Category: Uncategorized

When it comes to climate change, Pakistan is on its own

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorized2 Comments on When it comes to climate change, Pakistan is on its own

The enormity of the damage wrought by Pakistan’s recent floods is staggering. One third of the country submerged, 3 million acres of agricultural land ruined, almost a million livestock drowned, 1.8 million homes destroyed and 33 million affected. Early figures estimate the cost to rebuild at $30 billion.

Pakistan’s leaders responded by traveling the world to elicit sympathy and donations as they lamented how little their nation has contributed to climate change and pushed for a new “green Marshal Plan.” America has promised $30 million while the UN has pledged another $160 million. China will donate $57 million, and the UK has agreed to provide $17 million. The Asian Development Bank has agreed to provide 2.5 billion in loans. Though helpful, these amounts are a tiny fraction of what is needed, laying bare a painful truth. The international community will not give Pakistan the money it needs. Borrowing more money is not an option either. Pakistan is already “drowning in debt” and unlikely to find creditors willing to lend the necessary amounts.

All of which means Pakistan must shoulder this burden alone. Arguing for climate justice, though worthwhile in theory, is ultimately a waste of time. The world has never been a kind or just place and rising temperatures and sea levels will not change this fundamental truth. If anything, they will reinforce it. Those nations capable of adapting will survive, while those that are not will perish.

That might not be fair and has already led to op-eds highlighting both the dangers and hypocrisy of leaving Pakistan to deal with climate change on its own. But that is exactly what will happen because, for better or worse, that is how the world works. Rather than complain about the injustice of it all, Pakistan’s elite would do well to focus on the harsh realities they now face and act accordingly.

The sad fact is these floods are but a preview of what is to come. Pakistan is home to thousands more glaciers that will continue to melt as the world warms. Sea levels are also expected to rise 1 meter by 2050, placing its commercial capital of Karachi and its flood prone infrastructure in grave danger. It was already experiencing brutal heat waves and diminished crop yields before these floods. These trends will only worsen over the next few years.

As a result, Pakistan must develop a practical and comprehensive plan to deal with the short term need to rebuild and provide disaster relief to roughly 1/7 of its population while simultaneously developing a long-term plan to protect itself from more destruction. And it must do so under the assumption that the international community will not provide substantial aid or assistance. Instead, it must save itself.

The urgent need for action cannot be overstated as time to deal with these potentially catastrophic threats is running out. Pakistan’s last great flood was ten years ago. It will be lucky if the next one waits as long. The consequences of inaction, though impossible to forecast with precision, will be grim.

The cumulative dangers posed by climate change represent an existential threat that could lead to serious political and social upheaval. Calamities of the sort now confronting Pakistan often lead to violent change. For example, some have argued West Pakistan’s poor response to a typhoon that struck its Eastern half in 1970 was an important catalyst for the civil war that followed. It is entirely plausible that a string of climate induced disasters could lead to similar social and political unrest, sweeping Pakistan’s elite away in the turmoil of revolution or civil war.

Unfortunately, their early responses have not been encouraging, indicating they do not appreciate the gravity of the situation. Instead of coming together, they have continued with business as usual as they bicker over politics and leaked recordings. Though not entirely surprising, their inability to adapt could easily doom the entire nation.

To avoid this fate, they will need to embrace reform. They must come together to create their own version of Japan’s Meiji Restoration. Only meaningful political and social reforms that lead to developing the economic, industrial, and technical capabilities needed to deal with these dangers will save them.

The first step is straightforward, long overdue, and yet deceptively difficult. Pakistan must improve its tax collection methods and widen its tax collectors’ nets. In 2021, Pakistan’s government collected only 10.4% of GDP in tax receipts. The average for Asian nations is 19.1%. Pakistan must bridge this gap while bringing more of its estimated $180 billion informal economy into the taxpaying realm. Taxing just a third of its informal economy while getting its tax collection rates to 15% would boost revenues by over $20 billion.  

As simple as this seems, achieving these goals has proven out of reach because they require gutting Pakistan’s tax collection agencies from top to bottom, modernizing them, and then subjecting them to vigilant oversight to make sure tax revenue is spent where it is needed rather than stolen by corrupt bureaucrats and politicians. In other words, Pakistan’s elites must do what they have adamantly refused to do for decades: build a modern administrative state and the competent tax, law enforcement, regulatory, and judicial agencies that come with it.  

Once Pakistan gets its finances and governance in order, it can focus on climate change. It will need to make massive investments to climate proof its infrastructure while re-locating entire towns from flood prone areas. It will need to wean itself off imported fossil fuels by building an indigenous renewable energy sector focused on green hydrogen and solar power. And it must modernize and climate proof its agricultural sector, in part, by building thousands of acres of indoor, climate-controlled facilities. It will also need to build a modern public education system to provide the skilled labor required to make all of this happen.

