Here is another guest post from Morgan Deane. He is a military historian and history professor at BYU-I. His first book, Bleached Bones and Wicked Serpents: Ancient Warfare in the Book of Mormon is available in book stores, and he blogs at http://mormonwar.blogspot and http://www.arsenalofvenice.com
How do you solve a problem like Iraq? Insights from the fall of Nephihah
My book, Bleached Bones and Wicked Serpents, argued that the Book of Mormon is a text that should be taken seriously by policy makers and even generals. The current events in Iraq and pending fall of Ramadi recall the capture of Nephihah in Alma 59, and provide additional insight into Nephite society and courses of action we might take.
As I write this ISIS is driving towards the pivotal city of Ramadi. They have captured nearby cities and threaten its supply route to Baghdad. This is the capital of Anbar province, and the home of the Sunni Awakening that turned against Al Qeada, allied with the U.S. during the surge, and essentially won the war in Iraq. The Institute for the Study of War says that “the fall of Ramadi would deal a major strategic and psychological blow to the Anbaris and to the government of PM Abadi. It would also undermine the relationships between Anbaris and Baghdad, as Iraqi Sunni leaders in Anbar have been calling for an increase in aid to the province as a whole and to Ramadi in particular.”[1] The known brutality of ISIS, their genocide, sexual slavery, and destruction of monuments is tragic enough. Many Americans have the sense that we allowed this to happen by leaving and failing to view ISIS as more than a JV team. Moreover, the provincial government has been begging for more troops and help.
How does this relate to the Book of Mormon?
Nephihah was a pivotal city that was close to the borders town of Moroni, along the route to Bountiful, and protecting the route to Zarahemla. After if we read starting in Alma 59:9- 
And now as Moroni had supposed that there should be men sent to the city of Nephihah, to the assistance of the people to maintain that city, and knowing that it was easier to keep the city from falling into the hands of the Lamanites than to retake it from them, he supposed that they would easily maintain that city….And now, when Moroni saw that the city of Nephihah was lost he was exceedingly sorrowful, and began to doubt, because of the wickedness of the people, whether they should not fall into the hands of their brethren…[His leaders] doubted and marveled also because of the wickedness of the people, and this because of the success of the Lamanites over them.
Ethnic Tension
The obvious comparison is that Moroni pled for reinforcements, didn’t receive them, and the fall of the city dealt a powerful blow to their spirits. There are more comparisons and possible insights. U.S. forces that remained would have acted as honest broker between the various factions in Iraq. As strange as this sounds considering the pontificating about the hated Western imperialists, Sunni leaders in Anbar province had more trust in American soldiers than the government. With soldiers in the country, and with future arms contracts for advanced weapons like fighter jets (now cancelled), which required a long relationship filled with shipments of spare parts, the military would have leverage to force the Shia government to be more inclusive of Sunnis and Kurds. Most importantly, our training advisors would have prevented the government from politicizing leadership posts within the army. Removing capable Sunni leaders (many of whom cut their teeth in Saddam’s army) crippled their effectiveness and led to their disgraceful retreat last summer.
The Book of Mormon doesn’t explicitly mention others or describes domestic ethnic tension. In my book I describe how ancient historians often used loaded terms to describe ethnic others. The late Roman historian Gildas called robbers a “hive of bees” and their influence an “infestation.”[2] Another Roman historian, Ammianus Marcellinus, called them “serpents that come out of their holes in spring” to attack with “wicked” and “most cruel” fury.[3] While Giddianhi described the robbers’ war as one for their rights, Ammianus described robbers as “swarthy and dark complexioned” who are “bitter exactors of their rights.”[4] This is compared to Mormon, who calls the Lamanites “lazy” (Mosiah 9:12), and Nephi, who describes those that do not believe as “dark” and “loathsome” (1 Nephi 12:23). The governor of the Nephites dismissed Giddianhi’s quest for his rights as the threatening of a “mere” robber (3 Nephi 3:12). This suggests that perhaps the people of Nephihah had the same smooth relationships with Zarahemla as Baghdad does with Ramadi.
