Harrison Goodrich

Professor Sagstetter

Blog #6

HH215

Modern Mongols

During the 13th and 14th Centuries, the Genghis Khan led Mongols wreaked havoc in an area that spread between the modern-day Baltic States and China’s East Coast. The Mongols had an unparalleled level of skill when it came to delivering death and fear to the unfortunate souls that opposed them. The almost mythical level of chaos the Mongols possessed was born from their brutal slayings of innocent people.  In the 21st century, the Mongol’s actions would definitely be dealt with military intervention by the United States of America. Studying the Mongols will be useful in our careers as officers in the fleet because organizations that gain their power from fear tactics and gruesome slayings are still in the world today. The Islamic State is an example of a terrorist organization that refuses to abide by laws, and proudly boasts about their ability to kill innocent men, women and children by putting videos on the internet. By studying the Mongols, it will give us a historical insight into how these groups came into power and what caused them to eventually fail.

While the Mongols did not have modern day social media to spread fear, there are still accurate description of their actions. Such as  in Ibn al-Athir’s The Secret History of the Mongols, the author is crippled by the fear that the Mongol’s actions create. He watches them murder women and the unborn babies in their wombs. The Mongols did this to spread fear and force people to submit to them. By making themselves so feared, sometimes they didn’t even have to go to war to conquer. This is very similar to how terrorist groups such as Islamic State spread fear by posting videos of themselves online beheading people and burning children alive. Opposition to the Islamic State by locals is unlikely because they want to live. As officers, it is important to understand that when groups use such tactics, military intervention by a world power is likely. In most cases it is the United States military. It is also important to understand why these groups have to resort to such tactics. Is it because they want to appear stronger than they actually are? Is it because of skewed religious beliefs? Or is it simply because they can? By studying the Mongols we can learn more about future adversaries who abide by no law and without a conscience.

Word Count: 408

Harrison Goodrich

3/31/19

HH215 Blog #5

Professor Sagstetter

Mongol Empire and Nazi Regime

The Genghis Khan led Mongol Empire will remain one of history’s most brutal regimes. Khan’s brilliance in leadership and battlefield tactics, coupled with a mythical level of brutality, led to a regime that encompassed the area between the Baltic States and China’s East Coast on a map. In comparison, there is only one other regime in history that is comparable to the speed of which the Mongol Empire spread with and the terrors they brought with to innocent people. That regime would be none other than the infamous Nazi Empire, led by the tyrannical Adolf Hitler until they were rightly destroyed in 1945. The Nazis also spread across their continent with ferocity and distributed copious amounts of hate and unwarranted violence. While the end to the Nazi and Mongolian Empires came from different reasons, they maintained their power in similar ways.

Up until Genghis Khan’s death in 1227, the Mongol Empire’s power and reach spread across most of Asia. They accomplished this feat in only nineteen years. The Mongols were far more skilled militarily than their adversaries and they leaders knew how to craft loyalty in different tribes so that their reach would be widespread. The Nazis also managed to spread over 40% of Europe over the twelve years they had power. During those years, the Nazi Empire managed to murder over twelve million people. Similarly to the Mongols, the Nazis created loyalty to those outside of their regime through fear. If you opposed either regime or helped the enemy, you wouldn’t want to make plans for next weekend. The Nazis also appeared to be on the winning side of the second World War and it is only natural for humans to cave into their survival instincts and back the immoral side. The survival instinct can also explain why so many tribes supported the Khan-led Mongol Empire, they simply didn’t want to die by opposing a powerful regime with no history of mercy.

Like the Mongols, the Nazis also met their end and no longer have a place in the modern era. The Mongol Empire fell because there was no clear replacement in leadership after the death of Genghis Khan. Opposing leaders split the empire up and eventually they were too weak to control all of the terrain the had accumulated. The Nazis fell because Allied powers decided to put an end to their reign of terror and genocidal tendencies.

Word Count: 417

The Art of War is Deception

Sun Tzu’s Art of War is one of the most important works on warfare every published. While warfare has evolved immensely since the Art of War was written, the principles that Sun Tzu preached remain relevant today.  The overarching principle is that the only way to win in combat is to be more intelligent that your enemy, your mind is the most powerful weapon. The Naval Academy is developing the foundations we need to succeed in war by educating us and teaching us to engage every obstacle with our heads first. It is difficult to directly compare Sun Tzu’s tactics to the techniques we are taught at the Naval Academy because we have not been instructed on how to win at war, yet.

