This article was first published here by the Friday Times on Oct. 26, 2023.
It was nearly 60 years ago when Malcolm X famously suggested President Kennedy’s assassination was the inevitable result of chickens coming home to roost. One could easily say the same thing about the gun violence consuming America today.
Many of the mass shootings that have been perpetrated the past few years involved AR-15 style assault rifles, which are descended from a rifle originally designed for America’s war in Vietnam. Most estimates indicate America’s invasion killed approximately two million Vietnamese civilians. Much like its more recent invasion of Iraq, no one knows for certain how many innocents were murdered because no one bothered to count the bodies. But most estimates suggest it unleashed hell. It seems tragically fitting then that a weapon first used to murder countless innocent Vietnamese has now evolved into the symbol of America’s gun culture, and the preferred tool of those who wish to wreak havoc in its schools, places of worship, concert venues, movie theaters, offices, grocery stores, etc. Talk about chickens coming home to roost.
This is not meant to suggest the victims of these mass shootings bear any personal responsibility for their fates, but to point out that we are all impacted by the actions of our nation. Whether we had any direct participation in them or not is irrelevant. And the sad fact is America’s actions have been unconscionably violent and destructive.
The invasion of Vietnam was an unjust war of imperial aggression launched under the flimsiest of circumstances. The argument that it was necessary to stop the spread of communism is both inaccurate and illogical on many levels. North Vietnam may have been a communist state, but its struggle was primarily an anti-colonial one meant to liberate Southeast Asia from exploitative French rule.
The very premise of the invasion ignored the universal truth that people have the right to choose whatever form of government they want, even an inherently weak one that will inevitably collapse in on itself or give way to dictatorship. The only time war is ever justified is as a means of self-defense or coming to the aid of others in extreme circumstances. Since Vietnam never attacked America, there was no legitimate reason to invade it.
Whether through direct actions such as the invasions of Vietnam and Iraq, or indirect ones such as its prolific arms sales all over the world, America has turned itself into the world’s most violent military power and a merchant of death. Its actions have killed millions all over the world.
Not long after withdrawing from Vietnam, America’s intelligence agencies armed right wing death squads in Central America who murdered hundreds of thousands of women and children. Most were indigenous people guilty of doing nothing more than demanding greater rights over their own land. Since these people held left wing political views, America used its right-wing proxies to unleash hell yet again. Its actions in Central America were neither isolated nor unique.
Under the guise of fighting communism, America supplied arms to right wing regimes and paramilitary groups all over the world. Without this support, the slaughters and oppression committed in places as far flung as Chile, Indonesia, and South Africa would not have been possible.
These crimes were justified by the need to win the Cold War, but that conflict ended over thirty years ago and America’s policies have yet to meaningfully change. If anything, its share of the global arms market and ubiquitous military presence throughout the world has only grown.
During the Cold War, the threat of starting World War 3 prevented America from taking direct military control of the Middle East and its energy supplies. However, once the Soviet Union fell, it used Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait as a pretext to invade the Muslim world and build a permanent military presence there that endures to this day. The sanctions imposed on Iraq to oust Saddam after the first Gulf War killed an estimated 576,000 Iraqi children. According to a recent study by Brown University, the War on Terror that followed killed 4.5 million more people.
Between WW2, the Cold War, the Korean War, Vietnam, its clandestine actions in Central America, both Iraq wars and the War on Terror, America has been in a nearly perpetual state of conflict for the past 80 years. As the history of the AR-15 shows, there is a direct correlation between these conflicts and the mass shootings it is experiencing now. Even the rifle’s current popularity is based on marketing campaigns that borrowed imagery from the War on Terror. Instead of blaming violent video games, movies, TV shows, or mental health issues which are merely symptoms of the rot engulfing its culture, it is time to recognize that America’s gun violence is the result of being in a nearly continuous state of war for the better part of a century. Just as Pakistan and Afghanistan developed a Kalashnikov culture in the aftermath of the Soviet invasion of the latter, America’s AR-15 subculture is a by-product of its many wars.
These historical and cultural factors have also been shaped by institutional economic interests. Those wondering why so many of America’s leaders refuse to do anything about gun violence need only follow the money. Its domestic arms industry generates $80 billion in economic activity and nearly 400,000 jobs. By themselves, the 20 million AR-15 style rifles already in circulation represent billions in economic activity. Ten percent of America’s manufacturing base is devoted to war. It is the world’s biggest military spender and arms dealer by a wide margin. It has allocated $816 billion for defense spending in 2023 which employs nearly 4 million people. Its arms sales in 2020 added $285 billion in exports. The F-35 fighter program, by itself, will cost America $1.7 trillion. By some estimates, it has spent $16 trillion on its military over just the past 20 years. When its various segments are combined, America’s arms industry is worth well over a trillion dollars a year. Just as its commercial interests have incentivized it to pursue violent military policies around the world, they have also led to the creation of a flourishing domestic arms industry. One many of its politicians are loath to interfere with no matter how many mass shootings their constituents must endure.