Pakistan is entering a pivotal period in its history. One that will decide its trajectory for many years. The days ahead will be hard. They will require sacrifice and drastic social, political, and economic changes. If Pakistan’s elite can successfully guide their nation through these troubled times, they will reap the rewards. If they do not, they will suffer the consequences.

Tagged : / / / / / / / / / /

Fixing Pakistan’s economy requires fixing its political system first

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorized1 Comment on Fixing Pakistan’s economy requires fixing its political system first

To fix a problem, one must get to the root of the issue. Of course, that is often easier said than done. Pakistan’s economy, for example, is perennially in crisis and unable to provide a decent standard of living for many of its 220 million people.

What is the root of the issue? Corruption? Poor governance and suffocating bureaucracy? Awful or non-existent public schools? A massive trade imbalance? Excessive military spending? The answer to all these questions is a resounding yes. But these issues are themselves the result of Pakistan’s lack of inclusive and open political institutions which has prevented Pakistanis from building an accountable government responsive to their needs. The root of the issue is therefore Pakistan’s lack of democracy.

To be clear, democracy does not start or end with elections, though they are an important feature. A true democracy is based on allowing genuine participation in the political system by all relevant stakeholders. It is based on ensuring the consent of the governed through the creation of institutional mechanisms, establishing the rule of law, and ensuring freedom of expression and peaceful association. Only then can a society create political and social institutions that foster strong economic growth, thereby strengthening the fiscal position of the government through increased tax revenue.

To that end, Pakistan will require a bevy of reforms. It must build a public education system that can finally provide all its citizens with a high-quality modern education. But to build vibrant educational institutions, it must first repeal laws that limit the ability of its citizens to express themselves. That is the only way to create an intellectual climate and electorate capable of engaging in the sort of lively debates necessary to formulate policies in a democratic system. It is also the only way to nurture the technological development so crucial to economic growth.

To establish the rule of law, it must build courts that allow for fair and efficient dispute resolution and that can safeguard the property rights of its citizens. It will also need to tear most of its incompetent law enforcement and regulatory agencies down to the studs before rebuilding them. Without the rule of law, neither democracy nor the economy can prosper.  

Finally, it will need to empower provincial legislative bodies and devolve power as much as possible to the local level. Pakistan’s people and provinces are simply too diverse to be properly governed by a strong federal government. Diffusing power locally as much as possible is the most logical way to limit resource extraction by distant elites while ensuring citizens have a say in the laws that govern them.  

Rather than implement much needed reforms to strengthen its democracy, Pakistan’s newly installed government has opted for loans from China and the IMF and a new “super” tax on certain corporate sectors. Getting loans from allies and international institutions or imposing temporary tax increases may ameliorate Pakistan’s short term financial problems but they do not address their root causes. In fact, they reinforce its problems by taking away the greatest motivation for reform: necessity. So long as Pakistan can access funds from its patrons, its elite will have no incentive to institute the sort of changes that can finally end its seemingly permanent state of poverty and underdevelopment.

The rapid economic growth of countries governed by authoritarian political institutions in East Asia has led some to conclude that democracy is not a vital pre-condition to economic growth. These examples should be viewed as an exception to the general rule established by America, Germany, Israel, and Japan. It is no coincidence that four of the world’s most innovative and prosperous economies feature democratic political systems, strong free speech protections, and well-funded public schools. Nor is it a coincidence that Turkey is one of the Muslim world’s most developed nations given its long experiment with democracy. Even Turkey’s economic and technological weaknesses prove the point, as its history of military coups and authoritarian tendencies likely explain why it is not on the same developmental tier as the four powerhouse nations referenced above.

The evidence can lead to no other conclusion: Pakistan will remain a poor and weak nation until it creates the sort of democratic political institutions required to support and stimulate strong economic growth.

Some within the Muslim world have argued that democracy is an un-Islamic Western import. They are hopelessly misguided. The political institutions created by the Rashidun during the early Islamic era, though not democratic by modern standards, clearly show that democracy is the form of government closest to the Islamic ideal. Conversely, they also show that monarchies and dictatorships are patently un-Islamic. It is no coincidence that the height of Islam’s power came when its leaders were chosen based on their standing in the community rather than their familial relationship to the prior ruler or ability to violently seize or maintain power.

More importantly, the Saudi regime and the Taliban both prove that blindly mimicking institutions and clinging to ideas that are 1400 years old when establishing modern governments is a recipe for hypocrisy, instability, and violence. They also show why religion and politics are such a toxic mix.

The lessons for Pakistan (and by extension, the wider Muslim world) are obvious and have been for a long time. Unfortunately, its military and feudal rulers refuse to listen. Thus, the root of the problem remains unaddressed, causing its various symptoms to spread and choke off development in a variety of ways.

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

Tagged : / / / /

A rose by any other name

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorized1 Comment on 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

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorized1 Comment on 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

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorized1 Comment on 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

It’s time for the government to come clean about aliens

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorized1 Comment on It’s time for the government to come clean about aliens

Mankind has consumed itself with endless military competition without pausing to consider that there may be far greater threats to our prosperity and freedom than each other. 

