Let’s Learn from Pericles

As future naval officers, I believe that we can learn a few valuable lessons based on the actions of Pericles. One of Pericles’ greatest failures was sending his military to war when his nation simply could not support a war effort. Athens was still suffering from a deadly plague when Pericles decided to sail out against the Spartans and face them on their conquest. Thucydides tells us that “while the Peloponnesians were in Attica and the Athenians campaigning the sea, the plague went on killing Athenians, both in the army and the city. A result of this, we are told, is that the Peloponnesians left the country sooner out of fear of the plague, when they learned it was in the city from deserters and by seeing funerals. Still, this invasion was the longest they ever made in Attica- almost forty days- and they wasted all of the land”.[1] In Pericles’ eagerness, he left his city defenseless and at a very vulnerable time all for the sake of pride and glory.

There is a possibility that some of us could one day hold enough power that we are required to help make the decision to send the United States to war. If we are one day in that position, this story of Pericles should immediately come to mind. When deciding on sending our nation to war, we must always first consider if the nation is in a state where it could support a war. In the past, the success of the United States military in war has been possible because of the incredible war effort that happens on the home front. Without a stable home front and a nation that supports the military, success is much harder to come by.

Not all of us will one day be an admiral or general or in the position to send a nation to war, but we will all one day be responsible for a division or platoon of Sailors or Marines. We can easily take the lesson learned from Pericles and scale it down to this level. When we are responsible for taking a small group into battle, the same theme of making sure the home front is stable still applies. Our subordinates will have families and issues to take care of, and it is our responsibility as officers to help them. When a Sailor or Marine goes into battle stressing about their affairs on the home front, they will be less effective and could put the mission at stake. As officers, we have the authority to keep those Sailors or Marines out of the fight until they settle their issues. We must do everything in our power to help our subordinates settle their issues, or we have to make the decision to sideline them until issues are resolved. Failure to make that decision at the right time could result in failure like it did for Pericles.

Andrew Mitchell

Word Count: 490

[1] Thucydides- Military operations of 430

Is the Navy Actually a Confucian Bureaucracy???

The Confucian bureaucratic system of giving prestigious positions to those that score well on Confucian literacy tests is actually quite similar to the process by which the United States military conducts promotions and job placement. Both systems are overall quite successful in offering the best jobs to the best candidates, but they differ across a few fundamental principles. In one of his books The Analects, Confucius urges a young student to “Collect much information, put aside what is doubtful, repeat cautiously the rest; then you will seldom say what is wrong…With few mistakes in what you say and few regrets for what you do, your career is made.”^[1] Confucianism heavily stressed the power and necessity of knowledge for those in positions of power. This was made evident by the literacy exams that tested potential candidates’ knowledge on the books of Confucianism, and the higher someone scored on these exams the better their chances of holding a position. This system would work nicely in a perfect world where everyone had equal opportunity to study Confucian literature, but as Welty points out, “most Chinese, by reason of poverty, were unable to learn Confucian literature,” therefore those in the higher social classes had an advantage when it came to studying for these literacy exams.^[2] In practice, the Confucian system successfully ensured that public office holders were very knowledgeable and competent, but the advantage was clearly held by those who could afford to study for such exams.

I believe that the United States military uses a new and improved Confucian bureaucratic approach to promotion and job placement. The standard procedure for advancement in the military, specifically the Navy, is to study certain material about your job and be tested on that material in the same way Confucius believed in. Sailors take these advancement tests and apply for promotion, and as it turns out those that score higher have a better chance of being promoted in that application cycle. All of this is nearly identical to the Confucian system. The fundamental difference in the traditional Confucian system and the modern American military is that the American military not only stresses the importance of knowledge but also the need for a strong and competent leadership ability in its service members. When being considered for promotion, Sailors are evaluated for how they have led in the past and how their past experiences have shaped who they are. This ensures that Sailors are not just knowledgeable but also competent leaders. The other benefit of the military is that you do not have to worry about everyone having an equal opportunity for advancement. Those at the same level make the same amount of money and have the same benefits, so when it’s time to be considered for promotion, no one has an unfair advantage over someone else in regards to preparing for advancement exams. The Confucian bureaucracy is great in theory, but the American military has instituted a similar, more refined system that is more fair and practical.