Those who justify America’s policies by pointing to the jobs and money generated from making weapons are chasing fool’s gold. Much of America’s $32 trillion debt was accumulated paying for its military. Building weapons may generate economic activity but when the end-product is a tank or rifle, there is no value added. There is no economic multiplier effect. All the resources used to build weapons are ultimately sunk costs wasted on violence that only leads to death and despair.
As part of a series of articles about the AR-15, The Washington Post published an editorial arguing the rifle should be banned. But over the years, it has published several op-eds arguing America should substantially increase its already massive military spending. Like most American media outlets, it has no issue with America’s aggressive military posture, its unequivocal support for Apartheid Israel, or arms sales to violent regimes around the world. And that vividly highlights the disconnect. Many Americans are desperate to put an end to domestic gun violence but still see no problem with the destructive role their military and weapons sales play throughout the world. But as the AR-15 shows, the two are linked. Addressing one without first addressing the other is therefore impossible.
Unfortunately, just as Malcolm X’s comments did so long ago, the ideas expressed here are more likely to cause outrage and indignation for being too “woke” or “anti-American” instead of the sort of introspection that can lead to meaningful change. In America, those who passionately argue for gun control laws are expelled from their legislative bodies while those same bodies respond to mass shootings by passing laws to protect gun manufacturers from liability. Most of its Supreme Court’s justices claim to follow a philosophy of judicial interpretation grounded in textual analysis and originalism but completely ignore the first clause of the second amendment when analyzing it. Logic and objectivity are no longer valued in America.
Those who agree with the historically and legally dubious argument that the 2nd amendment enshrines an individual right to bear arms inexplicably use their beliefs as a basis for opposing attempts to regulate, vet, and ensure proper training for those who seek to exercise this right. At a minimum, someone attempting to purchase a machine gun should be required to undergo a psychological and competency evaluation as part of the robust permitting process that should govern who can own such items. Given the 2nd amendment’s prefatory language regarding “a well-regulated militia,” requiring these individuals to join the national guard of their respective states would not be unreasonable either. But gun rights advocates passionately oppose attempts to regulate the sale and use of these weapons.
Similarly, convincing Americans they do not need to spend nearly a trillion dollars a year on their military given their nation’s natural geographic defenses has proven impossible. America’s obsession with war and violence is destroying and impoverishing it at the same time, but no one is willing to address these issues in a meaningful way.
Since Americans are no longer capable of having rational discussions about complicated issues, they will not resolve them anytime soon. In the absence of logic, its leaders will continue to prioritize jobs and money over safety or common sense. Ibn Khaldun would probably have said America is in the “senile” stage of its evolution. According to Khaldun, senility was the last, inevitable part of the process of a nation’s fall. Once it sets in, it is irreversible. Having entered its senile stage, America will never voluntarily dismantle its weapons factories, no matter how many of its citizens are slaughtered to feed their machines.
As America tears itself apart, the Muslim world must beware. The commercial interests that drive its military spending will incentivize it to continue attacking Muslim nations or arming those like Israel or India engaged in military confrontations with them. Its history of violence in the Muslim world and the refusal of its leaders to protect even their own citizens both show the same thing: America’s leaders have no regard whatsoever for the sanctity of life, Muslim or otherwise. Which means they will never stray from the militaristic path they have chosen. It is impossible to predict the contours or timing of America’s fall. The Ottomans survived for centuries during their senility. But one thing is certain, the degree to which it has armed itself and the rest of the world will come back to haunt us all. Which means a lot more chickens will be coming home to roost.
This article was first published here by the Friday Times on June 15, 2023
Several years ago, when its national debt was just $20 trillion, I wrote an essay arguing America’s weak finances would lead it to withdraw its military from the Muslim world, creating a vacuum China would fill. The underlying premise of my argument was that America’s growing debt would force its leaders to trim military spending and the Muslim world, not being vital to its core interests, would be the first to witness the beginning of the end of the Pax Americana. A retrenchment necessitated by being in a nearly continuous state of either hot, cold, or asymmetrical war for most of the past 80 years.
America’s military presence in the region is still going strong today. It maintains a permanent naval presence in the Gulf and has troops scattered throughout the region. However, its attempts to build an anti-Iranian military coalition between Israel and the Arab world as an eventual substitute for its own forces and the recent rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia brokered by China suggests I was on the right track. Both developments support the argument that its role in the region is diminishing and portend trends that will only accelerate with time. As such, I am still confident in my thesis. But I was wrong about one crucial assumption.