The Milky Way galaxy is estimated to contain around 400 billion stars. Much like our own sun, many of them have planets and moons rotating around them. Though we have yet to openly encounter one, it is reasonable to assume some of these planets and moons are home to civilizations not too dissimilar from our own. Our very existence is proof that such civilizations exist. Even if only .1% of these stars can support a civilization like ours, that would still leave 400,000,000 potentially similar civilizations in our galaxy alone.  

As our own evolutionary trajectory shows, it takes time for organisms to evolve and create civilizations that can aspire to the stars.  Our planet is roughly 4.5 billion years old, but only evolved a species with the capacity to launch objects beyond its atmosphere less than 65 years ago.  While our planet and civilization may be young and in the early stages of trying to explore space, our galaxy is estimated to be over 13 billion years old. Which means that some of these potential alien civilizations have had a sizable head start. Even if only .1 percent of the 400 million possible civilizations referenced above developed the ability to explore space, that would still lead to 400,000 spacefaring civilizations in just the Milky Way. 

To be fair, none of these estimates can be taken seriously. We do not know enough about our universe to accurately calculate how many civilizations it holds or even what kind of technology and energy sources it takes to traverse the vast distances of space. They are only meant to illustrate that even if the odds are very low, given the sheer number of stars, there could still be a substantial number of them.  

Some have theorized that we have yet to encounter one because it would destroy itself before developing the capacity to reach other stars. It is also possible that our planet is in a remote part of the galaxy or simply too resource poor to merit much attention from spacefaring civilizations. Just because we have yet to make contact with one does not mean they do not exist. One need only look at the night sky to consider the possibility. 

This possibility should put our own squabbles and short-sighted behavior in perspective because such a civilization would, of necessity, possess technology far superior to ours. Designing and building the propulsion systems and ships to explore space would also lead to the military means to violently conquer our planet or take its resources. Our history shows that when civilizations with vastly different technological and military abilities meet, the result is often one-sided carnage and enslavement. It would be easy to dismiss these concerns as the result of too many sci-fi movies. The Incas and Aztecs would have probably felt the same way just before they met the Spanish. 

That is obviously a worst-case scenario and, in truth, unlikely since marshaling the necessary resources and scientific abilities to reach space would probably require attaining a high degree of social and political harmony. Thus, most spacefaring civilizations are unlikely to evolve in a manner that would make them a threat. Nonetheless, assuming all of them will have friendly intentions is an invitation to disaster. Even if the possibility is remote, the cost of being unprepared could be catastrophic for our species.  

Unfortunately, we are biologically wired to only react urgently to immediate physical threats. We are not wired to think of our long-term self-preservation especially when the threat is so remote and theoretical. Even medium-term threats like those posed by climate change have barely moved the needle. We are divided into so many tribes and clans, many armed to the teeth, that the notion of coming together as a species seems like the sort of crazy idea only someone contemplating an alien invasion would consider.  

What we need is a strong catalyst, but preferably one short of an actual invasion. As such, it is time for our government to share all the information it has regarding alien visitations. The late Senator Harry Reid’s comments that he “was told for decades that Lockheed had some of these retrieved materials” when discussing UFO fragments indicate it is withholding key physical evidence that could definitively prove we are not alone in the universe.   Out of paternalistic concern, it has decided to keep the truth hidden. It is probably afraid of how we will respond. Those concerns, considering the extent to which popular culture has normalized the subject, no longer make sense. Instead of dealing in conjecture and rumors, we need to have a rational discussion about a topic that impacts all of us and that has the potential to finally unite our species towards a common goal. 

Pakistan’s latest crisis is a product of its hybrid system

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorized4 Comments on Pakistan’s latest crisis is a product of its hybrid system

Assigning blame for the dysfunction gripping Pakistan’s political system today is easy. This mess belongs to everyone. Imran Khan’s bombastic but mostly hollow leadership style certainly deserves a large share of the blame. But so does the opposition, which refused to play a constructive role in governing from day one. Instead, it spent four years actively undermining the ruling party. And finally, hiding behind the curtain is the military, which has always been the masked ringleader of this circus.

Instead of letting the democratic process run its course, the military threw its support behind Khan to get him into office. And now that it has soured on him, it has quietly thrown its support behind his ouster. As usual, Pakistan’s generals have been the invisible hand shaping things behind the scenes. Whether one supports Imran Khan, or the opposition is irrelevant. The point is that none of today’s drama would be possible without the military’s poorly disguised machinations.

Pakistan’s outwardly democratic system will always be weak and unstable so long as its leaders can only attain or keep power with the military’s support. Its hybrid system in which the military wields political power alongside elected civilians is therefore at the root of this latest crisis, just as it has been the root cause of nearly all the crises that have paralyzed Pakistan since its birth. It is an inherently fragile system that will always prevent the nation from reaching its true potential by trapping it in a constant cycle of dysfunction and poor governance.

