas and etc. that ran the North African coast.(Eaton had pretty much been PNG'd out of every one of the Barbary states) He was the one that came up with the idea of going after Yusef Karamanli and replacing him with his borther Hamet (who was actually none too keen on the idea). Congress - although it acknowledged that a state of war existed between Tripoli and the US, never DECLARED war and was horrified of making things any worse (sound familiar?). When given Eaton's plan - which initially called for more men than the US had under arms at the time in both the Army and Marines and EVERY ship in the USN - Congress instead authorized the tiny expedition that eventually went forward only in the devout hope that Eaton would throw up his hands in frustration and quit trying. And yes, the Jefferson Administration did come to a deal with Yusef Karamanli - one that involved payment of tribute and the complete betrayal of Hamet, all of which was completely behind the backs of Eaton and his troops, who weren't supposed to have won the victory they did. Piracy did die down to a considerable extent for some years, but as the USN was called back into home waters before the War of 1812 it fired up again and stayed a problem until after the war when President james Madison (who, as Jefferson's SecState, was the only member of the Cabinet who wanted to go over and kick Barbary ass) sent Stephen Decatur and William Bainbridge over with instructions to end the problem once and for all. The Pirates sent out a squadron that was turned into matchsticks by the USN, and organized piracy ended by 1816.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
04/23/2007 9:23 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Now, now, now, the Turkish ambassador obviously had mistunderstood Mo's teachings......
Long -- but an in-depth report on what is happening in Iraq A report on the progress of our arms in Baghdad, Baqubah, Ramadi, and Falluja. -- by Max Boot 04/30/2007
The news from Iraq is, as usual, grim. Bombings, more bombings, and yet more bombings--that's all the world notices. It's easy to conclude that all is chaos. That's not true. Some parts of Iraq are in bad shape, but others are improving. I spent the first two weeks of April in Baghdad, with side trips to Baqubah, Ramadi, and Falluja. Along the way I talked to everyone from privates to generals, both American and Iraqi. I found that, while we may not yet be winning the war, our prospects are at least not deteriorating precipitously, as they were last year. When General David Petraeus took command in February, he called the situation "hard" but not "hopeless." Today there are some glimmers of hope in the unlikeliest of places.
Until recently Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province, was the most dangerous city in Iraq if not the world. It was run by al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), which had declared it the capital of its Islamic State of Iraq. The Iraqi police presence was limited to one police station, which the police were afraid to leave. Soldiers and Marines engaged in heavy combat every day, losing hundreds of men since 2003, simply to avoid having insurgents overrun the government center and close down Route Michigan, the main street.
That began to change last year when the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 1st Armored Division expanded the U.S. troop presence on the west side of town, losing almost 90 soldiers in the process.
The 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 3rd Infantry Division, which took over the city earlier this year, expanded the offensive toward the al Qaeda strongholds on the west side of town. From mid-February to the end of March, some 2,000 soldiers and Marines, along with their Iraqi allies, fought to gain control of the city. The principal operations were codenamed Murfreesboro (February 10-March 10), Okinawa (March 9-20), and Call to Freedom (March 17-30). Collectively, they deserve to take their place in the annals of this long war alongside such notable clashes as the taking of Tal Afar in 2005, the two battles of Falluja in 2004, and the thunder runs through Baghdad in 2003.
Posted by: Abu do you love ||
04/23/2007 12:29 Comments ||
Top||
#2
American generals say they have been "shocked" to discover the level of Iranian influence in Iraq.
Why is my cynicism meter pegged? Shocked? You have to be kidding me. Iranian meddling had to be expected from day one. And by meddling, I don't mean just the occasional visit and send over a few bucks. If they really are shocked they are friggin geopolitical dimwits, and I don't think that is the case.
#4
Murfreesboro is a small town near the site of the American Civil War battlefield of Stone's River on December 31,1862-January 2, 1863.
From Wikipedia:
The Battle of Stones River or Second Battle of Murfreesboro (in the South, simply the Battle of Murfreesboro), was fought from December 31, 1862, to January 2, 1863, in Middle Tennessee, as the culmination of the Stones River Campaign in the Western Theater of the American Civil War. Of the major battles of the Civil War, Stones River had the highest percentage of casualties on both sides. Although the battle itself was tactically indecisive, the Union Army's repulse of two Confederate attacks was a much-needed boost to Union morale after the defeat at the Battle of Fredericksburg, and it dashed Confederate aspirations for control of Middle Tennessee.