I implicitly believed America’s leaders would react rationally. That they would see the massive pile of debt their wasteful spending and imperial wars of conquest have led to and develop a rational plan to fix the situation. I was wrong.
As evidence, I offer the recent deal reached between the Biden Administration and the Republican led Congress to raise America’s debt ceiling to accommodate a sum that has now grown to $31.4 trillion. There are two aspects of this deal that vividly highlight just how irrational and detached from reality America’s policy elite have become. The first, it cut funding for America’s tax collection and enforcement agency, the IRS. Second, it did not cut military spending. Instead, it increased military outlays by 1%.
Of the government agencies and departments most vital to a nation’s prosperity and security, none is more important than those that collect tax revenue. Not even the military. As Pakistan’s dysfunctional government and economy shows, without a well-funded and efficient tax collection and enforcement agency nothing else works. Paying for the public services like roads, competent law enforcement and regulatory agencies, or schools that glue a nation together and nurture economic activity becomes impossible. Also, as a matter of common sense, when the government has accrued $31.4 trillion in debt, it should be trying to increase revenue and collections.
But America’s conservative faction fought hard to claw back some of the funding that President Biden wisely allocated to the IRS. In doing so they did not just contradict their stated desire to improve America’s finances, they helped illustrate just how irrational its leaders have become.
By itself, the attack on the IRS staged by America’s right was unsettling enough. But what was far more upsetting was how little discussion there was about the root cause of America’s debt by either of its political factions.
Over the past 20 years, America has spent $16 trillion on its military and that is a conservative estimate that does not account for certain intelligence activities like those provided by the CIA or the cost of its nuclear arsenal, parts of which gets budgeted under the Department of Energy for accounting purposes. It also excludes the cost of caring for its veterans and the national security functions performed by the Department of Homeland Security. For those keeping track, the conservative estimate is over half its debt.
Due to this spending, America is the most dominant military power in the world by a wide margin. It fields a massive arsenal of the most advanced tanks, fighters, drones, submarines, and aircraft carriers. Despite having already spent trillions to build this impressive force and having important geographic advantages that protect it from invasion, there was no meaningful discussion about cutting military spending. Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that so many of the professionals paid to discuss these issues work for defense contractors? One can only guess. Thankfully, understanding why is not important. What is important is recognizing the fact that military spending is America’s holy grail. One that neither party will ever meaningfully threaten, no matter how bleak its finances.
Some may argue that events in Ukraine and the Pacific justify America’s refusal to scale back its military. But these arguments do not fare well under closer scrutiny. Aside from the fact that Europe should be defending itself, the bear we were all raised to fear has proven less ferocious than previously imagined. Russia and Western Europe will never be friends and Europe’s nations will always need to prepare accordingly, but the idea that Russia presents a threat to America is ludicrous.
America’s fixation with containing China is equally illogical. Again, as a preliminary matter, protecting Asia is not America’s responsibility. That burden must ultimately fall to Asia’s nations. China’s behavior, particularly its treatment of the poor Uighurs, has been abhorrent, there is no denying that. But it has never threatened America’s commercial or national security interests. America’s obsession with countering China has more to do with its own hegemonic ambitions than anything else and reinforces the argument that its leaders are no longer acting rationally.
The key takeaway: America’s finances will only worsen as it continues to fund a military designed to dominate the world rather than protect the homeland. Instead of taking the steps necessary to reign in spending, America’s leaders seem determined to do the same thing they did in Afghanistan; pretend like nothing is wrong until everything implodes in the blink of an eye.
The only real question is when, but no one can truly answer that. America is a large, wealthy country, making it hard to predict how far down this path it can go before reality rears its ugly head. If I were a betting man, I would wager the inflection point will correlate to the interest payments on its debt. Once this number reaches a certain level, America will be printing money to pay the interest on the money it has already borrowed and printed. It’s hard to predict the exact fallout but debasing a nation’s currency to pay its debts has never ended well for the many governments throughout history that have followed this path.
The rest of the world needs to prepare accordingly. Even in a weakened financial position, America’s massive military industrial infrastructure will still allow it to wreak havoc in many ways. Much like the demise of the Soviet Union flooded the world with its weapons, America’s decline will incentivize it to expand its role as the world’s merchant of death. Many of its weapons will end up in Israel, India, and Greece.
The leaders of Iran, Pakistan, and Turkey should take note. As I argued in a companion piece to the essay about America’s looming military withdrawal, these nations must come together to create new political, economic and military organizations for their mutual defense and prosperity. The key to doing so: creating institutional mechanisms to support trade and joint infrastructure development within the framework of a free trade zone like the one Europe built in the aftermath of WW2. Projects like the long-delayed Peace Pipeline between Iran and Pakistan would serve as the perfect building blocks to increase trade and connectivity.