Democracy certainly has its flaws but, when fairly implemented as part of a system that prioritizes the rule of law and freedom of expression, has proven to be the form of government most likely to lead to greater economic, technological, and military power. By subordinating its civilian political institutions to their will, Pakistan’s generals have pursued their short-term political interests without considering the long-term impact.

Unfortunately, since they rule from the shadows, they avoid any meaningful responsibility or blame. Instead, they have foisted that upon hapless civilian leaders while simultaneously making it impossible for them to govern effectively. The result is that Pakistan’s economy and people suffer while its generals get their pick of the best plots in their various real estate development schemes.


Though all the players deserve some blame, ultimate responsibility for this crisis falls on the system itself. That means the military deserves the lion’s share of the blame because it is both the primary architect and stakeholder of this system. But just as they avoided taking the fall for Pakistan’s four stinging military defeats at India’s hand, Pakistan’s generals will inexplicably emerge more powerful and ready to steer the nation towards its next crisis. For all its volatility, the very nature of the system they created makes that tragically inevitable.

The author writes about the politics and national security of Pakistan and the wider Muslim world on his blog, www.mirrorsfortheprince.com.

Tagged : / / / /

Lessons from the war in Ukraine

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorized6 Comments on Lessons from the war in Ukraine

I typically write about the underlying causes of the Muslim world’s military weakness and how to end it. But, for obvious reasons, violence in Ukraine has captured my attention recently. As someone who has spent his entire life watching people suffer in war zones in Palestine, Kashmir, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, and countless other places it has been painful watching similar scenes unfold in Ukraine. The vivid images of destruction visited upon the Ukrainian people who wanted nothing more than to live freely under leaders of their own choosing have brought back horrible memories of images of children playing on the beach in Gaza who were murdered by Israeli shells. Or images of American bombs destroying entire neighborhoods in the infamous Sunni triangle in Iraq. War brings nothing but death and despair. Those who unleash it carelessly are evil people indeed.

As such, I shall endeavor to advise Mr. Putin and Ukraine’s leadership as to the most prudent course of action just as I often advise the rulers of the Muslim world in a desperate attempt to get them to enact policies that can end the violence that has consumed so much of it. Inexplicably, they have yet to follow my very sensible advice.

For example, I have long counseled the leaders of Palestine to lay down their arms and for all Palestinians to adopt widespread acts of peaceful civil disobedience while performing symbolic acts of surrender in recognition of Israel’s overwhelming miliary superiority and willingness to slaughter women and children the same way Russian forces have been slaughtering innocent Ukrainians. Given the barbaric violence Israel has inflicted upon the Palestinians and their continuing inability to protect themselves from its exceptionally powerful military, their best option has long been peaceful civil disobedience. I always strive to give the best advice I can by making sure it is based on a realistic assessment of the available evidence and common sense (as a lawyer, that’s what I’m trained to do). 

PUTIN’S BEST OPTION IS TO RETREAT IMMEDIATELY

In a nutshell, I advise Mr. Putin to retreat and sue for peace immediately. He can no longer prevent Ukraine from joining the EU since his actions have made that inevitable, but he can still threaten enough violence to prevent it from joining NATO. Every day he delays his withdrawal he puts that limited goal in jeopardy. I have already explained the most logical solution to end this conflict here. I stand by the suggestions contained therein but since I offered this advice before the invasion, I would like to elaborate due to recent events. Russia’s invasion has created a range of plausible scenarios that will all lead to the same end – its defeat. The only real question is how long it will take and how many will die before Putin comes to his senses.

The ideal scenario for Russia is that its forces eventually subdue Ukraine’s government and military, conquer significant portions of its territory, and establish a government that takes the Kremlin’s orders. To achieve these goals, it will need to inflict heavy damage that will kill thousands of civilians and lead to significant casualties for its fighting forces. As I explained in a comment to a recent Foreign Policy article here, Putin will unleash the sort of barbaric violence he unleashed against the people of Chechnya and Syria, but it is unclear if he can achieve similar results. Even if it uses similarly brutal tactics, there is a reasonable probability that Russia only captures pockets of Ukrainian territory and fails to establish full military control.

The best-case scenario is still horrible for Russia because its forces will face a well-organized and supplied insurgency. Failed counterinsurgency (COIN) campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq show what happens when insurgents have access to bases and supplies from areas outside the conflict zone while successful ones in Palestine and Malaysia show that COIN operations can only succeed if these are cut off. Ukraine’s geography and proximity to friends willing to supply it with arms places it in the former category. These dynamics mean that Russia’s defeat is inevitable even if it conquers the entire country. The more devastation Russia’s military inflicts and the longer it stays in Ukraine, the greater the likelihood that it will fully integrate with the West once his forces eventually leave. And that eventuality is a certainty. Again, it only a question of when.

Admittedly, it is hard to predict an accurate timeline. Russia occupied Afghanistan for ten years despite absorbing increasingly greater losses. Given the ferocious defense Ukraine has mounted thus far, it will probably be forced to withdraw much faster than it withdrew from Afghanistan (my guess – Russian forces will get kicked out of most of Ukraine within 6 months – two years but will try to annex portions along its periphery permanently).

Its campaign is going so poorly that it is already ratcheting up the nuclear rhetoric. This is a bluff and a foreshadow of the brinkmanship Putin is likely to employ in the coming months as he tries to save face. But the end is obvious. Putin has lost. A smart chess player would retreat and regroup immediately. If Putin retreats quickly, he will survive. The longer he waits and the more he digs in, the worse it will be. Some might think it is too early to make such predictions, but we have seen similar misadventures unfold so many times that the results seem inevitable. Hopefully, instead of going through the motions of this predictable and unnecessary drama, we can just move to the part where Putin’s forces go home, and we learn some valuable lessons.

LESSONS AND ADVICE FOR UKRAINE

For Ukraine, the lesson is simple. The West cannot protect you. It can help you, but that’s it. I know the US, UK and Russia all made promises but relying on their word was not very smart, and that is not hindsight. The advice contained in the article linked above still makes sense. Turn yourself into a porcupine that not even a bear would touch and channel your inner Switzerland/Israel.

I know this does not make up for the loss of life, but you will be given all the Western aid you need to rebuild. Please use it wisely. You have shown your bravery but as you rebuild, I truly hope you create institutional mechanisms to ensure the money is used to develop local industry in the same way Germany and Japan used American aid to rebuild after WWII. Please do not use it to make Western NGOs and defense contractors rich while allowing your elites and warlords (there will be warlords if Russia goes all in and sticks it out for years) to siphon off the rest. Do not compound tragedy with short-sighted greed like the leaders of Afghanistan and Iraq did. Make sure this aid is designed to give you the means to protect yourselves without outside help and with the idea that it will eventually end.

Dictators like Putin come and go but Russia will have thousands of nuclear weapons and conventional military advantages that Ukraine will not be able to match for the foreseeable future and beyond. The causes of conflict between Russia and Ukraine as a gateway for invaders and source of food supplies will always drive conflict with your large neighbor. As such, once Russia withdraws, you must begin the task of dissuading the next Russian despot who will try to control you.

LESSONS FOR THE REST OF US

What is happening in Ukraine provides important lessons for all students of international relations and war that are often ignored out of short-sighted political self-interest. To expect that the West would stand with Ukraine against Russia’s nuclear arsenal was a lapse in judgement. One that will take a long time to rebuild from and shows a nation must be self-reliant in matters of national security and that having friends really helps too. That might seem contradictory but it’s not. History has shown that powerful nations have an easier time developing close alliances. One naturally leads to the other.

It would take a true ally indeed to fight against a nuclear armed bear. That kind of alliance takes years to develop and requires a high degree of commonality and overlapping interests sufficient to compel nations to come to each other’s aid against such violent foes. NATO constitutes such an alliance. For those nations like Ukraine that do not have powerful friends willing to take up the fight, self-reliance is the key. As such, let’s take a step back and think about what it takes to build real military power.

As America’s military dominance shows, democratic and inclusive political and social systems that adhere to the rule of law and allow for freedom of expression are key to supporting the technological and economic growth required to create powerful militaries. If Ukraine (or any other nation) is to ensure its freedom it must aspire to make itself independently powerful by learning from these basic principles.

The easiest way to explain how democratic political systems lead to military power is by using a mathematical equation (sort of). Democracy equals wealth which equals power. Power equals victory and all these factors added together equals impunity. The reasons America and Russia face such different reactions to their imperial wars of conquest are simple.

One, racism and bigotry are real. And two, America is too powerful and violent to be held to the same standards it holds others to. It had no legitimate reasons to invade Vietnam or Iraq. But few were willing to challenge its barbaric rampages of killing and destruction even though they destroyed millions of lives. No one will ever call America out because it has the power of an 800-pound gorilla. Even with all its nuclear weapons, Russia’s power pales in comparison to America’s.

When it comes to modern warfare, the nation or coalition of nations with the best resources and the ability to work as a team on multiple levels to use those resources effectively will usually win. The top level being the political, legal, and economic institutions of the state and the bottom being an infantry platoon and the soldiers in it. There is a direct, though complicated, and layered correlation between the effectiveness of the levels at the bottom and those at the top.

America may have lost its wars over the long run but that was due to self-inflicted wounds from the corrupting influences its hyper-militarization (which, believe it or not, can be counter-productive to sustaining military power) has had on its political and economic systems and how this rendered it unable to develop an effective set of military, political, and economic policies that could consolidate its victories. America may not have been able to devise an effective COIN strategy, but it was able to assert military control over both Iraq and Afghanistan with lightning speed and then maintain that control simultaneously for many years.

