“Just when I thought I was out – they pull me back in.” A great quote from a bad movie and one I often find myself relating to when I read the news. I always start out telling myself I’m going to stay calm, that I’m not going to get upset but, inevitably, I do. And that’s when I start writing even though I have a hundred other things I should be doing.
It’s not just that the world is cruel and violent, which is upsetting enough by itself. It’s the hypocrisy and gaslighting that really gets me.
Take America’s reaction to news that Saudi Arabia was a key driver behind OPEC’s decision to cut oil production. President Biden has promised “consequences” as he stews at the betrayal. The poor guy flew all the way to the Middle East to give MBS a fist bump after all. Surely, he deserves better. He is not alone in his indignation and fury. Members of Congress are discussing legislation to break OPEC’s control of energy supplies. While foreign policy experts are describing Saudi Arabia’s actions as a “sucker punch” that warrants ending one of America’s longest alliances.
I have long believed that America’s alliance with Saudi Arabia is both immoral and counter to its long-term interests. So, I do not disagree with these sentiments. What I find disagreeable is that they were prompted by the prospect of paying a few extra pennies at the pump.
The list of reasons America should end its relationship with Saudi Arabia is long enough to fill a book. Here are just a few of them: the Sauds have turned their country into a draconian police state. They have imprisoned and/or murdered countless peaceful dissidents. They have stolen 1.4 trillion dollars from their people. They have waged a violent war in Yemen that has killed or maimed hundreds of thousands of civilians. They have also spread a violent Wahhabi ideology that has destabilized significant parts of the Muslim world.
Inexplicably, none of this mattered to America’s leaders who happily sold the Sauds the powerful weapons they use to maintain their rule. Make no mistake – Saudi Arabia would not be the country it is today without America’s unwavering support these past nine decades. It has not only ignored these crimes but been actively complicit in them.
In Yemen, for example, America has provided in-flight refueling to Saudi bombers, targeting assistance, intelligence, spare parts, extra munitions, and the defense contractors that maintain their weapons. Without America, Saudi Arabia’s war against Yemen would not have been possible.
All of which makes it both laughable and infuriating when America’s leaders suddenly take issue with its behavior. To be fair, this has always been a rocky marriage of convenience. From the oil embargo of ‘73 to 9/11 there have been times when the differences seemed irreconcilable only to get glossed over (for the kids, no doubt). This latest episode will probably follow a similar pattern.
The value in following it has nothing to do with the story itself but in the insight it provides into what moves America’s leaders and the cynical and amoral worldview that guides them. War crimes and human rights abuses elicit a shoulder shrug while higher gas prices cause an existential crisis.
That is America’s foreign policy towards the Muslim world in a nutshell and shows why it has been such a toxic and destabilizing force in the region. Some like to describe America as the arsenal of democracy. And it is – for Europe and the Pacific. Sadly, in the Muslim world it is the arsenal of apartheid and dictatorship.
Until America finally learns that ALL people deserve to live free under governments of their own choosing, regardless of their skin color or religion or whether it is politically convenient, it will continue to play a destructive role in the region. And I will continue to feel like I’m watching a bad movie.
Iran has been feuding with America and Israel for decades. America likes to pretend this conflict is based on its principled opposition to the repressive nature of Iran’s government. But its alliances with repressive regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia (among countless others) prove this is a lie. At its heart, this conflict is about America’s desire to prevent the rise of a Muslim power capable of dominating the Middle East. It has pursued this goal primarily to protect its allies in Israel.
America has struggled to contain Iran despite its massive advantage in resources because its objectives are completely unrealistic. Due to its large size, energy deposits, and long history as a unified political and cultural entity, Iran is the nation best positioned to dominate the Middle East. Even America’s unrivaled power cannot change what geography and common-sense dictate.
