Officers or Ambassadors?

After over seven year of war in the region, sixty-three percent of Americans cannot locate Iraq on a map [1]. This is just one of many symptoms indicative of the collective ignorance of the American population towards the complex dynamic of the Middle East. While the situation in the Middle East is undoubtedly a complicated one, the high degree of geographic and cultural illiteracy stereotypical of Americans is resultant of a lack of willingness to understand, not of an inability to do so. As future naval officers, we are not afforded this luxury of ignorance and can hold no indifference towards matters of foreign relations.

A few weeks ago, my U.S. government class had Ambassador Cameron Munter come speak to us about his role as a diplomat. Serving as the U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan during the Osama Bin Laden raid, he had a wealth of information to share about US-Middle Eastern relations and the role military officers play in facilitating that relationship. In particular, he highlighted the current transition from the use traditionally trained ambassadors to fulfill diplomatic duties towards the use of U.S. military leaders abroad to assume these roles. In training to become naval officers, he emphasized, we also must train to become diplomats.

Almost any midshipman would agree that the Naval Academy is a STEM oriented school. Often humanities and social studies electives seen as obstacles in the way filling in a predetermined matrix. However, Ambassador Munter challenges this outlook through his assertion that the role played by naval officers as diplomats is one of the most critical tasks to be accomplished. More often than not, opportunities for diplomacy are presented in unplanned situations. In order to conduct effective negotiations and conversations with foreign nationals, a broad base of cultural knowledge is required. In studying history we are given the opportunity to examine the present through the lens of the past, enabling an increased understanding of tensions between ethnic and religious groups.

Underlying tensions and a complicated past are characteristic of the Middle East. Our current studies of the interactions between the Middle East and the West through the crusades enables us to better understand these tensions, particularly those religiously based. The Shia/Sunni split originated as early as the year 632, yet “define[s] not only the pattern of local politics, but also the relationship between the Islamic world and the West,” causing very real implications for the US military today [2].

Compounded with the friction between sects of Islam is the multi-religion claim to Jerusalem from Jews, Muslims, and Christians. In 1 Kings 11:32, the Bible reads that God claims Jerusalem as “the city which I have chosen,” and Jerusalem serves as the site central to the life of Jesus. In Judaism, Jerusalem is so important it is given over seventy different names, such as “City of Righteousness” and “Doorway to the World’s Peoples.” Yet Islam, the most populous faith in the Middle East, claims the city central to their religion as well, with a site of particular significance being the Dome of Rock, where it is believed the Day of Judgement will occur [3]. With competing claims to one land, tension inevitably arises.

Today, Jerusalem and the surrounding regions are entangled in a conflict which the US is inextricably tied to. The Middle East is a region of strategic interest to the United States, not only economically in terms of oil supply and trade routes, but also ideologically as an international stage for the fight for democracy and the protection of human rights. While we may be inclined to opt for an overly-generalized understanding of the situation, or no understanding at all, diving into the nuances of the historical context of the current conflict prepares us to tackle the role of ambassador that we are bound to play as future naval officers.

History is critical to ensuring domestic security and secure US influence in regions of extreme geopolitical significance. Through intimate knowledge of the culture and context—and more importantly a willingness to learn—we can be best prepared to create and communicate solutions as ambassadors. The solutions we seek are in response to complex issues rooted in history, but finding a bipartisan solution to a global conflict with such staggering repercussions for the United States is critical to our success as a nation.

Word Count: 598

Sources:
[1] CBS News. Vries, Lloyd. “Where’s Iraq?” https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wheres-iraq-young-adults-dont-know/.

[2] National Public Radio (npr). “The Origins Of The Shiite-Sunni Split,” https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2007/02/12/7332087/the-origins-of-the-shiite-sunni-split.

[3] The Yale Review of International Studies. Krinsky, Sarah. “Jerusalem: Political Significance of a Holy Site,” http://yris.yira.org/essays/350.

–J. M. Lotterer

Christianity: Defying the Odds

While there is widespread acceptance of Christianity in the contemporary context, particularly so in western society, this was definitively not always the case. Since its inception, Christianity has fought for centuries against odds stacked overwhelmingly against its favor. At a critical moment in the history of the west, Constantine the Great assumed command of the Roman Empire, and his radical support of Christianity enabled the basis for evangelization across the Roman Empire.

Policies enacted by Constantine relieved the prior pressure of persecution exerted on Christians forming a conduit through which missionaries could facilitate the spread of the religion. It was the nature of Christian religious doctrine, however, that enabled Christianity to take root in the early 300s AD. In large part this success was due to the Christians’ ability to utilize preexisting social institutions to promote monotheistic ideals, primarily in its appeal to lower classes in its salvation doctrine.

