Why We Fight

In the American military, officers and enlisted swear nearly identical oaths. Both swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” [1], however, while enlisted swear to obey the orders of those appointed over them, officers do not. Commissioned officers swear to “well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office” [2]. This means they swear allegiance solely to the Constitution, solely to the principle of American government and its people at large. To the officer, not the enlisted, falls the duty of upholding the founding principles of this nation.

Of the Athenian government, Pericles told his subjects they “have a form of government that does not try to imitate the laws of [their] neighboring states” [3]. So, too, is the American democracy. It is what some may consider to be the most audacious democratic experiment known to man, a government cobbled together from a hodgepodge of Enlightenment ideals, ancient traditions, and innovations of the time. In fact, not only does the United States not imitate the laws of her neighbors, but her neighbors imitate the laws of her. What does this all mean? It means that America really is what John Winthrop intoned long before the Constitution was imagined: “a citty [sic] upon a hill,” [4] of which “the eies [sic] of all people are upon” [4].

The words of Pericles also explain the enduring presence of America in the world. While it seems so entrenched now, there was a time when the fledgling democracy could have been erased from the earth. We must remember our existence has been “purchased by valiant men who knew their duty and kept their honor in battle” [3]. This experiment in democracy will not preserve itself. It is buttressed by the sacrifice of millions who came before.

The Funeral Oration was designed to recognize those already lost in the Peloponnesian War, and to rekindle the spirit of patriotism in the face of imminent battle with the enemy. In today’s world, is not every moment just that for the United States? Are there not those so diametrically opposed to the ideals we hold they call for “death to America?” As officers in the United States military, we must remind ourselves every day of the stakes at hand. Athens lost the Peloponnesian War. Never after that did it reach the same height of power. Should the United States fall under the resurgent power of Russia or China, our fate would not likely be much different.

According to Pericles, those who die win “praise…that will never grow old” [3] and will be “remembered forever, whenever the time comes for speech or action” [3]. Indeed, in these phrases, the words of Horace—chosen as the class motto for 2022—are brought to mind: non omnis moriar, not all of me shall die. Such is the legacy America’s fallen. Part of them becomes the foundation on which the entire country is built. Thus, to fight for our country is to fight for those who live now, those who lived once, and those who will live tomorrow. “Happiness lies in liberty” [3], and where better to find liberty than in America? Now, no single officer bears the entire burden of a country, yet the actions of just one can have lasting import. May the lessons of Athens guide America to a better fate and a better world.

Tom Vilinskis

Word Count: 467

Sources:

[1] Oath of Enlistment

https://www.army.mil/values/oath.html

[2] Oath of Commissioned Officers

https://www.army.mil/values/officers.html

[3] Thucydides, The Funeral Oration of Pericles

[4] Winthrop, John. “City Upon a Hill”

Click to access Winthrop’s%20City%20upon%20a%20Hill.pdf

[5] Horace, Ode 3.30

http://www.kniskern.com/robin/classics/horace/o3.30.html

A Couplet of Doom

They captured swaths of territory with unspeakable violence. They struck terror into the hearts of those inhabiting the lands they conquered. No military force could initially counter their advances. Could they be the Mongols? Or are they the Islamic State group? A brief look at the history of the two suggests it is not either, but both.

The Mongols, of course, came first. Around the year 1220 the Mongols swept into the Middle East, leaving behind a swath of destruction that was later recorded by Ibn al-Athir. Athir was utterly horrified by the Mongol conquests: not only did he directly compare them to the Antichrist, he gave the Antichrist a more positive review. Given his testimony that the Mongols “[ripped] open pregnant women and [killed] unborn babies” [1], the repulsed reaction is not terribly surprising. In fact, Athir is so appalled by the atrocities he claims they were “the greatest catastrophe and the most dire calamity…which befell all men…since God Almighty created Adam until now” [1]. Now, Athir had spent time following the armies of Saladin, and was thus no stranger to warfare or violence. For him to be so utterly stunned as to proclaim the worst calamity in the history of mankind reflects the sheer magnitude and ruthlessness of the Mongols.

In late-2014, the United Nations released a report [2] detailing atrocities committed by the Islamic State group in Iraq. According to this report, the Islamic State groups undertook executions, assassinations, and other killings (to include stonings, decapitations, and more), and practiced the use of civilian human shields. They also particularly targeted women and religious leaders and monuments. These examples only scratch the surface of the acts detailed in the 40-page report, but nonetheless one can draw parallels to the acts of the Mongols.

There is some irony in the fact the Mongols persecuted Muslim populations in their conquest, while the conquests of the Islamic State group were motivated by their faith (hence the name, and the goal of creating an independent Islamic state). Still, even the Islamic State group attacked other Muslims, and subjugated them to horrific acts.

The similarities between the two are nevertheless striking. Expanding rapidly, the two both conquered large areas of territory and committed acts of atrocity within their boundaries. The Mongols, however, were more given to tolerance of other people within the lands they conquered. They were open to the existence of several religions concurrently. By contrast, the Islamic State group targeted and persecuted those of even different sects of Islam heavily, not to mention Christians, Jews, and others within the land they conquered.

In the downfall of both, too, there are differences. The Mongol conquest was halted when a succession crisis (like with nearly any empire) forced the advances to halt on the eastern edge of Europe. The Islamic State group, on the other hand, was forced to retreat after a local coalition with international backing (read as: incessant airstrikes from western nations) wrested back control of the conquered lands.

The world was unprepared for the Mongol invasion and never expected anything like it. While the exact form it took may have been unusual, the Islamic State group’s rise was predictable based on regional turmoil and past example. Despite this, the two bear remarkable similarities stretching from their rapid speed of expansion, persecution of those within their borders, and legacy of terror. In the (alleged) words of Mark Twain, “history does not repeat itself, but it often rhymes.”

Tom Vilinskis

Word Count: 548

Sources:

[1] The Perfect History, Ibn al-Athir c.1225

[2] Report on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict in Iraq: 6 July – 10 September 2014 https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/IQ/UNAMI_OHCHR_POC_Report_FINAL_6July_10September2014.pdf

[3] ISIS: The first terror group to build an Islamic state?https://www.cnn.com/2014/06/12/world/meast/who-is-the-isis/index.html

The American Autocracy

The United States Senate: once the greatest law-making body on the face of the planet, it now is a partisan tool of the presidency. Obsequious at its highest level (though not always at its lowest), the Senate has proven itself to be an extension of the executive branch, affording the President undue power over the course of the nation. To understand the danger of this naked partisanship, look no farther than the Roman Principate.

Augustus, in his Res Gestae, claimed to have “transferred government from [his] own authority to the sovereignty of the senate” (34.1). Of course, this was a farce. Augustus was force behind policy in the Principate, and the Senate existed to provide a seemingly democratic vehicle to enact policy. Later, under the emperor Vespasian, the Senate had similar function. Though it existed as a deliberative body Vespasian declared “whatever…has been done, executed, decreed, ordered by Emperor Caesar Vespasian Augustus or by anyone at his order or mandate, these things shall be legal and valid, just as if they had been done by the order of the people” (Lex de imperio Vespasiani). In other words, the Senate did nothing the emperor would not approve of.

Sound familiar?

In early January, amidst the longest (though partial) government shutdown in United States history, the House passed a bill that would reopen government and allow time for negotiation on Homeland Security funding. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocked it from even coming to a vote in the Senate. Why? Because President Trump had indicated he would not sign. Thus, Mr. McConnell openly demonstrated he was unwilling to deviate from the wishes of the President. While in the long run, a bill would have to be signed into law by President Trump, stopping a vote on a bill trying to pay American families at the behest of a different branch of government undermines the separation of powers. That is not to say President Trump is truly an autocrat; such a designation is not possible without flagrantly flouting the Constitution. It does go to show, however, that the line between the legislative and executive branches is blurrier than it should be.

In the Flavian model of government (that of Vespasian), the emperor wielded complete power and disguised this fact (officially) with the maintenance of the Senate. However, there was no question who was really calling the shots. This does differ from what has been seen in American government. Though President Trump has exerted a perhaps undue influence upon the operations of the Senate, Leader McConnell still chose to act independently. And when a Democrat funding bill finally made it to the Senate, it received more votes than its Republican counterpart (though both failed the 60-vote threshold needed), clearly rejecting the will of the White House.

Nonetheless, it is important to recognize the imperial trappings of the modern political environment. The deterioration of bipartisanship and the increase in what Arthur Schlesinger termed the Imperial Presidency pose a legitimate threat to the survival of healthy and effective political discourse and progress. A Senate free from executive puppetry best serves the American people.

Tom Vilinskis

Words Count: 462

Sources:

[1] McConnell blocks House bills to reopen government https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/shutdown-showdown-senate-prepares-to-vote-on-competing-bills-after-trump-agrees-to-postpone-state-of-the-union-speech/2019/01/24/7b65e314-1fc7-11e9-9145-3f74070bbdb9_story.html?utm_term=.c7252800f704

[2] Lex de imperio Vespasiani https://droitromain.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/Anglica/vespas_johnson.html

[3] Res Gestae Divi Augusti

[4] Shutdown Showdown https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/shutdown-showdown-senate-prepares-to-vote-on-competing-bills-after-trump-agrees-to-postpone-state-of-the-union-speech/2019/01/24/7b65e314-1fc7-11e9-9145-3f74070bbdb9_story.html?utm_term=.c7252800f704

Give the Man his Due

Alexander certainly owes much to the military reforms of Philip II. Philip’s military revitalization of Macedonia was crucial to the success of Alexander on the campaign trail. Yet, to give Philip credit for the conquests of Alexander would discount the decisions made and actions taken by Alexander that were uniquely his. It is true that Alexander’s conquests would not have occurred without Philip’s foundation, but Alexander nonetheless deserves the most credit for his successes.

Philip changed the organization and equipment of the Macedonian infantry to increase its effectiveness. Rather than utilize the traditional spears used by infantry forces worldwide, Philip introduced the sarissa, measuring 14 to 18 feet in length. This extra reach allowed Macedonian infantry to attack while being out of range of their adversary. The trade-off was that it required both hands to wield, preventing use of the normal heavy hoplite shield. Philip, however, transitioned to a lighter shield that is worn from the neck. Philip also created an elite cavalry unit called the hetairoi, which due to their mobility and height advantage were devastating to hoplites.

Philip’s military reforms were impressive, and enabled him to assert Macedonian dominance in the local area. However, it was Alexander who built a true empire. Alexander’s sweeping conquests in Persia prove he deserves credit for his actions. Specifically, Alexander captured Darius II’s royal train at Issus, and chose to refuse offers of reconciliation. There is no way of knowing if Philip would also have refused such an offer from Darius; the end result of Alexander eventually taking complete control of Persia was a result of only his own actions.

Likewise, the events that transpired at and after Alexander’s visit to the oracle at Siwa can only be attributed to him. After meeting with the oracle, Alexander proclaimed that it confirmed his divinity, and used that to justify and solidify his rule over Asia Minor. This self-deification helped Alexander assert himself as ruler of the Persian people. It was the particular actions of Alexander that enabled his success at war, and though Philip’s reforms were a boon, Alexander was still the driving force of his own victories.

While not a regime but a strategy, the tactics of the United States in the Gulf War reflected lessons learned and foundation laid by the US military following the war in Vietnam. Announcing the American entrance to war against Iraq, President Bush stated he “instructed [American] military commanders to take every necessary step to prevail as quickly as possible, and with the greatest degree of protection possible for American and allied service men and women.” [1] The Gulf War was a resounding success for the American military, swiftly driving Saddam Hussein’s forces out of Kuwait, lasting only for a few months.

This was only possible because of the setbacks faced in Vietnam. American military reforms following Vietnam ensured that the next conflict the United States engaged in would be quick and decisive. Instead of indiscriminate bombing campaigns over the whole nation, the US undertook airstrikes against specific targets to “knock out Saddam Hussein’s nuclear bomb potential” and “destroy his chemical weapons facilities.” [1] Actions such as these were aimed at swiftly crippling essential enemy functions to end combat as quickly as possible. In all likelihood, without those reforms the United States would have met more of what it encountered during Vietnam in Kuwait.

Like Alexander, the US government and military at the onset of the Gulf War utilized new ideas incorporated by previous people in power in order to achieve military success. These ideas enabled both Alexander and the Bush administration to project power in a fashion that would not have been possible before Philip II and Vietnam, respectively. In each case, however, the impetus was with the leader himself; credit should not be bestowed upon previous leaders, irrespective of how helpful their actions were.

Tom Vilinskis

Word Count: 595

Sources:

[1] Bush, George H.W. “January 16, 1991: Address to the Nation on the Invasion of Iraq.” Miller Center, 4 May 2017, millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/january-16-1991-address-nation-invasion-iraq.

Democracy (What is it good for?)

Modern democratic systems have substantially changed since the days of Athenian glory. The world’s preeminent democracy today is the United States, being the first established in the modern era. However, the democratic systems employed by the United States differ greatly from those used by the Athenians. The American Founding Fathers drew from Enlightenment principles and political theories present in Britain’s Magna Carta and the work of philosopher John Locke. As a result, the democracy that evolved in the United States has been filtered through the revelations of several different regions and time periods. Most strikingly, the United States deliberately established a system of checks and balances in its founding documents to prevent the whimsical (and often critically flawed) decisions of an impassioned mob. Checks and balances comprise the single largest difference between Athenian and American democracies.

The Athenian democracy was governed by the Assembly and thus was at the mercy of a single governing body. Whatever was decided in the Assembly would become law (or action). Given that Athens was consistently one of the most powerful polis in ancient Greece, this method worked much of the time. In the years between the two Persian Wars, the magistrate Themistocles convinced the democracy to construct a fleet of triremes. Assuredly, Athens was thanking him for that decision after the battle of Salamis. The Athenian system ensured that the proposal to build a fleet could be executed quickly, and did not require further approval than the Assembly’s. Thus, the decision-making process was demonstrably efficient.

On the flip side, the Assembly proved it could be wooed into poorer decisions, as happened with the Sicilian Campaign. Alcibiades convinced an eager Assembly to undertake an expedition in Sicily. Nicias, another member of the Assembly, tried to stay the action but was unsuccessful, and even unintentionally committed nearly twice as many troops as originally intended to the expedition. With no other body to check the power of the Assembly, the expedition was undertaken and ended disastrously for the Athenians.

The American democracy is not wont to make decisions quickly. Article I Section 7 of the United States Constitution states that “Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it.” This specific check on the power of Congress ensures that no law passing Congress shall immediately enter into effect. As a result of this, decision-making in the American democracy is more deliberative and less efficient than the Athenian system. This allows time for the governing bodies to examine the law or action and reach a conclusion on its necessity.

A prominent example of this was in 2015, when then-President Barack Obama vetoed a bill approving the controversial Keystone XL Pipeline extension. This bill passed the Republican-held Congress, but was vetoed by him. As it then failed to pass over veto, the bill died (Congress.gov). The pipeline was controversial because of its potential environmental impact and proximity to Native American lands. President Obama’s veto prevented the pipeline extension from being built before its true impact was known. In the Athenian system, Keystone XL would likely be built and functioning right now, but because of the lawmaking system of the United States, it lies dormant.