For the most part, Iran’s leaders have also played their hand shrewdly, but they have made some glaring miscalculations. Chief among them is the way they have violently repressed their own people. One does not need to be Sun Tzu to realize that alienating your own people while locked in a confrontation with foes as powerful and ruthless as America and Israel is not a smart strategy. But that is the path they have chosen.
The anti-government riots rocking Iran are but the latest in a long line that illustrate the dangers of their approach. When it comes to war and geopolitics, only those societies that work together triumph. Iran is still trying to devise a political system that can bring its people together over forty years after deposing the Shah. The hardliners who control its government have steadily chipped away at the few quasi-democratic features installed in the early days of the Revolution. They refuse to recognize the simple truth that certain decisions are inherently personal and should never be subject to government regulation. And they have directed much of their energy towards marginalizing the female half of their population. Their refusal to share power with the progressive elements within their society or empower Iranian women has made harnessing the full power of the Iranian people impossible. Instead of creating a political system that allows their people to work together to protect themselves, they have forced them to fight over women’s fashion.
Of course, the debate over the hijab is not really about women’s fashion but control and the degree to which Muslim governments can compel their citizens to follow religious edicts. In the Muslim world, this debate has been raging for centuries and, maddeningly, has yet to be satisfactorily resolved. As European powers began to conquer and divide Muslim lands amongst themselves, Muslims were forced to confront the glaring differences between their societies and those of their conquerors. Part of this involved comparing the limited governments created by Western societies and the individual freedoms they bestowed upon their citizens to the repressive political and social systems that forced conformity in the Muslim world.
Many astute Muslims recognized the need to create democratic and pluralistic political and social systems that could educate and empower their people. Despite the overwhelming empirical evidence, most of the Muslim world’s religious elite disagreed. Instead of embracing reforms that could protect them from further violence, they convinced the masses they were defeated because they had stopped living like true Muslims.
According to this worldview, the key to re-vitalizing the Muslim world was creating governments that strictly adhered to Islamic law and norms. The great irony here is that, as usual, the conservatives got it completely backwards. The West did not conquer the Muslim world because Muslim women stopped covering their heads. In fact, it was the authoritarian culture that forced women cover themselves that made the Muslim world so easy to conquer.
Again, we are not just talking about the hijab but the roots of the authoritarianism that compels women to wear them that has been a feature of Muslim societies for centuries. The Muslim world’s military and religious elite adamantly refused to share power with their people. To that end, they created authoritarian political and social systems to control them. In the process, they prevented their societies from evolving and developing the technological and economic foundations necessary to protect themselves[1]. Forcing women to wear the hijab is just one of many examples of the dogmatic and reactionary ideas of the Muslim world’s religious elite that eventually destroyed its intellectual climate, stunting its development. This allowed Europe to conquer or subjugate nearly the entire Muslim world. Worst of all, the prevalence of these ideas today has kept it weak, impoverished, and vulnerable to more violence.
Iran may believe it has the upper hand now that it is so close the building a bomb. It may even believe America is unwilling or too exhausted to do anything about it. But that ignores the ugly reality of American politics or the aggressive mindset of Israeli military leaders. America and Israel are both shifting more to the right every day. That means their policies towards the Muslim world will grow increasingly imperialistic and violent. They may not have the stomach to put troops on the ground, but they will continue to use violence and economic warfare to keep Iran subservient to their interests. Unfortunately, their imperial worldview cannot envision anything else. The assassination of Gen. Soleimani by the right-wing Trump administration shows how easily another right-wing administration could escalate violence towards Iran.
Iran’s leaders must therefore brace themselves for sustained conflict even after they finally build their bomb. Doing so requires understanding why the West has been so dominant and reforming their society in accordance with these lessons. Democracy is not just the moral choice; it is the practical choice. Democratic systems based on the rule of law that protect property and human rights as well as freedom of expression have proven the best at generating wealth and technological innovation and these are necessary precursors for military power in the modern age.
