Relevance of the Course: Introduction to the Historical Background and Context of Jus Ad Bellum

The United States Navy is a globally operational, maritime force. Its Sailors and Marine defend and support the United States Constitution across the world, inducing the inevitable interaction between American citizens and those of an entirely different world view. By harnessing a basic knowledge of the histories of these ancient civilizations, students and officers are better equipped to support a foundation upon which cultural appreciation, acknowledgement, and respect can be built. Such cultural competency is necessary to effectively operate in foreign environments, so as to successfully accomplish the mission and protect all those within the militant environment (“Building Language”). In many instances, a lack of historical and cultural understanding builds a barrier between both opposing and allied forces. Such a barrier can become dangerous and prove detrimental to mission success. The United States House of Representatives’ Committee on Armed Services (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations) report, Building Language Skills and Cultural Competencies in the Military: DOD’s Challenge in Today’s Educational Environment, published in November 2008, cites multiple instances this in which this barrier negatively impacts the operation.

One apparent piece of historical knowledge which will be abundantly relevant to our service of officers is our discussion on St. Augustine’s City of God, which has been the basis our of Just War Theory, Jus Ad Bellum. St. Augustine was the “founder of Christian thinking about what constitutes a just war” (Course Packet 144). This philosophy is applied to modern war justification. Its significance and relevance to our military system has been discussed in other courses here at the United States Naval Academy, notably in Ethics and Moral Reasoning for the Naval Leader. The introduction of the historical background of this philosophical work makes this course unique. It is necessary to understand completely our nation’s criteria for the justification of declaring and fighting wars; however, it is also meaningful to be aware of and comprehend the historical background of such philosophical thinking that is rudimentary to our current philosophy. Understanding the foundation upon which the philosophical ideals were established and the historical and cultural context in which they were written deserve our awareness and recognition. By reflecting on the fruition of such statutes, we may be better enabled to fulfill such ideals during our own time of service.

-Meagan Stevenson

Word Count:

Sources:

United States, Congress, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigations . “BUILDING LANGUAGE SKILLS AND CULTURAL COMPETENCIES IN THE MILITARY: DOD’s Challenge in Today’s Educational Environment .” BUILDING LANGUAGE SKILLS AND CULTURAL COMPETENCIES IN THE MILITARY: DOD’s Challenge in Today’s Educational Environment , 2008. https://armedservices.house.gov/_cache/files/3/7/3737c7c1-efeb-4672-bc99-74b340faf0ba/540DE3C82A9F532C584E402C683E8439.language-and-culture-report-11-08-vf.pdf

Appendix C of the Course Packet, St. Augustine, Selections from City of God and other writings

Similarities of the Mongolian and Macedonian Conquest and Empire

To much of the surprise of the Western world, the Mongol Empire expanded rapidly, both through use of brutality and tolerance. The Mongols were aggressive in battle, unlike the world had previously seen (Mongols in World History 1). They utilized novel military strategy and maintained heightened standards of skill and training. By these means, as well as psychological warfare which induced terror among those they conquered, the Mongols were able to spread rapidly, so much so that their conquest initiated the first direct contact between Europe and Eastern Asia.

Their military skill proved advantageous in the spread of their Empire, but the practice of tolerance, which anteceded their vicious brutality, often was the driving source of stability of their newly conquered lands. They assimilated well with other cultures and practiced both religious and cultural tolerance, which encouraged a mutually responsive and accepted relationship between the Mongols and newly conquered people (Mongols in World History 6). Such cohesiveness allowed their exaggerated expansion sustainable for the time of their rule.

Much like the Mongols, the Macedonians practiced brutality in conquering, but were also somewhat tolerant of local religions and customs. From a military perspective, the Macedonians were skilled and maintained technically abled fighting forces. Advanced skills and military innovations, such as the Macedonian phalanx and Torsion catapults, improved their ability in conquest quickly, allowing Alexander the Great to control one of the largest empires the world had yet seen. In respect to the tolerance practiced by Alexander the Great during his conquest, Alexander encouraged a “bicultural future” in which Macedonians were encouraged to adopt customs of those they had conquered (Demand 314). This helped to blend cultures and to ease the acquisition of power and maintenance of stability. He practiced “shared administration” and allowed those he had conquered, including the Persians, to be integrated into his Macedonian army (Demand 314). As well, Alexander went so far as to adopt certain dress and customs expected of rulers of his conquered lands in order to emphasize the legitimacy of his new authority.

