Author: m214359

Preparation within the Past

As future military officers, it is crucial that we look to our world’s past for a greater understanding of successful strategy and how to conduct ourselves. The United States Navy would not be the naval superpower it is today without implementing ideas and tactics from the ancient world, and it must continue to do so in order to maintain superiority. One of most valuable civilizations we can draw knowledge from is that of ancient China. The war strategy described by ancient Chinese philosopher Sun Tzu in “The Art of War” is of infinite value to our military today and we can similarly draw on ancient China’s philosophies and way of life as a whole for proper military conduct.

Sun Tzu’s military philosophy in “The Art of War” has persisted through the centuries as one of the most important doctrines for officers to review and follow. Tzu largely focuses on the significance of planning and decision-making during times of war, stating that war “is to be pondered carefully … [this is] the difference between survival and extinction” (2). He terms the “Five Fundamentals” of war: the Way, Heaven, Earth, command, and discipline; upon these fundamentals rests victory or defeat. Leaders of various military groups have a responsibility to know the Way, be on the side of Heaven and Earth, and to enforce command and discipline. The US Navy today has a similar set of values to those described by Tzu, as it is of utmost importance that leaders maintain honor, courage, and commitment. It is clear that the US Navy, and other modern militaries around the world, have used Tzu’s doctrine as a model for their own regulations. If hoping to be successful in the Fleet today, officers today must internalize the strategy techniques described by Tzu.

While Tzu’s piece may be the most relevant military takeaway from ancient China, the general philosophies and way of life from this area and time period can also positively impact today’s military. The three major philosophies of ancient China were Confucianism, legalism, and Daoism. Confucianism focuses on “the principles of etiquette, humaneness, righteousness, and loyalty” (1). The “jen and li” aspect of Confucian thought provide an emphasis on order and harmony. Legalism revolves around governance with strict punishments and small rewards. Lastly, Daoists believe that the path of least resistance should be followed and that there is a natural order or path. An officer’s understanding of legalism could lead to a better perspective on why certain rules and regulations must exist within the military. Also, officers are expected to follow the Confucian values of proper conduct and loyalty in addition to the Daoist principles of natural order and respect.

While thousands of years have passed between ancient China and modern day, the ideals and values each officer should employ has not changed. According to Tzu and ancient China, an officer should be responsible, courageous, strategic, loyal, and respectful. The same goes for officers and enlisted in the United States Navy today; we need leaders who are dedicated to their own development and that of those around them. Through recalling the ideas and techniques used in ancient China, specifically Tzu’s “The Art of War” and their major philosophies, we can hope to be a more insightful and prepared military force today.

Lauren McDonnell

Word Count: 552

Sources:

  1. “An Overview of Confucianism, Taoism, and Legalism,” Vision Times. Accessed 9 March 2019.
  2. Sun-tzu, “The Art of War.” Trans. John Minford. London: Penguin, 2009.

Finding the Common Ground

Christians and Muslims throughout history have been pitted against each other due to seemingly irreconcilable differences and general mistrust on both sides. This is largely thanks to several historical events, examples being the Crusades in which the Christians attacked and occupied the Holy Land and modern-day Muslim attacks on Christians in Nigeria. Many believe that the underlying reasoning for this violence and mistrust between the two religions stems from Islam and Christianity’s lack of common ground. While the two religions are mutually exclusive, they share surprising similarities such as afterlife and belief in the existence of Jesus Christ.

Both Muslims and Christians believe that ‘Judgement Day’ will come and that all men and women will be judged according to their deeds. On this day, these religions concur that the universe will end and that God will select those who are loyal and good, and banish those whom lack belief. Islam’s sacred text, the Qur’an, states that “those who believe and do good deeds, they are the dwellers of Paradise, they dwell therein forever” (2); Christianity’s Holy Bible similarly reads: “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil” (1). While the specific events of Judgement Day vary between the religions, such as Christians believing the Earth “shall be burned up” (1) and Muslims believing the day will follow a schedule of events known as Qiyama, both centralize on the idea of good versus evil.

Christianity and Islam also interestingly share a belief in the existence of Jesus Christ. To Christians, Jesus is the central figure of the religion and his life and death provide the key to forgiveness and salvation. Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the “word of God who became flesh” (1) and is therefore both human and divine. According to Christian tradition, Jesus was born of a virgin mother, performed miracles, was crucified, and his second coming will bring the end of time. Muslims also hold Jesus as a special figure in their faith and believe that he was the second greatest of all prophets, next to Muhammad. The Quran gives details about Jesus’s miraculous birth, wise teaches, and miracles. However, Muslims believe that Jesus “was no more than a messenger” (2) and he is therefore not the son of God or divine.