Total casualties in the battle were 23,515: 13,249 on the Union side and 10,266 for the Confederates. This was the highest percentage of casualties of any major battle in the Civil War, higher in absolute numbers than the famous bloodbaths at Shiloh and Antietam earlier that year. The battle was tactically inconclusive, although Bragg was traditionally considered to be defeated since he withdrew first from the battlefield. He received almost universal scorn from his Confederate military colleagues; only his personal friendship with President Jefferson Davis saved his command. But a case can also be made that it was at least a strategic Union victory. The battle was very important to Union morale, as evidenced by Abraham Lincoln's letter to General Rosecrans: "You gave us a hard-earned victory, which had there been a defeat instead, the nation could scarcely have lived over." The Confederate threat to Middle Tennessee had been nullified.
Rosecrans spent five and a half months reinforcing Murfreesboro. The massive earthenworks "Fort Rosecrans" was built there and served as a supply depot for the remainder of the war. The next major clash, the Battle of Hoover's Gap, also known as the Tullahoma Campaign, did not come until June, when Rosecrans finally moved his army against Bragg.
Part of the site of the Battle of Stones River and Fort Rosecrans is now Stones River National Battlefield. It contains the nation's oldest intact Civil War monument, erected by William Hazen's brigade at Hell's Half Acre. The 600 acre (2.4 km²) National Battlefield includes Stones River National Cemetery, established in 1865, with more than 6,000 Union graves.
#5
hmmm - that's not the only Fort Rosecrans. My Dad is interred at this one
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/23/2007 16:17 Comments ||
Top||
#6
You know, its the math and logic in all of this that is revealing. The thing politicians, the media and the public are truly missing. Of all the troops, of all the infrastructure, the plans and supplies - it really is coming down to less than 2,000 even maybe 200 highly trained, supremely motivated and unselfishly patriotic Operators. Everyone else of the 135,000 are supporting either in policing, training, force security, logistics, administration, PA, CA, etc. Everyone has a role to play in the politics, the (spit) diplomacy, the community organizations etc. But the really tough "kill or be killed" is coming down to these Operators working on the G2 the 'gators are digging up. Amazing. So much so that idiots like Murtha, Pelosi and Reid including the Repubs own Hagel can't see or don't want to see. When you are blind sometimes its best not to see what is going on unless you appreciate simplistic beauty like what Petraeus is attempting.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
04/23/2007 16:27 Comments ||
Top||
#9
I have relativs who fought there. Same last name only one CS the other US.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
04/23/2007 20:07 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Iff one accepts or believes that Dubya = USA's strategy in IRAQ-AFGHANISTAN is to destroy the most violent lemenst of Radical Islam on battleground of Amer's choosing, while simul empowering and entrenching the flags of Western-style DemoCapitalism, National/Constitutional Republicanism, Secular Moderate Democracy wid Islamic-Muslim characteristics, etc. all over the MUslim World, THEN ONE MUST ACCEPT OR BELIEVE THAT AMER's ANTI-INSURGENCY EFFORTS IN THE ME ARE ALSO GLOBAL ANTI-TERROR EFFORTS, THAT THE IRAQ-AFGHAN, ETC LOCAL BATTLEFIELDS ARE ALSO REGIONAL-GLOBAL ANTI-TERROR BATTLEFIELDS. The odds are good to highly likely that these efforts will OUTLAST PETRAEUS' CAREER, OR THAT OF ANY OTHER US GENERAL OR COMMAND OFFICER [WOT > "LONG WAR"]. The Democrats are hurting themselves politically by trying to [portray a successful US + GOP strategy as synon wid [Dem-led]Vietnam = defeat of US-Western democracy in SE Asia.
#11
DB, I've been there (I believe in both a literal and figurative sense).
It's the only battlefield I've ever visited (and I've been to quite a few) where I became so profoundly frightened (scared white is how I'd put it) that I had to leave before I had toured the whole field.
I know it sounds trite and like something from George Norrie's Coast-To-Coast or Art Bell's show, but I'm convinced I was physically at that battle and it was not a fun experience.
Probably counts as the most terrifying experience of my life.
As Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad waved goodbye earlier this month to the 15 British sailors and marines his government held prisoner for almost two weeks, many around the world breathed a sigh of relief. Any easing of international tensions over Iran is welcome. But the respite is likely to be short-lived. In fact, the Iranian-British standoff and its resolution reveal several reasons why the conflict over the country's nuclear program is set for further escalation.
First, Tehran released the British troops because it had achieved its political goals, not as a concession to international pressure. Iran's main foreign-policy motivation in seizing the sailors was to express defiance in the face of the latest Security Council resolution over its uranium enrichment program. When Tehran was offered a face-saving opportunity to suggest the British were arrested following an honest misunderstanding, it refused. The Iranians further upped the ante by broadcasting coerced "confessions" from their captives that Britain had been entirely at fault.
