What Can The US Navy Learn From Athens?

Similarly to the Athenian army during the Golden Age of Athens, the United States today is with little doubt the dominant military superpower of our time. As officers in the world’s most capable Navy, the ability to deescalate and think reasonably through challenges is crucial to the overall success of the fleet. When analyzing the Melian Dialogue, there are several important lessons to learn about utilizing benevolence in the face of a clearly weaker opponent.

According to Thucydides, the Melian Dialogue occurred in 416 BC and involved the empire of Athens and the supposedly neutral island of Melos. For several years, tensions between the Athenians and the Spartans had continued to develop and smaller city-states were caught in the midst. This is exactly what happened to the city of Melos. (1)

When confronted with the difficult decision of whether or not to surrender to Athens, the Melians put forward their leading representatives to argue for their freedom. Leaders from Melos tried to reason that “a pleas for justice and fairness should do some good for a man who has fallen into danger.” (2) This was clearly an example of how the Melians felt that because they were neutral, they shouldn’t be punished considering they had no intentions to help either side. They continued by asking “Won’t this turn the people who are now neutral into your enemies?” (2) Their support was that “Once they’ve seen this, they will expect you to attack them eventually also.” (2) This is an important point, because the Melians were not the only neutral city-state at the time and they argued that Athens would only alienate the others through their actions.

The Melians definitely presented strong arguments, but alas they were not enough to sway the Athenians set on conquering Melos. After the civil debate, one Athenian leader even remarked “You have staked everything on your trust in hope… and you will be ruined in everything.” (2)

There are several important lessons that can be related to our military today. For example, the Athenians were too strong to be defeated by Melos and therefore felt they did not have to compromise or listen to the Melian leaders asking for mercy. This had important implications later on, however, as city-states who were neutral became wary of Athens.

Today, the US is involved in several conflicts in the Middle East. Terrorist groups like ISIS have continued to grow in influence in this region of the world, and their main recruiting tactic is attacking and demonizing the West. (3) For example, ISIS leaders garnered the attention of every major country when they started beheading Western journalists, showing that they were not afraid of the strength of America or anyone else. (3) They also take special care to show the innocent lives that are lost in the crossfire, further advocating to the youth who are still searching for belonging that the United States is the obvious enemy.

As Navy and Marine Corps officers involved in global conflicts, it will be our duty not to be like the ruthless Athenian invaders. Rather, we need to be the guiding hand amidst chaos that minimizes the loss of innocent lives and improves relations so that we do not feed the stereotype of war mongers and breed dissent against Western culture in future generations.

Word Count: 550

Sources:

https://www.nku.edu/~weirk/ir/melian.html
The Melian Dialogue, Adapted from Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War
https://www.businessinsider.com/isis-is-revolutionizing-international-terrorism-2015-5

Was the War on Terror a Crusade?

While the term “crusade” has become a generality used to describe action taken towards a particular issue, the history of the “crusade” is based in death and suffering. When Pope Urban II first called for the first Crusade to reclaim the Holy Lands and aid Eastern Christians, he hoped that he would solve many of the problems faced by medieval Europe in 1095. However, the resulting events of the first crusade arguably created many more long term problems than solutions. In a recent article from by author James Carroll, he compares the failure of the first and subsequent crusades to the Bush Administration’s crusade to avenge the 9/11 attacks.

Following the 9/11 attacks on September 11, 2001, the United States entered the War on Terror, which was aimed at combating international terrorism. On September 16th, President Bush addressed the nation and stated that “This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a while.” (1) James Carroll reasons that President Bush’s use of the word crusade in this instance is meant to be positive, and that the word crusade is synonymous with a noble act of justice. Carroll also uses the word “crusade” to describe the US’s entry into the War on Terror, however, it means something different in his opinion.

Much like the first Crusade advocated for by Pope Urban II, he suggests that this modern crusade was a failure for many reasons. For one, Carroll shows how the objectives of the War on Terror were not exactly clearly defined, and often this led to confusion for the ground units deployed to fight. Similarly, the knights, peasants, and other able bodies that traveled to the Holy Lands did not exactly know the objectives of their conquest. Pope Urban II offered the consolation of “remission of your sins, with the assurance of the reward of imperishable glory” to every brave warrior, yet the actual objective of the crusade was not tangibly defined nor did it have an established end point (2).

In both instances, they were given a goal that was not concretely defined and therefore this led to confusion that ultimately cost innocent lives and resources.

The use of the word “crusade” varies wildly, and I believe it is most important to tread carefully when using it. People have used the term “modern crusade” to describe Hitler’s persecution of the Jewish population during the Holocaust, and that is a clearly negative connotation, just like James Carroll’s use (3). In the instance of President Bush’s speech, I believe it would have been appropriate to use another more neutral term (like campaign) to describe America’s involvement in the war- especially considering the region’s history and the demographics of the area at that time.