Unfortunately, the Muslim world’s leaders are even more irrational and illogical than America’s. Despite centuries of conquest and instability, Muslim elites refuse to make the sort of changes that would allow them to prosper either individually or collectively. Pakistan, for example, seems intent on creating the same toxic and ineffective neo-colonial dynamic with China that has repeatedly failed Muslim societies since the Ottomans first tried the same tactic with Germany. Iran’s leaders are still obsessing over how Iranian women dress. One could write volumes about the irrational policies favored by Afghanistan’s rulers.
Like most of the Muslim world, all three suffer under the weight of authoritarian and non-responsive political and social systems that stifle change or serious attempts at reform. Consequently, they are highly unlikely to take the steps necessary to protect themselves from the chaos and upheaval that always accompanies major shifts in the world’s geopolitical sands. That is a pity, because America’s loosening grip on the region also means the time to do so has never been better.
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.
Author’s note: I wrote most of this article over a year ago but have been unable to publish it until now. Instead of updating it, I decided to publish it as is because developments over the past year merely support my conclusions. For example, as discussed below, a year ago America’s debt was $20 trillion. It has now climbed to $28 trillion. Similarly, America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan and its refusal to get involved in the latest round of fighting between Israelis and Palestinians both support my central argument: America’s military withdrawal from the Muslim world is inevitable. If I were a betting man, I would wager that America’s military presence throughout the Middle East and North Africa will be a shell of what it is today 15-30 years from now:
INTRODUCTION
Due to a combination of political and economic factors as well as its shifting national security priorities, the US will eventually withdraw its military from the Muslim world. It is not a question of whether America will withdraw its forces, but of when and how. Economically, the financial shocks of the COVID-19 Pandemic combined with the high levels of debt held by the US government and America’s diminished manufacturing capacity will necessitate a sharp reduction in US government spending. Politically, America’s right wing wishes to withdraw from the Muslim world due to its isolationist and nationalist views while its left wing favors a withdrawal due to its anti-imperialist views. They may disagree on why and how, but neither end of America’s political spectrum wants to keep troops in the Muslim world. Finally, America’s military deployments to the Muslim world are no longer supported by pressing national security interests. The combined effect of these factors will inevitably lead to a withdrawal of American troops from this part of the world.
The United States has become the dominant military power in the Middle East and throughout much of the Islamic world. It currently has troops stationed in several Muslim countries such as Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Oman, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. Its naval forces control the Persian Gulf and its allies in Israel and NATO control the Mediterranean. It is the main arms supplier to many Muslim nations such as Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, and the UAE which gives the US significant leverage over these militaries while its allies in Europe supply weapons to many other Muslim states such as Morocco and Algeria. It also regularly conducts military operations and drone strikes throughout Africa as well as Yemen. Iran is the only Muslim country that actively refuses to accept this situation and, as a result, is subject to brutal economic sanctions and clandestine military operations. In other words, the United States and its allies have effective military control over a substantial portion of the Muslim world. The problem is that America’s robust military presence comes with a steep price tag that is becoming increasingly unaffordable[i].
In addition to the $6 trillion cost of America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the constant deployment of troops to the Muslim world has forced its military planners to fund and arm a military that is much larger than would otherwise be needed. These extra funding requirements have been a feature of US defense budgets for decades. Even the official budgets for America’s military underestimate the true cost of its military spending because they do not include all the funds spent on nuclear weapons or intelligence activities[ii]. Although it is difficult to gauge how much of America’s military spending is tied directly to the Muslim world, given its extensive military infrastructure in this part of the world, the long duration of its presence, and large number of troops involved, it is reasonable to assume the true amount significantly exceeds the $6 trillion spent in Iraq and Afghanistan the past two decades.
WHY AMERICA HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO WITHDRAW FROM THE MUSLIM WORLD
ECONOMIC FACTORS:
America’s withdrawal will primarily be driven by its finances. The COVID-19 Pandemic has brought the unhealthy debt levels of the US government into focus once again; however, America’s debt has loomed over it for years. Rather than making the tough compromises necessary to devise balanced budgets, America’s leaders have resolved the age-old debate of guns versus butter by liberally borrowing money to ensure they lacked neither. At the same time, America’s business and political leaders have entered into trade agreements that resulted in severe reductions to its manufacturing capacity. The result has been skyrocketing levels of debt and unsustainable trade imbalances. The staggering amount of resources America pours into its military combined with the significant reductions to its manufacturing base[iii] have drained its economy and, together, pose one of the biggest threats to its continuing prosperity.[iv] At its height, American power was largely derived from its economic, political, and cultural dominance as well as its ability to apply overwhelming military force, as it did in WWI and WWII. Since the end of the Cold War, the US has reacted to its greater freedom of action as the sole remaining superpower by increasingly relying on military power to achieve foreign policy goals. This sustained dependence on military power combined with the gradual dismantling of America’s manufacturing base has diminished its older and more important power centers of their vitality, decreasing the real basis of American power. Over the long run, the continued reliance on military power that is no longer supported by a strong manufacturing base has placed a heavy burden on resources. It has also led to a disconnect between perceptions of American power by its policymaking elites versus the realities and limits of this power.