I have argued elsewhere that they must also seek alliances with non-Arab Muslim Sunni states to protect themselves from the long-term dangers posed by America’s and Israel’s increasingly unhinged political climates. But an even more fundamental step is seeking peace with their own people. Without a strong political foundation based on the popular support of most Iranians, Iran will continue to fight with one arm tied behind its back.
Thus far Iran’s leaders have reacted to the riots in typical fashion. They have blamed Western conspiracies while dismissing the legitimate grievances of their people. In doing so, they are only hurting themselves and proving why the Muslim world has suffered at the hands of the Great Powers for so long.
[1] For a more detailed explanation see Kuru Ahmet, “Islam, Authoritarianism, and Underdevelopment,” (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2019)
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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).
I have recently become addicted to the hit Turkish drama Ertugrul. For those who are unfamiliar with this show, it follows the exploits of a Turkish tribal warrior named Ertugrul during the 13th century when Turkish nomadic tribes were in the process of conquering and settling Anatolia. The first season shows the title character’s Kayi tribe migrating from pasture lands that can no longer support its herds and livestock to new lands near the Syrian city of Aleppo while the second season shows the Kayi tribe migrating back to Anatolia in advance of a pending Mongol attack[1]. The series provides rich historical detail regarding the religious, cultural, social, political, economic, and military dynamics that eventually led to the conquest of Anatolia by Turkish tribes. Ertugrul and the Kayi tribe are of particular interest because Ertugrul is the historical figure who fathered Osman, the founder of the Ottoman Empire. The show therefore provides a window into many of the ideals and values that helped shape the foundations for one of the most powerful and long-lasting empires the world has ever seen.
As a Muslim who grew up in America, I was initially attracted to the show because it depicts Muslims and Islamic practices and values in a positive light, and I have spent most of my life watching fictional depictions of Muslims that are the opposite. I also love the attention to historical detail provided by the show’s creators. Despite being a fictional drama, the detailed depiction of Islamic and Turkish values and culture in the show can provide valuable lessons to Muslims because it takes place during a time when Muslims were still powerful and more closely adhered to the original values of Islam. As such, this discussion will provide an analysis of the ideas and values depicted in Ertugrul with a view towards suggesting what today’s Muslims can learn from its historical depictions.
WHAT ERTUGRUL GETS RIGHT:
The need for unity:
Ertugrul does a wonderful job of highlighting important Islamic values. The primary lesson contemporary Muslims should take away from Ertugrul is how important unity is to the preservation of the Muslim community. Throughout the show, the Kayi tribe’s many enemies engage in subterfuge meant to divide and weaken the leadership of the tribe and to prevent them from forming alliances with other groups of Muslims such as the ruler of Aleppo or the Seljuk dynasty. Ertugrul must constantly fight against the instincts of his brother and other tribesmen who do not view attacks on other Muslims as a danger to their own survival and who resent Ertugrul for leading Kayi warriors into battle to defend other, non-Kayi Muslims. As Ertugrul’s ally Wild Demir points out, burying one’s head in sand like an ostrich is not a plan. Similarly, ignoring the slaughter of other Muslims because they are from a different tribe or country will only embolden and strengthen those who seek to divide and conquer Muslims. Just because we may not be related by tribal or even linguistic bonds to other Muslims does not relieve us of our duty to protect each other. Part of the reason contemporary Muslims are so weak is because we have divided ourselves into separate nations and tribes and focus more on our ethnic, linguistic, or doctrinal differences than our common Islamic bonds in direct contradiction of God’s commands. Though it may seem overly simplistic, the need for unity among Muslims cannot be overstated and is one of the primary Islamic values that must be re-emphasized if today’s Muslims are ever going to regain control over their own lands. This becomes even more obvious when one considers that there is no single Muslim nation with the size and resources to compete with the great powers of the world like the US, China, or Russia. In order to develop the strength to compete with these powers, Muslims must emphasize the need for unity so that they can create new entities with the same size, power, and resources as the Ottoman Empire.
Ertugrul emphasizes the need for unity throughout the series in different ways. For example, in one scene Ertugrul’s alps come upon alps from the Dodurga tribe who have been captured by the Mongols. Although these alps have fought against Ertugrul and were even hunting him when they were captured, his alps still save them. Their willingness to forget their disagreements with their rivals and still fight to save them is an important lesson for contemporary Muslims who seem to spend more time bickering among each other than working together. In the same way that Ertugrul’s alps were willing to put their differences aside and help their fellow Muslims, contemporary Muslims must also bury their animosities and disagreements so that they can begin to work together to build a better future for themselves.
Throughout the series, Ertugrul and his men take great care not to kill other Muslims, even when those Muslims are trying to kill them. At one point, Ertugrul fights his cousin Tugmetkin and his men but makes sure not to kill any of them. This also subtlety emphasizes the need for unity since the murder of other Muslims, even in self-defense and even if it is for a good cause will inevitably fracture the Muslim community. This is particularly true when the other Muslims, such as Tugmetkin, have been deceived into attacking their fellow Muslims. Ertugrul’s restraint against Muslims who are trying to kill him is a testament to his understanding that murdering these men will only strengthen his enemies. Since the first Muslim civil war, Muslims have been too quick to shed each other’s blood and the consequences of this violence are the deep divisions that continue to separate us today. Violence must be an extreme last resort among Muslims, and it must only be used by governments that have been democratically chosen from among the members of the community against those who have committed grave crimes. In the same way that Ertugrul’s father would not execute his rival, Kurdoglu, without strong evidence, the state’s monopoly on violence must only be exercised in extreme cases after all the evidence has been fairly reviewed and due process has been given to the accused. Aside from this rare exception, violence among Muslims can never be tolerated. Ertugrul seems to understand this as well.
How Muslim leaders should conduct themselves:
Another extremely important lesson we can learn from Ertugrul relates to how Muslim leaders should conduct themselves. Ertugrul does not seek wealth or power to satisfy his ego. In fact, he must be convinced by his loved ones that he should take over leadership of the Kayi tribe because he keeps insisting that he prefers hunting over ruling the tribe. He always prioritizes the welfare of his people and believes that it is his duty to serve them. Leadership is not a vehicle to wealth and power for Ertugrul, instead it is a burden and a duty. Since he does not attempt to acquire power to enrich himself and views himself as duty bound to protect not just his Kayi tribe, but all Muslims, Ertugrul is able to attract loyal soldiers who are not interested in wealth either. Instead of wealth and power, Ertugrul and his men are bound together by a common sense of duty that is rooted in their Islamic worldview. As such, Ertugrul, though clearly the leader of his men, relates to them as a loving brother. He does not use fear or violence to motivate them. He even serves them food on several occasions. His humility, kindness towards his subordinates, sense of duty and justice, and unwavering commitment to protect his fellow Muslims are his greatest strengths and exemplify the ideal Muslim ruler. This is best contrasted by his cousin, Tugmetkin, who is a brave but young and immature member of the Dodurga tribe allied to the Kayis. Tugmetkin is primarily motivated by ego since he wishes to be seen as a great leader and warrior. Since his primary motivation is rooted in arrogance and ego, he is not an effective leader and must often resort to humiliating his men or harsh corporal punishments to maintain discipline. Tugmetkin is not the only example of poor leadership depicted in Ertugrul. The ruler of Aleppo and many of the leaders of the Kayi and Dodurga tribes are only interested in power so that they can live luxurious lifestyles, accumulate wealth, or satisfy their egos.
Ertugrul’s leadership qualities and the way in which he treats his people are also important in helping him to turn his Alps into a highly effective fighting force. This is part of the process Ibn Khaldun first described relating to the development of “group feeling[2]” and how this leads to attaining what he terms “royal authority.” According to Ibn Khaldun, “group feeling” refers to the feelings of kinship and loyalty that cause people to work and fight together for their mutual betterment. The term “group feeling” is therefore a shorthand way of describing why and how members of a particular tribe or group develop the military ability to assert political control over their societies by attaining “royal authority.” In Ertugrul, the Kayi tribe develops superior military abilities because its warriors develop personal loyalty and feelings of brotherhood towards each other, which provides exceptional cohesion to its fighting units. The strong “group feeling” of the Kayis allows them to take full advantage of the martial abilities their nomadic lifestyle provides.