Word Count: 453

Sources:

https://www.thenation.com/article/donald-trump-is-on-a-crusade/
Pope Urban II: Speech at Clermont 1095 (Robert the Monk version)
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/millennium/m4/armstrong.html

Sun Tzu’s Philosophy Versus The US Military

In ancient China, a timeless work was written by Sun Tzu during the warring states period. Tzu’s The Art of War redefined unconventional warfare through mental strategy, and is still analyzed today by businesses and military schools including the Naval Academy. While Sun Tzu’s writings seem to stress the importance of using strategy over physical strength, modern teachings at military institutions like the Naval Academy believe that the best way to obtain peace is to prepare for war.

Sun Tzu was unique for his time and continues to have a presence in military teachings because of the bizarre ideas but exceptional leadership that he brought to the battlefield (1). For example, he mentions that in order to defeat your enemy “you must become your enemy” (2). This defies the idea that conquering your enemy means having a stronger army, and he reasons that a weaker army can still win. Tzu is also saying that the best way to ensure victory is to analyze the enemy and attack the weak points, similar to the way David defeated Goliath. This specialized form of battle strategy is why Sun Tzu was one of the most legendary Chinese generals- he recognized the importance of strategy over brute force.

At the Naval Academy, midshipmen are convinced from the very beginning of their careers that the strength of the Navy is the reason for our nation’s success. With an annual defense budget of over six hundred billion dollars (3), the United States spends more money on the military than the next seven countries combined. Compared to the rest of the world, America is Goliath. This being said, the US military does employ strategic deterrence through our nuclear weapons and this does align more with Sun Tzu’s teachings.

In my opinion, I believe that the strategy currently employed by the United States and taught at all of the service academies is the superior philosophy. While Sun Tzu’s The Art of War is important to consider with any military, his strategy is based on the conservation of resources- the most important being his men. However, the advancement of technology in warfighting capabilities and the lack of intense conflict in the world allows for soldiers’ life expectancy to increase dramatically. In addition, the virtually unlimited resources and funding of our military today is vastly larger than what Sun Tzu had access to, and therefore it can afford to focus on both unconventional warfare (in new areas like cyber defense) and power projection. With all of these factors considered, this is why the US hybrid philosophy that combines strength with deterrence is more effective.

Sources:

1.http://time.com/2801517/sun-tzus-art-of-war-how-ancient-strategy-can-lead-to-modern-success/

2.https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_defense-comparison

3. Sun Tzu’s The Art of War

Word Count: 432

Ancient Rome and America: Not So Different After All

Throughout history, there have been many rotating establishments that have gained and maintained power in the world. In Europe, one of the most notable groups was the Roman Empire. While Rome and the mantle of emperor constantly found itself under new ownership, there were several time periods that resemble key eras in American history.

One important rule to consider is the autocratic establishment of the Severan dynasty, and the leadership of Septimius Severus. From about 193 to 235 BCE, Septimius Severus made several notable reforms- mainly centered around the military. For example, he greatly increased the size of his army and further ensured the loyalty of his men by increasing pay per year as well. As a result, Septimius Severus gained respect among his men while proceeding to conquer the regions surrounding Rome, expanding the empire and improving his image simultaneously.

This is very similar to an era in American history when imperialism and expansion were the main focus of the United States. The entrance into the 20th Century marked a turning point for American expansionism. As a result, conflicts like the Spanish-American War led to the United States’ being seen as an oppressive, colonizing power- especially in the Philippines. Furthermore, the President at the time- Theodore Roosevelt strongly believed that the United States should be a global power capable of influencing the entire world. As a result, he increased funding of the Navy. This “Great White Fleet” as it would come to be called sailed around the world from 16 December 1907, to 22 February 1909, displaying the military might of America while greatly boosting President Roosevelt’s image. While both the Severan Dynasty and imperialist America had their sights on expanding, there was a crucial difference: while the Romans also utilized a navy, it was never as prominent as the legions that conquered regions via land routes.

Another important Roman era to mention was under the rule of Augustus Caesar between 27 BCE until he died in 14 AD. While in power, Augustus made wide sweeping changes under the guise of being the “Princeps civitatis”. Rather than persuade others that he was an emperor and deserved to rule, he convinced the Romans that he was simply trying to restore Rome to the “glory days of the republic”. He enacted several important reforms including beautifying the architecture around Rome and put into place laws that called back to the old Republic.

This parallels another era in American history- the time period following the Great Depression in the 1930s. When President Franklin D Roosevelt was elected, he immediately put in place his “New Deal” policy that hearkened back to the old days of America when every working class family could prosper. His work and economic reforms greatly improved the economy, and as a result he became the most powerful individual leader that America had seen. He served more than two terms, which was unheard of for a President. While both FDR and Augustus experienced almost unbridled power in their respective mantles, they are different in that Augustus was a military leader who toured outside of Rome on various conquests. FDR seldom traveled outside of the country, but still maintained strong control over American domestic and foreign affairs, guiding the U.S. through WWII.

