Akhenaten: Egypt's "Monotheist" Pharaoh

 

At the time Akhenaten became Egypt’s pharaoh during the XVIII Dynasty circa 1350 B.C., Thebes was the capital and its patron god, Amun, the most powerful of the Egyptian gods. Amun had delivered Egypt at the start of the New Kingdom, driving foreign occupiers out of the land. The priests that served Amun were powerful and held as much as 30% of the land. Known first as Amonhotep IV, the pharaoh changed his name to Akhenaten during the fifth year of his reign, banishing the old gods and instituting what some scholars have called a “religious revolution.”

 

Akhenaten and the Cult of Aten

 

Rejecting the traditional Egyptian gods, Akhenaten took the extraordinary step of moving the capital to a new city, built from scratch on the east bank of the Nile at Amarna. It was called Akhetaten or the “horizon of the Aten,” and would stand for thirty years. Moving his court to the new city, Akhenaten vowed never to leave, a decision that would have negative implications.

 

Aten was the sun disk, the Re of old Egypt, personified in the pharaoh who was both the son and intermediary. According to Bob Brier, the idea of the sun disk first appeared “a thousand years earlier during the Old Kingdom. Similarly, Nicolas Grimal argues that Akhenaten’s beliefs were not revolutionary or new, but could be traced back to old theological teachings coming out of Heliopolis in the Old Kingdom period.

 

Writing much of the liturgy himself, Akhenaten’s most well known poem of adoration was his Great Hymn to the Aten which has often been compared to the Old Testament Psalm 104. The notion that Aten somehow promoted monotheism is debated. Grimal points out that “Atenism” was a reflection of “the common ground of Semitic civilizations.”

 

Effects of Aten in Ancient Egypt

 

Because the cult of Aten was confined to Amarna, the everyday Egyptian remained largely unaffected. Additionally, many of the court and bureaucratic functionaries never fully accepted the cult, rejecting Atenism upon the death of Akhenaten. According to Sigrid Hodel-Hoenes, Akhenaten pursued the “persecution of the god Amun,” yet this did not take the form of persecution in the modern sense. While the pharaoh withheld temple donations, a significant loss of revenue, Amun was still revered by most Egyptians.

 

Part of the reason common Egyptians might have rejected the new theology was tied to what Bob Brier calls the “most fundamental change” tied to the new beliefs. Traditional Egyptian deities were “visual gods” while Atenism reflected an “abstract concept.”

 

Other scholars have noted marked deterioration of the Egyptian imperial frontiers, particularly in borders shared with the Hittites, because Akhenaten was too preoccupied with Atenism. Renewed conflict broke out shortly after Akhenaten’s death and would continue for many years.

 

Return of the Traditional Deities

 

Full recovery of the traditional gods came when the nine-year old Tutankhamen became pharaoh in 1334 B.C. The cult of Aten was discontinued and Akhenaten’s new capital at Amarna razed to the ground, doomed to oblivion until discovered in the 19^th century.

 

Sources:

 

Bob Brier, The Murder of Tutankhamen: A True Story (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1998). See pp. 48ff.

Sigrid Hodel-Hoenes, Life and Death in Ancient Egypt: Scenes from Private Tombs in New Kingdom Thebes (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2000), translated by David Warburton.

Nicolas Grimal, A History of Ancient Egypt (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1988), see chapter 10.

Julia Samson, Nefertiti and Cleopatria: Queen-Monarchs of Ancient Egypt (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1985). 

[copyright owned by Michael Streich; reprints require written permission]

 

Start of the Cold War: The Iron Curtain

Michael Streich

In 1946 Winston Churchill gave his “”Iron Curtain” speech in Fulton, Missouri and the Republican Party, in the mid-term election, staged a come-back. It was the beginning of the first decade of the Cold War and would see Democrats battling Republicans over which party could best contain the global advances of atheistic Communism. Mainland China was already lost as the Nationalist forces retreated to Formosa (Taiwan) in the face of Mao’s successes. Korea was divided and Vietnam was about to explode into a civil war pitting French colonial interests against a Communist insurgency led by Ho Chi Minh. The decade that began with the Truman Doctrine and ended with Sputnik defined the early years of Cold War anxiety.

 

Europe and the Threat of Russian Expansion

 

At the end of World War II, Soviet troops occupied most of central Europe. Each of these countries would become Soviet “satellite” countries, a buffer against any future invasions of Russia. Churchill’s 1946 speech referred to the ancient European capitals under the hegemony of Communism. Soviet occupation was an “iron curtain” from “Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic.” Additionally, Soviet-sponsored insurgencies sought to establish Communist regimes in fledgling democracies such as Greece, Turkey, and Iran.

 

In 1947 the Truman administration responded with the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan. The Truman Doctrine committed a U.S. response to Communist threats against Greece and Turkey. A strategic area that served the interests of the U.S. and its allies, notably Britain, Soviet domination of Greece or Turkey – especially Istanbul, ran counter to U.S. security interests. The Marshall Plan allocated billions of dollars for Europe’s rebuilding efforts. The goal was to help non-occupied Soviet areas develop competitive economies by rebuilding infrastructure in order to avoid the lure of Communist propaganda. Russian “satellite” countries declined the aid, as did the USSR.

 

The 1948 Berlin Airlift demonstrated the extent of U.S. efforts to thwart Communist policies. Berlin remained a divided city. “Free” Berlin was growing economically. But the USSR wanted to stifle that freedom and incorporate all of Berlin into its sphere. The Soviets initiated a blockade, hoping to stop supplies from the west entering Berlin. The airlift, however, supplied West Berlin with needed food stuffs and other necessities, forcing the Soviets to back down. West Berlin would grow as a beacon of hope, an object lesson of western capitalism in the midst of Soviet sterility.

 

The First Years of Cold War Confrontation

 

In 1949, the Soviet Union tested its first atomic bomb, sending tremors of fear in western chancelleries and promoting the NATO alliance.  By 1950 President Truman committed Americans to defend South Korean sovereignty and the junior senator of Wisconsin, Joseph McCarthy, began a witch-hunt of alleged Communists working in the federal government.

 

Under Truman and Eisenhower, the United States practiced containment throughout the world, eliminating threats in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and Latin America. Pro western regimes received heavy U.S. assistance. But the Cold War took a new turn in 1957 when the Soviets launched Sputnik into space. The advent of the “space race,” Americans felt a greater degree of vulnerability. Sputnik also spurred efforts to reform American education, particularly under the Kennedy administration.

 

The first years of the Cold War saw the U.S. and Soviet Russia stake out spheres of influence while competing in an arms race that became deadlier as each nation sought to outdo the other in the production of nuclear arsenals. Winston Churchill’s warnings in 1946 proved prophetic: the world was less safe and the Soviet threat continued to grow.

 

Sources:

 

Stephen E. Ambrose and Douglas G. Brinkley, Rise to Globalism: American Foreign Policy Since 1938 8^th ed. (Penguin Books, 1997).

Major Problems in American Foreign Policy, Volume II: Since 1914, Thomas G. Paterson, Editor. (D.C. Heath and Company, 1984).

 

President Joe Biden was absolutely correct regarding Afghanistan's history of disunity. It has never been a unified country. Any outsider seeking to conquer Afghanistan has encountered tribal groups, war lords - disparate fighters uniting only to expel foreign invaders. Mr. Biden, unlike George W. Bush, who began America's longest war, knows history and, no doubt, availed himself of the academics that are the real experts of what has happened, for centuries, in the region. His wife is a professor.

And then there was President Trump, who wanted to meet the Taliban for face-to-face negotiations at Camp David! House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who viciously attacked President Biden over the exit from Afghanistan, should remember that. But, despite the events of January 6th, Mr. Trump's best bud should apologize for his own ignorance.

Hopefully the continued exit will be without further incident.  

Item written in June 2010

 Petraeus for United States President

Michael Streich

Popular generals have long been viewed as appealing presidential candidates in American history, especially during times of internal or external crisis. It should not be surprising that General David Petraeus is being suggested as a possible Republican Party candidate in 2012 or 2016 or beyond. Spiegel magazine (June 28, 2010) asserts that President Barack Obama’s appointment of General Petraeus after the removal of General Stanley McCrystal might have been motivated, in part, by the desire to keep Petraeus, America’s “most popular general…” from becoming a viable adversary in the 2012 presidential election.

 

Do Generals Make Good Presidents?

 

America’s first president, George Washington, was the revered leader of the War for Independence. Historians rank Washington as a “great president” who shepherded the fledgling nation through its birth pangs. But not all of America’s warrior presidents are looked upon with such acclaim.

 

In 1848, the Whig Party considered two popular generals as their candidate, both having distinguished themselves in the Mexican American War. Ultimately, Zachary Taylor was selected over Winfield Scott, who would finally receive the party’s nomination in 1852. Scott's nomination in 1852, however,helped seal the end of the Whig Party. Taylor meanwhile, died while in office halfway through his one term. succeeded by the mediocre Millard Fillmore.

 

In 1952 two popular generals, Douglas MacArthur and Dwight D. Eisenhower, were considered by a Republican Party eager to recapture the White House. Eisenhower was selected and served two terms but left no significant mark on legislative initiatives.Eisenhower, who spent many of his hours on the golf course, allowed the military complex to dictate national and foreign policy.

 

Why Generals are Appealing

 

General David Petraeus effectively ended the Iraqi insurgency. Toby Hamden, writing in the Telegraph (April 3, 2010), comments that, “Many voters yearn for an outsider, someone with authenticity, integrity, and proven accomplishment.” General Petraeus is also considered a scholar and a diplomat. According to The Hill (June 23, 2010), “Senators from both parties praised Obama’s decision to tap Petraeus…”

 

General Colin Powell was courted as a possible presidential candidate in the 1990s by both political parties, the most serious efforts made to recruit him in the 1996 election. Patraeus embodies many of the attributes that made Powell appealing, unlike General Alexander Haig’s active bid to seek the presidency in 1988. Haig never exuded the kind of confidence Powell or Petraeus command among American citizens.

 

John Hughes, writing in the Christian Science Monitor (April 15, 2010) states that, “If he indeed becomes the victorious mastermind behind America’s two longest wars, and his countrymen told him they need him to lead the nation as president, it would be hard for him to turn a deaf ear to the call.” This was written over two months before President Obama sent him to command in Afghanistan.

 

Unsuccessful Generals Turning to Politics

 

President Ulysses S. Grant, often appearing on lists of “ten worst presidents,” could not parlay military leadership into political leadership. Dominated by corrupt advisors and surrounded by men who used him to perpetuate graft, Grant’s two terms were infested with scandals, ultimately splitting the Republicans. Recent presidential scholarship has rehabilitated Grant and his fairly successful tenure in the White House. Additionally, his excessive drinking is largely a myth.

 General George B. McClellan, dismissed by President Lincoln in 1862, unsuccessfully challenged Lincoln in the 1864 presidential election. The reason was less his failure to follow-up at Antietam than spectacular Union victories in the summer of 1864. Like David Petraeus, McClellan was a West Pointer; both graduated in the top of their class.

 

Impact of the War on any Future Presidential Bid for Petraeus

 

Even if American troops begin to depart Afghanistan in the summer of 2011, General Petraeus would not have the time to launch a campaign. As the writers of the June 28, 2010 Spiegel article point out, “He can hardly run an election campaign from Kabul.” Further, if the general is successful, as he was in Iraq, the victory will be an asset to the Obama reelection campaign.

 

This does not deter those who believe David Petraeus is the perfect man to lead America. An American Spectator article by Phillip Klein (May 2010), posted on Congressman Peter King’s (R-NY) congressional web page, states, “Observers including Rep. Pete King and former McCain-Palin adviser Nicolle Wallace have also floated the idea of a Petraeus candidacy.” The same article quotes Bob Dole comparing Petraeus to Eisenhower.

 

General Petraeus will shortly be in Afghanistan, implementing strategies he helped to plan. While supporters at home explore the option of a Petraeus candidacy, the general’s foremost task is to renew a faltering offense, reinvigorate the Kandahar operation, and hope that Congress will swiftly pass the emergency supplemental appropriation.

 

Bring Back General Stanley McCrystal

Let the Generals Fight the Wars

Written in June 25th 2010 by Michael  

Following his dismissal of General Stanley McCrystal on June 23, 2010, President Barack Obama assured the nation that, “this is a change in personnel but it is not a change in policy.” McCrystal’s resignation was accepted on the basis of comments published in Rolling Stone magazine. President Obama stated, “I welcome debate among my team, but I won’t tolerate division.” Editorials and stories published in the Afghan presses, however, allude to other reasons for the removal of McCrystal.

 

Stanley McCrystal’s Rapport with the Afghan People

 

Voice of America (VOA-News, Islamabad, June 25, 2010) comments that, “Analysts have credited McCrystal for reinvigorating the NATO mission in the country, by focusing it on the Afghan people and seeking to limit civilian casualties.” Since his appointment as commander in Afghanistan following the removal of General David McKiernan, civilian deaths have dropped and there has been a more concerted effort to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people.

 

The Afghan Online Press (June 24, 2010), however, claims that, “…the dismissal of [the] commander was over leaking information…” The article cites the head of Press TV in Kabul, Mohammad Ruhi, blaming McCrystal’s dismissal on intelligence leaks and his, “growing friendship with Afghan President Hamid Karzai…” According to the piece, the alleged intelligence leaks involved Britain and, “In retaliation, London is believed to have released confidential statements by McCrystal to White House officials…”

 

Can the Afghan People be Won Over?

 

A forum comment in the June 20, 2010 Kabul Press states, “You must be truly naïve if you believe that NATO troops are in Afghanistan to help its people. They are there to feed America’s and Europe’s military-industrial complex…” The comment was a response to an article detailing the awarding of a $120 million contract to an Xe (formerly Blackwater) subsidiary by the U.S. State Department for the protection of new U.S. consulate offices.

 

Afghans, much like Iraqis, are very sensitive to the many mercenary troops operating in their provinces. An Inter Press Service (June 23, 2010) item, for example, disclosed that private security firms are paying Afghan warlords to allow truck convoys through their territory. The article quotes Congressman John Tierney, who chaired a six-month investigation into the practice, saying, “U.S. taxpayer dollars are feeding a protection racket in Afghanistan that would make Tony Soprano proud.” The fear is that some of this money is going to the Taliban.

 

War Strategy in Afghanistan Under New Leadership

 

Speaking on June 23, 2010, President Obama stated that McCrystal’s dismissal will not change strategy in the war: “General Petraeus…supported and helped design the strategy that we have in place.” Germany, which has the third largest troop contingent in Afghanistan, expressed some reservations, however.

 

German Defense Minister Karl Theo zu Guttenberg told Spiegel magazine (June 24, 2010), “McCrystal was a very reliable partner. I regret not being able to work with him any longer.” The Financial Times Deutschland (June 24, 2010) noted that, “With the exit of Commander McCrystal…the outlook for Afghanistan has worsened.”

 

McCrystal’s departure may also impact President Obama’s exit plans from Afghanistan. The President alluded to this when asked about the July 2011 date signaling the reduction of U.S. troops: “We didn’t say we’d be switching off the lights and closing the door behind us.” (CBS News, June 24, 2010).

 

The Taliban, through spokesman Yousuf Ahmadi, however, vows to keep fighting. According to Ahmadi, “[Obama] wants to save his and his party’s face, but Obama will never be successful as the change of Generals will not work.” (Quoted in Middle East Media Research Institute, June 25, 2010)

 

 

The War Without McCrystal

 

General McCrystal’s long and distinguished military career culminated with his bold strategies and rapport with Afghan political leaders and common people. This has been attested to by almost everyone commenting on his dismissal in the media. The connections he made as commanding general of the Joint Special Operations Command, beginning in 2003, allowed him to make many contacts in the global effort to fight terrorism. There is no reason to believe that that the policies he implemented will not be followed.

Copyright owned by Michael Streich. Any reprints require written permission]