Both invasions showed once again how its vast wealth and advanced technological base have allowed it to arm its soldiers with large quantities of advanced weapons. Putting these in the hands of soldiers with the education and social/unit cohesion to use them with such devastating effect allowed it to assert control over much of the Islamic world starting from the first Gulf War until its withdrawal from Afghanistan roughly thirty years later. Its strength and wealth also shielded it from the wrath of the rest of the world and has allowed it to maintain much of its military presence in the region even after its defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan. The foundation for its power and the impunity with which it is used are its democratic and inclusive political and social systems.

I’m not suggesting Ukraine should aspire to similar strength but offering an example of the big picture dynamics required to build a powerful military. It starts with creating inclusive social, cultural, and political systems and institutions that give as many citizens as possible a fair shot at pursuing their dreams. Nations that create political and social systems that allow for that type of freedom tend to prosper and nations that prosper have the resources to build powerful militaries. America has not always been perfect in this regard, but it has been better than most and has been working hard to improve for many decades.

Inclusive social and political systems go hand in hand. For example, before Pakistan built its nuclear weapons it decided to make the job infinitely harder by chasing a brilliant scientist away due to his religious beliefs. But part of the reason it did so was because its political and legal systems reinforced the authoritarian tendencies of its social and cultural systems. America, on the other hand, used to wholeheartedly welcome scientists from all over the world, regardless of their religious beliefs. Its willingness to do so greatly contributed to its power and wealth.

Welcoming minorities with differing beliefs and putting them to work based on their talents and passions is just one part of building powerful nations and militaries. The most important part is building genuinely democratic political institutions that give people a say in who rules them and the laws that govern them, but inclusive political and social systems are mutually dependent. They work together to allow people to use the political process to negotiate peacefully to manage and share resources, create fair and neutral mechanisms to settle disputes, and make sure no one feels so marginalized that they take up arms to pursue their political goals. Inclusive and well-run governments based on the rule of law lead to stability, social cohesion, economic and technological growth, and these factors lead to military power.   

To build a scientific and industrial base that would allow Ukraine to generate the sort of military power that can protect it against more violence it will need to ensure its political and social systems/institutions are designed to support the necessary economic and technological development. It has already proven it has the social cohesion and critical thinking soldiers to defend itself, now it must create the conditions that can give them the resources to do so independently in the future.

Russia’s military blunders in Ukraine support these arguments. It is weak for the same reasons as many of the Arab states, though to a considerably lesser degree. Its autocratic and repressive political system has stifled both economic and technological development in a way that has prevented it from building the sort of military America used to conquer Iraq so quickly. This has made its military weak in many ways. Russia will always be a second-tier power while it is governed by dictators.

TYING IT BACK TO THE MUSLIM WORLD AND WRAPPING IT UP

I have been giving the rulers of the Muslim world similar advice for a long time. I am certain Putin will ignore me too but, anyone who has practiced law for any length of time is used to seeing their good advice get ignored. Nevertheless, I feel obligated to continue my futile attempt to insert common sense into matters of politics and war despite the refusal of so many to listen. The logic of my arguments is not only intuitively self-evident but supported by the ideas of the smarter people than myself whose opinions are summarized and synthesized here who have discussed these matters in more detailed and scholarly settings. Anyone who has read Ibn Khaldun’s Muqqadeema, Machiavelli’s the Prince, Kennedy’s Rise and fall of the great powers and Why nations fail by Acemoglu and Robinson should agree with my analysis.

A lot of Muslims have been complaining about the double standards this conflict has brought to the forefront. These complaints are justified but will fall on deaf ears in the West. Instead of raging against the unfairness of the world, Muslims must learn some important lessons as well. I write about those on my blog www.mirrorsfortheprince.com so I will not get into the details. To summarize, Muslim societies must undergo serious and deep-rooted reforms to their political, economic, social, and cultural systems and institutions if they ever wish to end the cycle of violence that has consumed so many of their nations.

Over the past several CENTURIES Muslim communities have repeatedly been subject to the exact type of violence destroying Ukraine right now. Just as Ukrainians deserve to live free, so do Muslims. It is time to end the cycle by taking substantive measures to make sure this kind of violence can never touch the Muslim world again. The alternative is more death and destruction. If not from America than from one of the other great powers. Ukraine is not the first country Russia has violently attacked in recent memory. It’s just the first white one. The pattern will continue until Muslims take the necessary measures to protect themselves by listening to the advice offered above. For example, the West clearly has no plans to help Chechnya free itself from Putin. That will only happen once Muslims learn the right lessons from conflicts like the one consuming Ukraine and the many that have consumed the Muslim world. Thankfully those lessons are relatively simple: self-reliance is the key to freedom but having good friends really helps.

Tagged : / / / /

A tribute to Abdus Salam and what could have been

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorized1 Comment on A tribute to Abdus Salam and what could have been

Abdus Salam was a brilliant physicist. So brilliant, in fact, that he won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1979. He was the first Muslim to do so. His fellow Pakistanis mostly ignored his accomplishment though, spurning him because he was an Ahmadiyya. Pakistan’s treatment of its first Nobel prize winner represents a disgusting display of intolerance that did irreparable harm to the nation.