Partition
Critics and even many members tend to view the Nephites as a Roman like empire that lasted a thousand years. During most of Nephite history a better comparison would have been the rump states left over in Europe after Rome fell, or the city states of ancient Greece. As late as the time of Alma the Elder personally led the Nephites in battle just outside of the city of Zarahemla. Those in Ammonihah rejected Nephite political authority, “the most capital parts of the land” rebelled in the Amlicite war, Morianton tried to seize land, and the unspecified strong holds and cities forced to raise the Title of Liberty (Alma 51:20) rejected Nephite authority and eventually allied with the Lamanites. The Nephites seemed ascendant after the war chapters, but as quickly as Helaman 1 they lost their capital. In Helaman 4 Moronihah could only recover half the land. The prophet Nephi left the land (and the record) for six years (compare Helaman 6:6 to 7:1)! When he came back the people had to plead to him through intermediaries (Helaman 11:8, suggesting he was still partially removed from the people.) The Nephites retreated to their central territories to defeat the Gadianton in Robbers (3 Nephi 3-4). In their final battle against the Lamanites Mormon says they number “as the sands of the sea” but only muster 30,000 soldiers for their war of survival (Mormon 2:42).[5]
The point is outside of a short period of time during and after the great war, they were rather weak and didn’t command large territories and huge populations. The Nephites were not a large monolithic empire and faced various ethnic rivalries and political tension, perhaps similar to Iraq and seen in the failure to support Nephihah, which made cooperation difficult and fracturing into smaller entities more likely.
What to do about it?
Looking at some similarities is nice, but what course of action might the Book of Mormon suggest? After the fall of Nephihah, Moroni wrote a rather intense letter where he correctly diagnosed the treasonous reasons for the lethargic supply and mobilization by Zarahemla judges. His threatened coup turned out to be a counter revolution in conjunction with Pahoran.
This is seemingly where the comparisons break down. Many Iraqis are sick of the government and tolerate the rule of ISIS. The Kurds continue to rule autonomously and seek independence. The current attacks in Ramadi are close urban operations that limit air strikes. The PM said that if unchecked ISIS could become unstoppable.[6] But not too many are flocking to his defense, and the Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs basically shrugged at its loss. Pahoran blamed the coup on “great flattery [that] led away the hearts of many” (Alma 61:4).
Judging from the lack of support for action in Iraq, the reader might appropriately examine if the government under Pahoran and Moroni squandered public support for the war through mis-rule. Moroni held men in prison for years without trial in Alma 51:19; 62:9. There is evidence that he killed dissenters (Alma 51:19), he threatened a coup and a genocide in separate letters (Alma 60:25-27; Alma 54:12-13), along with calling his opponent a child of Hell (Alma 60:18; 54:11), and he possibly militarized a vote against the King Men (after all, he and his supporters put on armor and gathered in a loud shouting body before the vote, Alma 46:21). The war had to be funded from somewhere, and the 4,000 dissidents hewed down (Alma 51:19), and others imprisoned or executed provided plenty of revenue for the state, but likely left many kin seething with resentment.
The Nephite example suggests that military force won on the battlefield for Moroni and inspires many, (including me as a young recruit in Marine Corps Boot Camp) but it remains a short term solution because their underlying ethnic tension, political fragmentation, and heavy handed policies didn’t change. As I focused in my second book, in many cases they created more enemies.
The situation in Iraq is complex and difficult. The American public doesn’t want to send ground troops. ISIS spans both Iraq and Syria and any action against them might assist Iranian agents in Iraq or help Basher Al Assad keep power. Military operations cost money and degrade the military’s readiness for future conflicts. But many argue America has an interest in fighting genocidal barbarians forcing many into sexual slavery, who steadily advance and export terrorism. Much like the Nephites that cut bait and consolidated their central territories during the Gadianton threat, and Mormon’s strong defense of the narrow neck of land suggest that the least worst American option is to consolidate their position by supporting the Kurds as a bulwark against ISIS expansion, continue bombing, and work to train the Iraqi army so they can roll back ISIS. This limits American commitment but provides a low risk high reward way to protect American interests in a vital region, without a burdensome American commitment.
What do you think American policy should be in Iraq?
Do you see any additional insight from the Book of Mormon or scripture that might help?
———–
[1] http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Iraq%20SITREP%202015-4-15%20-%20print_0.pdf (Accessed April 17th).
[2] Marchellinus, Res Gestae, 1.25-26. Of course, swarms could also refer to the difficulty and pain in prosecuting a successful counter-insurgency campaign.
[3] Ibid., 19.8.1-2; 28.2.10.
[4] Ibid., 22.16.23.
[5] Interestingly, if you look at the military participation ratio a society that was about 200,000 people, or about the total of dead at Cumorah, could produce an army of 30,000. See “A Nephite Ten Thouand” in my upcoming book for more.
[6] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/16/iraqi-city-ramadi-verge-falling-isis-prime-minister (Accessed Apr 17th 2015).
