Author: anthonycalvelli

Applying Confucianism and Legalism to Leading in the Fleet

Anthony Calvelli

As future officers in the fleet, there are many lessons we can take from the philosophies of the Qin and Han dynasties. Legalism was the official philosophy for the Qin dynasty, who were in power from 221 to 207 BC. The main idea behind legalism was to have a strong leader and strict law code, with the punishment for violating this code being severe. After the fall of the Qin, Confucianism took over as the dominant philosophy for the duration of the Han dynasty (202 BC – 220 AD). Confucianism was centered on five key relationships within the jen, or society; this philosophy is much more forgiving than legalism, but still demands mutual respect. While each philosophy has its flaws, certain elements from each of these philosophies should certainly be considered when we are formulating our own unique leadership styles.

In Confucianism, one of the five basic relationships of the jen is that between a ruler and their subject. The officer-enlisted relationship in the military is a modern parallel to this. In The Asians: Their Heritage and Their Destiny, Paul Thomas Welty describes the requirements of the two parties: “The inferior owes loving obedience and loyalty to his superior, and the superior owes loving responsibility to the inferior.” Having this philosophy as a leader in today’s military will take you far. As officers in the fleet, we must expect obedience from our subordinates, but at the same time we must be empathetic and think about how the decisions we make affect those under us. Making decisions without taking into account second and third order effects will lead to cynicism and resentment.

Furthermore, we have a responsibility to give praise where praise is due. In The Analects, Confucius wrote “Don’t worry if people don’t recognize your merits; worry that you may not recognize theirs.” This quote epitomizes what we learn about servant leadership here at USNA. It is important to appreciate the value your people bring to the table and reward their accomplishments appropriately. It should not matter whether your own successes are acknowledged; what matters is that the people working tirelessly under you receive recognition.

While legalism is in many ways much too severe, there are some aspects that we must incorporate as leaders due to the unique nature and organization of the military. In Six Examples of Having It Backwards, Han Feizi wrote “the enlightened ruler […] depends on laws and prohibitions to control the people, not on their sense of decency.” While we need to have a certain level of trust in the people we work with, it is essential in the military to have a set standard and to consistently enforce that standard. This does not mean that as a leader we should not have any faith in our people. Rather, we need a way to deal with an individual who decides to not follow orders, respect the chain of command, etc. If we were to rely simply on trust, the rank structure would fall apart and people could end up questioning their leader’s orders in combat where promptly doing what your superior tells you could mean the difference between life and death.

 

Word Count (without quotes): 472

Works Cited

Confucius. The Analects. Edited by Michael Nylan. Translated by Simon Leys, W. W. Norton, 2014.

Feizi, Han. “Excerpt From Six Examples of Having It Backwards.” SDA AP World History, sdaworldhistory.edublogs.org/files/2015/08/1-Han-Feizi-Legalism-1dfgeq9.pdf.

Welty, Paul Thomas, The Asians: Their Heritage and Their Destiny. Third edition. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1970.

A Call to Violence: The Similarity Between the Bible and Qur’an

Anthony Calvelli

There are many similarities between Christianity and Islam. They share some of the same prophets, believe in the existence of a Messiah, and believe in a second coming of Jesus, to name a few. Most surprising to me, though, is the similarity of what the Bible and Qur’an say about violence and war.

The 9/11 attacks and ensuing Global War on Terrorism were a catalyst for anti-Islamic sentiments in the United States. Still, seventeen years after the attacks, many Americans have a bias towards Muslims. This stems from a misunderstanding of “jihad,” and belief in the fallacy that the Qur’an is a “violent” text, encouraging Muslims to force non-believers to convert. In reality, the Qur’an is no more inflammatory than the bible regarding its stance on violence and the intent of jihad was never to force conversion upon people. Verse 2:252 of the Qur’an says: “Let there be no compulsion in religion […] Whoever rejects false worship and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks. And Allah hears and knows all things.” In other words, Muslims believe that those who do not believe in Allah simply will not receive the benefits that such a relationship with Allah bears.