Both the Mongol and Macedonian Empires practiced mutual cultural assimilation in order to encourage cohesion and stability of their newly conquered lands. While this tolerance is certainly unexpected to follow such vicious, military brutality, both of these peoples were able to successfully conquer new lands in an unprecedented, aggressive fashion, and then transition to a more positive and responsive culture.

-Meagan Stevenson

Sources: The Mongols in World History, p. 1-6 transcript of the text found at <http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/mongols>

Demand, Chapter 15, Alexander the Great, p. 314

*Sources can be found in class reading syllabus.

The Significance of Control According to Sun Tzu and USNA

The overarching philosophy of Sun Tzu’s Art of War emphasizes the incredible significance of control within the business of warfighting. Sun Tzu characterizes control in many ways in his written piece, including two of his Five Fundamentals “Command” and “Discipline”. While he defines these as “Wisdom, Integrity, Compassion, Courage, Severity” and “Organization, Chain of Command, Control of Expenditure” respectively, these can also be identified as control of others and control of self (Sun-tzu 4). Sun Tzu continues in his Art of War, describing the strategy of war as “A Way of Deception”, clarifying that “Ultimate Excellence lies not in winning every battle but in defeating the enemy without Ever fighting” (Sun-tzu 6). One could perceive this as another form of control; control of perception and appearance. By strategizing deceptively, one controls the enemy’s perception of the future and can effectively accomplish this by strictly controlling their own appearance. Sun Tzu later concluded his Art of War by affirming that the art of war is “the Art of Managing Many…the Mastery of Spirit…the Master of Change” (Sun-tzu 43-44). All of these descriptions can be redefined control of others, control of self, and control of change, respectively. Overall, Sun Tzu’s Art of War is the art of maintaining control.

This is similar to lessons taught at the United States Naval Academy. Discipline is impressed upon each midshipman who passes through the curriculum and training of this institution, and remains a vital portion to the development of each military leader. Much like Sun Tzu expresses, discipline is used in order to develop attributes such as wisdom, honor, courage, dedication, and an effective chain of command. Above all, discipline develops control of self and of one’s people. Through discipline, midshipmen learn control.

As to which way is the more effective way of war, the United States Naval Academy’s version of discipline is superior in the facet of disciplining others. Sun Tzu expresses ideas of “managing others” as a way to control their behavior most effectively, thereby eluding to the process of controlling others so as to use them most effectively. However, at the United States Naval Academy, to control others is to instil discipline within them so that they too may be better suited to complete the mission at hand, but also become a more developed, self actualized individual. The United States Navy trains and disciplines its sailors so that they may be the most efficient warriors in the military community, but it also invests in its people so that they may grow. This recognition on the needs, individuality, and humanity of its lower ranked fighting forces makes the discipline philosophy of the United States Naval Academy more efficient than the philosophy of Sun Zhu.

Sources: Sun-tzu, The Art of War. Trans. John Minford. London: Penguin, 2009.

-Meagan Stevenson

Word Count: 465

Power Vacuums in History: the Macedonian Diadochi and Post Colonial Mexico 1821-1860

Alexander the Great died in 323 BCE, leaving behind a massive empire which sprawled across the known world. Dying before giving his empire a proper heir, political strife ensued and the outcome was the Diadochi. This group was Alexander’s ‘successor generals’ who used their military power to carve the inherited empire into distinct regions, which they themselves began to rule individually (Demand 330). Alexander’s stable administrative apparatus is resembled somewhat by the period following Mexico’s War of Independence from Spain nearly two thousand years later in history. Once finally detached from the Royal Crown of Spain, there created in the ‘new world’ of conquered land a vacuum of power. For those living in this place previously considered an European empire, there were two institutional bases of power, the Church and the military (Green 50). These groups dominated national politics, and, as a result, Mexico has at least fifty separate presidencies in the forty year period following the war for independence. Majority of these regimes were led by army officers, whose basic means of winning presidential offices was a military coup (Green 50). The most prominent similarity between these two events is the removal of an empirical monarch power structure resulting in a power vacuum that can only legitimately be filled by the strongest surviving institution of the respective society, in which both of these events is the military.