Despite the similarities stated above, Islam and Christianity are indeed mutually exclusive. One cannot believe in both Christianity and Islam, for the two religions diverge in essential areas. In the example of Judgement Day, Muslims would believe that Christians would be sent to Hell and vice versa. Additionally, as stated previously, Christianity centralizes around the belief that Jesus is God and Islam outright rejects this. While both religions share fascinating similarities and cross paths on certain values, they are fundamentally different. These differences do not mean, however, that conflicts between the two religions should continue. It rather invokes the need for Islam and Christianity to focus on their shared beliefs and respect their divergences.

Lauren McDonnell

Word Count: 518

Sources:

  1. The Holy Bible: King James Version. Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Bible Publishers, 2001.
  2. The Holy Qur’an. https://quran.com/ (accessed 25 March 2019).

Success Beyond the Battlefield

Militaries throughout time have relied upon various styles of planning, training and rules. A truly outstanding strategy and set of values will be instilled in each man and woman in uniform and carried forward beyond their time of service to better impact the world. Sun Tzu of ancient China attempted to fulfill this by writing “The Art of War,” which is a meditation on the rules of war and military strategy. Similarly today, USNA and the Navy attempt to achieve victory on the battlefield and in society through specific codes and values. Due to its broader application to all military members, the strategy of USNA provides a more effective foundation for military members.

Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War” largely focuses on the importance of planning and decision-making on the battlefield. Throughout his work, he emphasizes the importance of strategizing before the actual battle, as war “is to be pondered carefully … [this is] the difference between survival and extinction” (2). Tzu centralizes his writing on “Five Fundamentals” of war: the Way, Heaven, Earth, command, and discipline. By fully grasping and internalizing these fundamentals, Tzu states that you will win; failure to grasp them will mean defeat. According to Tzu, victory or defeat largely rests on the leader. The general is in charge of knowing the Way, being on the side of Heaven and Earth, and instilling command and discipline. Strategizing and decision-making will ultimately be up to the person in charge, and soldiers are meant to follow their every word. Tzu’s final major argument is about capitalizing on your strengths and the enemy’s weaknesses, as he states that “if you know self, not the enemy, you will suffer defeat” (1).

USNA’s strategy has a similar set of goals and planning to that of Tzu. Close to the “Five Fundamentals,” USNA focuses on three core values of honor, courage and commitment. These values are supposed to be prevalent not only in our military careers, but in our personal relationships as well. It is the responsibility of each Navy enlisted and officer to “have an uncompromising code of integrity” and to “join together as a team to improve the quality of our work, our people, and ourselves” (1). Also similar to “The Art of War,” USNA emphasizes that war should not be taken lightly, as we remember our fallen brothers and sisters in uniform. One difference from Tzu’s strategy is while we are told that strategizing and planning is valuable, we are taught that it ultimately comes down to performance on the spot under stress. Additionally, the Navy’s set of values is more applicable to the entire chain of command, rather than just the general in charge. Every sailor and officer will be in charge of decision-making and authority should be questioned if there is a moral or legal violation.

It is clear that both techniques described by Tzu and USNA are successful. Tzu’s military philosophy has persisted through centuries and can be applied beyond battle to business, sports, and public-speaking skills. USNA’s strategy has similar success, as the US Navy has consistently been victorious on the battlefield and USNA has graduated some of the most impactful citizens in the US. While a blend of both techniques would be best, the Naval Academy’s strategy reigns supreme over Tzu’s “The Art of War”. The Navy’s set of values can be better applied to both followers and leaders, rather than the focus on solely generals in Tzu’s piece. Followers were only mentioned in Tzu’s piece to denote discipline and obedience, while USNA blends those aspects with active followership and taking responsibility throughout the chain of command.

Lauren McDonnell

Word Count: 600

Sources:

  1. “Annual Ethics Training,” Department of the Navy. Accessed 20 March 2019.
  2. Sun-tzu, “The Art of War.” Trans. John Minford. London: Penguin, 2009.

Death of a Government through Death of a Leader

In various circumstances throughout history, succession changes have been initiated through the killing of worrisome or cruel leaders. While murdering a leader may seem like a viable option to oust government corruption, it is not the answer to provide a smooth and stable change of power. This is demonstrated by ancient Rome’s Julius Caesar and modern Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, as the assassinations of these leaders only created more problems than existed while they were alive. In both cases of Caesar and Gaddafi, their deaths established power vacuums that brought great disorder and death.        

