6: History in the Fleet

History is an integral part of our arsenal as a military. Not only does it teach us the lessons it provides us with guidance for similar situations. In the context of understanding the history of ancient civilizations, naval officers have a lot to learn and can using history to make better decisions whether diplomatic or tactical. In specific we have a lot to learn from the Ancient civilization of Athens, which in its time, was one of the most influential and powerful navies in the world. Since we are in the business of securing democracy and ensuring that the freedom of seas is a lesson we can learn from the ancient city. THough democracy to the rest of the world was not on their mind at the time, it is easy to see how we can take their imperialistic might and transfer that to a strength reserved for more moral ventures like the protection of trading lanes. Themistocles devised a plan to strike at the other naval rivals in the area by building a 200 ship fleet of triremes, the most advanced combat vessel of the day. his use of this fleet to control these commercial routes is also in our playbook of a foreign power. Whether we learned it from Athens is another story, but we can learn that it is extremely important to have power over your commercial interest in the sea. Interestingly enough, one of our more powerful methods of maintaining control of the seas is through interest rates. According to the Center for International Maritime Security, areas that are not secured by the US Navy have extremely high-interest rates internationally. This is no coincidence, we have learned through history that a good way to maintain oversight of the seas commercially, is to ensure a protected zone where everyone is likely to travel. We strategically map these areas most if not all major business travel these lanes, solidifying our control of the commercial sea lanes. Another important lesson is “it is never too late to build a navy”. As we see Themistocles did, we have a varying strength when it comes to the overall size of our navy. We have learned through history that, cost-wise, it is better to fluctuate with world tension. Though I think one of the most important lessons that we are at least beginning to learn is quality of quantity. Triremes were extremely advanced, Themistocles could have built cheaper but more ships, yet he chooses superior vessels. This ideology has also been adopted by our own navy. There are so many things to learn from ancient civilizations. Athens is a great place to start.

Source: http://cimsec.org/lessons-history-themistocles/13095

Word Count: 444

The War on Terror: The Modern Medieval

Many throughout the years have compared our current goal to eliminate terrorist organizations, specifically ISIS, as the modern-day crusade. This both misuses the word crusade and misuses the word medieval. In fact, I think the use of the word crusade brings about an unnecessary antisemitism in the US. Many politicians have referred to our involvement in the war against terrorism as a crusade and likewise, some of the terrorist organizations tie the same parallel in an attempt to gain momentum and draw a comparison to the crusades in order to be divisive and separate the world into jihadist and crusaders.

Most dangerously, far-right political groups use the term in an attempt to justify their calls for Islamophobia. Noticeably news organizations like Breitbart make the parallel to support their argument for the expulsion of Muslim foreigners and the general isolation of the religion. In the most modern context, the use of words like medieval brings a context to the terrorist and the general middle east that suggest that they are savages, less than, of a less than civilized era. Using the word medieval to describe terrorist organizations suggest that their religion is somehow innately evil and prone to violence. Many people have pointed to text in their sacred book to make this comparison and justify their fear of the religion. It is interesting that these terrorist organizations, at times, also point to text in Bible that do the same thing. Instead, these terrorist organizations use their text and the history of the crusade to justify their use of violence in defense of their people. Much like these terrorist organizations, a far-right organization like the Kansas Crusaders due the same. Think of the name crusades, it suggests that there is some divine power that has demanded that we fight terrorist also pointing to experts of violence. Is this not the same ideology of the terrorist organizations?

Using the word medieval suggest that these terrorist have technology that is insufficient and their societies are less than sufficient to survive. It paints them as savages and tying this terrorist with any person that is from the middle eastern region is a very dangerous thing to do. It underestimates the ability of ISIS., in fact, this organization is a result of the breakup of the Ottoman Empire in the 20th century. It uses some of the same modern communications and movement techniques and it is so modern that our military has had to change our tactics to account for their insurgency style fighting. The uses of the word medieval to describe this horrible organization are not accurate and we should be careful to compare the two if we want to defeat them. Moreover comparing this to a modern crusade is yet another dangerous precedent to set. If we want to end terrorism, we should be careful to stop fueling their base by assuming the middle easter equals violent terrorist.

