Jefferson's War: America's First War on Terror 1801-1805

Rating:
Summary: In addition to *Jefferson's War*...
Review: ---
...readers are strongly encouraged to seek out Fletcher Pratt's *Preble's Boys: Commodore Preble and the Birth of American Sea Power* (1950). For some inexplicable reason, this book (though out of print) cannot be located through Amazon.com despite the fact that several online vendors make used copies available for about $20 each.

There is undoubtedly a commercial impetus coloring Wheelan's efforts to draw parallels between Jefferson's well-considered foreign policy ("Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead troublemaker") and the present confrontation as the secular West once again faces a flare-up in our centuries-old conflict with the religious bigotry at the core of armed militant Islam. This notwithstanding, the parallels are sufficiently robust that the lessons learned in the 19th Century should not be lost in our 21st Century dealings with that portion of the world population determined to murder or enslave anyone who doesn't profess abject submission to their 7th Century theocratic political aspirations.

Jefferson was right when he published "The Necessity of Taking Up Arms" in 1775. He was correct in his drafting of the Delaration of Independence in 1776, and he was spot-on in 1801 when he decided to base the medium of our nation's exchange with militant Islam upon hot lead instead of cold cash.
---

NOTE: The quotation re. "dead troublemaker" above is drawn from Keith Laumer's novel *Retief's War* ("I is a great believer in peaceful settlements..."), readily available through Amazon.com and thoroughly recommended.
---

Rating:
Summary: Stick to the History!
Review: I did not know much about this time in history and found this book fascinating. However, the book's narrative was disrupted in several places by the author's personal thoughts. For example, he talks about Preble finishing contracts on time and then adds that it "seems incredible in the twenty-first century, when government contract work often drags on past deadline." Overall, it was a good book that was easy to read, but I would have enjoyed it more with some editing.

Rating:
Summary: Eye-opening account of a forgotten conflict
Review: I really enjoyed reading this book. As a break from the Aubrey/Maturin novels, it was nice to read a fast paced, straight forward non-fiction account.

Wheelan gives a fine researched account of the Barbary Wars from a Military, economic and Political point of view. However, this book reads like a novel and is very fast paced. Although my primary interest is military history, I was more intruiged with the economic and political aspects of the conflict as seen from a 200 year old perspective.

The cast of characters is very interesting(with a list in the intro)as Wheelan goes into some depth to give background information on all the major players in this war. I think the book really shines and it shows in many examples how politics can otherwise ruin the best laid military plans especially with the overland expedition to Tripoli.

As for the parallel with today's conflicts, I feel they are very evident. Wheelan hits on the psycology of the Muslim mind very well, and if one looks at today's breed of terrorist, there are many similarities-unfortunately today, they are much more vicious.

The only thing I would have wished is that he could have included more illustrations. Definaltely a must read for all naval history buffs and those who love naval fiction as well.

Rating:
Summary: Only one side of the story
Review: It is only one sided view. We must remember that those Barbary fighters were fighting to claim a land and sea territory as everybody else, like British or French. Who ever was to challenge them, had to take a fight with them or submit to them by paying tributes, not to an individual but to the Sultan or Governor. In return they would get trading rights within their claimed territory. Let us not forget that, they go back to 15th century when each and every nation was fighting for more territorial rights. Barbary fighters was part of a loose army under the control of the local Sultan. They were open to fight or make peace agreements. The war of 1803-5 was about not recognizing their territorial claims (contrary to as British and French did for their own reasons) and it was about to take a fight with them. It was all about money and trade with lucrative North Africa cities and not about terrorism. If you had British or French flag where there was trade agreements, you were safe to sail and trade otherwise you were enemy. It was your choice to trade with them or sail through their claimed territory. They were not sneaking onto you as terrorist.
Real terrorism was actually happening somewhere else where the slave trade was flourishing between Africa and America and yet nobody was really acting on it to stop it.
Contrary to Barbary fighters, who were protecting their territorial claims, right or wrong, but it was territorial, there were pirates from European countries that were attacking even to their own ships for material gain like bandits. Although I disagree, you could call those terrorist but even the European pirates were not fighting for political or religious purposes.

Bottom line is that it was not about a fight against terrorism but rather a fight for National Interests.
Do not we have similar disputes now like who can fish where? Who can fly where?
War was legitimate for both parties from their individual National Interest point of view and if any country or a group comes against those interests than it is a Darwinian world, stronger wins but let us not dilute the issue.