Despite this striking similarity, the two historical events are by no means mirror occurrences. Those ‘successor generals’ wielded the support of their armies and rivaled each other. This was the major source of conflict within the Macedonian Empire after Alexander’s death. For the newly independent colony of New Spain, the conflict was not just limited to the rival ‘caudillos’ competing for the presidency of the new nation. The society of those born in the Americas had cultivated a hatred for any Spanish born person, and its social structure changed during its war of independence. This change was institutionalized when the new government decreed that any Spaniard was henceforth banished from Mexico, which served to ultimately remove the upper class from Mexican society (Green 50). Such a tumultuous societal change did not occur in response to Alexander the Great’s death in 323 BCE as did in Mexico in the late 1820s.

Given these two historical examples, the events of the past create a strong argument of the necessity of strong institutions in which the people can participate. Within the midst of a power vacuum, which can cause drastic and dangerous changes within a society, those groups which yield legitimate authority, meaning the ability to coerce a population by force, will be the ones to fight for power. These groups tend to be institutions such as the military, which lead to autocratic regimes. However, if there were efficient institutions in which the majority of the population could participate, the dominance of autocratic groups may be prevented. Therefore, nation-states today which may face power vacuums as a result of political upheaval or strife must first consider the strength and legitimacy of those institutions which will remain after such conflict.

-Meagan Stevenson

Word Count: 514

Works Cited

Demand ch.15 Alexander the Great (taken from syllabus)

Green, Skidmore, & Smith. Modern Latin America. Eighth Edition, Oxford

University Press, 2014. Print.

Imperialistic Commonality Shared by 5th Century Athenian Democracy and 20th Century American Democracy

IThe Athenian Democracy of the 5th Century BCE and the American Democracy of the early 20th Century are similar, yet distinct, regimes. Each share similarities with the each other while maintaining certain contrasts. One of the most significant commonalities of this Athenian Democracy and American Democracy is each regime’s practice of militaristic imperialism, as displayed by the historical events of Athens’ Empire, the Delian League, and the ‘Big Stick’ Diplomacy of the Roosevelt government in the first decade of the 20th Century.

The Athenian Empire was a key characteristic of the Athenian democratic system; arguably, the two were simultaneously the cause and the effect of each other. Athens’ ‘first citizen’ spoke of his city as an empire, as Pericles is quoted to have said “[F]or what you possess, to speak plainly, is a tyranny. It may have been wrong to acquire your empire, but it would be folly to give it up” according to ancient historian, Thucydides ( Thucydides 2.63). Such a claim reinforces the status of the empire which itself served to lay siege to many Greek cities near the Aegean Sea, earning the Athenians increased wealth in phoros and increased influence in the region. One of the most aggressive imperialistic acts of this new naval superpower of the Aegean was the capturing of Melos in 416 BCE. Determined to overtake the neutral city, the Athenians arrived at the island of Melos, demanding the Melians entrance into the Delian League. Emboldened rather than disheartened by the Melian refusal, the Athenians captured the island, enforcing that the “strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must” (Thucydides V.89). Melos befell a similar fate to that of the other Greek cities of the Delian League, as the Athenians murdered or sold into slavery the cities’ original population, and populated the city thereafter themselves. The Athenians applied their superior naval might to a policy of militaristic imperialism ultimately to accomplish a goal of self-servitude.