As a result of America’s weakened financial position, its policymakers must re-prioritize how its military resources are used. Calling for deep cuts to spending may strike some as overly alarmist given the economic growth the US experienced prior to the COVID-19 outbreak. But America’s strong economic growth since the end of the Great Recession has diverted attention from the fact that its massive military spending, particularly since 9/11, has seriously undermined its fiscal position since this spending was only made possible through deficit financing. As the debt burden from this spending grows, it will limit the ability of the US government to meet its spending obligations. As a result, US policymakers must confront serious decisions regarding how to use America’s resources before their policy options become substantially more constrained. American policymakers face two choices. They can proactively adjust their foreign policy goals and military commitments to manage the changes its weak finances require, or they can wait until its debt is so burdensome that they will have no choice but to drastically cut military spending. The former option provides some ability to manage this transition, the latter does not.
POLITICAL FACTORS
In addition to its financial concerns, political trends within the US will also compel a withdrawal from the Muslim world. The increasing prevalence of arguments that favor withdrawing troops from the Muslim world, regardless of the potential impact on the region, show that many segments of American society have no desire to maintain its presence in the region. For example, when discussing the Middle East, Doug Bandow suggests “Washington should accept instability in the region[v]” as part of its efforts to reduce troop levels. These sentiments illustrate that Americans are tired of their military involvement in the Muslim world. America’s right wing sees its involvement as an unnecessary waste of resources that would be better spent in the US. America’s left sees its involvement as immoral and a continuation of ineffective neo-colonial policies. As such, both left and right favor withdrawing American forces from the Muslim world. In fact, this may be one of the few topics that America’s divided political factions agree on. These political trends are a result of growing dissatisfaction with America’s policies and will add pressure to withdraw troops from the region.
THE MUSLIM WORLD IS NO LONGER A NATIONAL SECURITY PRIORITY
Troop levels in the Muslim world are no longer supported by pressing national security interests. US policies in the Middle East have largely been shaped by the confluence of interests of the defense industry, energy industry, Israel, and the dictators that rule much of the region. Together, these groups have prevented the rise of a Muslim hegemon capable of taking over America’s security responsibilities. Instead, they have pushed the US to become the primary hegemonic power in the region by arguing that 1) increased military spending and arms sales to foreign countries are healthy for the US economy 2) American military forces were necessary to ensure the US had access to energy supplies 3) American troops were necessary to protect Israel and 4) American troops were necessary to provide stability by providing security guarantees to many of the governments of the region. These reasons do not make sense. Because of policies meant to appease these interest groups, the US has spent trillions of dollars and much political and moral capital in pursuit of policies that are too expensive and counter to its long-term interests. The influence of these groups has led to policies that have allowed them to make hundreds of billions of dollars but at a cost of trillions of dollars to American taxpayers. Since each of the interest groups primarily responsible for the development of US policy acts according to its own logic, it will be necessary to analyze them individually.
THE NEED TO SUPPORT THE DEFENSE INDUSTRY
After entering WWII, the United States converted its massive civilian manufacturing base into one that could supply its military with the weapons and supplies needed to defeat the Axis powers anywhere in the world. The ability to harness its extraordinary industrial capabilities for military use propelled it towards victory but also laid the seeds for many of the problems confronting it today. The creation of an industrial complex geared exclusively towards military production created companies with a vested interest in continued military spending and the political and financial means to influence US government policy to ensure high levels of military spending. The defense industry has therefore benefited from US policies in the Muslim world by filling the larger orders for weapons and supplies that were necessary to maintain America’s presence in the region and by supplying weapons to the governments of the Muslim world allied to it.