All the Turkmen tribes in Ertugrul have similar lifestyles, thus all their alps are excellent archers, cavalrymen, scouts, and light infantry. What separates the Kayis from the other tribes such as the Cavdars or Dodurgas is that their “group feeling” is stronger. This is primarily rooted in the fact that the leaders of the Kayi tribe both in their personal relationships and interactions and in the way they carry out their public leadership roles always strive to be fair, honest, and generous. They treat the members of their tribe and their warriors as family. They share their food and wealth with them and never hoard more than their fair share. Many of the tribe’s warriors refer to Ertugrul’s mother as their own mother. This is because many of them lost their parents fighting the Mongols and were subsequently raised by Ertugrul’s family. By developing a leadership style that emphasizes fairness, advancement through merit, and trust, Ertugrul allows the Kayis and their allies to develop the sort of “group feeling” that provides them with significant military advantages, and this allows Ertugrul to expand his inner circle by developing alliances with others outside of his tribe based on their similar worldviews and values. By treating his allies and warriors as family, Ertugrul creates a “group feeling” among his supporters that gives them strong feelings of loyalty and trust which, in turn, allows them to fight better together. This is consistent with Ibn Khaldun’s view that “group feeling” can only be attained by developing an ethos based on justice and fairness.
The need to retain control over the economy and the need for free trade:
Ertugrul also correctly highlights that allowing outsiders economic control will eventually lead to conquest. In the first season, the Crusaders trick both the ruler of Aleppo and the Kayis into entering into trade agreements that make them more vulnerable to their machinations. Though trade, even between rivals, can often be beneficial to both parties, Ertugrul and the Muslim world’s history of colonial exploitation show that allowing outsiders too much control over the means of economic production will eventually undermine the health and strength of the economy. This will eventually lead to conquest and subjugation. Again, the relevant distinction here is control versus healthy trade. As Ertugrul correctly illustrates, the former is to be avoided at all cost. Though Ertugrul does not deal with the subject of international trade in detail, the history of the Muslim world shows that this can have a positive impact on economic development so long as it is managed properly and does not lead to ceding control over the means of production or undermine them in some way.
Another lesson Muslims should learn from Ertugrul is the need to promote the free exchange of goods, people, and ideas between the entire Muslim world. Ertugrul depicts a Muslim world that is integrated through interconnected layers of political alliances, trade networks, and religious networks. These connections and the infrastructure that supported them helped to create what was essentially a free trade zone that allowed for the movement of goods, people, and ideas throughout the Islamic world in a manner that helped it to develop a common culture and integrated economy. The Kayis’ interactions with merchants indicate they are part of a trade network that extends to many, far flung parts of the Muslim world. Though Muslims quickly divided themselves politically, most of the Islamic world has historically been linked through commercial links that were reinforced by the ease with which both people and ideas could travel throughout it.
The European conquest of the Muslim world destroyed these links and the dictators that rule the region today have refused to re-create them out of fear that doing so would threaten their power. If Muslims are ever going to resurrect themselves, they must rebuild these links and they must not limit themselves to only commercial ties. They must also rebuild the social and cultural connections that used to bind Muslims together by creating new multi-national organizations that can allow Muslims to develop bonds with each other based on a wide variety of interests such as sports, hobbies, religion, art, poetry, common professional or commercial interests such as trade associations or associations of lawyers, scientists, teachers, law enforcement officials, etc.