The American ‘Empire’ was not identical to the Athenian Empire, but shared many notable similarities. In reference to American imperialism within the realm of Central America, President Theodore Roosevelt audaciously confessed to having taken the Canal Zone of the nation of Panama after having aided an insurrection, provided protection to the new government of Panama, and signed a treaty with this new state (which the American government conveniently recognized immediately as sovereign from Nicaragua) (https://www.shapell.org/manuscript/theodore-roosevelt-panama-canal-zone/#transcripts). Such bold claims surrounding American entanglements in foreign affairs reinforced a ‘new’ kind of American Diplomacy secured by the Roosevelt Corollary of the Monroe Doctrine. This American imperialism reached from colonies in Puerto Rico and the Philippines, to protectorates in Cuba, Panama, and other Latin American nations, as well as to open door policies in China (http://oxfordre.com/americanhistory/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-83). This kind of foreign policy by the American regime under the Roosevelt government is ‘Big Stick’ Diplomacy, founded upon the West African proverb “speak softly and carry a big stick” of which the American President was fond (https://www.britannica.com/event/Big-Stick-policy). In practice, this foreign policy assured military action by the superior American naval fleet in the event diplomacy failed to produce the results the American government aspired.

Given the above descriptions, the imperialistic patterns of the two democracies are synonymous. Both regimes maintained governments which verbally reinforced the demands of the corresponding empire, while allowing its naval forces to ensure that the aspirations of the regime were fulfilled. The sentiments of each regime, as expressed by the Athenians at Melos and by Roosevelt through the West African proverb, are of the same accord: accept the demands of the empire, or face the consequences of its superior military power.

-Meagan Stevenson

Word Count: 598

Trujillo: A Modern ‘Tyrant’

In his article, “A Museum of Repression Aims to Shock the Conscience”, Randal Archibold secedes that Rafael Trujillo, formal dictator of the Dominican Republic in the 20th century, has earned his place in “tyranny hall of fame” as determined by historians. Archibold cites ‘El Jefe’s’ crimes against common humanity during over 30 years of dictator rule, disclosing details of horrible suffering, widespread use of torture, and repressive authority which have ingrained upon the hearts of those who endured the Trujillo era bloodstained memories. Trujillo, the ‘Feasting Goat’, was undoubtedly a nefarious, corrupt ruler, capitalizing on the anguish of his citizens, and by common understanding of the word ‘tyrant’, would absolutely fall under such a category. However, while Trujillo represents modern understanding of the word ‘tyrant’, his rein does not coincide with ancient conceptions of tyranny.

The pejorative connotation of ‘tyranny’ conceptually has not always been true. Trujillo was oppressive, corrupt and in place of power, fulfilling modern definitions and schemas of a tyrant. Correctly fulfilling the modern definition nonetheless does not fulfill ancient perceptions of the accepted exemplification of a tyrant. Historians have identified ‘tyrants’ of thousands of years ago, yet these ancients tyrants are not comparable with the tyranny of ‘El Jefe’. Ancient tyrants did not bear such misgivings about their rein as do modern tyrants. This primarily could be a consequence in the amount of innocent blood spilt in order to acquiesce power. Ancient tyrants were at some points appointed their positions; modern tyrants illegitimately abduct power from others. The purpose of such regime types in ancient and modern history differ as well. Ancient tyrants were expected to improve the standard of living of the populus, which had slipped due to, as often believed, decaying morality of previous rulers. Modern tyrants are self-serving, claiming to represent the people as means to make profit. Another pointed difference of ancient and modern tyrants is the level of violence evoked and practiced by the regime. As ancient tyrants were appointed willingly by the populus, their rein had little need for the use of violence and faced little violence in return. Modern tyrants typically gain power with blood on their hands, and must use violence to maintain repression of any insurgency.

One might argue that modern and ancient tyrants do have some similarities, therefore allowing Trujillo the same tyrannical legacy as that of ancient rulers. An argument could be made that suggested that both modern and ancient tyrants exercise an unlimited degree of power within their respective states, and therefore, are the same. However, this argument falls short if one were to consider the legitimacy of such power as deemed by the people and outside states. In ancient times, it was accepted that tyrants possessed such powers. In modern times, the opposite is true.

Therefore, Archibold’s conclusion that Rafael Trujillo belongs in the category of tyrants maintains insofar that the author is referring the modern day paradigm of a ‘tyrant’. Archibold’s conclusion becomes inaccurate if one were to consider ancient standards of a tyrant.

-Meagan Stevenson

Word Count: 506

Work Cited

Trujillo: A Modern ‘Tyrant’

-Meagan Stevenson

Word Count: 506

Work Cited