The Silver Bullet: Afghanistan and Blowback

    

        When discussing American intervention inevitably someone will cry Afghanistan as a warning. In the 1980s the United States supplied arms to various militant groups. The goal was to resist the Soviet invasion in the hopes that it would weaken a US rival at  a relatively minimal cost. Some of these groups then became the ruling Taliban that won their post-Soviet civil war. The ruling Taliban allowed Al Qaeda to train and then launch the 9/11 attacks. Thus creating “Afghanistan” as a single, silver bullet to any American intervention.[1] In fact, “blowback” is such a lazy catch phrase that even in commenting on the Israel Hamas war Connor Boyack,  a supposedly serious libertarian, conflated cycle of violence and blowback into cycle of blowback. (He also added some antisemitism as well.) But this argument fails as a simplistic retelling of history, offers a presentist argument that discounts the contemporary threat of the Soviet Union, and continues to offer a reactive and weak vision of foreign policy.

        History doesn’t move in a straight line. It’s true that some militant groups received arms. At the same time though that action doesn’t lead in a straight line to the 9/11. The various militant groups fought against each other almost as much as they fought the Soviet Union. In fact, the fragmentary leadership and society led to a civil war in Afghanistan for much of the 90s. Only half a decade after that civil war Al Qaeda launched the 9/11 attacks. There were all sorts of moments that could have changed that outcome, and the US wasn’t closely involved in them for a decade.

        The Soviets could have continued their occupation. Another power like the Northern alliance and the Lion of Panjshir, could have won the civil war. Ironically enough, after the withdraw of Soviet forces that lion complained the US wasn’t more involved. From the linked interview he said: “[The US] forgot Afghanistan and they left Afghanistan alone.” This reminds me of a poor book where the author argued the US was imperialistic for “meddling” in foreign countries, while he also blamed the US for “losing” China to the Communists. In other words, he blamed the US for not meddling. But when your isolationist agenda comes first, and you rely on a simplistic understanding of history, intellectual rigor and honesty take a back seat.

        Returning to other historical paths not taken, Bill Clinton could have seized Osama Bin Laden when he had the chances. (BillClinton actually had nine chances according to the 9/11 commission.) Any of these variables alone, and definitely all of them together cut the thread of American aid to the mujahadeen leading to 9/11 implied in the blowback arguments. There were so many variables that meandered throughout the decade plus interval between the two that the blowback argument becomes simplistically ahistorical.

        More importantly, this is a presentist argument. Presentism is normally a fallacy from those that complain individuals in the past are racist, sexist, and otherwise fail to conform to current standards. In this case presentism takes the terror attack from a decade later to ignore the threats at the time that made America arm the mujahadeen. It would be much like looking at Soviet strength early in the Cold War and complaining that it was blowback for America’s defeat of Hitler.[2] That thinking ignores the threat the Nazis posed and the need to intervene against that threat.

        In that Cold War America faced an evil empire that repressed its own citizens, ruthlessly crushed dissidents abroad, aggressively expanded along its borders and threatened nuclear war. Arming Afghani fighters was a relatively low-cost way to sap the strength of an existential threat. Those using their only bullet ignore the historical context of that threat. They might argue that the US had no moral right or national interest to resist the Soviet Union, but I’m assuming that my readers don’t lack moral confidence in America or show downright hatred for their country that many show today. Because ignoring the Soviet Union of the 1980s for fear of the Taliban assisted terror attack of 9/11, is like saying America shouldn’t fight Hitler because the Soviet Union will be stronger.

        The US should balance the consequences with their goals but can’t be paralyzed by fear which leads to my final point that our foreign policy can’t be paralyzed by fear of what could happen. Its true that actions have consequences, but so does inaction.

        The best example of blowback from inaction that ends up being worse than any blowback from action is in Syria. Back in 2011 the typical crowd wanted to avoid any military action to remove the Syrian dictator and protect civilians. They did so using a false dichotomy between a massive invasion and nothing, when America could have achieved good results with limited invested and danger through a no fly zone. But afraid of a small potential of war through a no-fly zone or missile strikes, we did nothing.

        The result was that America looked weak because our leaders declared red lines that they didn’t enforce, and made bellicose statements that the dictator’s days were “numbered” that became irrelevant. Almost 300,000 civilians have died, 12 million internally displaced, and 5 million people became refugees. Russia made Syria their proxy and tested their combat tactics that were used in Crimea and Ukraine a short time later. The terrorist group ISIS went from jayvee to pro and stormed across much of the region. European nations still grapple with that refugee crisis, including Sweden that had to mobilize the army to fight gangs of immigrant youth. In the US we had rabid debates about what to do with all of those migrants. (Though I think we should have loved them enough to make sure their homes weren’t destroyed in the first place.) 

        Looking at all that, do the isolationist libertarians that use this silver bullet consider all the consequences of inaction? Nope, they scream blowback about the current shiny thing in the news. Ironically enough, it was blowback that started the war in Ukraine, and probably Israel. Putin started marshaling his forces for invasion mere weeks after the botched Afghanistan withdraw. 

        Clearly the United States should carefully consider its actions which include blowback to military intervention and nonintervention. But using the aid to Afghanistan in the 1980s as a direct cause of 9/11 is over simplistic reasoning in support of consistent, knee jerk isolationism. (Or as I discovered researching my next book, their beliefs are called contingent pacifism because they recognize a theoretical right to just war in scripture but don’t find any examples in the world that meet those conditions.) The Afghani silver bullet ignores the historical context of the decisions in the 1980s to argue for isolationism today. Most importantly, that silver bullet shows an inherently weak foreign policy by ignoring the expensive cost of inaction for often vague and exaggerated costs of action.

Thanks for reading. If you found value in this work please consider getting more of it by donating using the paypal button below or by purchasing one of my books linked in the top left. 

---

[1] This is more rhetorical flourish than clinically accurate. Isolationists libertarians sometimes refer to the CIA coups against Guatemalan and Iranian governments in the 1950s.

[2] Personally, that’s why I preferred Winston Churchill’s Mediterranean strategy where Western allies invaded Eastern Europe from Italy. Despite its higher difficulty level that strategy would have spared millions from Soviet domination. 

Reclaiming King Benjamin: A Response to Patrick Mason and King Benjamin's Statebuilding

Patrick Mason recently wrote an evocative piece for the Maxwell Institute as part of the Mormon Theology Seminar. I was extremely interested because his topic of political history was much closer to my area of study than the normal offerings of (often obscure) philosophy.  Unfortunately, his interpretation left out key verses and twisted many others that resulted in a heavily politicized interpretation of King Benjamin who failed to live up to the modern political ideals of some.

Masons’ basic argument is that Benjamin’s speech was the culmination of the Nephite state building started by Mosiah(1).  The Nephites arrived in the Land of Zarahemla which featured different languages, belief systems, and political leaders. Mason states that the integration and assumption of leadership under Mosiah(1) became “heavy handed” under the rule of King Benjamin, his son (pg.6).[1]

Mason blames Benjamin for the “serious war” (Omni 1:24) in which the greedy Nephites, who already claimed Zarahemla as their land of inheritance launched what morphed into an offensive war. According to Mason:

In the space of only about a generation, Nephites had entered the land of Zarahemla as a minority, asserted their linguistic, religious, and political dominance over the longtime inhabitants, and eradicated the remainder of the native population that either refused to accept their rule or which they deemed to be dangerously unassimilable. This pattern, with variations, will be familiar to scholars of settler colonialism, particularly as it played out in the modern history of the American West, Canada, South Africa, and Australia (pg. 6.)

The problem, is that Mason makes similar mistakes to those like John Sorenson, who has been accused of stretching parallels and restating things in his own way to produces correspondences. There is little evidence of their being an internal war. Words of Mormon 1:12 says there were “somewhat contentions” among his own people. V. 13 then transitions to external enemies, which is where the military conflict starts. Moreover, that military conflict is explicitly labelled as a Lamanite offensive that didn’t end until they were “driven out” of Zarahemla (v.14). 

Mason seems to be inventing Nephite offensives. Its possible the Nephites responded with tactically offensive maneuvers within a strategic defensive like the campaign of Alma 43. This also resembles an argument I presented at a conference hosted by Patrick Mason and Claremont.[2] There is an important difference, though, between meeting an aggressive enemy invading your lands, and launching a strategic offensive on enemy lands. Mason ignores that difference by at best, assuming there was a defensive counterattack and mislabeling it, or at worst by inventing a Nephite offensive.

Nowhere in Mason’s summary of King Benjamin’s actions did he acknowledge verse 14 which states that King Benjamin fought “in the strength of the Lord” or verse 18 where he reigned “in righteousness.” Of course, it’s possible that Mormon glossed over King Benjamin’s mistakes and we are getting something closer to propaganda from the editor Mormon. But skipping by these verses exhibits a tendency that many pacifist readings of the Book of Mormon must do,[3] in that they craft a “narrative” in the abstract only by ignoring specific verses.  Given that Mason already invented an offensive war, and ignored their refugee status (discussed below), I’m not willing to make that leap. At best, these are crucial verses that make Mason’s arguments hopelessly speculative.

Mason then goes on to argue that King Benjamin suppressed his religious enemies (often with political undertones). Mason says these were likely Mulekites that resented or refused to accept strange new Nephite teachings. While the Mulekites were widely different than the Nephites at this time, they shared a similar religious and ethnic heritage as the Nephites, and thus likely weren’t as ethnically different as Mason contends. Mason is also taking the most sinister interpretation of words like “sharpness” and “punished” (Words of Mormon 1:17, 15).

While I agree there was some ethnic tension at this time, as people like the Kingmen and the group led by Morianton continued to reject Nephite leadership throughout the Book of Alma, I think Mason overstates his case trying to make King Benjamin into some kind of Torquemada leading an inquisition of Mulekite apostates. Mormon was much more likely referring to King Benjamin the same way he described Alma’s statement of vigorous preaching. If we accepted Mason’s analysis, we would conclude that Alma’s desire to “stir”, “pull down,” “reclaim,” [and] “bear down” in his fight against pride and craftiness were also heavy handed (Alma 4:19). Except we know that isn’t the case because we have his speeches and actions. Unfortunately, Benjamin does not have the same luxury and thus similar evocative verbs about his spiritual efforts are transformed into “religious zeal” and “little tolerance” for such deviance (pg. 7).

Regarding the punishments, Mason expands that to include “criminalized, silenced, suppressed, and punished” (pg. 7).  It is worth nothing, however, that Mason praised the sons of Mosiah(2), (King Benjamin’s grandsons) yet they and Alma the Younger caused a great deal of damage, including plotting to “destroy” the church (Mosiah 27:10, Alma 26:18)) with legal impunity. They may have had had immunity as the sons of prominent elites, though they would be powerful leaders with the ability to topple the dynasty, the church, and the ruling class. All of which suggests Nephite leaders would have been more sensitive to their shenanigans and not less. Their impudence makes me believe that King Benjamin wasn’t as liberal in criminal punishments as Mason would have us believe.      

Finally, we must consider why the Nephites left the land of Nephi in the first place. It would be difficult to imagine the Nephites under Mosiah(1) left the land of their inheritance unless they were forced. They were not a representative faction sent by the Nephites in the Land of Nephi. Unlike Hernando Cortez, they didn’t claim the land for their absolute monarchial patrons. The narrative in Omni 1:12-13 suggested they were the few righteous inhabitants fleeing like their ancestor Nephi had to flee Jerusalem and could reasonably be called refugees. In today’s political discourse, refugee status would engender heartfelt sympathy, especially those that generally eschew state power and seek items like “ethnoracial” inclusiveness and economic justice like Mason (pg.4). But the Nephites and King Benjamin are the subject of attacks here, so their status as refugees is transformed into imperialists conquering a new land.

Conclusion

Thus, a close reading of the text suggests a vastly different narrative than the one offered by Mason.  Mosiah(1) and the Nephites were refugees who forged a new, mutually beneficial, consensus with the original inhabitants based on cooperation and possibly intermarriage.[4] Those refugees and their new allies faced serious assaults from the determined and aggressive enemies that forced them to leave in the first place. They defended themselves “in righteousness” (Words of Mormon 1:17) to establish “peace in the land” (v.18).  King Benjamin, like his predecessor Alma, tended to the church by rebuking apostates, and managed both civil and spiritual concerns by criminal prosecution of the worst offenders. The latitude afforded the apostate Sons of Mosiah(2) and Alma the Younger suggest these criminal punishments were applied rarely to only the worst offenders and treasonous. Possible intermarriage would have acted as a further deterrent on widespread excessive punishments. That is far different than imperialist Nephite forces dominating ethnic and linguistic others into submission, and then oppressively assaulting dissidents, criminalizing ethnic minorities, and invading their Lamanite enemies for little reason beyond asserting their own political power as Mason asserts.

I’m a proponent of more critical readings of the Book of Mormon. I have no problem with scouring the texts to produce new and even critical insights. I endorse that approach so much it was the methodology of my second book. But Mason here seems to be ignoring stronger readings, plainly listed in the text for more speculative material based on wild reinterpretations to support a politicized message.  

Sadly, this seems to reinforce perceptions of the new direction Maxwell Institute. The 1998 Maxwell Institute called King Benjamin’s speech a “treasure trove of inspiration, wisdom, eloquence, and spiritual insight.” The 2020 Maxwell Institute solicits, sponsors, and advertises work that provides some theological window dressing on the speech, but mostly calls King Benjamin a colonialist inquisitor and warmonger to promote their ideology.  Most ironically of all, the Maxwell Institute posted this on social media as a spiritual study aid. But I don’t know many members that will find this a spiritual bonanza.

Thanks for reading! I work as a freelance author and military historian. Producing ad free research for over a decade takes a great deal of time and effort. If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button below, or buy one of my books using the link in the top left. Thanks again for reading! 

********

---

[1] The exact phrase is “heavier hand.” All page numbers are from Patrick Mason, “King Benjamin’s Statebuilding Project and the Limits of Statist Religion.”

[2] Morgan Deane, Offensive Warfare in the Book of Mormon and a Defense of the Bush Doctrine,” in War and Peace in Our Times: Mormon Perspectives, (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2012), 29-40. See also, Karl Von Clausewitz, On War, Michael Howard and Peter Paret Eds., (Princeton University Press, 1984,) Book six, chapter one.

[3] See for example, Joshua Madsen, “A Non-Violent Reading of the Book of Mormon,” in War and Peace in Our Times: Mormon Perspectives, Patrick Mason, David Pulsipher, Richard Bushman eds, (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2015,) 13-28.

[4] The Ammon that found Zeniff referred to those individuals as “his brethren” (Mosiah 9:1) but was also described as a descendent of Zarahemla (Mosiah 7:3), implying dual origin. King Benjamin named two of his sons with Jaredite name ending, possibly filtered through the Mulekites, suggesting a Mulekite wife. Mosiah 1:2. Plus, marriage is how political alliances were sealed in premodern times.

Preemptive War in the Book of Mormon: Part IV Alma 46-50

This is part 4 of an ongoing series. See part one, part two, part two(a), part three, part five, part six, part seven, part eight.

These scriptures are most commonly cited as a defense of preemptive war, though there are hidden details and consequences that should prevent easy use of the strategy.[1] As he prepared an ambush for Lamanite forces, Captain Moroni “thought it no sin that he should defend [the Nephites] by stratagem” (Alma 43:30). Moreover, Moroni preemptively attacked and tried to capture and presumably execute Amalickiah, based on the assumption that preventing his escape through military action would prevent a future war. As with Zeniff’s scouting, this action is presented without editorial dissent, and it is instead given as part of Moroni’s stellar resume. In the same chapter that described a period in their history that was “never happier,”[2] Moroni “cut off” the Lamanites living in the east and west wildernesses (Alma 50:11). This occurs during a time of supposed peace, but it could also be described as a lull or “cold war” between the First and Second Amalickiahite War.[3] Duane Boyce went further and created a just war theory out of Moroni’s preparations in Alma 48.[4] During an attack or in a time of strained peace, Moroni is lauded for his preemptive actions, ambushes, and active defense.

The major objection to this line of thinking from opponents of preemptive war comes from the idea that Amalickiah was just a dissenter. The argument then goes that these were wicked Nephites that caused “otherwise neutral” Lamanites to go to war with their propaganda.[5] But this breaks down upon further examination. The father of King Lamoni was hostile on site (Alma 20:10), and pretty quickly the king tried to kill Ammon (Alma 20:16). The leader of the Lamanites gives a pretty good indication of their general disdain and aggressiveness towards the Nephites, not their neutrality. Readers of the Book of Mormon have the advantage of knowing the rest of the story. Amalickiah went on to raise an army, provoke war, and invade in what was an intense and lasting conflict, so Moroni and Nephite leaders had ample cause to be concerned about his behavior. As will be discussed below, seizing and killing potential usurpers was a common practice for the Nephites and in Amalickiah’s case it was necessary.

Those who say these chapters don’t count as enough defense of preemptive war also point to the refusal of Lamanites to take up arms. But this wasn’t an indication of their peacefulness. As described above, their refusal is evidence that Nephite martial prowess and preemptive strikes could successfully dissuade an attack before it was launched.