High levels of military spending have typically been justified on the basis that this spending, even if high in absolute terms, is relatively small as a proportion of US GDP and that such spending boosts both manufacturing and scientific research within the US. Though there is merit to these arguments, these policy justifications are no longer sufficient to support high levels of military spending due to the large debt the US has accrued. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the US government’s debt will reach $20.3 trillion by the end of 2020[vi]. These figures will increase as further stimulus packages to fight the COVID-19 Pandemic are approved and tax revenue shrinks due to reduced economic activity. In light of the rapidly increasing debt held by the US, arguments that justify high levels of military spending or debt by highlighting their relationship to overall GDP levels are no longer persuasive because they ignore the reality of America’s worsening finances. Instead of relying on distorted statistics that argue high levels of debt and military spending are acceptable, as a matter of common sense, it should be obvious that continuing to add to an already bloated deficit will only make repairing America’s financial strength more difficult. As such, even if military spending continues to hover around 3% of GDP (a level some argue is affordable), this spending must be considered too high if it is paid for by more deficit financing when the debt will soon pass $20 trillion! Even if the US has the capacity to borrow more, doing so must be tied to pressing economic needs such as dealing with the COVID-19 Pandemic, not unnecessary military spending.
Again, it is difficult to gauge the percentage of US military spending directly attributable to the Muslim world, but it is much easier to track weapons sales by US companies to foreign nations. The US has consistently been the biggest exporter of weapons to the world and many of its sales have been directed towards governments in the Muslim world. Saudi Arabia is one of the biggest consumers of US weapons, accounting for a fifth of total US weapons sales for the five-year period ending in 2017. Half of America’s weapons sales during this period went to customers in the Middle East or North Africa[vii]. Weapons sales to Islamic nations are justified on the basis that they are necessary to support America’s allies and contribute to economic development.
The problem with this reasoning is that the allies in question are exceptionally incompetent when it comes to engaging in modern warfare[viii]. As a result, selling weapons to these nations does not make them more secure or better able to resist attack from another nation. As the Arab Spring showed, these weapons are primarily meant for use against the people that have been forced to obey the region’s many dictators. Weapons sales to these dictators adds to the instability of the Muslim world by providing its despots with the means to intimidate and murder their people. Supporting these dictators contributes to instability in the region by propping up rulers who cannot adequately protect their nations, reside over extremely weak political and economic institutions, and can only govern based on fear and violence. Though these sales may subsidize the costs of America’s military infrastructure, the long-term moral and political cost is too high to justify the economic gains. Instead of selling weapons to the dictators of the Muslim world, the US must develop policies that can allow it to disentangle itself from the region by focusing on trade that does not involve weapons used by rulers to murder their own people. Aside from the fact that profiting from the pain and suffering of others is morally and ethically disgusting, it also creates a reinforcing loop that forces the US to maintain its military presence in the region. Despite their massive weapons purchases, the region’s dictators are not strong enough to retain power without American support. America’s military presence and weapons sales to the region only reinforces its instability by supporting the dictators that are the primary cause of this instability.
ACCESS TO ENERGY SUPPLIES
The primary justification behind US policies towards the Islamic world has always been the need to secure access to energy supplies. This justification is not valid for two reasons.
The first is that the Muslim world is incentivized to sell its mineral resources to the West because of the laws of supply and demand. Most energy exporting Muslim countries have been unable to diversify their economies away from their dependence on selling oil and gas. As such, they rely on this revenue to pay for the government services they provide, and do not have the domestic demand necessary to consume their own supplies. As a result, Muslims are just as eager to sell oil to the US as the US is to buy it. The Arabs have only used their oil as a weapon once and the effect of their boycott was just as traumatic to their economies as it was to Western economies. Consequently, they have never used oil as a weapon again. Withdrawing American troops would not affect the ability of the US to import as much oil has it needs for its own consumption. Arguments that rationalize the use of military assets to secure access to these resources or that justify support for dictators on the basis that they can guarantee timely oil deliveries are not persuasive because they ignore the basic laws of economics that should govern such transactions. They also ignore the simple fact that a weak, authoritarian government will be just as incentivized to sell oil as a strong, democratic one.
The second reason the US does not need to maintain its military presence is that it is no longer as dependent on Middle Eastern energy supplies. The US has developed its own domestic energy production capabilities and diversified its oil suppliers away from Muslim producers to such a degree that in 2019 only 11% of its crude oil imports came from the Persian Gulf[ix]. In fact, over half of US crude oil imports now come from Canada and Mexico. The increased ability of the US to satisfy its energy needs through domestic production and diversified suppliers means that it no longer needs to waste military resources securing these energy supplies.