Rating:
Summary: America wins its first war against a terrorist foe
Review: Joseph Wheelan has provided us with a timely book in Jefferson's War: America's First War on Terror, 1801-1805. In this age where the United States is fighting terrorists in the middle east, Wheelan has given us a historical background of the American struggles against the Barbary states.

The Barbary States (Tripoli, Tunis, and Algiers) were engaged in what Wheelan describes as terrorism - capturing American ships and enslaving their passengers simply because they were Christians and not Moslems. The wars appear to be an extension of the age-old religious wars that have been ongoing for thousands of years. However, President Jefferson decided that he would end the battle between America and the Barbary States by fighting a military conflict with the aggressors.

Wheelan does a fantastic job of describing the individual military endeavors during the war, and he provides us with top-notch descriptions of the acts undertaken by the enslaving Barbarians against the Christian prisoners.

I enjoyed the book tremendously, and would recommend it to all as reading on a subject that is not well known in our nation's history. However, the last few chapters of the book really start to slide outside of the expectations based on the title - Wheelan dives into the War of 1812 against the British and the ongoing fight against the Barbary states into the Madison administration. These small detractors notwithstanding, the book is an excellent addition to the literature on America's early naval history.

Rating:
Summary: America wins its first war against a terrorist foe
Review: Joseph Wheelan has provided us with a timely book in Jefferson's War: America's First War on Terror, 1801-1805. In this age where the United States is fighting terrorists in the middle east, Wheelan has given us a historical background of the American struggles against the Barbary states.

The Barbary States (Tripoli, Tunis, and Algiers) were engaged in what Wheelan describes as terrorism - capturing American ships and enslaving their passengers simply because they were Christians and not Moslems. The wars appear to be an extension of the age-old religious wars that have been ongoing for thousands of years. However, President Jefferson decided that he would end the battle between America and the Barbary States by fighting a military conflict with the aggressors.

Wheelan does a fantastic job of describing the individual military endeavors during the war, and he provides us with top-notch descriptions of the acts undertaken by the enslaving Barbarians against the Christian prisoners.

I enjoyed the book tremendously, and would recommend it to all as reading on a subject that is not well known in our nation's history. However, the last few chapters of the book really start to slide outside of the expectations based on the title - Wheelan dives into the War of 1812 against the British and the ongoing fight against the Barbary states into the Madison administration. These small detractors notwithstanding, the book is an excellent addition to the literature on America's early naval history.

Rating:
Summary: Readable History
Review: Joseph Wheelan has put together a comfortably readable narrative history of the United States involvement with the Barbary Corsairs. He has provided a modest amount of background to set the stage for the actual events centered around the period from 1801-1812. His history ranges from the American capital to the shores of Tripoli, dealing with politicians, diplomats and military officers.

Much of the story focuses on the events that transpired in the Mediterranean Sea, remote from the direction of the politicians in the United States. Memorable names like Stephen Decatur, William Bainbridge, Isaac Hull and David Porter feature prominently. While they may not have been Nelson's 'band of brothers', they were the core of the United States navy that, along with it's new super frigates (Constitution, President and United States), stood toe to toe with the British fleet during the War of 1812.

Wheelan's history does not fail to cover William Eaton's cross desert march that brought the conflict to the Barbary shores in earnest. With due credit given to Presley O'Bannon, lieutenant in the fledgling United States Marines.

The one complaint I have of the book is that the author insists on trying to make some tenuous connection between the war with the Barbary Corsairs and the United States current 'War on Terror'. The only real similarity between the corsairs and the current terrorists is that they both involve the regions of North Africa and Middle East. Fortunately, he gives up the effort within the first 100 pages and gets on with the narrative.

Rating:
Summary: War on Terror #1
Review: Joseph Wheelan's new book gives background on noe of the most interesting events in US history.

His comparison between this war the current one we are fighting is very apt. As important to the actual action is the political decisions, Peace or War? In this text Jefferson is the "Neocon" saying war is the way while Adams is saying that we need to bring the people on board first (while agreeing to with Jefferson's arguement that such a war vs tribute is just)

We once again see a Europe appeasing and paying off terror and the US following suit until the start of Jefferson's term.
Unlike other volumes that focus either exclusively on Preble's time in command, or the Eaton expedition this covers the whole story (not leaving out the boring bits although his telling of them is not boring at all.)

A personal piccadello for me however is at the end he tells the story of United States vs Macadonian with some detail while passing over Constitution vs Guererre. This is done likely due the Decator role in the story but Hull is a big part of the Eaton story and frankly deservers mention. Of course it is a story that most readers would be familar with so it could be a question of brevity.

