Fleet lessons from the Mesopotamian Civilization

The development of the Ancient Mesopotamian civilization demonstrates the capability of humans to adapt to their surroundings. The Mesopotamian people created sophisticated irrigation systems to utilize the Tigris and Euphrates river for arable land. In the fleet, it is essential that as leaders we are able to adapt to situations quickly and efficiently, to both benefit our sailors and to manage our responsibilities. Not only is the fleet is unpredictable, but the conflicts we will enter will challenge our capabilities. Mesopotamians reacted to the barrier of changing climate and land, by developing new technology and techniques to not only cope but transcend with the new changes. The Mesopotamian people were forced to create a new lifestyle. Canals not only allowed the economy to prosper through the success of agriculture, but allowed room for new activities such as art, music, astronomy, and metallurgy. This adjustment to a new world of developed agriculture and specialization required a whole structural change in order to correlate to the development. To support the construction of new projects, leaders emerged, bringing people together to create a new “civic identity”. This same flexibility is necessary within the Navy, as an officer needs to be able to be successful in any position. Because commands within the fleet change every few years, officer’s must be dynamic. They must be innovative to respond to the needs of the Navy to be apt for “ready combat and to be “forged by the sea”.

Intricate and complex structures such as temples and monuments depict the Mesopotamian people’s mentality and strong work ethic to create such enormous and detailed structures with beautiful artwork. Urbanization and development among the economy allowed the people to create glorious cities with artwork and huge walls for defense. In the Epic Gilgamesh which is based on the Mesopotamian city, Sumer, prestige is shown as the city; ”Look at its wall which gleams like copper, inspect its inner wall, the likes of which no one can equal!”(Gilgamesh). These structures required diligence and devotion to create such work. In the Navy, officer’s are expected to have a similar mentality; to pay attention to the littlest of details with the belief that doing the little things right contribute extensively to the success of the bigger things in the future.
Before the development of Mesopotamia, earlier villages did not have a complex society, with an organized structure. Mesopotamian civilizations for the first time fostered creativity and specialization of labor in the hierarchal society. This encouraged innovation and the spread of culture within society. In the navy, innovation and collectivism are required in order to comply with the demands of a relevant and technological savvy fighting force. There are many different rates, departments, and jobs that officers and enlisted have, however together they accomplish one goal. Specialization is required to increase the overall efficiency of the Navy and to have all the necessary tools to be the strongest fighting force.
Lastly, as officer’s in the fleet it is crucial to have sufficient communication skills in order in order to apply effective leadership. The importance of communication is stressed in the chain of command. Mesopotamian people discovered the power of communication as they were one of the first peoples to foster its growth through one of the first systems of communication known as cuneiform. As a writing system developed, not only was record-keeping possible, but the organization, specialization of labor, trade, and culture, began to flourish throughout the society. They transformed written literature which had a tremendous impact on the intricacy of society in Mesopotamia.
All these factors contributed to the development of a complex civilization that separated itself from all previous villages.

-Caroline Foley

Word Count:589

Click to access The%20Epic%20of%20Gilgamesh.pdf

The similarities between The Mongol Regime and Hitler’s Nazi Regime

The Mongol Empire through using methods of brutality through its quick expansion resembles the Hitler Nazi Regime in Europe in the 1900s. The Mongol Empire was known as the largest empire in history expanding its influence by conquering parts of central Asia, China, and attempting to taking Europe. The Mongol empire was able to accomplish vast expansion because of Genghis Khan’s leadership in which he united the steppe people into a cohesive group that became an unstoppable force. For the first time, the steppe peoples identities were broken down, and instead shifted into a new identity of the Mongol people. Through the new Mongolian national identity that was created, there was a sense of pride that coupled with loyalty. Genghis Khan’s strong force of supporters “swore a personal oath of loyalty” or otherwise known as a “blood oath”. Adolf Hitler who led the Nazi Regime, resembles Genghis Khan’s mentality, possessing similar characteristics and aggressive goals. In 1939, in a speech to his armed commanders he says, “Our strength is in our quickness and our brutality. Genghis Khan had millions of women and children killed by his own will and a gay heart”(Brietman), showing that Hitler looked highly upon the tactics of Genghis Khan, adopting the mentality to his own philosophy. Adolf Hitler was successful because he garnered large masses of supporters who were devoted to his ideologies, and willing to do anything he said because of the trust and allegiance to both him as a leader and his party. Similar to Genghis Khan who unified the steppes people into a single identity, one of Hitler’s main goals was to unify the German state and create a “lebensraum” or German living state. He convinced the German people with “appealing ideas of a Utopian world along with frightful images of enemies it deemed threats to those dreams”. Hitler and Genghis Khan both were charismatic leaders who enjoyed loyal support by employing incentives to their people, allowing them to both quickly and efficiently achieve their goals.