THE NEED TO PROTECT ISRAEL
Part of the reason the US has sought to prevent the rise of an Islamic hegemon is to ensure no power can threaten Israel. The logic underlying this policy does not hold up to scrutiny for two reasons. The first is that Israel has developed a sophisticated nuclear triad that would deter even a powerful Muslim nation. It is Israel’s nuclear capabilities, not American support, that act as the ultimate guarantor of its survival and independence. As such, US efforts to ensure no Islamic nation or political entity can develop enough power to threaten Israel are an unnecessary waste of resources. The second is that the lack of a Muslim hegemonic power has removed any pressure on Israel to compromise with the Palestinians under its control. Israel’s right wing may see this as a victory, but it will eventually turn into a pyrrhic one because it will either lead to the inclusion of millions of Palestinians into Israel as equal citizens (a result many Israelis do not want) or it will lead to the creation of a new Apartheid regime in the Middle East. Israel’s right seem intent on creating the latter scenario even though doing so will turn it and its supporters in the US into international pariahs and ensure that it remains involved in low level conflict in perpetuity.
Israel has overwhelmingly won its conflict with the Palestinians and its Arab neighbors. There is almost no prospect for the creation of a viable Palestinian state because Israel has resoundingly defeated the Palestinians politically and militarily. The last vestige of meaningful Palestinian resistance offered by Hamas cannot match Israel’s military capabilities. Its policy of continued resistance plays directly into the hands of right-wing Israelis who seem intent on creating small cantons of weak and divided Palestinians like the homelands created by the Apartheid regime in South Africa. Israelis have managed to create a state that has allowed its Jewish citizens to prosper while maintaining military control over millions of Palestinians who have been denied their basic rights while having to endure decades of military occupation. Despite their long running conflict, the Palestinians are still fragmented and weak and have been unable to develop military capabilities that could force Israel to change its policies. The political and diplomatic influence of the United States has neutralized attempts to gain international support and the political dynamics within the Middle East have deprived them of support from the surrounding Arab states. The result has been Israel’s complete subjugation and/or neutralization of the Palestinians living under its control or in surrounding territories. This victory may turn to defeat in the long run because it is so complete that it has incentivized Israel’s right-wing government to pursue policies that will allow this conflict to fester with no end in sight. Without a meaningful political solution that addresses the legitimate concerns of the Palestinians, Israel will be involved in low level conflict against an opponent that cannot defeat it but will have no incentive to stop fighting it either.
As explained above, a Muslim hegemonic power would not threaten the existence of Israel due to its formidable nuclear arsenal. It would; however, limit the ability of Israelis to attack, either overtly or clandestinely, its neighbors and it would force Israel to treat its Arab citizens with dignity and justice. Aside from not being contrary to American interests, such an outcome would greatly help them by finally creating the conditions that could lead to sustainable peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Israel has taken advantage of the lack of a Muslim hegemonic power to grind Palestinian opposition into the dirt and, in doing so, has ensured the region will suffer from low level violence and instability for the foreseeable future. Its complete and total military victory has empowered it to refuse even the smallest compromises with the Palestinians and has created a situation with no end in sight that necessitates continued American involvement in the region.
INFLUENCE OF RULERS WITHIN THE MUSLIM WORLD
Many of the Muslim world’s governments expend a tremendous amount of resources in order to secure American support for their rule. For example, Saudi Arabia is estimated to have spent $60 million since 2016 to retain lobbyists, public relations firms, and fund think tanks[x] to maintain American support. This influence has ensured that criticism of Saudi Arabia’s brutal war in Yemen, abysmal human rights record, and financial support for extremist Muslims does not lead to a withdrawal of US support. In fact, the US has actively helped Saudi Arabia prosecute its war in Yemen despite the catastrophic effects on Yemen’s civilian population[xi]. Though considered the most proficient, the Saudi government is not the only authoritarian Muslim government to take advantage of America’s lobbying and PR firms. Nations such as Egypt,[xii] the UAE, and Qatar[xiii] also spend millions of dollars to make sure that America supports their interests.
This is problematic because the interests of these governments are often counter to the interests of the US. While arms sales to these nations may support economic activity within the US, their destabilizing effect also forces the US to maintain its costly military presence in the region. The Islamic world’s dictators and despots are the primary cause of its instability and weakness because of the inherently weak and violent nature of authoritarian and autocratic political institutions. These institutions have concentrated political and economic power in the hands of small groups of elites throughout the Muslim world that do not respect human rights, the rule of law, or freedom of expression. They use the machinery of the state to maintain their control and inflict violence on any citizens who oppose their rule even if that opposition is peaceful in nature. The rule of these elites has prevented Muslim nations from providing the government services necessary to support dynamic economies. It has also fueled the growth of extremist non-state actors that have reacted to the oppression and blatant theft of their governments by articulating violent ideologies that have plunged many Muslim nations into a state of chaos and anarchy which has, in turn, driven millions of Muslim refugees out of their homelands. American support for these rulers helps to keep the political institutions responsible for the Muslim world’s weakness in place and this weakness has directly led to the US military presence in the region. As such, it is in the long-term interests of the US to support the creation of democratic institutions in the Muslim world that can finally stabilize the region.