I’ve never known what to think of all the war chapters in the Book of Mormon, but I’m glad someone is getting some use out of them. In any case, the warfare in the Book of Mormon seems so foreign to Joseph Smith’s ethos that I think it is a testimony to the book’s authenticity.
I also think the war with ISIS is certainly in the biblical tradition, built upon religious claims to divine right of certain lands, in the spirit of Biblical genocide and purifying the land of unbelievers. It is a war culture “before Christ” without understandings of “wheat among tares” or “love your enemies.”
This is an excellent correlation.
The only thing missing, or not accounted for, is the consideration of the land of promise. Some in the church have an erroneous vision that the events of the Book of Mormon took place in South America. That is wrong. The events of the Book of Mormon took place in North America, or the American Heartland. The covenant was made with this Country, with this land. Zarahemla was not in Guatemala as has been suggested; rather, it is Jackson County. Hill Cumorah, is hill Cumorah. The land of many waters is the areas in and around the great lakes. As more empirical data comes out more in the church are starting to see this vision.
How does this relate. America, or the covenant land, will be safe as long as the people are righteous. The more we fall into wickedness, the more we will see the Gadianton robbers (Islamic State in Levant) carry out their wickedness. We will first lose our prosperity (which is happening), then we will lose our posterity. What should America do? Come unto Christ! This is the message of the Book of Mormon.
If America is safe, then the world will be safe, or at least safer as this is the covenant land.
Its to show that win or lose the war Nephites and Lamanites still end in destruction without the savior.
I apologize for my question here but I have had this question so long and have never had the chance to ask it of someone who takes both the history of warfare and the Book of Mormon seriously. If it detracts from your post here, please disregard it. I have been bothered for years by Ether, where it talks about 2 “millions” of Jaredites being killed in battle. Assuming a similar number of deaths on the other side, we are talking about approximately 4% of the world’s population being killed in a battle no one, outside of Mormon believers, knows anything about. Also, if millions died, presumably millions were injured. Is this a case of loose usage of the word millions, or do you have a different take on the large, hard to believe numbers? Given the type of warfare, if these are real numbers of dead, what are your thoughts on the population at large?
#4 – considering that the Roman “Century”, which was ostensibly 100 soldiers, but in reality 55-80 men, commanded by a “Centurion” which is mistakenly likened to a US Army Captain (O-3), but in terms of comparable social stature more like a “Light” Colonel (O-5), methinks the terms “millions” might have been somewhat figurative. Consider also the account in Isaiah 36:37, where the “Angel of the Lord” slew 185,000 Assyrian soldiers in one night. Considering that most field armies never got more than one-third that size due to logistical and economic considerations in those times, this massacre would be a defeat of epic proportions. Though I see no evidence that the figure is an irresponsible exaggeration, when evaluating what seems to be an impossibly large number, consider the words of Joseph Smith regarding translation problem(s): “Some old Jew put it there.”
As for the mutual Jaredite massacre, though it seems fantastic that the two warring factions would fight to the death of almost all, consider examples in more modern times…the Battle of Berlin (1945), for example. A more reasonable Generalissimo than Stalin, or his Front commanders like Zhukov and Konev, would have sent emissaries to the German across the Oder river to negotiate a surrender, on condition that they deliver Hitler (“Alive, if possible…dead…just as good!”). If even Gen. Henrici or Gruppen Sepp-Dietrich would have considered such a deal, surely the roving SS squads would have taken them out anyway. Both sides were driven by ethnic hatred and scores to settle that no one was seriously in a mood to negotiate an alternative to the last bloodbath of the European theatre.
Thanks Ken. What are some concrete suggestions you have for stopping ISIS and keeping America safe? I sincerely ask. It was fairly easy to see a basic correlation between the fall of Nephihah and Ramadi. Its much tougher to try and formulate a coherent foreign policy, or even a few basic actions from the text.
Good to see you Ron!!
Great comment about the two million. I’ve actually just been discussing this on a discussion board. There is a chapter in my upcoming book that explains my view on it. It does a few things. First it describes historical examples of large casualties. It uses things like the War of the Eight Princes and the Battle of Fei River to suggest that large numbers of deaths similar to those listed in the BoM are not out of the realm of possibility. Then I start to discuss problems with numbers in ancient records. This includes things like deliberate exaggeration to serve a moral purpose, scribal errors, lack of specific counting by amateur eye witnesses, unit names being mistaken for numbers (such as Centurions mentioned by Doug), a colloquial use (I told you a million times) to show how problems with numbers puts the BoM in good company with other ancient documents. You can see some blog posts about it here:
http://mormonwar.blogspot.com/2009/12/millions-in-book-of-mormon.html
http://mormonwar.blogspot.com/2013/05/military-participation-ratio-and-wrong.html
In short. Its possible the numbers listed are accurate. Ancient states could raise and destroy large armies. But its more likely these numbers are not accurate for a variety of reasons. And thats okay, as I said it puts the BoM in good company. We don’t believe a million Persians invaded Greece, but we still read Herodotus.