Words: 485

Source: https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/16/opinions/nothing-medieval-about-isis-perry/index.html Crusader_Christ__warned_ISIS_about

Sun Tzu: The Art of Midshipmenry

By; Quinton Cooper The-Art-of-the-Deal-Vs.-The-Art-of-War-650x360

The art of war is one of the most heavily studied passages for military leadership in the world. It has earned its title as the premier guide to the concept of war and is timeless. If it is so essentially and has proved its efficacy: Why isn’t it a required reading for midshipmen. By required reading, I mean a plebe summer reading. If midshipmen read The Art of War I think we would be enlightened by many of the shocking yet effective tactics that Sun Tzu notes.

From the very beginning of the work, Sun Tzu notes something that I think many midshipmen are confused and mostly ignorant of. Walking through Bancroft, the “warheads on foreheads”, and “Let’s just go to war” comments are common. If midshipmen were required to read The Art of War I think that this immature and underdeveloped view of our role as a military would go away. The very first point made in The Art of War is ” War is a grave affair of state; It is a place of life and death, a road to survival and extension, matters to be pondered carefully” (Sun Tzu 1). Contrary to the motivations here at USNA from students and military staff alike, we should be more careful of our rhetoric when it comes to going to war. We often forget that yes we may be defending our nation, but in that effort, we lose lives and take lives. To that point, we should ponder even the thought of violence more carefully instead of throwing comments like “let’s just blow them up”.

I think a more holistic view of the concepts and practice that make up our very profession would be useful. We often talk about learning from the past and there is no better way than to learn from a piece of literature that has proven to be beneficial to many practitioners of war. USNA may teach of the loose ethics of war and teach of leadership, but its convoluted way of teaching is not nearly as plain put as it should be. Instead, we sit in classes learning about how to lead instead of just leading. Making the Art of War a required reading, I think would be the best step we could take towards learning the very basics of our trade. Maybe then we could branch out to more broad topics of leadership and ethics.

Source: The Art of War

Word Count: 402

The Christian Cult

While Christianity today may be looked to as a faith of grace and good practices, in its beginning many did not see Christianity in its modern light. Notably, THe Romans were extremely frightened and suspicious of the practices and actions of the new religion. This fear seems reasonable considering some of the admittedly odd phrases and actions of the religion. phrases like “The blood and body of Christ” struck observers as being practitioners of cannibalism. Today if we were to hear of a group of people who ate the body and drank the blood of a man, we would probably freak out and seek the end of such a horrendous cult, so it is no surprise that in its early stages, Christianity was under a close microscope by the Romans.

In a letter Pliny wrote to Emperor Trajan, he wrote his concerns of Christianity and said very strongly that those who persisted to claim the Christian faith are to be executed. Interestingly, Trajan responded that Christians who prove they are not or have abandoned the faith, are to be pardon under the principle of repentance. This fear seemed to be heavy and it was corroborated by the emperor. Most noticeably in the letter to the Emporer, Pliny considers the size of Christianity. He notes that he must get the consultation from the Emporer because there are so many people converting to Christianity. He writes that ” the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages” (Pliny). He then goes on to point out that the best way to stop this possibility is to assert an extremely harsh punishment for being Christian, and then establish an opportunity for repentance. He thinks that this will reform people based on their fear of the punishment. He also has some sympathy it seems as he tells the Emperor that they don’t bind themselves to crime or hate, instead to not commit fraud, theft, adultery, not lying, and many other noble practices.