Upon the assassinations of Caesar and Gaddafi, their states were left in complete disarray. With Julius Caesar, his death brought “immediate panic on the Senate floor” (1) of Rome and his conspirators had no clear plan on how to take control. Caesar had left no immediate heir to his rule and he surprisingly named his teenage nephew Octavian as his successor; this eventually created a battle for power between Octavian and politician Mark Antony. Plutarch compares the effect of Caesar’s death to the sun: “for during all that year its orb rose pale and without radiance” (2). While Gaddafi’s death induced joy rather than panic, a similar power vacuum emerged in Libya. Two governments began vying for power in addition to various extremist groups who wanted to take control of Libya’s vast oil reserves. Libya was destined to crumble without an immediate and strong government presence, as Gaddafi “used a military funded by oil to crush any opposition to himself, rather than build state institutions that could survive beyond him” (3). The transitional governments existing after Gaddafi’s rule were more focused on gaining support, similar to Octavian and Mark Antony, than putting lasting propositions in place to turn around the Libyan government.

Due to this unrest caused by these rulers’ murders, civil wars and deaths emanated in ancient Rome and modern Libya. A civil war in Rome began immediately following Caesar’s death and was conducted between the Second Triumvirate of Mark Antony, Octavian, and Lepidus versus the “Liberators”, or Caesar’s assassins, including Brutus and Cassius. Mark Antony and Octavian then promoted mass murder across the Republic by starting proscriptions and rewards for killing any enemies of the state; this was used to rid of opposition and gain money. The final civil war of the Roman Republic was conducted between Octavian and Mark Antony at the Battle of Actium, which marked the end of the Roman Republic and the start of the Roman Empire under Octavian. These events demonstrate that Caesar’s death sent the Republic into a crisis that led to the death of the Republic and the birth of an imperial system. A similar chain of events occurred in Libya, where the Arab Spring protests of 2011 gave way to foreign military intervention and a civil war in 2014. Since Gaddafi’s death, Libya has been unable to assume a unified national identity and rival factions are currently dueling for control of territory and oil. There have been tens of thousands of casualties as a result of this Libyan civil war.

Julius Caesar and Muammar Gaddafi were by no means universally popular rulers and were in fact killed due to their ambitious and cruel natures. While their murderers may have had good intentions in the killings, it is clear from the events discussed above that their deaths had horrific consequences. Caesar’s death and the events that followed provides a foreshadowing for the havoc that would exist in Libya after Gadaffi’s assassination. Both deaths changed the course of history in their respective states, and probably not for the better.

Lauren McDonnell

Word Count: 600

Sources:

  1. “Aftermath of Caesar,” United Nations of Roma Victrix. Accessed 1 Mar 2019.
  2. “Consequences of Caesar’s assassination,” Daily History. Accessed 1 Mar 2019.
  3. “Libya in ruins four years after Gaddafi’s death,” The Newsroom, 20 October 2015. Accessed 1 Mar 2019.
  4. Plutarch, The Life of Julius Caesar, trans. by John Dryden, 75 A.C.E. Accessed 1 Mar 2019.

Democracy in Miniature versus Magnitude

The democracy of Ancient Greece, specifically of Athens, is often given credit for providing the foundation to modern democracy. Ancient Athenians such as Cleisthenes and Solon certainly brought the government of Athens into a new direction by offering reforms that greatly differed from neighboring countries who ruled by aristocracy or oligarchy. However, in comparison with our democracy today, there are vast differences in electoral processes and the jury system. While Athenian democracy provided a model for our government today, many differences have risen stemming from diversity and our larger populous and territory (1).

The electoral process of Athens greatly differs from our voting system today. One distinct example comes from the results of several presidential elections. In 2000, George W. Bush “was named winner of the U.S. presidential race, even after more U.S. voters had cast ballots for Gore” (2). A similar situation happened in our most recent presidential race where Donald Trump won the presidency despite Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote. Both of these victories were due to Bush and Trump having more electoral votes than their opponents; in our democracy today the Electoral College rather than a simple majority decides the winning party. These presidential races would have gone in the other direction if the United States adhered to the Athenian version of democracy. Our democracy today is representative rather than direct as in Ancient Greece and this representative version is necessary due to our large and diverse population that requires checks and balances (3).