His dream was to educate and train his fellow Muslims to improve his nation’s scientific abilities. After graduating from Cambridge, he returned to Pakistan to do exactly that, becoming the head of the mathematics department at the Punjab University. Unfortunately, his dream was cut short, as he was forced to flee the country he loved. Pakistan’s gifted son was chased away because his countrymen could not abide his unorthodox religious views. His government went so far as to declare that he was not even a Muslim.

Instead of being given the resources to build a research facility worthy of his intellect so that he could train the next generation of Pakistani scientists, he was forced to return to Europe, which took full advantage of his brilliance. His contributions to Europe’s scientific abilities led to breakthroughs in fields such as quantum electrodynamics, theoretical particle physics, and electroweak theory. The refusal of Pakistanis to follow the simple maxim of live and let live robbed the nation of a man who had the potential to single handedly catapult Pakistan’s scientific abilities into the 21st century. 

Aside from highlighting a culture of bigotry, this episode shows exactly why the Muslim world has been so weak for so long. It is a vivid illustration of the type of short-sighted thinking that led to Europe’s colonial conquests, which were made possible because its massive technological advantages allowed it to build militaries Muslims simply could not match. The difference in their technological abilities finds its roots in the same mentality that ran Mr. Salam out of his native land.

Muslims have turned themselves from people who invented algebra into people that force their brightest into the arms of those that once violently oppressed them. Instead of giving themselves the opportunity to invent a new mathematical field, Pakistan’s leaders and people gave in to those among them who believe it is acceptable to use violence against those with differing religious views. Their inability to abide by the tenets of their own faith by ignoring its command that there can be no compulsion in religion chased away a patriot who was desperate to help his country.

Sadly, many Pakistanis have yet to learn from this tragic affair. The recent murder of a priest and lynching of a factory manager show that far too many still adhere to the sort of hateful ideology that forced Mr. Salam to flee. To make matters worse, Pakistan’s government still enacts and enforces laws based on these same principles.

Instead of using religion as a pretext to control or discriminate against others, Pakistanis must allow each other to live their lives as they see fit so that people can express themselves and follow their passions without fear. This is the only way to unleash people’s creative energy and this energy is the key to technological innovation and growth. It is impossible to limit artistic, personal, religious, or political expression and still create an environment that is conducive to technological development.

Such inclusive and tolerant attitudes will also be key to keeping Pakistan united and strong. Pakistan is so large and diverse that only a culture that emphasizes peaceful co-existence can ensure it remains a unified country. Those who wish to see Pakistan rise as a powerful nation must therefore embrace Islamic notions of tolerance and compassion.

As conflicts in Baluchistan and the Tribal Areas show, the alternative is perpetual violence and instability. The sad fact is that mankind’s history is a violent one. Those societies that do not develop the means to harmoniously co-exist and protect themselves will inevitably fall to conquest and violence.

In the modern era, a nation’s ability to protect itself depends on strong economic and technical abilities. An important facet of developing these abilities is fostering inclusivity and tolerance (as well as democratic forms of governance). Z.A. Bhutto infamously promised his countrymen would eat grass to ensure Pakistan had the means to protect itself. The tragic irony behind his dramatic proclamation is that it would have been completely unnecessary had Pakistanis simply embraced Abdus Salam as a fellow human being instead of obsessing over his religious views.

Pakistan was able to build its nuclear weapons by creating an extensive smuggling ring to provide the equipment it was unable to build on its own. But nuclear weapons are just one facet of national security. Over the next few decades, developments in AI software, space travel, and nanotechnology will decide which nations rank among the powerful and which will remain weak and vulnerable. Rather than allow a gifted genius to help it build a scientific foundation capable of developing this technology, Pakistan created the sort of toxic intellectual climate that will consign it to the ranks of the weak and vulnerable.

If Pakistan or the wider Muslim world ever wishes to rebuild itself and end the dominance of outsiders over the Islamic world it will need to create a culture that allows people like Abdus Salam to contribute to the full extent of their talents. Not just because it the right or moral thing to do (though it certainly is) but because it is the smart thing to do. It is no coincidence that the zenith of Islam’s power occurred when it was its most tolerant and accepting of dissent. Without these qualities, societies tear themselves apart from within making them far more likely to implode than achieve greatness. It is time for Muslims to aspire to be great once more. The best way to do that is to honor the legacy of Abdus Salam by making sure all Pakistanis can contribute to the nation’s development to the full extent of their talents regardless of their differences.

The author is a US Navy veteran, intellectual property attorney and creator of the blog www.mirrorsfortheprince.com where he discusses ways to modernize the Muslim world.

