The Art of War Used Today

I believe that the most relevant civilization we have studied compared to our military today is Ancient China, more specifically, Sun Tsu’s teachings. A lot of his teachings are taught in our military today. We employ the same tactics and promote the same mindset when it comes to succeeding in a war. It is important to accumulate teachings and mistakes of the past and use them to further improve our own military today. Sun Tsu’s teachings is useful for me to learn and practice as a future officer.

As future officers we will be employing tactics regardless of our service selections. It is important to understand the fundamentals of war, which is outlined by Sun Tsu’s The Art of War. Sun Tsu shares five essentials for victory to include “know when to fight and when to fight; have officers and men who share a single will”[1] (18). It is important for a command and especially a wardroom to be on the same page and share the same interests when it comes to military activity. A wardroom that is not on the same page can be very dysfunctional and would negatively impact the entire command. This would bring down efficiency and overall decrease the morale. One thing I can do to uphold this standard on my part is to understand the Commanding Officer’s intent and really push that mission in regards to upholding it and also promoting it to get my subordinates to have the same goals as myself and the Commanding Officer.

I believe that the most important aspect in being a successful officer is to be able to remain composed and make smart decisions during difficult and stressful times. Sun Tsu states that a warrior shall, “confront chaos with discipline; he treats tumult with calm” (45). If one is intelligent but is unable to perform under pressure, they are useless because they cannot fulfill a mission. When I was on deployment on the Los Angeles Class Submarine, USS Charlotte, I witnessed many officers standing Officer of the Deck. It was clear which officers were actually fit to stand that watch station while on mission. On mission, every action taken is at very high stakes and requires very quick and intelligent decisions. Many officers had to be assisted by the Commanding Officer because of the stress level. Situations like this differentiate the good officers from the officers that cannot be trusted in demanding situations.

We develop our military and trainings based on lessons learned from the past. We study mistakes made in previous wars and tailor our trainings to ensure we do not make the same mistakes. We also learn from other civilizations’ military tactics to include Ancient China’s teachings of Sun Tsu. His teachings are widely used in today’s military in ensuring that we are tactical in war and have the right mindset to make intelligent decisions in order to succeed in battle.

-Kevin Semma

Word Count: 456

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

Relentless Regimes

The Mongol Empire was a very brutal regime that had no limits. They conquered in all directions to include most of Central Asia and even Eastern Asia. A regime in history that is somewhat similar to the Mongols in regards to conquest and brutality, is the German Nazis during World War II. Like the Mongols, the Nazis were relentless in their conquest in murdering the Jewish people to include women and children in unethical warfare. The Mongol Empire and German Nazis have some similarities in their ruthless acts of war-fighting and conquest.

The Mongols conquered other cities for the sake of their warfighting mentality and revenge. Temujin took it upon himself to reunite the Mongol empire and conquered surrounding tribes in the process. Temujin describes their purpose as, “Man’s greatest good fortune is to chase and defeat his enemy, seize all his possessions, leave his married women weeping and wailing”[1] (400). During their conquests, the Mongols would slaughter all enemies (including women and children), rape women, cut open pregnant women’s wombs, and boil enemy chiefs. During World War II, the German Nazis were similar to the Mongols in their level of brutality. They were relentless in killing their enemies to also include women and children. They used immoral warfare to include gas chambers. They were able to gain power quickly with their strong military, similar to the Mongols.

Obviously, the Mongols and Nazis had many differences. The Nazis targeted a specific group of people, being the Jewish, while the Mongols would slaughter anybody in their way. The Nazis also did conquer many cities, but for the sake of spreading their beliefs of the “superior race” and capturing Jewish people. The reason the Nazis were able to get away with what they were doing for a while, was through propaganda. Adolf Hitler convinced his people that what they were doing was morally right and deceived other nations using propaganda. In this case, Adolf Hitler can be related to Genghis Khan because of their ruthless leadership in conquest and rule. Another major difference is that the Mongols’ conquest lasted over a century while the Nazis only lasted a few years before being defeated.

