Brett Stephens of the War Street Journal plays fast and loose with his historical facts in his belly aching about Ron Paul. He cites President Thomas Jefferson’s war with the Barbary Pirates as “justification” of the American empire, which on the face of it is preposterous. Jefferson, of all people, was opposed to entangling alliances” and empire. The Barbary states were demanding a ransom in return for allowing shipping to proceed in the Mediterranean. The Adams administration had been paying the ransom, and Jefferson ended that practice. As he saw it, he intervened to protect American life, liberty, property and free trade, which he believed was one of the proper functions of constitutional government. He did not intervene with the intention of occupying any of those countries for one minute, let alone “for a hundred years,” as John McCain recently promised in regard to Iraq.
Does Stephens really believe Saddam Hussein, as evil as he was, was interfering with free trade? Even when he invaded Kuwait it would not have interfered with the oil trade: He wanted to be the dictator selling us that oil instead of the then-existing dictator. (Economist David Henderson pointed this out just prior to the first Gulf War).
When the British began “impressing” American sailors during the war with France, Jefferson imposed an economically-damaging trade embargo rather than risk an even more damaging war with England. Sorry, War Street Journal, Jefferson was no neocon.
11:36 am on January 15, 2008 Email Thomas DiLorenzo