Some commonsense advice for Saudi leaders

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorizedLeave a Comment on Some commonsense advice for Saudi leaders

In 1985 Israeli bombers dropped empty fuel tanks on targets inside Saudi Arabia to show their displeasure with its purchase of long-range missiles from China. They wanted to showcase their ability to strike the Kingdom at will and emphasized their point by flying at a low altitude to show how little regard they had for Saudi air defenses[1]. This gesture was designed both to disrespect and warn the Saudis and vividly highlights the depths of Saudi Arabia’s military incompetence.

Saudi Arabia has since turned itself into one of the largest consumers of American weapons to improve its ability to protect itself. It now boasts the sixth largest military budget in the world and an array of sophisticated weapons as well as an army of mercenaries to keep them working. Its conflict with the Houthis indicates this massive spending has done little to improve its fighting abilities.  

Aside from their ballistic missiles and drones, the Houthis lack modern weaponry, an air force, or air defenses. Despite the severe disparity in resources and weapons and the fact that America has actively helped with logistical, intelligence, and targeting support, the Saudis have been unable to subdue their poorly equipped enemies.

The Kingdom’s continuing inability to field a competent fighting force presents an existential threat that it must take immediate steps to resolve. Machiavelli famously noted that rulers who cannot independently defend themselves will rarely maintain their power for very long[2]. That the Sauds have survived this long is a testament to their political acumen and unwavering American support. Unfortunately for them, America’s support is no longer guaranteed. As such, they must finally take concrete measures to ensure they can adequately protect their country.

Saudi Arabia presents an interesting case study in military power because the nation’s oil wealth means it does not lack for resources or weapons. Consequently, its poor capabilities are directly attributable to cultural and political factors. Robert Lacey provides some clues regarding the underlying causes of this weakness which stem from the methods the royal family uses to ensure its rule. For example, he explains that due to political considerations, the Ulama was given control over Saudi schools. Naturally, they favored Islamic oriented curriculum that emphasized rote memorization over improving the critical thinking skills of Saudi students[3]. Their control of Saudi schools is just one manifestation of their influence.

The ruling family’s alliance with the country’s conservative religious establishment has given them the power to violently ensure conformity with their strict interpretation of Islamic law. Saudi Ulama believe they have a responsibility to “command the good” and “forbid the bad.[4]” In pursuit of this highly questionable philosophy, they have trampled individual rights and modes of expression while creating a toxic intellectual climate that has affected Saudi society in countless ways. One of which is its ineffectiveness on the battlefield.

According to Ken Pollack’s book Armies of Sand, the poor performance of Saudi soldiers is directly tied to a culture that emphasizes obedience and conformity over individuality and independent thinking[5]. These dominant cultural values have prevented Saudi soldiers from learning to operate independently in the unstructured chaos of war, leading to incredibly poor tactical abilities. As a result, Saudi forces have proven incapable of learning how to conduct combined arms operations (these require different military assets like infantry, tanks, and artillery to work together) or properly execute strike missions against even undefended targets.

They have been given this power because it provides the Sauds the cover they need to suppress political dissent by helping to justify the draconian police state they have built. The suppression of religious and political discourse go hand in hand and serve the same purpose: to ensure the family’s rule.

The Saudi military’s command structure and organization also reflect the royal family’s political needs. Much like its civilian ministries, Saudi Arabia’s military is organized and designed to balance power between various branches of the family and the tribes that support it. It is organized and trained to ensure political control and obedience, not fight battles against external enemies. Its abysmal performance on the battlefield reflects these priorities.

Given these underlying issues, commonsense dictates that the Sauds must end the power of the Ulama over public policy and de-politicize the military by appointing officers based on merit rather than family or tribal affiliation. Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman has initiated reforms that are superficially consistent with the former goal while leaving the military’s politically motivated command structure intact. But none of his reforms address the political dynamics that forced his family to ally itself to the Ulama in the first place. Without serious political reforms, Saudi Arabia has no chance of developing adequate military power.

The Sauds need to take a page out of the British royal family’s playbook by creating a constitutional monarchy. This would allow the family to maintain an important, though diminished, role in the nation’s politics while protecting its incredible wealth. It is also the only way it will ever be able to create a military capable of protecting their nation since only a democratic government will be able to adequately de-politicize the military.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, the greatest enemies of commonsense are pride and greed. The Sauds are well-known for both qualities and, as a result, are more likely to laugh at this advice than follow it. They are far more likely to replace America by developing another neo-colonial alliance with China. Which means that instead of becoming one of the longest lasting monarchies in the world like their counterparts in Britain, they will go the way of the Almohads or Hafsids. They will become a footnote in history and join the long list of dynasties that have ruled various parts of the Muslim world only to fade into oblivion. The only real questions are when and what will follow.

[1] Lacey, Robert. Inside the Kingdom. Penguin Books. London. 2009. pgs. 111-12.

[2] Machiavelli, Niccolo, Trans by George Bull. The Prince. Penguin Books. London. 1961. Pgs. 20-26.

[3] Lacey at 50.

[4] Id. at 52.

[5] Pollack, Kenneth, Armies of Sand. Oxford University Press. New York. 2019. Pgs. 371-380; 394-405