In reference to the execution of Christians, I do not think it was necessary to kill Christians, but because of the inflexibility of the governing emperor, It is easy to see how he might have suspicions that worshiping a new god might prove to be detrimental to his control of the Empire. However, because investigations showed that Christianity was not a cult, instead of a group of people who take an oath to noble and honorable practices. The employer should have instead allowed it.

Source: http://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/texts/pliny.html

Word Count: 417

Electoral College: The need for a Direct Democracy

161101154244-electoral-college-explainer-animation-orig-00002708-full-169 Democracy is a rather complex system of government that takes on a lot of issues that other types of government have no tolerance for. Namely mob rule, emotions, feelings of the public, and the wants of citizens. The US founding fathers made sure to attempt to address much of these issues by establishing a system of representation. This method of democracy eliminates mob rule and eliminates the possibility for people, purely based on emotion, to change the way the country is governed. A system of continuous checks and balances along with a system of representatives voting instead of per citizen saves a lot of time, money, and perhaps the very fate of the nation. Unfortunately, a direct democracy isn’t realistic for every piece of legislation that the government would like to pass. Though there is room for a direct democracy in some aspects of our democracy.

In the Athenian form of democracy, every citizen was granted a voice on many of the issues that concerned the democracy. This form of government seems to better fit our popular saying “a government for the people, by the people”. Though direct democracy isn’t the best for the everyday rule, in larger elections, direct democracy might be the best option. One of the biggest examples of where direct democracy should be applied is in the Presidential Election. The fact that even after individual citizens vote, there still is another leg of voting, the electoral college, which is meant as another filter for the mob rule, negates the purpose of voting in the Presidential election. Huffington Post notes that “The Distribution of Electoral College Votes Per State is Not Equally Dispersed, A Person Can Become President By Winning Only 21.8% of the Popular Vote” (Huffington Post). All of these things are not that efficient and contradict the spirit of a democracy “for the people”. Athenian direct democracy would work perfectly instead of the electoral college.

Sources:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/tyler-lewis/why-we-should-abolish-the_1_b_8961256.html

Modern Tyranny

Tyranny in the ancient and modern context vary significantly though, there are some very interesting and perhaps dangerous similarities. In the article Donald Trump: a Shakespearean tyrant to a T, the author Daniel Swift argues the daunting similarities between the similarities of the current US President and those of Richard III, a tyrannical character described in one of Shakespeare works, Twelfth Night. Swift brings up the observations of Shakespeare expert and Harvard professor Stephen Greenblatt who wrote a book about tyranny in the modern times in comparison with its ancient context. However, he does not mention Donald Trump instead; he alludes to Trumpian words like grab (Swift). To be specific he compares him to Richard III whom he notes is “pathologically narcissistic, supremely arrogant, and born into wealth and a bully” (Swift).

This likeliness seems to match some of the older connotations of the word. In ancient times, the word might have meant a person who was in fact born into wealth. The only way to really take power in pre-democratic times was to be born into wealth; even more similar to the older connotation of a tyrant is the characteristic of bullying and narcissism. I particularly disagree with the harshness of the word. For example, I cannot agree that the older aggression common to tyranny is prevalent or even possible in modern times. With the existence of strong and prominent democracies, tyranny cannot possibly withhold the level or magnitude of harshness and aggressive action that it once did. No longer is it possible (in theory) to strip the civil rights of man for the convenience of rule or purely to boost the narcissistic ego of man. This is one of the biggest differences between ancient and modern tyranny. In fact, there was a huge shift during the age of enlightenment between what we consider just and what is immoral. Before this time of thought and deliberation on the rights of man in any state, tyrants might have been permitted, lash their power and might on a mere citizen, but luckily in these days the moral compass of the human race has shifted to one that doesn’t tolerate such preposterous claims of divinity and absolute rule. The popularity of some type of democratic republic freezes the momentum of tyranny in its tracks. It is impossible for the meaning of tyranny in its original composition to ever flash its face again without large criticism either inside the state or not.

Article: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/06/donald-trump-a-shakespearean-tyrant-to-a-t/