I believe that although both Mongols and Nazis conducted inhumane tactics in warfighting, the German Nazis are more heavily criticized because of the time period, and it has had more of an impact on today’s society since WWII took place only about seventy-five years ago as opposed to the Mongolian regime which took place in the twelfth and thirteenth century. Most of society now does not understand the terrifying Mongols and their impact on Central Asia and Eastern Europe in early history especially since the Mongol history is still not fully understood.

-Kevin Semma

Word count: 432

[1] Spodek

Sun Tsu vs. Naval Academy

Sun Tsu’s Art of War is very practical and in many ways applies to our own military in America. The philosophy of Sun Tsu consists the essentials of winning a war to include how one must lead, follow, and perform tactics. He has five fundamentals that he bases his path to success: The way, heaven, earth, command, and discipline. With these fundamentals, there are both overlapping and opposing teachings between Sun Tsu’s Art of War and the Naval Academy.

Sun Tsu provides some common requirements to winning a war. He promotes tactics such as, “Attack where he is unprepared; appear where you are unexpected”[1] (7). He believes that with a successful military, an organized approach is necessary. There must be a ranking system with a leader who must be obeyed to the fullest. The leader must show obvious traits in a frontrunner like courage and integrity. I believe that the Naval Academy heavily teaches us two of Sun Tsu’s fundamentals: command and discipline. In our leadership and ethics classes and in many of our trainings, they harp us on characteristics we should contain as future officers. They especially reiterate integrity. The honor system here is very harsh for a reason. It is important to do the right thing, even when there is nobody around watching. Integrity is easy to lose and near impossible to earn back once lost. At the Naval Academy, you will get in a lot more trouble for cheating on a test than driving under the influence. The idea seems a little obscure but makes sense. It is important to set an example to our subordinates by being trustworthy. We are also taught to be leaders with courage. We learn about distinguished graduates all the time. One thing they all share is that they have done something that is very distinctive that required an enormous amount of courage.

We practice discipline at the Naval Academy every single day. We have a chain of command that we rely on and use on an everyday basis. We also have a very structured organization in everyday requirements and schedule. We are obligated to go to formations in the morning and lunch time, go to classes, participate in sports period, do homework, sign taps, and attend any other military duties. This follows closely to what Sun Tsu believes leads to a successful military. His other fundamentals to include: the way, heaven, and earth not taught here in the Academy. Of course we are taught that there is a chain of command that is above you and should be followed. But we are also taught that we shall only carry out lawful orders. If a Captain gives you an order that you believe is wrong, you are expected to respectfully challenge that order. Sun Tsu would not agree with this sense of what we call watch-team-backup. He says, “The way causes men to be of one mind with the rulers” (5). I believe that this is a hazardous approach to conduct dangerous tasks, especially in the military. Regardless of how experienced somebody may be, everybody makes mistakes. This is why we are taught to have a questioning attitude and not to blindly follow orders.

Sun Tsu teaches principles that worked for war in Ancient China. Although some of his teachings has evolved over time, the Naval Academy still engraves some of the same foundations as Sun Tsu. The biggest similarity between his teachings and what we learn now is the organization that includes a chain of command. The biggest difference is the fact that we are expected to have a questioning attitude and to challenge our leaders respectfully. This goes to prove that we still base our military on past experiences and teachings.

-Kevin Semma

Word count: 597

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

Alexander vs. Modern Egypt’s Regime

In our ancient history studies, it is clear that in many instances there were no legitimate or smooth transitions in a regime change. One example of this is before, during, and after Alexander the Great’s ruling. He used the power of his army to seize control as King. There were no successors that were set to take over if he were killed, which was a likely case for somebody with that much power. This is similar to the issue we have had in the Middle East, more specifically, modern Egypt. Their corrupted government does not contain a law that limits the term of the president. As long as the president is alive and is not overthrown, he remains in control. There are many similarities and differences in a change of regime between Modern Egypt and Alexander the Great.

Alexander came to power after his father, King Philip II was assassinated. This reign did not occur automatically, even though he was the son. Family members were assassinated and Alexander the Great ensured to use his army to conquer land in order to gain the support of the Corinthian League. During his rule, he conquered the Persian Empire and became King after assassinating Darius the II and lying to Darius’ supporters. With all of the power and wealth that Alexander was almost bound to be assassinated. What intrigues me the most is the fact that someone with as much supremacy as Alexander the Great had “no arrangements for the succession… they agreed that Roxane’s unborn son, if it turned out to be a boy, should be king under their combined regency” (130).[1] They were lucky in the sense that the unborn child did happen to be a boy, but it would be years until he was ready to rule. In the meantime, the army had no choice but to take control. A lot of the land that Alexander conquered, became independent.

This situation, in many ways, is similar to Modern Egypt’s presidency. One difference would be that they hold an election to designate their president, whether or not it is a fair election is unknown. Once a president is chosen, he remains in office until physically incapable, dead or, in their case during their revolution in 2011, overthrown. Hansi Mubarak was president for about 30 years when he was forced to resign by military action due to his unpopular decision making and disagreeing to a fair election. Like after the assassination of Alexander the Great, the military was briefly in power. After 16 months of no legitimate president or election, Mohomed Morsi was elected. Even he was overthrown, leading to a new election. This revolution led to thousands of dead civilians, policemen, and members of the military.[2] This is an issue that is caused by a corrupt government with no means of a fair election for rule.

It is clear that even in today’s regimes, there are still issues that have existed dating back to Alexander the Great’s supremacy. It is true that history repeats itself even if not in the exact manner. A solution to this issue would be similar to what the US has developed in the amendments that limit the presidential term to four-year terms. The ability to impeach a president is also available. Although it seems as if we have a system that works, there is no perfect way to run the government. Solving issues that have occurred in the past would be a step towards the right direction.

-Kevin Semma

Word count: 562

[1] Demand Ch. 15 Alexander the Great

[2] Masad, Ilana. “What Happened to the Revolution in Egypt?” The Washington Post, WP Company, 3 Mar. 2017, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-happened-to-the-revolution-in-eqypt/2017/03/03/96c79c9c-e68f-11e6-b82f-687d6e6a3e7c_story.html?utm_term=.e924d2009937.

Evolution of Democracy

In 2019 it is simple to criticize the ancient Greek democracy that was established over 2,400 years ago. It is a bit more challenging to obtain the perspective of the ancient Greeks and their creation of the first democracy. Society back then was a lot different, to include their views on women’s roles in society along with the slaves. We can critique them for not including women in their assembly but there is no value in that from a 2019 perspective because that is just the way that society was and how it evolved to the way that is now. With the evolution of democracy and the law-making criteria, it is obvious that today’s representative model of democracy is a better way to govern than the original and direct Athenian model.

People will argue that today’s democracy is not a true democracy because not every citizen have a say in every proposed law and decision in the government. This is true but does not make our democracy an inferior system. A true democracy where every citizen has a say in the decisions made, would be far too inefficient. One major difference between current democracy and ancient Greek’s was that they had citizens selected at random to sit in an assembly and vote on the topics that day. The major flaws in this method are that it is inefficient and allows some uneducated people to vote while the educated do not. This led to illogical and harsh decisions that can truly effect ones’ life, for example, in their direct democracy they “voted on whether or not they believed there was someone in the city who was becoming so popular as to threaten the democracy… they selected one man to exile from the city for ten years” (27)[1] With only a limited amount of people voting on this cause, one uneducated person has a significant influence of the outcome. In today’s democracy, we elect representatives to make decisions for us. This is efficient because it saves time for our citizens and allows law-making decisions faster and smoother of a process. There are, just like any other form of governments, its flaws. “Since the 1970s, voter participation in the United States has been around only 50 to 60 percent. Voter participation from households earning $30,000 or less has been even lower, at about 30 percent”[2]. These statistics show that the citizens are not as involved in the government as today’s democracy was meant to be. The poor are not voting, most likely because they are not educated enough to vote. Therefore, the rich are benefiting from democracy because they are voting more due to their education level. This is something that the ancient Greeks were attempting to fix by creating a democracy, and we in America after all these years have still not figured out.