This aspect of utilizing preexisting social institutions to propagate a religious agenda was preciously the strategy of Julian the Apostate in his crusade to both revitalize paganism across the Roman Empire and discredit Christianity. Julian took a “three prong” approach towards disenfranchising Christianity. Attempting to first use legislation to discriminate against Christians thereby isolating them, he would then proactively approach disenfranchisement through mirroring the preexisting Christian structure of churches in his creation of a pagan church system [1]. Finally, he mounted a “philosophical assault” on Christianity to fundamentally undermine its religious doctrine.

In a stroke of luck, Christianity survived narrowly such a hostile and concerted effort to eradicate the religion. The immense proliferation of the religion under Constantine was as unforeseen as it was statistically improbable.

Today, Julian the Apostate is generally viewed in the context of the predominantly protestant narrative if western society, casting a light on his as a manic, Christian-hater. It’s important to note, however, that he was viewed by his contemporaries in an overall positive light, as most were pagans themselves. Paganism was representative of Hellenistic heritage, enabling Julian’s campaigns to revive Paganism to garner a nostalgic and “romantic appeal.”

So how did Christianity make its narrow escape from its seemingly inevitable extinction? While paganism is a largely individualistic religion, Christianity has a need to share the faith built into its core. Julian elitism is also to blame for the failure of paganism as it postulated that only the elite could possibly comprehend religious doctrine. In light of these shortcomings on the part of Julian as well as his untimely death, Christianity was afforded the opportunity to defy the odds and survive eradication. Through the nature of the religion itself and the tactful policy making of Constantine the Great, Christianity capitalized on this opportunity of survival and rose to dominance in the west.

–Julia Lotterer

Word Count: 503

Sources:

[1] https://www.roman-emperors.org/julian.htm

[2] https://www.thoughtco.com/julian-and-the-fall-of-paganism-119349

The Legacy of Philosophy

As a Chinese General and military strategist with a record of success during his own time, Sun Tzu’s philosophies have lived far beyond their inception during the Zhou dynasty. Through his writings on military strategy, such as Art of War, these philosophies have been preserved and are now read across the globe by both military and business strategists alike. Principles like the conservation of resources, an emphasis on preparation, and bureaucratic structure of discipline can be found implemented in by contemporary organizations, the influence of which has extended to the culture here at the Naval Academy.

Sun Tzu’s overarching philosophy presented in Art of War is that preparation is what wins wars rather than brute strength. He sees individual weaknesses, such as homesickness, exhaustion, and lack of focus, as challenges to be attacked and overcome far before any attempt is made to attack the enemy. A similar approach can be found at the Naval Academy where four years are spent winning internal wars so midshipmen can commission with the ability to lead others in the fight.

During the transition from plebe summer to the academic year, I was told by an officer that by the time you graduate you will have needed to earn the moral authority to order one man to take the life of another. Whether or not this moral authority is ever able to be truly possessed is a difficult philosophical question; however, the pursuit of such powerful moral authority empowers individuals to act with urgency towards bettering themselves. The intention behind four intense years here, four year filled with challenges in both personal development and leadership, is to provide midshipmen with a forum of preparation to fight their internal battles. Just as Sun Tzu called for the skillful warrior to have mastery of spirit, mind, strength, and change, midshipmen are provided the opportunity to master themselves during their time at the Academy.

Sun Tzu also approaches war with an unorthodox top-down approach. He asserts that “The lowest form of war is/ To attack/ Cities,” and instead argues that the primary focus should be attacking the strategy and alliances of the opposing force. At the Naval Academy, we’re told countless to focus on “the little things,” things like squaring corners at a perfect ninety or plebing our covers even when no one is around. This philosophy that attention to the smallest details compose the core of our fighting capabilities, isn’t in direct opposition to Sun Tzu’s approach to war, yet, in practice this attention to detail can often become excessively consuming. Rather than maintaining the broad, strategic view adopted by Sun Tzu, midshipmen expend energy on the minutia with disregard for how these components form a cohesive purpose.

The written philosophy of the Naval Academy has close ties with Sun Tzu’s strategic mindset towards preparing thoroughly for war. The Academy’s written philosophy, however, doesn’t always align perfectly with the philosophy in practice by midshipmen. By reorienting our actions as midshipmen to incorporate the strategic philosophy of Sun Tzu, we can be better prepared for the fight to master ourselves and our enemies.

Word Count: 515

— Julia Lotterer

Sources:

[1] Sun Tzu, The Art of War. Trans. John Minford. London: Penguin, 2009.