Andrew Mitchell

Word Count: 512

^[1] Confucious- The Analects

^[2] Paul Thomas Welty- The Asians: Their Heritage and Their Dynasty

Rogue One: Athens Strikes Back

The ancient Athenian empire shares many similarities with the Galactic Empire of the Star Wars saga, most of them having to do with the fact that both empires were involved in conquests to take over and consume the resources of other small, less powerful colonies with the intentions to expand their empires and acquire more power. A very vivid picture of how the Galactic Empire was involved in such conquests takes shape on Jedha, a planet rich with the very valuable Kyber crystals, during the installment of the saga called Star Wars: Rogue One. The Galactic Empire desired to build a very powerful death machine, a planet destroyer, in order to make them the most respected power in the galaxy. They began conquering different planets and eventually came to Jedha where they found Kyber crystals. These Kyber crystals were essential to providing energy to power the planet destroyer. The Empire occupied the planet and forced the native people to assist in mining operations, and they Empire also enacted a very strict code of conduct for the natives and enforced it with terror tactics such as parading the streets with military vehicles. Once the Empire had mined all they wanted, they used the planet destroyer to destroy Jedha. The Empire was known for this type of behavior, taking advantage of weaker planets for their resources, then laying waste to and abandoning the planet.

The ancient Athenians exhibited very similar behavior during the Peloponnesian War. Thucydides enlightens us on some of the Athenian war tactics, telling us, “Putting out from Epidaurus they wasted the lands of Troezen, Halieis, and Hermoine (all places along the coast of the Argolid in the Peloponnesus). From there they sailed to Prasiae, a small maritime town of Laconia. There they wasted the land, took the town, and sacked it.”[1] The Athenians were preparing for war against the Spartans and expanding their empire, and they did not care what territory they needed to destroy in order to acquire the necessary war materials. Similar to how the Empire conscripted natives to work in the Kyber mines, the Athenians used slaves to fight in the military to waste villages and acquire war materials.

Both of these empires embarked on their conquests to amass wealth and power for war, and they eventually faced their opponents in battle. The Empire fought the rebels, the Athenians fought the Spartans, but both empires tasted bitter defeat in the end. The campaigns of the Athenians and the Galactic Empire portray how conquests based on the belittlement of other nations and the greedy expansion of power will eventually lead to defeat nations focused on such conquests.

Andrew Mitchell

Word Count: 443

[1] Thucydides, Military Operations

The Metics Were Scammed

Our RTTP debate made me realize that metics and slaves in Athens should have been given the access to citizenship like the Dreamers in the United States. The topic of enfranchisement for metics and slaves in ancient Athens is eerily similar to the debate over legal protection for Dreamers in the United States. In Athens, the debate was largely centered on the idea of giving metics- individuals who had immigrated or were born in Athens to non-Athenian parents- an established path to citizenship and the right to vote in the Assembly. The metic population was often heavily comprised of freed slaves and men who had served the city of Athens in battle. There was a massive population of slaves and metics in Athens, and those that were opposed to their enfranchisement most likely feared the power the slaves and metics would have once they could participate in the assembly. In America, there was a debate over whether we should deport individuals who had been brought to America illegally by their parents when they were children or if we should give them the chance to obtain citizenship. These “Dreamers” are often productive members of society who contribute much value to the work force.

Though similar in the nature of the debate, these two instances vary greatly in the execution of policy. In Athens, the Assembly never opened up citizenship to all slaves and metics. Demosthenes states that “many more menials may be observed among you speaking their minds with more liberty than citizens enjoy in other states,”[1] meaning the metics and slaves were given the freedom of speech, but Blackwell clarifies that though Demosthenes speaks of a freedom of speech, “he is certainly not talking about participation in the Assembly”.[2] These quotes serve to exemplify that the Athenian attitude towards enfranchisement for slaves and metics was far from supportive. Metics and slaves would have been extended more democracy if they had a program like DACA. In America, the DACA program provides a grace period from deportation for individuals that were illegally brought to the U.S. by their parents and allows them to find good jobs and apply for citizenship. Since its inception, the program “has opened new doors for undocumented youth, leading to a stronger economy for everyone”.[3] The metics and slaves never had access to the true democracy that they served, and an Athenian program like DACA would have provided a path for them to experience the same democracy that they defended in battle.

Word Count: 478

[1] Demosthenes, Philippic 3, 9.3

[2] Christopher W. Blackwell, “The Assembly,” in C.W. Blackwell, ed., Dēmos: Classical Athenian Democracy (A. Mahoney and R. Scaife, edd., The Stoa: a consortium for electronic publication in the humanities [www.stoa.org]) edition of March 26, 2003.

[3] Perez, Zenen Jaimes. “How DACA Has Improved the Lives of Undocumented Young People”. Center for American Progress. Published 29 November 2014. Accessed 2 March 2019.

Mob Rule: Why Should We Care?