Morgan,
American’s opposition to the war centers chiefly around economics, not the actual conflict.
We should not try to win the hearts and minds of the people. Northern Iraq and Syria have huge oil reserves. The end game should be to capture and occupy these areas and use the revenue from oil sales to fund the war. Occupy and setup a fully functional military base in northern Iraq and Syria and use oil revenues to fund the operation for the next 50 years.
This accomplishes several objectives. 1) It takes revenue out of the hands those that are using revenue from oil sales to boost their military. 2) It will increase oil revenue for US companies and increase the overall supply of oil thus reducing fuel costs. 3) It will weaken oil prices and diminish profits in other Middle Eastern countries and Russia. 4) We are in a key position to strike anywhere in the middle ease without re-deployments.
As for stopping ISIL, our military is fully capable, but our President is weak and horrible on foreign policy. What a mess he has created. He needs to be replaced. For a president that was handed a peace prize (shows how worthless this honor is), he has created a lot of conflict everywhere. He has made things worse in every place in the world. We need to employ a President like Captain Moroni that understands peace through strength. For this, however, we need to fully accept Helaman 5:2
By fully accept Helaman 5:2, I mean we need to realize we are getting more and more wicked and as such will most likely elect the likes of Obama and Hillary. As such, I don’t have much hope for a Captain Moroni anytime soon as President.
Yes, we all know that women and black men are entirely unfit to serve as president. Americans are just soooo wicked for voting for such wicked people.
We need good racists and sexists like Ted Cruz to push back the clock on all this progressive claptrap.
I wouldn’t go as far as MH, but I’m don’t think the country is wicked for electing Clinton. There are plenty of reasons to dislike Obama and Clinton without simply saying their wicked.
That sounds nice Ken; I didn’t see anything from the BoM to justify those actions That doesn’t mean what you said is necessarily wrong. But thats the facing dilemma modern readers. Since there is plenty of warfare within the text but not too much that will help American foreign policy. There are some radical libertarians that want will use it to rail against the security state. (I liked to remind those guys that Moroni held people for years without trial.) Some peace proponents ignore very clear verses supporting self defense to argue that its 5 act arch argues for peace. There are others that generally ignore it all together in favor of the D&C. But I don’t see a great deal of specific and focused discussion based on the scriptures. Thats why I asked you because I don’t see that much substantive discussion of policy choices.
For example, I have chapter that focuses on the consequences of the war chapters. I asked myself how things like heavier armor, more fortifications, and victory in war might have changed Nephite society. The answers were stunning for the U.S. I found that victory left the Nephites with a more expensive military. That in turn created an almost rapacious need for taxes that likely fueled unjust collection of taxes and an insurgency. So when I see things like it take a million dollars to deploy a single soldier, I start to understand the subtle ways the BoM could be a voice of warning. I think there is a great deal of insight we are missing.
MH,
Electing people solely because of their race or gender is the issue. They would not,or were not, elected for their substance. Neither Obama or Clinton are qualified to lead the economic and military might of the US.
Morgan,
Jesus was quoted as saying there would be wars and rumors of war. Per his statement, we will have war. The question is how do we best deal with war. Do we sit by and watch ISIL, Russia and Iran threaten and kill others as Obama seems to advocate, or do we stand up for what is right like Captain Moroni?
#9 – Heretic, I can think of blacks, women, and even a black woman who would easily prove to be a better President than either the incumbent or Ms. Rodham-Clinton. Mr. Cruz stands head and shoulders above anything the “Democrats” have offered up thus far, though I’d rather see Rand Paul present a serious campaign (I have my doubts he will last more than a few primaries next year). As always, I will consider the Libertarian candidate, and place sometimes in Mid-November of next year, “Don’t blame ME, I voted for Kodos!”
I see my sarcasm was misunderstood.
#14 – Wouldn’t be the first time either of us has misunderstood and/or poorly stated our respective positions. Peace, brother.
I still get the notion that as of the first WEDNESDAY of November of next year, I will say what Homer Simpson said in an “alternate reality” of the 1996 elections: