The Barbary Wars and US Principles

Introduction

The Barbary Wars came at a time when the US had just fought civil wars and did not have sufficient resources to fund a war outside their national borders. Still, they hold a unique position in US history because they were both revolutionary and inevitable. The Barbary Wars, describing a clash between the US and North African states, including Tunisia, Morocco, Tripoli, and Algiers, played a major role in defining US principles against paying ransom and tributes, as the US was forced to resolve to violence since all their diplomacy efforts failed. Several factors came into play during the period, allowing the government to re-establish its military powers and benefit from the catastrophe.

Discussion

One of the most critical lessons the US learned is that sometimes, it is necessary to use force and power to take a position rather than negotiations that do not bear fruit. The Barbary nations reigned over the Mediterranean and occasionally solicited ransoms from the US government after capturing traders, US sips, and merchants. However, in 1801, President Jefferson refused a demand for increased payments, encouraging Tripoli to declare war. Consequently, Members of Congress authorized US fleets to use military force to protect the interests of Americans in the Mediterranean, resulting in a victory with the help of Sweden (Bejjit, 2019). Thus, the US government acknowledged that sometimes, it is inevitable to use their powers to realize results.

Faith played a role in determining the escalation of the conflict between the nations as the Muslim territories based their reasoning on their religion. In 1786, Adams and Jefferson traveled to London to negotiate against war but Sidi Haji Abdrahaman declined their grounds, suggesting that their Quran gave them a reason to make war with nations not recognized in the book. Moreover, the ambassador claimed that everyone who would fight had a special place in paradise, thus giving them the motive to wage war on the US (Smith, 2020). But Jefferson still defended that paying more tributes to these nations would lead to more attacks.

The threats posed by the North African countries to the US were fantasy rather than real. To be specific, by engaging in war with these states, the US was asserting that it had power and force instead of fighting for its freedom, which hides its motives. Occasionally, the US wears a mask of innocence, which portrays them as the weak party in a sea of fierce foreigners. Similarly, although the security threats posed by countries like Iran and Iraq are substantial, they are always considered a fantasy, until America sends troops to the war zones (Bow, 2016). Therefore, the US should be clear about its ambitions because it is a country that yields immense power over others.

Conclusion

Currently, the globe is struggling with balancing resources, especially due to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. Russia’s export market is limited by several sanctions imposed on it by the US and other governments, thus placing pressure on other energy-producing countries. Therefore, compromising with Middle Eastern countries to produce goods like fuel and gas for European countries and the US can benefit nations all parties. In the future, Middle Eastern countries can initiate a contemporary tribute in the form of setting higher prices, which would come as a blow to countries depending on them for supplies. Therefore, the move should be guided and properly formed to limit gaps that could lead to issues in the future.

References

Bejjit, K. (2019). The Barbary frontier and transnational allegories of freedom. Journal of Transnational American Studies, 10(2).

Bow, C. B. (2016). Waging war for the righteous: William Eaton on Enlightenment, Empire, and Coup d’état in the First Barbary War, 1801–1805. History, 101(348), 692–709.

Smith, G. A. (2020). The Tripoli Monument: Commemorating Our Forgotten Past Gene Allen Smith, Texas Christian University. Journal of Maritime Archaeology, 15(3), 291–305.