Many are quick to point to the Suras as an example of how violent Islam is. One of the main themes of the Suras is that God encourages people to fight for his cause. For instance, Sura 22:58 says, “Those who leave their homes in the cause of God, and are then slain or die, on them will God bestow verily a goodly provision.” However, the Suras are primarily referencing defensive fighting. The Bible echoes a similar call to fight, in some cases with more incendious language than found in the Qur’an. For example, Deuteronomy 13:12-15 says, “If thou shalt hear […] Certain men […] saying, Let us go and serve other gods, […] Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein.” This is somewhat similar to the Qur’an’s calls to fight non-believers. However, this passage from Deuteronomy advocates a more offensive approach as opposed to the defensive fighting discussed in many of the Suras. It surprised me that statements like these came from the Bible. The main takeaway here is that both the Bible and Qur’an advocate violence in some fashion; as such, it is easy to pick and choose quotes that cast a negative light on one of the two religions.  

Christianity and Islam are not mutually exclusive. There are some key differences, especially regarding the crucifixion of Jesus and his ascendance into heaven, but these do not make the two religions irreconcilable. Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet but was not the Messiah and did not die on the cross. They believe another man was crucified, and Jesus ascended into heaven after meeting with his disciples. Christians, on the other hand, believe Jesus was the Messiah and was crucified. Clearly, these two views on the crucifiction are mutually exclusive. However, a disagreement on this does not necessarily mean the two ideologies cannot coexist. Even if we had definitive evidence that the Christian view of what happened is historically accurate, that would not invalidate Islam as a whole. Likewise, if we were certain that Jesus was not crucified, that would certainly complicate Christian scripture, but ultimately would not invalidate the belief that Jesus was the Messiah. Christianity and Islam have more similarities than we might think at first glance. While there are some major differences between them, the two are not mutually exclusive regardless of which is closer to the historical “truth.”

Word Count: 520 (without quotes)

Works Cited

Ali, Ahmed. Al-Qurʻān: a Contemporary Translation. Princeton University Press, 2001.

Coogan, Michael David., et al. The New Oxford Annotated Bible. Oxford University Press, 2001.

The Missing Ingredient in Sun Tzu’s Art of War: Leadership

Anthony Calvelli

There are some similarities between the tactics Sun Tzu writes about in Art of War and what we learn here at the Naval Academy. However, it is what we learn in addition to tactics that differentiates our military training methods from those of Sun Tzu. Sun Tzu’s over-arching philosophy is to use strategy to outsmart the enemy. Sun Tzu summarizes this best when he says, “the way of war is a way of deception.” He also emphasizes that the most preferable option is to win without having to fight.

One similarity between what we learn at USNA and Sun Tzu’s Art of War is the importance of being operationally unpredictable. Sun Tzu writes, “when able, feign inability; when deploying troops, appear not to be.” We learn this at USNA, but it does not apply in all cases. For example, it is essential that the enemy not know the capabilities and location of our submarines. The high level of secrecy we maintain with our submarine program deters enemies from using nuclear weapons because they know we might have a ballistic missile submarine in the area, even if we really don’t. On the other hand, sometimes we want everyone to know about our capabilities. The most notable example of this is our use of the carrier strike group for power projection. When we move an aircraft carrier to a region, we generally want people to know that we have an aircraft carrier sitting in the area ready to strike at a moment’s notice.

Another similarity between Sun Tzu’s doctrine and what we learn is the importance of having extensive knowledge of the environment in which you will be operating. This includes knowing the culture of the people, tribal disputes, geography, etc. Sun Tzu writes, “without knowing the plans of the feudal lords, you cannot form alliances. Without knowing the lie of hills and woods of cliffs and crags of marshes and fens, you cannot march.” We learn here about counterinsurgency strategy. In short, this can be thought of as “winning hearts and minds.” One of the key aspects of counterinsurgency is gaining the trust of local leaders and allying with them. This often means using the minimum force necessary, as being too aggressive can cause the local population to lose faith and turn against you. The counterinsurgency strategy we learn about is similar to Sun Tzu’s philosophy because he says that it is often “better take a state intact than destroy it.”