541 Words (Sorry)

Sources:

https://www.ancient.eu/Septimius_Severus/

https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-history/emperor-augustus

https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/presidents/franklin-d-roosevelt/

https://www.theodorerooseveltcenter.org/Learn-About-TR/TR-Encyclopedia/War-and-Military-Affairs/Great-White-Fleet.aspx

Athenian vs American Democracy

In 1792 Thomas Paine wrote “What Athens was in miniature, America will be in magnitude.” Only 16 years after the Declaration was signed, the new autonomous America had just survived insurmountable odds against the British. It needed a model for its government, and it chose to look at the past. While Athens was not a perfect society, America used aspects of Athenian democracy to make a better government that continues to improve.

Between 480 and 404 BC, the ancient empire of Athens experienced the Golden Age, which was characterized by military superiority, cultural flourishing, and most importantly a revolutionary political experiment. Their leader, Pericles, was convinced that every Athenian deserved representation. In his funeral oration, he states “Neither is poverty an obstacle, but a man may benefit his country whatever the obscurity of his condition.” In a similar light, the Founding Fathers believed that every man’s voice deserved to be heard, but with one caveat. Instead of direct democracy, the government would be occupied by representatives of the people’s interests- a representative democracy.

Needless to say, there were issues with Athenian democracy that hindered the positive qualities. One example of this was the ostracism of Themistocles by majority vote. Themistocles was a populist who helped Athens win several important wars against Persia, but was later accused of trying to increase the hostility towards Sparta. As a result, he was ostracized and eventually spent the rest of his days living in Asia Minor. The ability to ostracize citizens was a tool used by Athenian nobles who were worried about losing their influence in the democracy. In addition to this, Athenians were also guilty of paying for votes in the democracy. This fundamentally ruins the idea of direct democracy and exposed the corrupt nature of this “revolutionary” political innovation during this time.

America’s track record isn’t perfect either- an example being the emergence of PACs and Super PACs that contribute money to certain candidates in an ever-polarizing political climate. However, the Founding Fathers recognized that factions were inevitable and that is why they opted for a representative democracy instead. In Federalist 10, James Madison says ““In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” In our history, political parties like the Whigs and the Free Soil Party have flourished and dissolved and we have prevented mob rule through a more structured government than what existed under Athens. Although monetary contributions and corruption are inevitable, Congress has taken action to limit the influences of dark money in campaign elections with legislature like the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974.

Ultimately, American government is superior to the direct democracy that existed in Athens. The strength and stability of our government is rooted in the Constitution, which is more organized and less susceptible to the feared “mob rule” that existed with Athens’ jury and referendum.

Sources:

Pericles’ Funeral Oration
Aspects of Medizing: Themistocles, Simonides, and Timocreon of Rhodes by Rachel M. McMullin
Federalist 10, James Madison
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002
https://www.nationalgeographic.com.au/history/what-modern-democracies-didnt-copy-from-ancient-greece.aspx

DreamWorks and Moses

Gold and God are the driving factors for most of history, and the religious texts stemming from the Abrahamic religions are frequently used by scholars as a window to the past. One of the most notable figures described by the Book of Exodus is Moses, and his legendary salvation of the Hebrews is still depicted even in modern times (1). An example of this is the 1998 movie The Prince of Egypt (2). In both the movie and the religious text, there are several clear similarities but also a few differences in interpretation.

The Prince of Egypt shares a similar storyline with the Book of Exodus, including some very important plot points and character portrayals that are fairly accurate. The original story through Exodus tells us that Moses was initially hidden from the ravaging Egyptians as a baby, sent down the river by his Hebrew mother, and adopted by the Pharaoh’s daughter. In both interpretations Moses, God convinces him to ask the Pharaoh to free his people, inflicting plague after plague until Pharaoh finally agrees (3).

While both depictions of this event are relatively similar, there are a few deliberate differences in the movie. First, archeology proves that unlike in the movie, Moses’ older “brother” Rameses II could not have actually been the Pharaoh of the Exodus as he would have ruled long after Moses’ lifetime (4). Another important difference is that not all of the plagues mentioned in the Book of Exodus are present in the movie. Most notably missing were the plagues of lice, fiery hail, and boils (5). This is most likely in keeping with the family-friendly version of Moses’ story, but also an attempt to manage the run time. The last difference is less noticeable but definitely more humorous. In the final scene when Moses has “parted the Red Sea” there is a silhouette of a whale shark. This is comically inaccurate as scholars have translated the “Red Sea” in Exodus to mean the “Reed Sea” (6). Instead of a gargantuan water source this was most likely a marsh or small lake- not exactly a fitting home for a whale shark.

In my opinion, The Prince of Egypt is a fun and entertaining film that offers a unique perspective on the story of Moses. Any story and character changes are probably due to the constraints of making a movie that all audiences can appreciate. I believe that this is a far more accurate version of the story than a play or live action movie, simply because the human element of acting and the inherent guessing in “recreating the scene” is removed.

Sources: