Stop hitting yourself!

Christianity and Islam have much more in common that I previously realized. The most surprising of these similarities are the identical historical origin and the important of Jesus of Nazareth. Whereas Christianity’s foundational figure was the second son of Abraham, Isaac, Islam’s figure was his first son, Ishmael. It is interesting to think the history of two religions, generally believed to be very different, began in the same spot. This cannot be said about many other religions in history. The Greek Gods certainly did not incorporate Abraham into their theology. Neither did Hinduism. This historical pairing makes it all the more interesting how the two religions grew so far apart.

Not only does their common history and common God tie these two religions together, but they also both assert that Jesus of Nazareth was an important religious figure. In Islam, Jesus is a prophet treated with equal reverence as other important prophets of Islam: “ We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Ismael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them . . . (Quran)” On the other hand, Christians believe Jesus to be not only a prophet, but the literal son of God, the Messiah. Although they interpret Jesus’ role in religious history differently, it is clear Islam and Christianity share many important religious figures.

Due to these similarities, the two ideologies are clearly NOT mutually exclusive. Although many aspects of the religions are different, several fundamental principles are the same. This fact makes it hard for me to believe so much fighting took place between the two religions during the Crusades. At first it seems counter intuitive to attack a people who share so many religious principles with you. That is until I recall some of the calls to Crusade we have read. For example, Pope Urban did not preach about the similarities between Islam and Christianity. Instead, he called the Muslims devils and dangers to Christianity. The general populace during the Crusades were not well educated on any religion other than their own. And so, if a charismatic, influential religious leader like Pope Urban were to call Christians to arms, they probably wouldn’t have considered the possibility that the similarities I discussed above existed.

It is understandable that peasants during the Crusades might not understand the similarities between the two religions, but it is very disappointing that even today there are huge tensions between Muslims and Christians. Even in today’s society, which is certainly much more educated than society during the Crusades, there is fighting between the two religions. Muslim extremists view Christianity as blasphemy, and many Christians see Islam as a religion of violence and evil. This fighting reminds me of the old elementary school saying “stop hitting yourself.” For two religions which share so many fundamental principles to be fighting for so long seems totally counter intuitive.

Words: 495

The Art of the Dea– of War

Sun Tzu’s fame comes from his massive military success against overwhelming odds. His profession as a military leader made his non aggressive, intellectual prose in Art of War very surprising to me. Art of War almost seems to be relaying the philosophies of Sun Tzu, rather than simply military tactics. His overarching philosophy can be summarized briefly: war is not about valor or bravery, it is about cold hard tactics and reasoning. If one “out-reasons” his enemy, he will certainly achieve success in battle. Art of War is laden with examples of this philosophy.

For example, Sun Tzu is quoted, “Follow the advantage // And master opportunity // This is the dynamic.” In life and in war, his philosophy somewhat resembles Daoism. Follow the path of least resistance, and this is often the correct path. In battle, if the enemy outnumbers you ten to one, do not attempt a frontal assault. In life, if insurmountable obstacles stand between you and your goals, look for an opportunity to circumvent the problems rather than trying to topple them to no avail. Instead of the Greek and Roman wartime ideals of valor and bravery, Sun Tzu uses reason and opportunism as more consistent tools for success.

Another important part of Sun Tzu’s philosophy is his disregard for individual success. Sun Tzu does not talk whatsoever about warriors fighting courageously in battle, or clever tacticians leading frontal assaults on enemies in overwhelming odds. Sun Tzu instead promotes a sort of “hive mind” philosophy, where the entire army acts as if it were one single being, with no individual soldier being of particular importance.

Although we don’t learn tactics at the Naval Academy (so I can’t compare Sun Tzu’s tactical comments to our own), I think we embrace a philosophy very different from that of Sun Tzu. Similar to the Greeks and Romans, we at the academy idolize men and women who display valor on the battlefield. A sense of personal importance rather than the “hive mind” philosophy prevails. This is evident in classes like Ethics where we’re taught to evaluate the morality of orders we are given. In Sun Tzu’s army, it is essential that the soldiers do as they are told no matter the morality, whereas at the Academy, we are taught the importance of Officers’ refusing to blindly follow orders. The strength of Tzu’s force comes in total obedience. Our military’s strength stems from the quality of individual soldiers and their abilities to make individual decisions on the battlefield. This also explains the huge cultural difference between civilian life in the United States and in Ancient China.

In war, I it’s hard to say whether the philosophy we learn at the Academy is “better or worse” than that taught by Sun Tzu. They both can be effective in war, as has been proven by a history of conflicts in Ancient China and in U.S. history, so I think the main differentiation between the two philosophies arises in the fundamental values of each system. Where Sun Tzu promotes absolute obedience and downplays individuality of soldiers, we, as a school and a military, encourage individual thought/achievement.

Every Political Assassination Needs its Octavian.

On October 20, 2011, Moammar Gadhafi was killed by a resistance fighter in Libya. Gadhafi had held power since 1969, and during his 40+ year reign, countless atrocities were committed against the Libyan people. However, the celebration was short lived, because the death of Gadhafi led to a massive struggle for power which is still devastating Libya today. The assassination of Gadhafi can be compared to the assassination of Julius Caesar in 44 BCE: a powerful dictator is deposed with no heir, creating a power vacuum. However, the results of these similar circumstances are drastically different.

The conspiracy to stab Julius Caesar to death is often associated only with Marcus Junius Brutus, but in fact many Roman Senators agreed to help murder Caesar. One would think that following the death of Caesar, these Senators/other Roman Generals would fight to claim the power Caesar left behind. After all, Caesar had no direct heir. But Caesar’s nephew, Octavian, had other plans for the Empire. Octavian used the power of Caesar’s supporters to establish himself as the “Princeps” of the Roman Empire, and used his knowledge of Caesar’s mistakes to avoid a similar outcome. The era following Caesar’s death is called the Pax Romana, because Octavian’s actions created stability in the Empire.

Comparing this to the aftermath of the assassination of Gadhafi: “Libya is in a mess. Three governments vie for power, multiple tribes compete for influence and a slice of the country’s dwindling oil wealth, and ISIS managed to take a foothold in the city of Sirte — Gadhafi’s home town.” ‘Pax’, the Latin word for peace, certainly does not describe the situation in Libya. The difference between the smooth transition after the death of Caesar and the debacle in Libya is that Libyans didn’t find ‘their Octavian.’ There was not one powerful man/woman/organization which was able to defeat all contestants for control over the power vacuum like Octavian did in Rome.

What these situations teach us is that following the assassination of a military dictator, the power vacuum left behind is dangerous and must be handled quickly. Contrary to what seems logical, a nation-state which kills their dictator essentially needs another dictator to stabilize the country before it descends into a chaotic power struggle. If this dictator takes care not to repeat the mistakes of the previous regime, the instability caused by a political assassination can actually lead to incredible stability in a nation-state.
Words: 405

Citation:

Robertson, Nic. “Libya: Five Years after Gadhafi’s Death.” CNN, Cable News Network, 20 Oct. 2016, http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/20/africa/libya-five-years-after-gadhafi-robertson/index.html.

Democracy for Democracy’s Sake

When I had my first government class in high school, I was shocked to find out that the general citizens’ votes don’t actually carry value in federal elections. Having grown up hearing all about how America’s Democracy is good because everyone has a voice, it was interesting to learn that the only votes which actually decide federal elections are exclusively made by representatives in Congress. At first I thought this seemed contradictory to the United States’ promise to give a voice to everyone, but now I realize that our Representative Democracy is a superior system to the Pure Democracy utilized in Ancient Athens.

However much we’d like to think that allowing the populace as a whole to make decisions is a reasonable way of governing, Ancient Athens is a great example of some of the problems with utilizing Pure Democracy. To begin, I’d like to borrow and amend an opinion of the old oligarch: “… he disapproves of the Athenian democracy because by its very nature it ensures that the common people are more powerful than the ‘respectable’citizens…” Although I don’t agree that common people can’t be an active and important part of politics, the old oligarch touches on an important point here. Realistically, not every member of the population has the ability to make educated and wise political decisions.

This was true during ancient times and in the modern day. The common example we used in class was how the Athenian Assembly decided to execute 8/10 generals in the middle of the Peloponnesian War. This was a terrible decision probably incited by an angry population reacting purely out of emotion. The benefit of a representative Democracy is that our representatives act as a check to make sure the U.S. doesn’t steer itself down a bad path.

Another benefit of a Represent Democracy is that common citizens aren’t forced to leave their jobs to attend the assembly and vote. In the Reacting to the Past activity, a major topic of debate was whether or not the assembly should be compensated for the work they lost by attending an assembly meeting. In the United States, this isn’t an issue because our politicians are paid to attend these votes while the rest of us can carry on with out lives. And although individual citizens don’t vote in Congress, the representatives voted into Congress should (theoretically) represent the opinions of the American people anyway.

By electing representatives to vote in our stead, it is true that we are relinquishing some of the power awarded to citizens in a Pure Democracy. But the benefits of using a representative system far outweigh the costs.

Is Kim Jong-Un a Tyrant?

In 2017, the New York Times published an Op Ed titled, “Kim Jong-un and the Art of Tyranny.” The first half of the article attempts to substantiate the title of tyrant donned on Kim Jong-un. The author, Bret Stephens, lists several alleged occasions of brutality ordered by Jong-un. For example, the article discusses the claims that he fed his uncle to dogs and that the North Korean armed forces minister (former) was blown to bits with an anti aircraft gun. And Stephens didn’t limit himself to discussion of the “tyrannical” actions of Kim Jong-un. The article also discusses the Arduous March, a period of time where Kim Jong-il, Jong-un’s father and predecessor, let more than a million people starve in North Korea in order to keep the country’s elite fed. Repeatedly, Stephens uses the word “tyrannical” to describe the actions of Kim Jong-un and his father. The context in which the word “tyrannical” is used in the article suggests Stephens subscribes to the post-democracy Greek definition of tyranny.

As was discussed in class, the ancient connotation of tyrants changed dramatically with the advent of democracy in Greece. Prior to democracy, ‘tyrant’ was simply the title of the authoritative figure with the most power in a polis. There were good and bad tyrants, similar to how the United States has seen good and bad presidents. The usage of the word in this article, however, is similar to the connotation associated with tyrants after the expansion of democracy. Being a tyrant suggested greed, selfishness, and cruelty; essentially list all the adjectives which describe Joffrey Lannister in Game of Thrones, and that is how the democratic Greeks described tyrants.

Because of these conflicting connotations and definitions of the word Tyrant, it was difficult to decide if the article used the term correctly. Due to the article’s use of cruel and brutal actions to support labeling Kim Jong-un a tyrant, I believe the author subscribes to the definition of tyrants proposed by the post-democratic Greeks. Kim Jong-un’s cruelties might not have qualified him to be a pre-democratic tyrant, but he certainly fits the bill of a modern day tyrant.

Citation

Stephens, Bret. “Kim Jong-Un and the Art of Tyranny.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 7 Sept. 2017, http://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/07/opinion/kim-jong-un-north-korea-nuclear.html.