The existence of Article I Section 7 is not the only check existing in the American democratic system, but is a clear example of how the checks and balances affect decision-making. The Athenian democracy, lacking any of these, was much more prone to rash decisions and the passion of a moment. For better or worse, the United States takes much more time with decisions, and has layered systems protecting against swift change.

Tom Vilinskis

Word Count: 588

Sources:

The Constitution of the United States of America
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Keystone+XL+Pipeline%22%5D%7D

Of Tyrants Old and New

To the ancient Greeks, a tyrant was simply a ruler who rose to power in a fashion outside the political standard. Be it by force or cunning, a tyrant was not intended to be a ruler and became so by their own ambitions. Now, ancient Greek tyrants were by no means cruel or harmful; in their time, the term had no negative connotation. The original Greek tyrant, Peisistratus, was actually both successful and popular. The term contextually implied a non-hereditary monarch and could be applied to both benevolent and malevolent autocrats. In modern times, however, the term has taken on new meaning, being used to characterize autocratic leaders who rule with a heavy hand, especially those who also seized power illegitimately. To be a tyrant today is to be cruel and unyielding, as well as to harm the prosperity of a country. Since the time of the ancient Greeks, the term “tyrant” has evolved to take on a negative connotation that change how it is used in context.

Evidence of the modern sense of “tyrant” can be seen both in the news and in art. Twentieth century poet W.H. Auden penned a poem titled “Epitaph on a Tyrant,” in which he comments on the nature of a tyrant. According to Auden, “when [the tyrant] cried the little children died in the streets” (Auden 6). This is the final line of the poem and is juxtaposed with the tyrant laughing in the previous line. Thus, the implication of Auden’s poem, as far as defining a tyrant, is that tyrants are unpredictable and often cruel. After all, no sensible or kind ruler would kill children in the streets.

The modern connotation of being a tyrant is likely due to the preeminence of democracy in the world. A tyrant is the antithesis to the type of ruler democratic nations promote. Therefore, democratic nations would be inclined to brand an extra-constitutional ruler as a tyrant (with the implication of it being a bad thing). Over time this would lead to the corruption of the term “tyrant” and its association with leaders scorned by democratic nations.

Recently, there has been much discussion around the current president of the United States relating to tyranny. In an article penned six months ago, Columbia Professor Jeffrey Sachs argues that President Trump’s heavy reliance on executive authority (and its backing by the courts) has set the United States “far down the path to tyranny” (Sachs). This argument, however, relies upon the modern sense of tyranny. By that definition, the term is used correctly in context. Sachs’ argument that President Trump has exceeded the bounds of executive authority would indeed make him a modern tyrant. In a democratic society, an autocratic ruler is dangerous and has potential to damage the state of the nation This is because such a ruler, having no checks or balances on their power, cannot be guaranteed to represent the interests of the people. However, should one consider a tyrant in its original meaning, the term is used incorrectly in context. Nothing in Sachs’ argument seeks to establish an illegitimate rise to power.

Thus, to the ancient Greeks, overstepping the bounds of executive authority would not qualify President Trump as a tyrant. Like most of the presidents preceding him, he was elected by the people of the United States. He may not have won the popular vote, but he nonetheless legitimately came to power within the bounds of our Constitution. If the election was illegitimate, or if he had enacted a military coup, that would qualify him as a tyrant, but being a duly elected president would not.

Tom Vilinskis

Word Count: 583

Sources:

Auden, W. H. “The Unknown Citizen.” Poets.org, Academy of American Poets, 17 July 2014, http://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/epitaph-tyrant.

Sachs, Jeffrey. “Trump Is Taking US down the Path to Tyranny.” CNN, Cable News Network, 24 July 2018, http://www.cnn.com/2018/07/23/opinions/trump-is-taking-us-down-the-path-to-tyranny-sachs/index.html.