It is clear that both ancient Greek’s direct democracy and our current representative democracy have their flaws. With the context of today’s society versus the Greek’s, it is apparent that their government was more corrupt. We have allowed all of our legal and of-age citizens the ability to vote regardless of their ethnicity or education level. Although the Greeks had more flaws, they are still the government that shaped ours today. It was due to their failures that allowed our government to be more successful although there is still room for improvement.

-Kevin Semma

Word count: 494

[1] Ober, Josiah, et al. “The Threshold of Democracy: Athens in 403 BCE (4th Edition).” Reacting to the Past, reacting.barnard.edu/curriculum/published-games/athens.

[2] Moyo, Dambisa. “America’s Decaying Democracy.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 7 June 2018, http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/theworldpost/wp/2018/06/07/american-democracy/?utm_term=.e128d14381d7.

Tyranny or Oppression?

Tyranny was originally defined by the Greeks as a ruler who held absolute control without permissible limitations of a state under law and did not inherit the power. The original idea of a tyrant was not meant to have a negative connotation. Throughout time, society has developed a false perception of the definition of tyranny. We now see tyranny as a government with a ruler who conducts harsh unconstitutional actions. This misconception came from the history of the cruelty and injustice shaped by these tyrants. The word “tyranny” has evolved over history and is shown in an article titled “The Tyranny of Personality Testing” by J.C. Pan, where the author misuses the word tyranny to describe a non-ethical act rather than the ancient use of “tyranny”.

Pan describes the original and new purposes behind the Myer-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) test. This personality test was designed for self-awareness so that people could figure out what role they play in society in order to be happy. This allowed people to choose things like their college or occupation based on their strengths and personality. Throughout time, an ethical dilemma developed with the test. Companies started using the test to base whether or not an applicant was fit for the job. This act was seen as discrimination towards personalities. Although the test was initially created for self-knowledge, “up to 70% of Americans have taken a personality test as part of a job application” (Pan). Some companies use this test for positive training in order for workers to develop communication skills and improve their weaknesses. Other companies, on the other hand, use this test as a binary system to determine one’s effectiveness. According to the article, many college students and applicants feel violated when told to take the test.

The author of the article only uses the word tyranny in the article which implies that the negative uses of the MBTI test is an act of tyranny. This use of tyranny only makes sense if you use the modern connotation of the word. People view tyranny as using power for illegitimate purposes like when describing Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler. In the case of the personality test, these companies are using the test in a discriminating sense to hire who would be the best worker based on the test. In reality, a simple test cannot define somebody or their work ethic. This use of the word “tyranny” does not fit with the original use of the word defined by the Ancient Greeks. In this situation, there is not a leader of a state who is ruling. They are only people who use a test to determine whether or not somebody gets a job, and the person with the “power” to hire somebody obviously has limitations of what they are allowed to do. Using this word with the new interpretation of the word is a bit of a stretch too if somebody perceives tyranny as having a ruler that commits harsh actions such as gauging eyes or decapitation. This article proves that there are many perceptions of the word “tyranny” that stray from the original definition.

Pan, J.C. “The Tyranny of Personality Testing.” The New Republic, 11 Sept. 2018, newrepublic.com/article/151098/personality-brokers-book-review-invention-myers-briggs-type-indicator.

-Kevin Semma

Word count: 503