A rose by any other name

Here’s a statement most Americans will probably disagree with: America is the wealthiest and most powerful empire the world has ever known. Acknowledging that our wealth and power are without rival is easy, we just have a hard time with the empire part. Especially since we are ruled by an elected president and legislative body instead of a monarch. According to the Oxford Dictionary, that means we cannot be an empire.

No disrespect to the folks at Oxford, but their definition seems limited. Yuval Harari’s definition of empire in his book, Sapien, as “a political order” that rules “a significant number of distinct peoples, each possessing a different cultural identity and a separate territory” is a better one. Based on Harari’s description, a polity that includes territories as varied as Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, Diego Garcia, Southern California, Louisiana, and Massachusetts certainly qualifies as an empire.

Our refusal to self-identify as one is primarily rooted in our democratic ethos and the fact that we once had to fight to break free from the British empire. It also detracts from the idea of American exceptionalism since it forces us to admit our similarity to empires of the past. Despite our historical and philosophical aversion to being described as such, it seems clear that America has evolved into an empire. Without an honest assessment of ourselves, accurately diagnosing what ails us becomes impossible. And the reality is that our empire is in trouble.

We are following a pattern many others have followed. We have expanded over vast territories and built a very expensive military to protect this territory. Doing so required creating a central government with the power to tax and marshal resources on a scale that was far beyond anything envisioned by the creators of our federal system of governance. This also led to the development of interest groups with the means and incentives to push for a massive amount of continuous military spending. Just as the Romans, Ottomans, and British before us, we are slowly collapsing under the weight of maintaining our military. In fact, much of our $30 trillion debt can be traced to this spending. As this number grows, it will continue to weaken the economic foundations that are the true source of American power.      

The curious part to all of this is that, unlike the British, Ottomans, or Romans, most of our empire is easily defended. The Pacific and Atlantic oceans and the Canadian shield have always been our best military assets. Yet, our military leaders have developed a force posture and military doctrine that requires twenty aircraft carriers, over a million personnel, thousands of fighter jets and bombers, and around 4,000 nuclear warheads at a cost of $700-800 billion a year.

The size of our military traces its roots to WW2 which saw America ally itself with the Russian, French and British empires to prevent Germany, Italy, and Japan from creating empires for themselves. We did so by building a massive military capable of simultaneously fighting its way onto continental Europe and controlling the Pacific. Part of that process entailed establishing a network of forward bases throughout Europe and Asia. Once the war ended, America did not completely stand down. Instead, it found itself fighting the Cold War against its former allies in the Soviet Union. This conflict led to the entrenchment and expansion of the military infrastructure created to fight the Axis powers.

The Cold War ended over thirty years ago, but America still refused to shrink its military. Instead, shortly after the Soviet Union’s collapse we invaded the Muslim world and began building a network of bases to secure its energy supplies. As a result, our empire has been in a nearly continuous state of war for most of the past 80 years. Our war against the Muslim world is finally wrapping up but instead of talking about a peace dividend, our leaders seem intent on using China to justify maintaining our aggressive military posture.

Our military is no longer designed to defend us but to project American power throughout the world in pursuit of vaguely defined “interests.” As our mounting debt shows, the cost of maintaining our military dominance over the rest of the world is starting to add up. Instead of dealing with the reality of our worsening finances by admitting that it is time for America to finally stand down, our leaders passionately argue against such measures. Their refusal to do so will likely doom us to the same fate suffered by every other empire that has come before us, whether we are willing to admit it or not.

The author is a US Navy veteran. He usually provides improbable and implausible musings about the Muslim world and international affairs on his blog, www.mirrorsfortheprince.com.

Tagged : / / / / / / /

Understanding the failure of nuclear talks with Iran

Negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program highlight, yet again, a glaring weakness in the current international system. Aside from China and Russia, these talks did not involve the direct participation of any regional players. Instead, Germany and the E.U. were the only direct participants outside of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. The disproportionate representation of Western interests to the exclusion of those within the region proves once more that the struggle to overcome the legacies of imperialism are far from over. They also best explain why these talks failed.

When it comes to Iran’s nuclear arsenal, those with the most to gain or lose are those in its immediate vicinity. But representatives from countries in Iran’s neighborhood like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Turkey were not invited though each obviously had a far greater stake in the outcome than Germany or the E.U. There can be little hope of solving a problem when the parties with the greatest interest in doing so do not talk to each other.

The reasons for this lack of inclusivity are many and specific to each country. Israel and Iran refuse to deal with each other directly. The Saudis and Emiratis prefer local go betweens or quiet discussions out of public view while Pakistan and Turkey were not deemed relevant to the issues at hand. In other words, the limited participation of regional players was the result of both internal domestic considerations and the influence and perspectives of Western powers that have long marginalized local powers. The reasons may vary, but the effect is the same: the inherently flawed and ineffective Western dominated system continues.

The Western nations and Russia often take advantage of the power vacuum resulting from the unstable political systems and elementary school attitudes prevalent throughout the region to further their own interests. While, for reasons too numerous and nuanced to adequately address here, the region’s weak and ineffective leaders do not have the power or desire to object. Many cynically refuse to negotiate with Iran precisely because of their reliance on their Western benefactors. The outcome: failure, instability, stockpiled munitions, and steadily escalating violence.

Iran’s friendship with China and Russia has led to similar posturing on its part, but to a far lesser degree. The simple reality is that its allies have proven incapable of protecting it from the biting sanctions and clandestine attacks imposed by the West and Israel. Iran has hidden its desperation to resolve these issues to maintain its leverage during negotiations, but even with the ascendence of its hardliners, it knows its interests are best served by a negotiated settlement.