The key difference between what we are taught at USNA and Sun Tzu’s Art of War is that USNA puts a greater emphasis on teaching us leadership than strategy. Sun Tzu says that it is important to have a capable general who “causes men to be of one mind with [him].” However, that is essentially the extent of his thoughts on leadership. At USNA, we learn about reflective action, bias, moral courage, goal-setting, etc. Sun Tzu does not put the same amount of thought into what makes a good leader as we do at the Naval Academy. I believe our method is more effective than Sun Tzu’s because it strikes a good balance between strategy and leadership. Without learning about leadership, strategy is useless because you will not have committed followers who will give their best effort in executing that strategy.

Works Cited

Sun-tzu. The Art of War. Penguin, 2009.

Word Count: 551

Comparing the FDR Administration to the Flavian Dynasty

Anthony Calvelli

The Franklin D. Roosevelt administration (1933-1945) resembled the Flavian model of power. The Flavian dynasty came to power in 69 AD after the fall of Nero, with Vespasian serving as its first princeps for ten years. The Flavian model of power kept the governing structures of the Republic in place but essentially turned the principate into a nepotistic autocracy. The FDR administration has many similarities to this Flavian model of power, the most notable of which are the increase in power of the executive, appointment of relatives to positions of authority, and use of war as a means to maintain power.

After the death of Nero, there was a year-long civil war plagued with regime change. In fact, there were a total of four emperors that year. Vespasian was able to eventually take and maintain power because he had superior military power. The Roman populace were, in general, relatively accepting of the Flavian Dynasty, most likely because there was a need for strong leadership after the turmoil of the civil war. Similarly, the Great Depression and World War II enabled FDR to stay “in power” and maintain the support of the people for four terms, more than any other U.S. president.

Another similarity between the Flavian dynasty and the FDR administration is how they both undermined the power of existing democratic institutions. The rulers of the Flavian dynasty undercut the power of the Senate and the plebeians throughout their reign, much like how FDR bypassed congress and created an exorbitant amount of executive orders. For example, Vespasian set the precedent that one does not even need to be in Rome to be declared emperor. The Flavian Dynasty also expanded the power of the principate to institute military and tax reform (Encyclopedia Britannica). This is very similar to how FDR used executive orders to implement policies such as “The New Deal.” 

Vespasian, the first of three Flavian rulers, gave a great deal of power to his son Titus (who eventually succeeded him). John A. Crook writes in The American Journal of Philology that “from 71 [AD] [Titus] was, in practice if not in theory, co-Emperor.” There was no vote on the delegation of power to Titus: Vespasian simply wanted to spread the wealth and make his family more powerful. In fact, in 73 AD he appointed Titus to the “praetorian prefecture and the joint censorship” (Crook 164). The FDR administration was also fraught with such nepotism. FDR gave his son James a position as a secretary in the Oval Office. In this position, James “coordinated the activities of twenty federal agencies” (Eleanor Roosevelt Papers Project). While the FDR administration was not exactly an autocracy, it certainly had some undemocratic characteristics and striking similarities to the Flavian model of power.

 

Works Cited

Crook, John A. “Titus and Berenice.” The American Journal of Philology, vol. 72, no. 2, 1951, pp. 162–175. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/292544.

“Flavian Dynasty.” Encyclopædia Britannica, 30 May 2018, http://www.britannica.com/topic/Flavian-dynasty.

“James Roosevelt (1907-1991).” Eleanor Roosevelt Papers Project, www2.gwu.edu/~erpapers/teachinger/glossary/roosevelt-james-son.cfm.

Word Count: 459

Representative Democracy: The Safer Way to Govern

While not perfect, the representative model of democracy has been a much better way to govern than the direct model used by the Athenians. The main reason the representative model is superior is that its system of checks and balances has, for the most part, protected us from the mob-rule that took root in Athens. In the direct model of democracy, all decisions were made via a simple majority. This was problematic because important decisions such as court cases, waging war, and executing people were left to the hands of those who showed up to vote on the issue; thus, a particular group of people could show up in force to the assembly one day and garner over fifty percent of the vote. Suppose that group only makes up ten percent of the population at large: now, you have legislation passed that ninety percent of Athenians are unhappy with.