This book deserves more attention and more purchase.

Rating:
Summary: War on Terror #1
Review: Joseph Wheelan's new book gives background on noe of the most interesting events in US history.

His comparison between this war the current one we are fighting is very apt. As important to the actual action is the political decisions, Peace or War? In this text Jefferson is the "Neocon" saying war is the way while Adams is saying that we need to bring the people on board first (while agreeing to with Jefferson's arguement that such a war vs tribute is just)

We once again see a Europe appeasing and paying off terror and the US following suit until the start of Jefferson's term.
Unlike other volumes that focus either exclusively on Preble's time in command, or the Eaton expedition this covers the whole story (not leaving out the boring bits although his telling of them is not boring at all.)

A personal piccadello for me however is at the end he tells the story of United States vs Macadonian with some detail while passing over Constitution vs Guererre. This is done likely due the Decator role in the story but Hull is a big part of the Eaton story and frankly deservers mention. Of course it is a story that most readers would be familar with so it could be a question of brevity.

This book deserves more attention and more purchase.

Rating:
Summary: Deserves a read
Review: The major reason to read this book is that there simply aren't enough books that try to give a reasonably comprehensive history of the the Tripolitan War and US policy at the time. A lot of books focusing on the war are more concerned with the naval history, and "the birth of the US Navy." That is all well and good, but the politics, policy, and financial aspects of the war deserve a lot of attention in a single volume as well as the remarkable achievements of the young Navy in the Mediterranean. Important lessons can be drawn from our experience and applied today.

However, the subtitle: "America's First War on Terror" is hyperbolic. This is understandable, though, since it will augment the book's sale, and there is nothing wrong with a book out there on this topic that is accessible to us laymen. Also, the heavy use of "The Terror" in the early chapters in referring to the piracy gets a little worn. On the other hand, Roger Albin's vituperative response to the book is totally over the top, since author Wheelan barely discusses September 11 in the preface, and nowhere in the text (see the index). It is left to the reader to draw direct (or indirect) parallels. The Barbary states weren't terrorists as we understand them today. Tactics of terror were used by these mercenary states, as were "liberal" justifications of their piracy through Koranic verse, but we should be careful about blurring those vile and venal potentates with the far more sophisticated and apocalyptic terrorists of al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda's global political vision is far scarier, far more dangerous, and warrants a far more unrelenting and thorough destruction than the Barbary states did.

However, important lessons can be gained from studying this early naval war: (1) It was an expeditionary war that depended on mobility, improvisation, and unorthodox tactics; (2) Some enemies cannot be engaged with dialogue, or speech as we know it, but only through force and violence; (3) American domestic politics (Congress particularly) heavily favors half-measures and mediocre solutions while allowing domestic partisan fights to obscure our understanding of the enemy; and, (4) A confused domestic response undermined the country's diplomatic capital, allowing opponents to infer weakness and exploit us, compromising the military response.

Also, the inexplicable silliness of the Navy's first cruise in the Med should also be a major lesson about keeping objectives clear and firmly in mind.

Currently, those weaknesses are highly instructive, and not as some sort of validation of current policies. Addressing them reduces the country's vulnerability, and allows us to exercise power abroad more coherently and more successfully. We can also draw lessons from the great strength's of this war via this book, which were the personalities of its heroes. William Eaton, with his brazeness, creativity, and unrelenting spirit, is a great example of the American creatively making the best out of a confusing situation with the limited resources he's been allowed. For all of his often sad flaws, he should be studied by everyone.

I think JEFFERSON'S WAR merits three-and-a-half stars, mainly from the uninspiring writing, and a tendency towards a style that favors really breathless and overwritten narrative. What I really like about this book, though, is he gives a succinct, yet accurate history of the Barbary states' relations to Europe up to Tripoli's war with America, which I think is really important. Europe was tolerating the piracy in the Mediterannean for hundreds of years, so claiming that the Napoleonic Wars explains the lack of European puissance is inadequate to say the least.

Also, you will see from reading excerpts of Adams', Jefferson's, and Eaton's, letters 'et al' that the pride and dignity of a young nation being extorted by pirates was just as important to them as was its economic health; both of which were explicitly being fought for with Jefferson's policies and the US Navy's actions, and both of which are thoroughly explored in Wheelan's text, any reviewers' arguments about Wheelan's "implications" to the contrary.

A more rigorous, and I think an equally readable book, is Michael Kitzen's TRIPOLI AND THE UNITED STATES AT WAR, which is sadly out of print. It's primarily based on U.S. documents, and does a great job with William Eaton's letters.