Continued on Page 49
#4
Yeah, the Iranians are in a recalcitrant mood. But it doesn't take a think-tank scholar to figure out why: they look at the West and they're no longer afraid.
They nabbed a batch of hostages last month to see what sort of stuff Britain was made of these days. They found out, and fast.
And what do they see when they look our way-- especially in light of the defeatist crap they hear from our Democrats and our media establishment day in and day out? A nation that appears to be desperately weary of war and a President who has tired, is faltering, and looks about to fail. Frankly, I'd be gobsmacked to find out that they see any need for compromise whatsoever.
I find this especially sad right now, as I'm going through the Rantburg archives collecting articles which trace the political trajectory of this war; I started at the beginning, and what I'm reading right now is stuff from the last couple of months before we invaded Iraq.
At that time, in the run-up to the invasion, many of us here seemed convinced the Mad Mullahs had but months to live before they ended up swinging from lampposts in downtown Tehran. The Iranian student rebellion was in full swing. And the Mullahs themselves were quite obviously in a panic over the possibility of US military action, shrieking anti-American epithets and threats of Dire Revenge™ by the hour with a ferocity that must have made Kim Jong-Il green with envy.
And then what did we end up doing?
Nothing. Four solid years of NOTHING.
So I'm not surprized they don't want to play nice; nothing has happened to make them feel they need to-- and much that reinforces their view that they don't.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/23/2007 18:00 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I cannot see how General Petraeus can succeed in Iraq when Iranian assets are pushing the booming along in Baghdad with agents, weapons, etc. Iran will stop if the MMs get hurt by their dirty little business. So far, Iran has had very little conesquences for bad behavior in Iraq. We cannot win a defensive war.
If I was an Iranian planner, I would feel like I was on a roll. All I have to do is to cause trouble and play to Congressional traitors like Harry Reid, who will do the rest for me.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
04/23/2007 18:18 Comments ||
Top||
#6
There is no conclusive evidence that Iran = Radical Iran will give up ambitions to eventually possess nuke weapons - THC, various Netters are arguing that Iran may already possess tactical nuclear warheads as per its TLCM purchases [e.g. CLUB, MOSKIT, new SIZZLER, etc] + "Suitcase/Mini nukes". The RUSSIANS themselves may like to PC argue agz America that Iran has a right to domestic nuclear energy but deep down THE RUSSIANS KNOW IRAN WANTS NUKE WEAPONS + LR MISSLES. MOSNEWS > RUSSIA > $$$ PAYMENTS BY IRAN FOR ASST IN CONSTRUX OF BUSHESHR NUKE PLANT ISN'T ENUFFF as far as Russia is concerned. RUSSIA KNOWS THE IRANIAN-ISLAMIST BOMB [POPULATION + NUKE] ALSO POINTS AT THEM.
#7
It's going to take a few nukes to put an end to Tehran's meddling in the affairs of others. Whether they're ours or Israel's is immaterial. One should hit Bandar Abbas, one Bushehr, one Abadan, one Khark Island, and one Qom (four tactical, one strategic). Of course, if one just "happened" to go off-course and smack Riyadh, I wouldn't complain...
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
04/23/2007 22:28 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Old Patriot, with each passing, and increasingly disappointing day, I find it evermore difficult to disagree with your sentiments.
Excerpts from the chronicles of singer Sheryl Crow and environmentalist Laurie David, traveling across America on a two-week Stop Global Warming College Tour:
Crow (4/19, Springfield, Tenn.): I have spent the better part of this tour trying to come up with easy ways for us all to become a part of the solution to global warming. Although my ideas are in the earliest stages of development, they are, in my mind, worth investigating. One of my favorites is in the area of forest conservation which we heavily rely on for oxygen. I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. Now, I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required.
Crow (4/19): I also like the idea of not using paper napkins, which happen to be made from virgin wood and represent the height of wastefulness. I have designed a clothing line that has what's called a "dining sleeve." The sleeve is detachable and can be replaced with another "dining sleeve," after usage. The design will offer the "diner" the convenience of wiping his mouth on his sleeve rather than throwing out yet another barely used paper product. I think this idea could also translate quite well to those suffering with an annoying head cold.
Honestly: I would expect any mentally-competent 6-year-old to have more sense than this.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/23/2007 06:17 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The original Huffington Post I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. Now, I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required. When presenting this idea to my younger brother, who's judgment I trust implicitly, he proposed taking it one step further. I believe his quote was, "how bout just washing the one square out."
