What Would the Founders Say About Libya?

Recent developments in the Middle East seem to have a new or unique quality. For the first time, “ordinary” people appear to be rising up against oppressive and even tyrannical regimes. This is, of course, desirable on a number of levels. Somewhat distressing, however, is the little-discussed fact that many (though certainly not all) of these “ordinary people” have clear and unmistakable ties to America’s most bitter enemies, the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda.

Whatever U.S. policy is–and currently, it appears that even the President, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense cannot get on the same page, let alone develop a united strategy with allies–it needs to be guided by only one thing: what is in the security interests of the United States of America? Our Founders, both in the Constitution and in their actions governing the early Republic, spoke clearly on how to deal with such overseas adventures. While the threats may be current, they are neither new nor unique.

First, it is critical to understand that virtually all of the Founders had served in the military at one time or another and most of them had actually seen combat. These were not wild-eyed dreamers, nor pacifists. They knew blood; they knew struggle. Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Knox, Livingston, Greene, Randolph, and many more had seen war up close, and none of the Founders believed in disarmament. Their only disagreements came over whether militias could be whipped into shape quickly enough to defend the nation. Jefferson, one of the last to come around, finally admitted the need for a U.S. military academy to train officers.

Second, while the phrase “entangling alliances” is commonly thrown out by some conservatives as a warning against any alliances, the fact is that the U.S. had benefitted greatly from an “entangling” alliance with France. Washington’s warning, in his Farewell Address, warned against “permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations.” Put simply, he believed people were capable of change. But then Washington made clear that Europe had different interests than our own–and that, indeed, the U.S. did have national interests. He argued for a standing army to protect those interests. It is all the more odd, then, that Washington (and John Adams) paid tribute, or bribes, to the Barbary Pirates to prevent them from seizing our shipping. But in the meantime Adams began construction of our first blue-water navy, which was completed in time for his successor, Thomas Jefferson to use it. When the Bey of Tripoli engaged in the time-tested declaration of war (back then, cutting down the U.S. flag), Jefferson did not hesitate a moment to send the entire U.S. fleet–without a declaration of war–to not only eliminate the Bey himself, but to take out any of his allies whether those states had declared war on the U.S. or not!

The message was clear: even the most pacifist of Founders would act in the national interest; that the clearly defined enemy would be removed; and that so long as his replacement was no threat to the United States, it was none of our business who took over. What would Washington and Jefferson say about Libya? They already said it. Take out Khaddafi, quickly. Make certain that his successor is no enemy of the U.S.. Then inform other powers in the region that the same fate awaits them if they in any way ally with our enemies. Jumping ahead to 2001, the Founders’ positions seem remarkably in line with most of those delineated in the Bush Doctrine.

COMMENTS

Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.