They were able to rapidly expand without heavy opposition because of their superior military forces and tactics which they employed on conquering states. Genghis Khan made improvements to Persian and Chinese weapons including new technology such as an array of developed bows and an exceptional calvary, demonstrating both the strength and capabilities of the Mongols as a fighting force. Types of bows included the composite bow, which was twice the range of the prominent English bow. Some bows were methods to not kill but instill fear in their enemies such as one which made a deafening whistling noise and another which was meant to just impel wounds. These mechanisms exhibited the Mongol’s intention to inflict suffering. The Mongol army also used trickery to exaggerate the size of the army, depicting their willingness to use any tactic that would give them an advantage over their enemy. Besides making new technological advancements on dangerous weapons such as toxic gases, the Nazi’s also used trickery as a means of power, as Adolf Hitler used deception within his propaganda. He used treachery to condone his propaganda of war and mass murder to his own people. More significantly, he lied to other European countries about his intentions to expand, hiding both his capabilities and resolve. An example of this was when Britain and France attempted to use the policy of Appeasement as a peace offering, but Hitler saw it as a plug to bolster his power and invaded Rhineland instead.

Both the Mongols and the Nazi’s used methods of torture to achieve their goals, demonstrating their brutality. The Mongols not only conquered lands and looted cities, but slew women and children as well as taking prisoners. Not taking into account of humanity, the Nazi’s also treated their enemies in the same manner, as Jews and inferiors were treated as animals such as in concentration camps. Both regimes depict their ability to assert their dominance and superiority through methods of brutality in the expansion

-Caroline Foley

Word Count:600

https://www.ushmm.org/information/exhibitions/traveling-exhibitions/state-of-deception

Breitman, Richard. “Hitler and Genghis Khan.” Journal of Contemporary History, vol. 25, no. 2/3, 1990, pp. 337–351. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/260736.

The similarities of Sun Tzu’s “Art of War” and USNA

The title of the Poem, “Sun Tzu’s Art of War”, gives insight into Sun Tzu’s viewpoint of how war should be approached with caution, believing that war is a delicacy. War is a term that is generally is associated, with havoc and chaos, however, Sun Tzu describes it as an “art” referring to a systematic approach to fighting. He realizes the importance of war, concluded that if the approach of war was handled properly than many benefits can be reaped. Sun Tzu, comparing war to art, demonstrates his conclusion that fighting should be approached in a systematic way, attention to detail. This belief is supported by his approach to war, relying heavily on preparation and using one’s intellectual abilities to maximize the capabilities of the force to get a favorable outcome. This assumption is supported by fighting “smarter and not harder”. The results of war can change tremendously in response to the actions both during the war and in the preparation of war. He states, “Victory belongs to the side / That scores most/ In the temple calculations/ Before Battle” (Art of War), which emphasizes not only the use of tactics and organization while the middle of fighting, but is about the preparation before the battle that signifies the results.

The first lesson that Midshipmen learn when indoctrinated into the Navy is “attention to detail”. The foundation of plebe summer is to develop the discipline to put equal effort and care in every aspect. This is shown in Sun Tzu’s approach to fighting as he believed that every aspect of war was equally important and could impact the final result. He employs that the formula of war is simple if the necessary steps are taken in every aspect of the battle. Sun Tzu says, “Follow the advantage,/master the opportunity:/this is the dynamic” (Art of War), emphasizing that actions should be done to maximize advantages. This promotes the idea that every action has a purpose and as a result should be done with that intent. This can be compared to the jobs plebes are required to do, such as squaring corners and chopping. Although as tedious as they may be, they serve as a distinctive purpose.

Sun Tzu’s mindset on war is similar to the values of Midshipmen as they learn and prepare to become officers who are in charge of leading others in war. Throughout both our time at the Academy, we experience that the outcome of situations is highly dependent on ones thought, actions, character. Because of the importance of being not only competent technical areas such as Engineering courses, but we are required to take many courses throughout our time at the Academy including Leadership and Ethics and Moral Reasoning which serve to expand for the Fleet when we are put in real life situations. Each class hones in on a different skill or region of development in order to prepare to become the best officer in the Navy. I think in many ways the two philosophies, that of Sun Tzu, and the Naval Academy, are very similar and are effective in their ability to focus on the real purpose of something in order to reap the absolute benefits.