The main difference between the American and Athenian democratic systems is the degree to which both guarded against the negative effects of mob rule. Due to the lack of a representative legislative body, the Athenian democratic system was more susceptible to harmful mob rule effects than the current American democratic system. A very popular example of the negative effects of mob rule in Athens is the fact that the public assembly voted to go to war with Sparta, a decision which ultimately led to the downfall of Athens. During the war, Pericles instructed the citizens to lock down the city and remain very conservative, and he promised that it would help win the war. Thucydides tells us that instead the public did “the very contrary, allowing private ambitions and private interests, in matters apparently quite foreign to the war, to lead them into projects unjust both to themselves and to their allies—projects whose success would only conduce to the honour and advantage of private persons, and whose failure entailed certain disaster on the country in the war.”[1] Thucydides is saying that since the citizens were given majority rule and their decisions were driven by anger and anxiety from the war, they were bound to make decisions that benefited the individual temporarily but not the state nor the future of the state. Even Aeschines condemned the state of the Athenian democracy and assembly, saying “there are men who do not hesitate to make illegal motions, and other men who are ready to put these motions to the vote”, meaning that the assembly had come to the point where there was no order and tradition because mob rule was beginning to take over.[2] Mob rule was a very real issue in the Athenian democracy because there was no official body that could counteract the decisions of the masses to ensure that decisions were made with the state in mind.

The American democratic system, more accurately described as a republic, is comprised of several institutions that guard against mob rule. The most prominent example is the elected legislative body we call Congress. The power of the people lies in the fact that they directly elect the legislative officials, but in the case that the public opinion shifts in a direction that may harm the state, the legislative body has the responsibility to withhold against the sudden sway of public opinion. Even if the legislature caves to the sudden sway of public opinion, the nationally elected President has the power to keep the legislature in check if he deems that the state may face harm. In the event that the President also caves to the public opinion, our court system has the power to reverse any decisions that violate the concrete Constitution of our nation. If even the courts decide to agree with a sudden sway of public opinion, it can be concluded that such a change in opinion will be helpful to the nation. The American system is so beautiful because each institution of our society has different and competing powers and agendas, ensuring almost to the point of certainty that a political takeover of a majority is impossible. Mob rule in America is non-existent because of the institutions of the government (elected by the people) that serve the goodwill of the state, not the individual.

-Andrew Mitchell

Word Count: 563

[1]History of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides

[2] Against Ctesiphon, Aeschines

Tyranny: Ancient and Modern

Nicolas Maduro, the controversial president of Venezuela, embodies the modern definition of a tyrant as well as the ancient Greek definition of a tyrant. In society today, the word “tyrant” always has a negative connotation, invoking thoughts of a ruler who violently seizes then abuses his or her absolute power and brings harm to his or her own constituents. The ancient Greeks, however, had a slight different definition of the word “tyrant”. To them, a tyrant was simply an autocratic ruler with complete power. That ruler did not have to abuse his power to be a deemed a tyrant; in fact, a tyrant in that era could be a fantastic ruler. The president of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, is considered a modern tyrant. He recently took over the presidency for a second six-year term, but not through a legitimate democratic process. The nation of Venezuela is going through a severe economic collapse with unemployment and poverty rates sky rocketing, and a majority of the country struggles to put food on the table. Violence is prevalent and many citizens are seeking to or have already fled the country. The nation is in a state of emergency. Maduro has taken advantage of this dark time in the nation and staged a “rigged election” with multiple reports of “coercion and fraud” in order to secure his most recent term.[1] Once he usurped the office of president, Maduro began “brutally torturing protesters” and his dissenters while also carrying out causeless killings.¹ He also took measures to decrease the power of the government institutions that opposed him in order to begin rewriting the constitution to give himself even more power.

The author of this article asserts that “Maduro has, in no uncertain terms, become a tyant,” and I completely agree.¹ He definitely complies with the modern definition of a tyrant: a ruler who takes his power by illegitimate means and uses that power for his own good with no regard for his constituents. A rigged election was his flavor of illegitimate means, and his power trip has resulted in the mistreatment of his opposition and just innocent citizens. I also believe that Maduro would fit the ancient definition of a tyrant. He is an autocratic ruler because he has stripped the power away from most government organizations, and he holds the institutions that still retain some power in the palm of his hand. The ancient Greeks would consider this ruler a tyrant, but most definitely in a negative way.

-Andrew Mitchell

Word count: 405

[1] Kliegman, Aaron. “Venezuela’s Tyant Gets Six More Years”. The Washington Free Beacon. January 10, 2019. https://freebeacon.com/blog/venezuelas-tyrant-gets-six-more-years/