Some have looked at the actions of the US and seen a conspiracy to keep Muslims weak. The most likely explanation for America’s actions is much more mundane. The sad truth is that America’s politicians are for sale due to its corrupt (though technically legal) political system that incentivizes short term thinking focused on election cycles and obtaining the funds necessary to effectively contest these elections. The interest groups discussed above have manipulated America’s legislative process by exploiting these weaknesses to their own advantage. America’s policies towards the Muslim world are therefore best explained as resulting from the undue legislative influence of groups that have prioritized their own narrow self-interests over the long-term strategic interests of the US or the human suffering their actions cause. These groups have used their control of the legislative process to secure access to resources in a way that has subverted many of America’s basic ideals and principles and resulted in policies that are counterproductive and unsustainable. However, the arguments of those advocating for a continued American presence in the region can no longer outweigh the urgent need to fix America’s finances, the fact that so many Americans simply do not want to maintain its presence in the region, or the fact that most of the arguments used to rationalize current troop levels are not tied to national security needs.
Given these economic, political, and national security dynamics, the only real question is how and when America will withdraw its troops. Despite agreeing on the need to withdraw, the differing perspectives of its political factions will likely lead to conflict regarding the manner of America’s withdrawal. As such, while America’s withdrawal may be inevitable, the nature and timing of this withdrawal is uncertain. If the US does not adequately plan for and manage its withdrawal from the Islamic world, the results could be dire. Instead of following the same path they followed in Afghanistan, US policymakers must make an objective and realistic assessment of their policy options given the looming reduction in financial resources. They must stop engaging in the same arrogant behavior that prevented them from acknowledging the reality of their position in Afghanistan for so long. Turkey, Iran and Pakistan have already reacted to America’s inconsistent policies and hostility by developing close relationships with China. This is a foreshadow of what will happen if the US abandons the region without a plan in place.
CONCLUSION
The US must realize that due to its weakened finances and increasingly isolationist political trends, it can no longer continue as the dominant military power in the Muslim world. As such, it needs to develop and implement policies that will incentivize the creation of inclusive and pluralistic political and economic institutions and it needs to develop meaningful alliance relationships with these countries based on mutual respect rather than the traditional neo-colonial dynamic. The fundamentally imperial perspective of US policy makers must change; instead, they must treat the governments of the Islamic world as equal partners rather than clients to be bullied or cajoled. This will only be possible once these governments are run by competent officials that have been placed in power through the result of free, fair, and transparent democratic processes.
America’s reluctance to protect Saudi oil facilities from Iran as well as its desire to withdraw from Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan indicates its withdrawal is already under way. To better manage these changes, policies need to be clearly explained and agreed upon. Currently, America’s policies are a mix of hawkish rhetoric and haphazard military deployments that are not part of a clear strategy. America’s military leaders have explained their reduced commitment to the Middle East by referencing the need to focus on China but have yet to develop a new strategy that accounts for its lower importance and the smaller budgets likely to characterize military spending in the future. Instead, America’s military elite and their political and business allies have historically fought against serious cuts to military spending even as its debt was growing exponentially[xiv]. Given America’s high debt levels, massive military spending, the political infeasibility of raising taxes, and the refusal of its military and industrial elites to drastically reduce military spending, its long-term economic outlook was extremely precarious before the COVID-19 outbreak and is now particularly bleak. This is compounded by the fact that the aforementioned economic recovery was largely based on monetary manipulation (printing money, a.k.a., quantitative easing, borrowing money, and artificially keeping interest rates low to incentivize more borrowing) rather than strengthening America’s manufacturing base and overall fiscal position.
These pressing economic concerns combined with the growing belief among Americans across the political spectrum that American troops have no business in the Muslim world and its changing national security priorities will force it to withdraw from the Muslim world. The need to re-allocate resources to the Pacific, America’s energy independence, Israel’s dominant military capabilities, and the seemingly permanent instability of its Arab allies will outweigh the arguments traditionally used to justify its presence in the Islamic world. Having discussed the many factors that will lead to an American withdrawal from the Muslim world, the next step is to discuss the potential impact on the Muslim world and how Muslim nations should react to the coming changes. This discussion is available here.
[iv] This sentiment is partially shared by former Secretary of Defense James Mattis and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen who also see America’s debt as a threat to its national security. See: Kazda, Adam, “Military Spending: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly,” Pursuit, June 19, 2018, https://www.ourpursuit.com/military-spending-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/.
[viii] For a more detailed discussion of the performance of various Arab militaries since WWII see: Pollack, Kenneth, Armies of Sand, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019).