At the Naval Academy we a drilled relentlessly with a barrage of difficult classes whose material will not be thought of after graduation. I have not met a single Marine graduate who intentionally uses calculus or cyber security in the military. While my friends and I struggle, it is for a purpose. We are being forced to develop our intellect and our ability to solve problems. Sun Tzu said “Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win”(Tzu, Sun Art of War). Sun Tzu wrote this because intelligence wins wars and while the Naval Academy has not taught us yet how to fight, we are being given the foundations that Sun Tzu deems necessary.

According to Sun Tzu, deception is the supreme art of war, “Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak”(Tzu, Sun Art of War). This means that you will have an advantage over enemy if they do not know your ability nor your resolve. At the Naval Academy it is instilled on us that deception is considered lying, and therefore it will not be condoned. In fact we are expected to have the Honor Concept memorized, which explicitly says we will not lie. We are taught to conduct ourselves as future leaders and deception is not a founding principle for that. It is however necessary in competition. Bose State used deception in the trick play that won them the Fiesta Bowl over Oklahoma when the game was on the line.

Overall, I believe it is not feasible to make a legitimate comparison between Sun Tzu’s tactics for war and what we are taught at the Naval Academy. We are not being taught how to fight. We are being given the tools we need to hopefully succeed in war, but we are not taught outright techniques until we commission. Both the Naval Academy and Sun Tzu put an emphasis on intelligence which is the foundation for success in war. The Naval Academy draws a line when it comes to deception and Sun Tzu does not. Therefore, I believe that Sun Tzu’s tactics are are effective when it comes to winning, in war as well as competition.

Word Count: 507

Democracy after a Regime Harrison Goodrich

The role-playing lesson in class gave us a first hand perspective about how difficult it is to establish and structure a democracy after overthrowing an authoritarian regime. The opposing factions and different values led to arguing and a slow decision making process and without a clear leader there was no progress. The difficult part of restoring democracy in Athens was not the removal of the 30 Tyrants, who were in power for less than a year. All it took were concerned citizens and a powerful leader to overthrow the 30 Tyrants. “They were overthrown by an army of exiled Athenian democrats led by the Athenian general, Thrasybulus.” A comparable issue in the modern world is establishing democracy in Iraq after the overthrowing of the dictator Saddam Hussein. Like the Athenian’s under the 30 Tyrants, Iraqis were under the thumb of an oppressive, tyrannical ruler.

In 2003 the United States invaded Iraq to controversially search for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that were allegedly in the possession of a ruthless dictator. After Saddam Hussein was taken out of power came the challenge of establishing democracy in a country with no history of it. The major difference between post-Saddam Hussein Iraq and post-30 Tyrant Athens, is that the Athenian people wanted to establish democracy. “Athens fostered its democratic growth by overthrowing the social and political restraints associated with a monarchical system, in exchange for a system that nurtured individuality.” Athenians knew that establishing democracy was essential to the growth and sustainability. The situation in modern Iraq is a different story entirely. “The inability of a government to be formed after the March 7, 2010, parliamentary elections bodes ill, not just for the prospects for democracy, but even for stability in Iraq.” Saddam Hussein was executed in 2006 and Iraq still does not have a strong government nor democracy. Without heavy intervention from concerned countries it is unlikely that Iraq will establish a lasting democracy in the future.

We learned from the Athenians that establishing democracy is not an easy task after taking out an authoritarian regime. The ability to remove oppressive rulers is up to the will of the people. Establishing democracy can also be linked to the will of the people. The Athenians had a history of democracy and knew they needed to re-establish it to create a lasting Athens. Whereas,  in the case of Iraq, there was no history of democracy and the citizens didn’t show a strong enough desire to pursue it. To attain democracy the citizens have to pursue it.

LeCaire, Lucas D., “Tyranny and terror: the failure of Athenian democracy and the reign of the Thirty Tyrants” (2013). EWU Masters Thesis Collection. 179

.J. Peter Euben, John Wallach, and Josiah Ober, eds., Athenian Political Thought and the Reconstruction of American Democracy ( Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994), 5-19.