-Caroline Foley

Word Count: 500

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

Struggles of Citizenship

The citizenship law of 451, harmed foreign-born medics and slaves chances of equal representation within Athens, as it prevented anyone who did not have two Athenian born parents to be recognized as an Athenian citizen. However, in the wake of the devastation brought by the thirty tyrants, the issue of the legality of medics and slaves festered as the new democracy was rebuilding. Throughout the process of creating a new democracy, many moderate-democrats in favor of bringing back Pericles’ Citizenship Law, believed that chaos and instability within the democracy were as a result of foreign-borns who interpreted the loyalty of true Athenians. Democracy they thought was built on the foundation of trust. Citizens of Athens are granted rights to participate within the assembly and therefore are in charge of the critical decisions that determine the fate of Athens. To bring back a peaceful, united, and prosperous, medics and slaves must be excluded, so that the former Athens pre-Peloponnesian war could return. Proponents against the Citizenship Law of 451, can say that Pericles is hypocritical by excluding people when he himself wrote in the Funeral of Oration when the democracy in Athens was a model that, “We are more an example to others…it is called a democracy, because it is managed not for a few people, but for the majority” (Thucydides 37). This proves that it does not matter the makeup of the person, but make up of the country itself which is why medics and slaves should be included.

Like the medic’s and slaves, today the “dreamers” make up a major portion of our population but fail to be recognized as part of the country. Day in and day out they participate in the same everyday activities as legal citizens do, wanting to contribute to society. The “dreamers” came to America to escape political, economic, and or religious strive. They are in search of a better lifestyle promoted by American values and democracy just as the medics and slaves in ancient Greece. Athens, the birthplace of democracy, proclaimed “eleuthia,” or liberty for its citizens. Slaves and metics believed that living in the same country as Athens citizens, that eleuthia should not be reserved for the Athenian born people only. The slaves and medics who had lived there all there life, through the strives, starvation, and war, wanted to continue to live and enjoy the liberties Athens had to offer has a prosperous democracy. It is similar to today’s situation in which the dreamers come to America to be protected by American ideals of freedom and democracy. They live here with a purpose. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were created so that those liberties and values would be protected. Dreamers argue that they should be protected and able to enjoy the same liberties, without fear of deportation from their home. Similar to Ancient Greece, how medics and slaves were blamed for the weakness of the democracy and the thirty tyrants actions, today the illegal immigrants living within the country are heavily targeted for the problems within the country itself. Both groups, medics, and slaves in Athens and undocumented immigrants in America today, are similar in the fact that reality is masked. Their homes in the community make life seem normal as anyone else, however, despite contributing to society, they are very excluded. The law works with “700,000 Dreamers in a state of uncertainty about futures and possibly deportation” in order to promote opportunities for those illegal immigrants in the country to be qualified for a work permit and make a living. Despite, given some hope for equal opportunities, this law does not give the “dreamers” full access to democracy. The immigrants despite living in America, just like the medics and slaves in Athens, are deprived of ever gaining citizenship and therefore are excluded from enjoying certain rights.

http://fortune.com/2018/01/25/trump-daca-citizenship/

Caroline Foley

Word Count:600

Athenian versus American

Although today the United States uses a system of democracy to govern its nation, it can be viewed as dramatically different than the 5th-century Athenian democracy, despite having the same ground ideas. The first democracy born in Ancient Greece, in Athens, was built off the founding idea of promoting “eleuthia” or otherwise known as “liberty”. The United States today, also recognizes the idea that protecting liberty is essential to the nation and should be the foundation from which the country is governed. However, due to the contrasting systematic approach of advocating democracy, the two can be viewed as unrelatable in many aspects.

The main factor that separates the two democracies is that Ancient Greece used a direct model of democracy which the individuals themselves voted different issues as they appeared whereas the American uses a modern model of democracy which advocates democracy through the representation of the people. More specifically, political parties are used to represent the ideas of the people, from which the representatives vote on issues with the best interests of the people of the party. Individuals may vote on a representative to enter a political party, but it is the representative’s vote that ultimately counts. As opposed to the Athenian democracy, in modern-day democracy, individuals do not directly vote on every issue that arises. Representation of the majority is achieved in this model of modern-day democracy because the people elect others in the office to represent their ideas with common stances. Current day proponents of the system believe that this the most effective form of governance of democracy in order to truly gauge the stance of the majority. The people are indirectly voting on issues.

In contrast in the Athenian democracy, individuals were able to vote on each issue through an assembly. This meant that individuals were very involved and had a first hand say on the issues themselves. Their thoughts could be directly represented in the outcome of the decision. The voting took place in the Pnyx which required individuals to travel to a central location in Athens, where they would debate in front of the assembly before a decision would be made. In the Funeral Oration, the Athenian pride of their democracy is shown through the words, “In the name, it is called democracy, because we managed not for a few people, but the majority (Thucydides 3.37)”.This demonstrates their commitment as an empire to represent the people through their governance which allowed individuals to hold the power and directly impact the decision.

Both democracies had the intention to represent the majority, however, took very different approaches. Both democracies, the 5th-century Athenian model and the 21st century United States model would argue that their own approach to governance best accomplishes “democracy” as in that it represents the people the best.

-Caroline Foley

The Funeral Oration

Word Count: 442

Omar al-Bashir labeled Tyrant

The term tyrant is developed from the Greek word, Tyrannos, which means “sole ruler”. Ancient Greeks referred to tyrants as rulers who came to power in a non-hereditary way. This classified tyrants as coming to power through illegitimate means, despite the fact of whether they rose to power through common use of election, or seizing power by force of arms. Tyrannies in pre-democratic societies were commonly correlated with “statis’s” which describes a civil conflict with a moral problem within a city. This situation produces a leader to arise who is not in the line of ruling, but usually has public support over the power of aristocrats. Pisistratus an infamous Ancient Greek tyrant, is known for his success of acquisition of Athens as a tyrant. Through three different attempts, Pisistratus finally achieved the rule of Athens, rising to power non-hereditary. Although he used force in his attempts to seize Athens, as a tyrant he did not disrupt the structure of government and instead brought prosperity and stability throughout the city-state.“After Pisistratus ruled Athens, but he did not interfere with the existing structure of offices or change laws; he administered the state constitutional and organized the states affairs properly and well” (Herodotus 1.57). This quote demonstrates the history of the pre-democratic use of the word tyrant as a ruler who brings success throughout his rule in a region that has been previously corrupted with chaos. This definition of a tyrant does not fit the modern day association of tyranny which is plagued with a negative connotation. Common characteristics of a stereotypical tyrant include corruption, greed, oppressiveness, and more unfavorable descriptions. However, Pistastrus brought economic growth throughout Athens, as well as conducted public works projects throughout the city-state. Known for bringing stability, within both political affairs throughout the government and the economy, his progress in Athens sheds light on the term, characterizing tyranny in Ancient Greece and pre-democratic times in a good way.

Modern-day president of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir, has been described as a “Tyrant for Life” for his involvement in Sudan, connecting his actions to a modern-day perception of a tyrant, post-Persian Invasion in Athens (Reeves). Bashir’s label of tyrant differs from that of Peisistratus in pre-democratic times because of the abusive actions that cause him to be associated with the negative connotation of a modern-day tyrant. This analysis is associated with characteristics of greed, corruption, and bad intentions. Omar al-Bashir holds an oppressive rule has been marked with acts of atrocity against humanity, including mass killings and rape, along with accusations of war crimes. Although Omar fits the description of a tyrant through his actions to overthrow the existing ruler in 1989 using force, he used manipulation and corruption as means to maintain his firm rule which has created opposition within his own party and the resisting party and led him to commit acts that correlate to the modern day definition if a tyrant. Instead of bringing progress as many Ancient Greek tyrants did, Omar has created instability in the government and country, bringing hostility within the public. Not only has Sudan suffered from economic deterioration, but endures assault with a civil war involving ethnic cleansing. Unlike, Peisistratus and many other Ancient Greek tyrants who kept the structure of the government, Omar al- Bashir, in full control of the government, has managed to change the existing Constitution to meet his needs. Currently, Sudan’s Constitution has a two-term presidential limit, however, through Bashir’s influence within the ruling party, he has been elected a candidate for a third term, which would, in turn, rewrite the Amendments within Sudan’s own Constitution. With this change in the Constitution, Omar al-Bashir has the ability to perpetually maintain power forever, escaping any possible backlash for his violent rule and abusing authority.

-Caroline Foley

Word Count: 591

https://blackpast.org/gah/bashir-omar-hassan-ahmad-al-1944

http://sudanreeves.org/2018/08/13/8746/.

Herodotus. The Histories. Start Publishing LLC, 2015.

Spodek, Howard. The World’s History. 4th ed., Pearson, 2010.