Supporters of preemptive war who cite these verses also miss the factors that led to Moroni’s use of it in the first place, and they fail to look at the consequences of his actions. Both of these factors complicate the use of these scriptures in defense of preemptive war, though they do not nullify them. Moroni was old enough to remember the Amlicite war. In Alma 2:9 the Amlicites appointed Amlici as king. A short time later they attacked the land of Zarahemla and even joined the Lamanites. In response to these provocative actions the Nephites seemed defensive and reactionary. Alma 2:12 described how the Nephites knew the Amlicites intent and “prepared to meet them.” They did arm themselves, but the Nephites didn’t attack first or advance to meet the enemy, they didn’t try to position themselves to fight on advantageous terrain. Reinforcing the idea that a passive defense instead of preemptive attack places the defenders in a poor position when they do face battle, the Nephite army were in such a poor position that they had to make an armed crossing of a river (Alma 2:27). They almost didn’t make it to the battle, as the breathless report of their spies spurred them to a perilously tardy counter attack (Alma 2:23-24). With the hindsight gained from the Amlicite War, the Lamanite attack that resulted from Ammon’s missionary service, and possibly Zeniff’s aborted attack, of course Moroni preemptively chased down Amalickiah, and sought to “cut off” and “head” his army (Alma 46:30-32). In short, Moroni learned the lessons paid for in Nephite blood when they awaited Lamanite attack, forfeited the advantage of surprise, and had to reacted to Lamanites who took the initiative.

While Moroni’s active and premptive strategy didn’t repeat the past mistakes it possibly created new ones. The first negative consequence was the possible militarization of events by Moroni. The Nephites supporting Moroni rushed forward with their arms and armor to make these covenants (Alma 46:13, 21), which suggests Moroni escalated from warm disputes with fists to one side being armed for warfare (Alma 1:22). A politician with Amalickiah’s skill wouldn’t have needed much to make a strong case out of these actions to the Lamanite king. Nephite actions, including Moroni’s armed response, attack and attempted capture of Amalickiah and preemptive seizure of land in Alma 50 provided Amalickiah with mountains of ammunition. One can picture the shot in the arm Amalickiah received after making arguments to the Lamanite king (Alma 47:1) and his supporters received when they spoke the Lamanite people (Alma 48:1) when the Lamanite refugees from the wilderness came pouring into the land based upon Nephite preemptive action (Alma 50:7). The angry young men would have made especially ready recruits for his “wonderfully great” army (Alma 51:11).

Instead of neat conclusions based on a handful of verses, a close reading of the scriptures suggests no easy answers to today’s dilemmas in Moroni’s actions. He certainly seemed justified based upon the trauma of his youth. The brutal killing of Gideon, civil war, destruction of Ammonihah, capture of prisoners, near defeat, almost annihilation, many deaths, and famine of the Nephite realm during his youth made him rather aggressive in defending the Nephites. His actions were successful in defending the Nephite realm and they almost nipped the threat from Amalickiah in the bud. But they had severe unexamined consequences that may have exacerbated Nephite problems. The solution instead of dogmatic dismissals and overwrought denunciations of the practice is that it was a strategy with precedent and justification but was not a simple solution or cure all. It is possible that many of the negative consequences could have been avoided if Moroni had been completely successful in capturing in capturing Amalickiah, but the next example suggests preemptive action wouldn’t solve Nephite problems.

Thanks for reading. I work as a free lance author and providing quality ad free research for the last decade takes time. If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button below or you can buy one of my books using the Amazon link in the top left. Thanks again. 

***********

[1] Mark Henshaw, Valerie Hudson et. Al. “War and the Gospel: Perspectives from Latter day Saint National Security Practitioners,” Square Two, v.2 no.2 (Summer 2009.) http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleHenshawNatSec.html
This passage borrows material first written Morgan Deane, Offensive Warfare in the Book of Mormon and a Defense of the Bush Doctrine,” in War and Peace in Our Times: Mormon Perspectives, (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2012), 32-33.
[2] Mormon said there “was never a happier time” during a lull in the war chapters (Alma 50:23). R. Douglas Phillips refers to it as a “golden age” in “Why is so much of the Book of Mormon Given Over to Military Accounts?” in Warfare in the Book of Mormon, ed. Stephen Ricks and William Hamblin (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1991), 27.
[3] Using the terminology of John Welch, “Why Study War in the Book of Mormon?” in Warfare in the Book of Mormon, ed. Stephen Ricks and William Hamblin (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1991), 6-15.
[4] Boyce, Even Unto Bloodshed, chapter 15.
[5] Connor Boyack, “The Problematic Inward Vessel,” Connors Conundrums, February 23rd, 2009. (Accessed October 21st, 2016. http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/the-problematic-inward-vessel )

The Deane's List

The Deane’s List, September 22^nd through 27^th

I'm considering starting some kind of newsletter. What follows would be a list of major events, mainly concerning foreign policy, accompanied by brief commentary. This is still in the formative, development stage so please let me know if you would like to receive something like this in your mailbox every week, what you would like to see, and if you would consider paying one dollar for a subscription. 

More problems than Hong Kong…

One of the arguments about tariffs is that China has the advantage. They are a dictatorship that doesn’t respond to an electorate like Trump and American congressmen must. But there is growing evidence that Chinese people are suffering. Since they don’t have to answer the electorate, they often disregard safeguards that correct damaging policies.

For example, they have increased government spending so that the Chinese housing bubble is much larger than the one that popped in America, and the consequences will be dire. In regards to tariffs, the Chinese have instituted rationing and price controls that harm small businesses. Pork suppliers say that they lose as much as 28 dollars per pig sold, which will end up hurting these businesses in the long run. Government policy and strong authoritarian policies can cover up the damage their polices are doing, and they seem like a difficult nut to crack in the tariff battle. But those policies are masking serious discontent. 

Read more…

Climate Change and Hunger Games

I once mentioned as a joke on social media that my favorite character in the Hunger Games was Haymitch. He was a previous winner of the Hunger Games for district 12. As a result, he was often drunk and forced to be in close contact with the district 12 tributes like Katniss Everdeen, the teenage hero of the series.

My joke was that if I had to listen to a whiny, screeching 15-year-old girl who was so self-important she thought she could save the world, I would probably drink my self into a stupor as well. So……we’re gonna need more booze.