The difference between our democracy today and that of Athens is further exemplified through the varying jury systems and specifically the Trial of Socrates. Socrates was accused of impiety and corruption of youth; he was found guilty and sentenced by a jury of “500 male citizens over the age of thirty, chosen by lot” (4). Most of the jury members were farmers and had grown to despise the philosopher due to his involvement with the Thirty Tyrants and his rather arrogant demeanor. Like the previous example, the jury voted with simple majority on Socrates’ guilt and decided that a suitable punishment would be execution “by drinking a cup of poisoned hemlock” (4). This chain of events would never exist in a trial today, as jurors nowadays aren’t given complete authority. In modern times, if a jury decides that the accused is indeed guilty, then the central authority of a judge will determine the appropriate sentence. Additionally, the modern jury attempts to get members of diverse backgrounds that are unbiased towards the case at hand, unlike the trial just discussed. In trials today, both the prosecution and defense have the chance to partake in voir dire, a “process in which lawyers question jurors about their background” (4). If the lawyers decide from these questions that an individual is too biased to partake in the trial, that juror can be dismissed from the jury pool. Socrates, on the other hand, was not given the opportunity to dismiss; he probably would have expelled most of the 500.

The democracy of the United States has significant variations from that of ancient Athens. However, it must also be understood that their “system wasn’t designed for enormous, spread-out, and diverse populations of modern industrialized countries” (2); Athenian democracy was meant to solve ancient Greece problems, not problems of today. Thomas Paine, one of the Founding Fathers, believed that our system is of lineage with Athens, for he wrote that “what Athens was in miniature America will be in magnitude” (5). The United States has borrowed principles and values from Athenian democracy, and has developed into its own.

Lauren McDonnell

Total Word Count: 596

Without quotes: 532

  1. “Ancient Greek Democracy.” History (A&E Television Networks), 23 Aug 2019. Web. 21 Feb 2019.
  2. Christiano, Ramon. “The Ancient Greek Democracy’s Influence on the United States.” The Classroom, 16 June 2018. Web. 21 Feb 2019.
  3. Gill, N.S. “Democracy Then and Now.” Thought Company, 13 January 2019. Web. 21 Feb 2019.
  4. Linder, Douglas O. “The Trial of Socrates.” Famous Trials, UMKC School of Law. Web. 21 Feb 2019.           
  5. Paine, Thomas. The Rights of Man. The British Library (1791), 125. Web. 21 Feb 2019.

Tyrants and Graves

In a recent New York Times article, the author Ilham Ahmed discusses the world of chaos and oppression in Syria due to the tyrannical Assad regime. Ahmed is part of the Syrian Democratic Council that works to resist the Assad regime through peaceful protests and fair elections. He states that the Syrian regime has portrayed itself as a secular government and even as a republican system today. However, Ahmed argues that this is far from reality; in actuality, the regime has “established its power by using violence against its opponents and anyone who disagrees with it.” Men and women across Syria, including those in Ahmed’s coalition, continue to protest in the streets, calling for change and a democratic government. Ahmed’s final statement relays the need for Syrians to cling to hope and democracy, since, to do “otherwise is to resign oneself to a world of nothing but tyrants and graves.”

In this article, Ahmed uses the term “tyrant” to discuss the workings and power of the Assad regime. In class and in ancient Greece, the given definition of a tyrant is someone who comes to power in a way other than by hereditary means and without legal right. In modern day, the term has evolved to convey a cruel and absolute ruler; examples that support this particular definition include Adolf Hitler and Fidel Castro. I believe that the term is used correctly in the context of the article, as the Assad regime is characteristically known for practicing a harsh dictatorship and this fits the modern definition. Despite the Syrian people’s consistent call for change, the Assad regime continues to rule with an iron fist.

The definition of tyrant has changed with time as described above, and Ahmed’s assignment of the Assad regime as tyrannical also fits ancient definitions. Hafez al-Assad, the former president of Syria, used his influence as minister of defense to seize the presidency through a coup. The role was passed onto his son Bashar al-Assad, the current ruler of the regime. While Bashar al-Assad achieved power through hereditary means, which is technically acceptable by the ancient definition, the Assad line came to power by way of tyranny. This takeover by the Assad family can be compared to those of famous ancient tyrants Peisistratus and Cleisthenes, who seized control and reorganized the state of Athens. The only problem with Ahmed’s application of tyrant in terms of the ancient definition is his continual use of the term with a negative connotation, rather than to describe an illegitimate leader. For example, in his final quote above, he associates tyranny with destruction and death, which fits solely the modern definition of the term.

Overall, I believe the author uses the term correctly within the article and his description of the regime as tyrannical helps display the distress and oppression the Syrian people face every day. Ahmed utilizes tyrant in both the ancient and modern senses of the word, for he uses the ancient definition to describe the background and takeover of the regime and the modern to illustrate their cruelty. The mix of both definitions helps the reader gain a clearer background and image of the current crisis in Syria.

Lauren McDonnell

Word Count: 532

Sources: Ahmed, Ilham. “A World of Tyrants and Graves.” New York Times, 16 Sep 2018. Web. 22 Jan. 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/16/opinion/politics/syria-democracy-survival.html