One example that highlights the downsides of Athenian democracy is the Siege of Melos in 416 BCE. Melos was an island that remained neutral for much of the Peloponnesian War. The Athenians were unhappy with the fact that the Melians were providing crops to the Spartans, so they sent a force there to seize the island. The Athenian generals engaged in a long debate to try to get the Melians to surrender peacefully. Thucydides documented the negotiations in what came to be known as the Melian dialogue. These negotiations were not successful; Thucydides notes, “When the generals saw that the Melians would not submit, they turned immediately to war and surrounded the Melian city with a wall” (Thucydides 5.113). After many days under siege, the Melians finally gave in and surrendered, leaving the Athenians to decide how to deal with them. After a vote, the Athenians “killed all the men of military age and made slaves of the women and children” (Thucydides 5.116). The execution of the Melians is just one of many examples of the Athenian direct democracy model devolving into mob-rule.

The representative model of democracy is not without its downfalls, but it ultimately does a better job of protecting against mob-rule than the Athenian model. Critics of the representative model argue that constituents sometimes do not get everything they want. I submit that sometimes it is best that this is the case. The representative model ensures that a variety of interests are considered and that one group cannot become too powerful. James Madison writes in Federalist 10 that in pure democracies “a common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole […] and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention.” One of the main reasons the representative model of democracy in the United States protects against majority rule is that it ensures geographic diversity. Each elected representative has to represent not only their party’s interests, but also the interests specific to their district or state. With the representative system, all people have an easy way to voice their opinions, whereas in the Athenian democracy, one had to physically attend the assembly and vote in order to have their voice heard. This meant that Athenians who lived far from the assembly would have a smaller impact on legislation compared to those for whom it was convenient to go and vote. Ultimately, the representative model of government protects the people from mob-rule and allows more people’s voices to be heard.

 

Works Cited

Madison, James. Federalist No. 10: “The Same Subject Continued: The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection.” New York Daily Advertiser, November 22, 1787.

Thucydides. “History of the Peloponnesian War/Book 3.” Wikisource. Accessed October 3, 2018. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/History_of_the_Peloponnesian_War/Book_5

Word Count: 592

A Tyrant in the White House?

The definition of tyranny has changed significantly over time. Before the rise of democracy, the word “tyrant” did not have any negative connotations, as it does today. Many tyrants were actually elected and did good things for their people. It was only after the Athenian democracy took hold that the word came to signify a ruler who oppresses his people.

Jeffrey Sachs, a professor at Columbia, wrote an opinion piece for CNN on how the United States is on its way to tyranny because of President Trump. He warns that our system of checks and balances meant to protect us from tyranny is failing. Sachs contends that the President has made many major decisions and meetings a “one-man Trump show,” citing the Iran sanctions and July Putin summit as examples. The author’s main contention is that the President has subverted congressional approval by applying the catch-all “national security” justification for things like tariffs, the nuclear deal, etc. Sachs uses a constitutional argument to explain how this increasing use of the executive to carry out the explicit powers of Congress is eroding democracy in the United States (Sachs).

The term “tyranny”, as used in the article, does not align with the modern definition. The author presents a strong case that the power of the executive has increased and many decisions are being made single-handedly (Sachs). However, the term “autocracy” would have been more fitting. While more power is falling into the President’s hand, Sachs makes no contention that he is using that power to oppress citizens of the United States (Sachs). Thus, the modern definition of tyranny does not quite fit here. Even though Sachs does not use “tyrant” to describe an oppressive ruler, there is still a clear negative connotation to the word as used in the article. This negative connotation exists because democracy is the cornerstone of the American experiment, and any other political system is viewed as inferior. In conclusion, the manner in which “tyranny” is used in the article falls somewhere between the ancient and modern definitions.

Works Cited

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