 Kantz, Mark. The U.S. and Democratization in Iraq. Middle East Policy Council

Word Count: 428

Harrison Goodrich

Representative Democracy Triumphs

The Athenians cultivated the idea of democracy and were the first to implement it. Over time, the Athenian form of representative democracy has evolved into the direct model that our founding fathers built our country on. The direct model has been proven to be the superior way to govern because it is more efficient while still representing the views of the voters. Everyone has the right to vote in a democracy, the people have the need for a leader that most represents the ideals and values of the citizens. In theory this does not represent everyone’s views because there can be only one winner of the votes. However, mob rule is not an effective way to govern, where either the more powerful faction will triumph or the division between factions will result in no action at all.

Our current form of direct democracy is efficient and representative of voter’s views because everyone gets a vote. According to Dr. Eli Noam, direct democracy is effective 95% of the time based on his career. “95 percent of the referenda the majority decision had the same sign as total benefits; that is, the outcomes were efficient. Apparently, then, voting outcomes reflect the intensities of voters’ preferences as well as the strict number of voters.” This means that direct democracy is extremely effective. And because democracy is always evolving, minority groups are gaining more representation in our governing body today. For example, there are jewish and openly LGBTQ members in Congress today. While direct democracy is usually efficient, in reality it is far from perfect.

In the words of Professor Howard Ernst at the United States Naval Academy, gerrymandering is the biggest threat to democracy today. Career politicians and lobbyists try to manipulate the political system and party lines to their own benefit. Similar to how Hipparchus concentrated power so he had control over everything. However, everyone has only one vote, no matter the social class or political party. While some may try to manipulate those votes to gain power, democracy will prevail in the USA. There are systems in place to cast out corrupt politicians.

Overall, direct democracy is far superior in today’s world than representative democracy. While Athens invented and pioneered democracy, all groups were not represented. This was as an acceptable practice for the time period but it is doesn’t give everyone democracy. It is also inefficient to have competing factions without a central leader, action cannot be taken if opposing sides are constantly at odds. An example of this in direct democracy is when the government shut down for 35 days because a budget couldn’t be agreed upon. Direct democracy isn’t perfect but it is the best form of government available in the free world.

Word Count: 460

In a recent interview conducted by The Economist with Madeleine Albright, former American Secretary of State and author, the topic of tyranny came up often. Albright accurately refers to tyrants in accordance with the recognized, modern definition. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines tyrant as, “A cruel and oppressive ruler.”(Merriam-Webster). Abright rightly accuses the Nazi Regime that she escaped from as a child of being tyrannical rulers. This directly clashes with the ancient definition of a tyrant that is longer fitting after the rise of democracy. To be a tyrant before democracy was to be a ruler who attained power by unconventional means and by ignoring a blood line. This definition is no longer fitting because it does not refer to tyrants as the ruthless rulers they are. Adolf Hitler was a sadistic and immoral ruler who is responsible for the murder of millions of innocent people and will go down permanently as a modern tyrant in history. The ancient definition does not apply to Hitler as he began his reign of terror after being named Chancellor of Germany.

While Albright’s use of tyranny differs from the ancient definition, which refers to a tyrant as someone who broke hereditary ranks to become a ruler, it is used correctly in context. Abright uses the modern definition of tyrant as shown in a quotation from her interview by comparing tyrants to bullies, “History is replete with bullies who seemed formidable for a time only to crash by attempting too much or by underestimating the quiet courage of honourable women and men.”(Albright) In the modern democratic era it is an irrefutable argument that tyrants need to be forcefully taken out of power just like the Nazis were. Before the rise of democracy tyrannical rulers might not have been associated with the modern definition if they were fair and honest rulers. In some cases it took unconventional methods to take out an oppressive ruler who was in a position of power because of who their father was. With the modern definition, the previous ruler would be considered a tyrant and the one who unseated them would be a hero.

In conclusion, Albright correctly uses the term tyrant in her interview. The ancient definition is no longer fitting given the atrocities that modern tyrants have committed and the way that they have ruled. The use of the ancient definition gives an ounce of legitimacy to modern tyrants and downplays the villains that they are. The correct definition for a tyrant is the modern one that is recognized today and needs no explanation.

Harrison Goodrich

Words: 429

“On Tyranny, Populism-and How Best to Respond Today.” The Economist. July 30, 2018. Accessed January 25, 2019. https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/07/30/on-tyranny-populism-and-how-best-to-respond-today.

“Tyrant.” Merriam-Webster. Accessed January 25, 2019. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tyrant.