The excessive reliance on Western perspectives and arms has prevented the adoption of the most obvious and pragmatic way to end the impasse: extend Pakistan’s nuclear umbrella to Iran. Brother to both Persian and Arab and irrelevant to Israelis, Pakistan is perhaps the only country capable of bridging the region’s many divides. What more productive use could there be for its vaunted “Islamic bomb” than to diffuse regional tensions?

It has always been in the strategic interests of both nations to form a military alliance. Doing so would greatly improve their geo-strategic positions while making the nuclear issue moot. Its warm relations to both Iran and the Arab world could have easily led to what some might call a “win-win.” Alternatively, both Turkey and Pakistan could act as guarantors between the Arabs, Israel, and Iran to finally settle their feud.

But these ideas are considered laughable by most in the West and their local allies, who are no doubt emboldened by their shiny new American weapons. Unfortunately, the international system it created makes such ideas highly implausible. The exclusion of regional voices and ideas has prevented the sort of outside the (Western) box thinking needed to peacefully resolve the region’s complicated and multi-faceted geo-political issues.

Instead of bringing local powers together to resolve their differences peacefully, America has resorted to its favorite playbook. It is flooding the region with weapons as it helps build a military coalition of Israelis and Arabs that makes dialogue an afterthought. In doing so, it continues to play a destructive and de-stabilizing role in the region even as the scars from its bloody rampages in Iraq and Afghanistan are still healing.

It has been the region’s number one arms dealer and military power for decades. Now that it is distracted in Europe and the Pacific, it is doubling down on its strategy of arming its friends to the teeth while downplaying the legitimate concerns of its adversaries created by its massive weapons exports and aggressive military posture. Under the guise of ensuring “stability,” it was mid-wife to a new right wing apartheid state and armed as many absolute Arab monarchs and despots as it could find. It is laying the foundations for more war and chaos while it gaslights the world about its concerns for human rights and democracy.

And so, the problem remains unresolved, continuing to rot and fester. It will only worsen until the entire region is engulfed in violence. While those who fostered and enabled these conditions will shake their heads comfortably from afar, wondering what went wrong. The only way to avoid this fate is by convincing the nations of the region that dialogue and cooperation is in their best interests. But doing so is impossible so long as the West continues to crowd out those voices that should matter most.

For more implausible and improbable musings about the Muslim world and international affairs, check out my blog www.mirrorsfortheprince.com.

Tagged :

Lament the Spaniard

Spanish history is depressing. It is a tale of greed, bigotry, and violence. The Reconquista, though a cute term, is a shorthand way of describing the violent destruction of an open-minded and tolerant Islamic society that thrived for centuries on the Iberian Peninsula. It represents the victory of bigotry over tolerance. The ethnic cleansing and forced conversions of Spain’s Muslims and Jews was just the beginning.

The hate unleashed during the Reconquista and the inquisition that followed also found expression in the brutal treatment meted out to those misfortunate enough to cross paths with Spain’s gold thirsty conquistadors. Their methods were so brutal that you can trace much of Central and South America’s wealth inequality and resulting underdevelopment and instability to their legacy. The seeds sown during the Reconquista not only shaped Spain’s conquest of the New World but culminated in the destruction of the Spanish Civil War and reverberate through the neo-colonial power structures prevalent throughout the world today. It is hard not to get depressed when one thinks about all the lives needlessly ruined and destroyed because Spaniards spent so many centuries obsessing over the religious beliefs of their neighbors. Rather than write a long, boring essay about it, per my usual custom, I thought I would try my hand at poetry. I apologize ahead of time:

Lament the Spaniard

Tis a point of great shame

But he and the Arab are one and the same

Once brothers, now sundered

His sword slashed and thundered

Neighbors were forced to flee

Those that remained had to bend the knee

Ameen turned to Amen

The past buried and forgotten

Greed and hate poisoned his soul

He murdered his brothers for love of gold

Slaughtering and enslaving countless innocents to get it

Lament the Spaniard, and all he has met.

I have visited Spain and Portugal several times over the years. Looking at the Iberian Peninsula’s Muslim architecture, especially the mini minarets the Portuguese build into their homes, made me sad. It reminded me of how greed and intolerance have a habit of destroying beautiful things. It also made me angry. When I was standing in the Alhambra, I could not help but think the men who built that beautiful palace were fools. Building a wonder while the world around them burned. All they could do in response was sigh[1]. All I can do is lament. Showing how little has changed for Muslims over the past five centuries.

Al-Andulus was no paradise, but it did feature an enlightened attitude that stood in stark contrast to the reconquering Christians and their inquisitors. These men exhibited a level of cruelty and hate towards their fellow humans that is difficult to understand. One wonders how different the trajectory of the new world may have been if it had been discovered by Spain when it was still Muslim. Diseases would have spread regardless, but given the patterns of their previous conquests, it is reasonable to assume Muslims discovering the Americas would not have engaged in the same sort of genocidal insanity as the conquistadors. Their incredibly intolerant and hateful worldview led to indescribable pain and suffering for countless innocents. The sorts of which Muslim conquerors have rarely, if ever, been accused of inflicting. Of course, such conjecture is a waste of time. But so is poetry.

On the off chance you have enjoyed this foray into Spain’s sad Muslim history, you can find more of my thoughts at www.mirrorsfortheprince.com.


[1] See “The Last Sigh of the Moor,” by Theophile Gautier. The Last Sigh of the Moor by Theophile Gautier – Poetry Atlas