Read more…

When You Need the Hawk

John Bolton disagreed with much of Trump’s approach to foreign policy. Given Iran has bombed or facilitated a bombing it seems like Bolton’s tough guy deterrence strategy should have been heeded. Given that we are in a state of near constant crisis with Iran, it seems that somebody who knows how to use the threat of war as leverage might be useful in the White House.

Read more…

Saudi Arabia Missile Defenses

American missile defenses have been criticized during the recent attack. But blaming a single system like the Patriot Missiles ignores the need for robust, inter layered defenses and a trained force that can properly use those weapon systems. In fact, the Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff came out later to say that multi layered defenses were necessary.

Read more…

Uncaring Trump America?

CNN posted a new article that the US has set a new historic low limit for refugees. The subtext made it seem like the US can only be loving and compassionate if they accept the amount of refugees that you deem necessary and of course that Trump is horrible and anti-immigrant. But that doesn't consider the example America sets in helping nations become free and prosperous, nor the many aid programs America has and it’s a facile, down river complaint that doesn’t address the root causes of refugees.

Read the whole thing...

Thanks for reading. Providing ad free research over the last ten years takes time and effort. If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button below, or you can buy one of my books using the link in the top left. 

Approaching Immigration in the of Book of Mormon

There was a recent debate in the comments section of the Desert News that I think deserves an entire follow up.  The article in question was about the importance of building the wall from an expert, Tim Ballard, fighting child sex trafficking. The comments section included a long debate about the efficacy of walls in the Book of Mormon. But they failed to note significant points that alter the debate and provide a better understanding. The key point is that the walls were part of Nephite military strategy, not immigration strategy, and people see what they want to see in the scriptures without understanding immigration in the book.  

It is tough to determine if any ancient power, or a people described in the Book of Mormon even had a coherent policy. Edward Luttwak’s description of Roman Grand Strategy often falters as critiques point out that there was little chance that rulers had little more than an ad hoc reactions to many frontier incursions, and not a strategy planned and implemented over decades and centuries.[1]

But we might still look carefully for how the Nephite rulers and ancient version of policy makers controlled the movement of people. We find that the Nephites did little in most cases to forcibly control the movement of people. In several cases, and moving chronologically through the text, the moving groups received permission from the ruler. 

The People of Limhi received permission from the Lamanite King, though they were, to use modern language, eventually exploited for up to half of their goods (Mosiah 9:5-7). The escaping Anti Nephi Lehis received permission to enter Nephite lands. They even offered to be slaves to the Nephites, but instead were granted land (Alma 27:8-9). Later in their history, they provided both men and food to support the Nephite war against the Lamanites which suggests a possible tributary relationship with the Nephites where they give food and soldiers for protection and land. (In fact, settling refugees in military colonies who then supported the mustered soldiers was a strategy advocated by Chinese legalists like Lord Shang and Han Feizi.[2])

The Nephites under Moroni did adopt an immigrant program, but it is hardly something most modern readers would approve. In Alma chapter 50 He took the soldiers and forcibly removed Lamanite settlers and seized the lands in the East and West wilderness. I doubt he gave them 30 day notices, and a flood of refugees entering other Lamanite lands likely helped galvanize opposition to what Lamanite leaders could easily portray as aggressive Nephite expansion.  Moroni also used the army to prevent the movement of Morianton under the guise of national security (Alma 50:32).

In the Book of Helaman the events are often described in brief, but there are even more movements of people, and less control by the government. The rise of the infamous Gadianton Robbers was connected to a failure of government officials to effectively enforce its laws, and an inability of the government to control the movement of their people and maintain territorial integrity.  The autonomy of local officials increased.  The chaos created new frontiers and borderlands, and new leaders rose to fill that gap.  In addition to Helaman chapter one, the Nephites faced other losses of territory.  As a result of contention, many settlers left for the far north (Helaman 3:3).  This pattern was repeated by separatists that later toppled the Nephite government (3 Nephi 7:12).  Shortly thereafter, the Nephites lost all of their territory to the Lamanites, with only a part of it being recovered (Helaman 4:10). Nephi was forced out of his position as chief judge (Helaman 5:1-3).  Their territory was only recovered through miraculous means (Helaman 5:52) that I think was the result of governing Lamanites converting in order to gain advantages (such as a just war against the Gadianton Robbers, Helaman 6:20) similar to the conversion pattern seen throughout European history (Helaman 6:3, 8-9).Later armies explicitly “took possession” of the land suggesting more armed control over men and material (Mormon 2:4; 4:2).

This is a cursory examination of the scriptures involving movement of people. It doesn’t involve ideologies and needs much more study. We can see that walls had some effect in security Nephite cities. But these were explicitly military and the immigration policy was far more extemporaneous in response to current events and the relative power of the ruling elites at the time. Early in Nephite history the migrating groups asked for permission to enter lands they entered. But both Nephites and Lamanites extracted compensation from it. Under powerful leaders such as Captain Moroni, they violently seized land and actually created refugees. This seems to go unnoticed by many American conservatives, and confirms  that most people see what they want to see. Finally, throughout much of the Book of Helaman people and groups move without any hints of government intervention.

The conclusion I draw is that most people see what they want to see regarding immigration. They see the word wall and naturally want to argue that walls work. Or they read the book with their woke goggles and bemoan the militaristic stud muffins like Moroni. But in reality, the ancient Nephites didn’t have an organized immigration system like modern nation states, in many cases they didn’t actively oppose it, and they did many things with which modern readers would find morally disagreeable. The Book of Mormon has limited value in immigration debates and is not a handbook on that debate, except in reminding us that we are all part of God’s family. 

********

Thanks for reading. I work as a free lance author. If you found value in this piece please consider donating using the pay pal button below. 

---

[1] Peter Heather, “Holding the Line: Frontier Defense and the Later roman Empire, in Makers of Ancient Strategy: From the Persian Wars to the Fall of Rome, Princeton University Press, 2009, 228.

[2] The Book of Lord Shang, JJL Duyvendak trans., University of Chicago Press, 1928, 50.

Notes on a Curious Verse- Helaman 11:33

The Rape of the Sabine Women.

Due to the narrative complexity, debates or its origins, and somewhat enigmatic narrative, many verses in the Book of Mormon can provide a multitude of ideas often in direct contrast to how short the text is. One of those is late in the Book of Helaman, and 11:33 reads: Yea, for they did visit many parts of the land, and did do great destruction unto them; yea, did kill many, and did carry away others captive into the wilderness, yea, and more especially their women and their children.

What follows is a summary and explanation of ideas and implications of this verse. I see four interconnected ideas possible in the verse that come from a critical historical perspective.[1]

Captive Brides:

Bride kidnapping is common among many ancient cultures across the world. The Book of Mosiah already described a clearer example of this practice (Mosiah 20:1-5). It is in line with many norms of ancient war. The winner of a conflict had jurisdiction over its inhabitants, and usually slew the men while taking the women and children captive.[2]

The capture of women and children could represent the need for labor of an arms industry (mining metal), additional soldiers for their army, or increased agricultural production.[3] But the practice of captive brides also has several economic implications. According to sources, sometimes the practice of stealing brides was simply a cover for a couple’s elopement in order to satisfy cultural expectations. Many more times, the practice occurred because “the men who resort to capturing a wife are often of lower social status [see below], because of poverty, disease, poor character or criminality. They are sometimes deterred from legitimately seeking a wife because of the payment the woman’s family expects, the bride price [emphasis added]…”[4]

People Over Land:

During periods of massive economic and social turmoil, a decline in population means that people become more valuable than land. The most famous instance is probably Europe after the Black Death. The population decline by as much as a third, meaning the law of supply and demand made existing workers more valuable.

The Chinese period of disunion faced a similar challenge. During the fourth century AD as I write in my book: [A]s a consequence of the partial depopulation of North China, the various regimes that arose…placed greater value on the control of persons than control of territory…. During [this period,] empty cultivable land could be found in abundance…while the labor power to make that land productive was often in short supply. Human populations, therefore, were prominent among the spoils of victory.[5]

The resulting power of the people necessitated compromises between the emperor and various local power holders ranging from former officials of dynasty, towns that mobilized their own militia under a magnate, and robbers that gained unofficial and (eventually,) official power. The compromise between the emperor and submitting warlords or Confucian officials allowed the emperor to strengthen his position, reduce the threats against him, and gain greater legitimacy as an emperor. It also allowed the warlord, bandit chief, or army leader to keep power, have his position legitimized, and have a chance to amass greater wealth and power. The wins of the emperor produced a positive feedback loop. The initial winner received the submission of various warlords and leaders. This increased the ruler’s tax base and the number of farmers he could call on to supply his army, and it made him look like a mandated ruler in the eyes of the Confucian officials who helped him govern and the people over whom he governed. But there were significant limits to this power. A single defeat would break the success loop. The rival generals still held their armies, so they could easily sense which way the wind was blowing and rebel, and because of the ideology surrounding the Mandate of Heaven, they could claim a powerful justification for their actions by arguing that the ruler had lost the mandate.[6]

State Formation:

The first two points suggest the attempted creation of a rival state. The stealing of Lamanite women by the priests of Noah started a new “ite” in competition with the Nephites. And the power of the Gadianton Robbers to take women and children suggests they had the basics of a state apparatus. Again, Giddianhi was educated; there were many “waste places” in Nephite lands (Helaman 11:20), and it appears as though Nephites traded land for peace with the Gadianton Robbers (3 Nephi 6:3). Even later in Nephite history the record mentions a treaty with them but provides little about their state (Mormon 2:28).

The fragility of both states might again take a cue from Chinese history. Both the Nephites and Gadianton Robbers had trouble consolidating their rule and protecting the people. As I’ve discussed previously, the rise of Robbers represented competing centers of power fighting for control. The conquest dynasties such as those from the period of disunion were even more fragile than Gadianton Robbers. Tribes like the Di didn’t have skilled bureaucrats who could collect taxes, administer rituals of leadership, conduct a census that taxes households, and raise their armies. On top of this, the Di tribe had only gained power within recent memory. There were still many gaps to their rule, which might specifically apply to weakening Nephite power. The various hilltop fortresses were only nominally loyal to the government. They still provided potential centers of opposition should the ruler falter and they shield peasants from taxes and the imposition of corvee labor. This weakened the government, as it couldn’t pay its army and didn’t have enough labor to build its own fortresses. Again, recalling Helaman 11:33, the most potentially damaging effect on a would-be emperor’s power was the tendency to relocate the population of defeated enemy states to areas around the capital. In times of severe chaos when central authority was weak or nonexistent, people often became more important than empty territory. By the time of the Battle of Fei River (383), there were over one hundred forty thousand households from the Xianbei and Qiang tribes stationed around the capital. They were easier to tax and control there, but they became a large sea of hostile people if the strength of the capital faltered, which it did in defeat at Fei River.

One final note is geographic specific, and that is how Mesoamerican rulers often needed a quick strike to legitimize their rule and provide captives for sacrifices. If we accept the notion that the Robbers weren’t just robbers but rather a rival state, then view could hold some merit. The warfare was needed on an economic basis but also for a cultural and political basis. Victory in battle, from Constantine seeing the Cross at the Battle of Milvian Bridge to the Chinese Mandate of Heaven, to the ritual ball court sacrifices of the Mayans was often the best divine diagnostic.

Ethnic Tension:

The final point would likely be the lowered social status of The Gadianton Robbers. Assuming these weren’t captive brides, economically important workers, or a need to show divine sanction of the state, their capture could just be part of the ethno history of the Nephites. The Greeks thought the Persians were weak and effeminate, the Romans thought the Greeks were duplicitous, mountain men often were perceived as brutish and darker skinned. The Nephites believed their opponents were cursed, indolent, bloodthirsty, and living in tents. Ethnic beliefs would hardly condone intermarriage with those that were considered ethnic others and mere robbers to boot.

The capture of women and children then is not a mere footnote or ambiguous verse sandwiched between speeches, but rather indicative of larger trends such as economic importance of people, but also the fragility of the states involved often in islands of power surrounded by seas of hostile people only loyal as long as they feared the military might of the leaders.

All of the factors are highly speculative and based on single verses combined with an overall picture presented in Helaman and an extensive knowledge of history. But the book of Helaman is shorter than the war chapters yet covers some 50 years. While some of the ideas in this section are extremely tenuous, they offer tantalizing clues into the nature of Nephite society, the underlying societal factors that drove prophetic warnings, and even possible sexual violence in the text.

What do you think?

*********

[1] There are many more ways to look at the text, and those that think the text is a fiction would find this silly. But I’m not having the same debate over and over again.

[2] Morgan Deane, Bleached Bones and Wicked Serpents: Ancient Warfare in the Book of Mormon, (Ebookit Press, 2014), chapter 2.

[3] William Hambling, Warfare in the Ancient Near East to 1600 BC: Holy Warriors at the Dawn of History, (New York: Routledge Press, 2006), 113, 205.

[4] Daniel G. Bates, “Normative and Alternative Systems of Marriage among the Yörük of Southeastern Turkey,” Anthropological Quarterly 47, no. 3 (1974), 270–287. You might also examine the practices of Boko Haram and ISIS who are doing the same thing in the modern age.

[5] David Graff, Medieval Chinese Warfare:300-900AD,(New York: Routledge Press, 2001), 60.

[6] Morgan Deane, Decisive Battles in Chinese History,(New York, Westholme Press, 2018), 40.

The Day They Came

Cross posted at Wheat and Tares. 

The villagers were enjoying the last coolness of the night before the sun rose. A gentle breeze rolled off of the ocean from their semi-permanent shelters. A few women were already beginning to grind nuts and millet to make the morning meal.  The men were stirring, ready to hunt wild pigs and speer fish to supplement the fruits and grain.

As the sun rose the first hint of danger was the barking and squawking of small animals in the village. On top of the hill, the birds suddenly flew from the tree tops and thick brush. The rustling of fleeing animals from the underbrush got louder. Once the sun has crested the hill it outlined the approaching soldiers. Their head gear added to the length of their shadows, and the sun glistened off of their new heavier armor made of glass, bone, and pieces of metal. Their swords were already in hand, and they had started to pick up the pace in their balanced ranks.

The cry went up from one of the women and the village became a scene of commotion. The women screamed for their children, or just screamed in terror. The old men stirred more slowly, sad at what they knew was coming to their village. They had warned the younger elders of the perfidy of their neighbors, just as their grandfathers had warned them.  They even received warnings from fleeing political leaders. He told disturbing tales of armies that were led by a young, angry, firebrand who it was said, often discussed his desire to seize more land and used the army to intimidate disagreeing opponents. It was said he spent small fortunes on arming them with new and heavier armor, he desired the extermination of everybody who opposed him, and he sent that army to pull down and level his opponents and seize their wealth.  And the intimidating soldiers, with heavier armor stood right in rank and file as evidence in front of the terrified villagers.

The young men in the village were moving the fastest. The soldiers marched forward with a steady crunch, swhoosh, chrunch, swhoosh and by the time the soldiers had marched to the bottom of the hill they faced a small line of young men and experienced warriors armed with swords, curved swords, and slings made out of bone, jade, obsidian. The fleet and elite warriors of the village managed to put on hide armor and thick, padded cloth armor.

The captains yelled to maintain ranks, and the chief captain yelled the order to attack, and the soldiers rushed forward with a unifying cry! The skirmish was over quickly, as the heavier and ornate armor of the army deflected the blows of the warriors. Only one of them every now and again was even wounded, while the lightly armored and surprised warriors were quickly killed and overwhelmed. The few armed with slings managed to wound a few soldiers, mainly in the legs, but it was a one- sided conflict. The defeated villagers grabbed whatever they could and rush into out the other side of the village. They fled in small groups with bits of necklace, pottery, food, and clothing.

Each family in the village had at least one small boat for fishing in the sea, and it proved useful in crossing the nearby river. The softly rushing water flowing through reeds, and the croak of frogs contrasted with the smell of smoke, screams of the wounded and dying, the mourning for the fallen and the crackling fire that soldiers had started. Those who fought the fear and the heart break to look behind them saw the rising smoke. They would never come back to what they considered their home. They faced an uncertain future among loosely related political and ethnic groups around the capital and its environs, the surviving men resolved to get revenge for their eviction and looked forward to telling their stories of woe to whoever would hear it. Maybe they would be allowed to speak from the towers…

*****

English colonists attacking the Pequot in 1636. I know this brings up imperialism and other sensitive matters, but that was not an exclusive Western, white, and modern sin. I think an argument can be made that the Nephites were imperialists as well. 

In the village the captains started organizing the consolidation. They focused their ire on a large wooden tower. It was recently built in the center of the village and the army didn’t need to guess what lies it had testified to. They just barely missed capturing that traitor and he had found a friendly audience among this group. They torched the tower immediately.  The semi-permanent structures were torn apart by soldiers. The new space would be the location of a governor’s headquarters, the first homes for new settlers, and store houses for the expected farming and hunting.  Most importantly, they would have space for a barracks. The wood could be used for new palisades on top of the planned berms around the city. The remaining individuals not quick or healthy enough to flee were held captive. The soldiers were under strict orders not to rape them, but some of them certainly leered enough to make the women and girls uncomfortable. Their last king had outlawed slavery years earlier, but the soldiers had plenty of work to do before the coming settlers, they wanted some reward and could use the cheap labor provided by the captured individuals. The captured would work in the houses and fields of the new elites and be grateful for the steady employment and lifestyle far above their current savage condition.

The chief captain sheathed his sword and took a deep breath. He examined the bustling activity and felt a surge of pride. He had sworn and oath to protect his people and continue to do so. The berm and palisade along the river would prove a solid defense against the depredations of these savages. They’ve wasted this land, and laid waste to his land for far too long. They’ve been even more restless since that traitor escaped, and he instinctively took another satisfying breath of the burning wood from the tower.  He point north and south along the river and directed the new patrols to hunt down and capture stragglers. He asked his assistant to bring his writing equipment and erect a small table. He needed to report to the Chief Governor, and make sure the new settlers arrived in orderly fashion. The security of the realm depended making this region productive…

***** 

This is a dramatic recreation of the events in Alma chapter 50 and includes elements from the war chapters in general. That chapter describes Moroni’s actions to fortify the land and expel Lamanite settlers in rather laudatory terms. Verses 18-21 actually described a Nephite golden age that happened right after these actions. As Grant Hardy described, in literary accounts the text often tries to distract a person. I thought it was interesting that the account moved away from Moroni’s actions to instead discuss how happy the Nephite’s were. But I thought a more critical look at his actions suggest this might have had negative consequences, such as a flow of angry refugees, and a confirmation of the insidious stories that Amalickiah was telling. I doubt the process of securing the wilderness areas was pleasant. They didn’t get an eviction notice with 30 days to prepare; it was likely an unpleasant and violent experience for those that experienced it. I also added some reasonable embellishments based on my knowledge of military history, the history and geography of the region, and human nature. I hope you enjoy it, I might add this to the introduction of my next book, and if I was really ambitious perhaps I would write a Game of Thrones style epic fantasy based on the war chapters. What details did you notice from the scriptures? What details do you think I should have added? Thanks for reading! 

[I work as a free lance writer. If you found value in this work please consider making a donation using one of the pay pal buttons at the bottom of the page.] 

The 21st Century Book of Mormon

[This is a rough draft of a book proposal I have in mind. There is a 21st century series edited by one of my friends, I've also seen a think tank that a has a similar series. I thought the Book of Mormon could use the same treatment. What do you think? Is the idea unique enough to warrant its own book? What topics unique to the 21st century would you like to see discussed? What do you think overall of the proposal?]

The Book of Mormon is listed as the 4^th most influential book in American history. It is revered by millions as a book of sacred scripture, and was a guiding book for the 2012 Republican presidential candidate, as well as numerous Senators and public officials. Yet despite its contribution to shaping American history and the worldview of America’s leaders, an academic study of the book still remains in its infancy.

Over one third of the book is devoted to warfare, yet there are only a handful of texts are exclusively devoted to a study of warfare.  Sadly, just a few of those books maintain high academic standards. Warfare in the Book of Mormon, is a collection of essays from a conference held almost 30 years ago.  War and Peace in our Times: Mormon Perspectives, includes a good deal of research, but also branches out to other disciplines and approaches that move away from the Book of Mormon. Some aspects of study, such as placing the historical practice of warfare within a specific time and place, wait further research what are considered likely Book of Mormon locations in Mesoamerica.  And any research is hampered by the intense disputes about the book’s historicity. 

The Book of Mormon is a complex text that deserves to be taken seriously by policy makers and generals. This book proposes a series of essays that uses the Book of Mormon to discuss and analyze key issues such as preemptive war, peace strategies, ethno religious insurgency, partisan strife, grand strategy, refugee policy, income inequality, and social justice. The end result should make vast strides in understanding the text and making judicious application during a turbulent period. 

Preliminary Table of Contents:

 Preemptive war- Morgan Deane (M.A. military history, study at Kings College London, author Bleached Bones and Wicked Serpents: Ancient Warfare in the Book of Mormon

Peace strategies- Joshua Madsen (author Non Violent Reading of the BoM) / Patrick Mason

Ethno Religious Insurgency- David Spencer (PhD., National Security Specialist on Latin American Insurgency, author of Moroni’s Command: Dynamics of Warfare in the Book of Mormon.)

 Income Inequality- Michael Austin (author, Rereading Job)

Social Justice- Grant Hardy (PhD, author of Understanding the Book of Mormon.) 

[Thanks for reading. I work as a freelance writer, if you found value in this work please consider making a donation using one of the pay pal buttons at the bottom of the page.] 

Putting the Lance in Lancelot

Hey everybody. The title of this post comes from a rather silly joke from an episode of Legends of Tomorrow. The time traveler Sarah Lance visited the court of King Arthur and was thanked...alot. Since I free lance...alot, I thought it was worthy of my sense of humor. Here's a rundown of my recent publications:


Politicians misuse of the word invest to sell bad programs to the public: Disinvest from Politicians


A discussion of Chinese history and geography, with possible application for tensions in the South China Sea: The Imperative of Chinese History and Geography


A discussion that rebutted a common theme that over rates Chinese carrier killing missiles. In particular I discuss the carrier's anti missile capabilities and value as logistical platforms: The Continuing Importance of the Carrier  (This one is technically just a facebook post. As you can see in this post, my ideas are worth reading and being published. I just cut out the middle man for this one.)


Too much of politics involves petty debates of the day. I take a step back and suggest a way to save millions of people instead of arguing about a few thousand Syrian refugees: The Wrong Argument and Right Answer


I have several more pieces that are ready to go but haven't found a home yet. I have one that uses nuclear theory to describe why the fear and loathing of Trump might be a useful thing.(Update: It looks like Charles Krauthammer beat me to publication with a similar idea.)  I have another that discusses Chinese strategic culture and the potential for the next Pearl Harbor.  I'll let you know when I publish those.


I use the same analysis presented above in analyzing events in the Book of Mormon. If you haven't a had a chance yet make sure to buy my book (using the link to your left) as it contains the same substantive analysis within it! Its very rewarding to work as a freelance writer, but it doesn't always translate into literal paychecks. If you found value in this work please consider donating using one of the pay pal buttons below.