My sympathies Lance. Non-bed time with Cheryl must have been like dental surgery with anesthesia.
Posted by: ed ||
04/23/2007 6:42 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Perhaps Lance shouldn't have gotten divorced then, ed.
Why the trophy wife/girlfriend anyway?
Posted by: Eric Jablow ||
04/23/2007 7:37 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I can see it now. A computer in every public restroom doling out toilet paper. You take that second square and a Clippy like character appears on the display named Tee Pee.
I see you are taking more than one square of toilet paper. Would you like me to explain why saving a tree is more importnant than your selfish personal hygiene?
The opportunities for new products would be amazing...
#4
Does Tofu kill braincells or something?
This chick is spun. I can't think of anything that is less her business than how many squares of toilet paper I or anyone else uses (per sitting).
#5
Mohammed: Told his followers how to wipe their butts.
Enviromentalists: Tell their followers how to wipe their butts.
Both cases result in increased potential for death and disease.
Posted by: Big Glolump6310 ||
04/23/2007 8:05 Comments ||
Top||
#6
This isn't the Onion? I hate to tell her, but paper is made from trees grown as a crop, not virgin forests. Besides, North America has more forest now than when Europeans arrived. Finally, since when is lack of oxygen a problem? Idiocy + money is a bad combination.
#7
Reminds me of story a friend of mine used to tell about going to to the toilet in a large public building in the old Soviet Union. You got one sheet of toilet paper and sign for it.
#8
I can see it now. A computer in every public restroom doling out toilet paper. You take that second square and a Clippy like character appears on the display named Tee Pee.
I see you are taking more than one square of toilet paper. Would you like me to explain why saving a tree is more importnant than your selfish personal hygiene?
The opportunities for new products would be amazing...
Like prposefully built .45 cal guns for shooting the computer. Extra points if your bullet goes straight into the clippy-like TeePee.
#10
This shows the mindset of enviro-nuts: that everybody *else* has to cut back in their use of everything.
They are incapable of imagining an alternative where everybody gets to use *more*, but it is done in a sensible way.
For example, why not grow hemp for paper? It would be a lot more comfy than paper, cheaper, can be grown in marginal ground with several crops a year. Leave the wood for lumber, a much more valuable per square acre use.
Everybody benefits.
But the eco-nuts don't want to hear that. They live with the credo that everybody *else* has to do with less, lead poorer lives, and have less stuff.
Which doesn't apply to them, because *they* think that *they* are elites, to whom the rules shouldn't apply.
#15
Women's restroom in the Moscow Int'l airport - at least 10 stalls, 2 huge rolls of TP on the outside, no rolls inside and no seats, just porcelein.
And they knew I was American by my what the hell look on my face.
#17
When I first read this, two things immediately came to mind.
First, it is far more likely than not that Ms. Crow does NOT practice this low level of personal hygiene on herself, but in true limo-lib fashion merely demands it from others.
Second, if she DOES in fact do this, it could explain, in part, Lance's leaving. (Oral sex? Yuck.)
As a corollary to the second point, does heating the hot water to bathe off the poorly removed bits of bathroom visits not harm the environment more, or require more fossil fuels than, simply cleaning one's self properly at the point of bathroom use?
Is it even possible for someone of Crow's subhuman intelligence to think of things like that?
Posted by: no mo uro ||
04/23/2007 11:31 Comments ||
Top||
#18
I hope you all now agree that "Demolition Man" was a FAR better film than you first realised.
#19
I'm not sure how the toilet paper inconvenience will cool the Sun's temperatures enough to make a difference regarding Global Warming but I'm willing to see all the greenies try. Who knows, if nothing else it might prevent them from reproducing.
#25
The conservatives want to tell you what you can do in your bedroom, and the progressives want to tell you what kind of car to drive how to wipe your ass.
#28
Women's restroom in the Moscow Int'l airport - at least 10 stalls, 2 huge rolls of TP on the outside, no rolls inside and no seats, just porcelein.
Big improvement. My boss visited Russia in the mid '60s, no TP available, and just squat holes. He said it looked like the previous occupants were using their hand (left, I presume) and wiping it off on the walls.
So if Crow wants to be a real progressive, there's a further step she could take.
Rosie took a moment on this morning's "The View" to express her incredulity at the supposedly enviro-friendly suggestion. "Have you seen my ass?!" bellowed Rosie, and Barbara Walters was good enough to warn viewers not to use their sleeves, another of Crow's helpful suggestions.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