Reinforcing such bonds by promoting tourism between Muslim countries and building linked infrastructure to facilitate this exchange of goods, people, and ideas will be vital to promoting the integration of Muslims. For example, one of the show’s main characters, Ibn Arabi, was born in Andalusia. Despite being born in modern day Spain, Ibn Arabi is welcomed by the Turkish speaking Kayis in Anatolia and becomes an important spiritual guide for the tribe. He also uses his influence to convince Ertugrul to join a Sufi order. By highlighting this order, the show is illustrating how Muslims from different tribal or ethnic backgrounds used such organizations to create ties to each other that transcended their ethnic or tribal identities. The depiction of Sufi brotherhoods that are comprised of members from different parts of the Islamic world can also serve as a guide for the creation of new organizations that can use similar methods to unite Muslims in a way that can overcome their ethnic or linguistic differences. However, since religious associations are not the only way to promote cultural exchange in the modern world, contemporary Muslims should seek to create new international organizations focused on a wide range of interests such as those listed above.
While Ertugrul’s ideas and depictions of Islamic values are mostly positive, there are also lessons to be learned from some of the negative depictions in the show.
WHAT ERTUGRUL GETS WRONG:
How the tribe’s political structure marginalizes its workers and women:
As such, it is now time to discuss the shortcomings depicted in the show. The primary lesson in this category relates to the division of power within the Kayi tribe. Though a meeting of tribal notables called a “headquarters” is held to settle disputes and formulate policy, power is overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of the tribe’s ruler, the Bey, and this power seems to be disproportionately derived from military power. Two classes of people appear to be permanently excluded from power: the workers who manufacture the tribe’s goods or oversee its food production and its women.
Headquarter meetings provide a way to get input from the tribe’s notables and matters are usually settled by a vote. These nascent democratic mechanisms help the tribe to formulate intelligent policies and plans. The problem with these meetings is that they exclude all but the most influential members of the tribe. Also, the process used to determine who attends these meeting is unclear but seems to favor men who have proven themselves fighting for the tribe. The accumulation of power by the tribe’s warriors and the exclusion of the tribe’s workers such as its shepherds and craftsmen from headquarter meetings creates an excessive reliance on the tribe’s military class to develop policies. During times of war (such as an impending Mongol attack) it makes sense to defer to the military; however, based on the depictions in Ertugrul, this division of power seems to have been permanent.
Ertugrul depicts the beginning of the Ottoman Empire which eventually collapsed because its military class developed considerably more power than its business class. They then used their political power to allocate far too many resources to the military which undermined the economic foundations of the Empire particularly once the Ottoman military was no longer able to conquer new territory to exploit. When viewed in this light, the ramifications of the division of power within the Kayi tribe become easier to understand. As such, when contemporary Muslims look at how power is distributed in the Kayi tribe, they must understand that the tribe’s excessive reliance on its warriors to make decisions without input from the economically productive members of the tribe is an inherent weakness and that this weakness was present throughout the Ottoman Empire and is still present in far too many modern Muslim societies.
The second class of people routinely excluded from the tribe’s headquarter meetings are its women. The only woman who consistently participates in these meetings is Ertugrul’s mother, Hayme, and her participation does not occur until after her husband’s death. The lack of political power by the tribe’s women reflects the wider marginalization of women within it. The female characters in Ertugrul are often extremely intelligent and perceptive. They usually have an easier time recognizing who they can trust and who is only serving their own selfish interests than their male counterparts. Despite their clear abilities and talents, aside from Ertugrul’s mother, they are prevented from assuming overt political or military power. Instead, the women in Ertugrul must resort to manipulative tactics to have their voices heard. Though the show often depicts these women as being unscrupulous or overly ambitious, their willingness to resort to tricks to accumulate power is a natural consequence of their inability to assume direct power or even routinely participate in headquarter meetings. When one considers the harem intrigue that caused so much damage during the Ottoman era, one must consider the underlying cause of this intrigue which is directly related to the exclusion of women from power.
Though excluding women from power was routine during Ertugrul’s time, this same dynamic has continued to haunt contemporary Muslims who still marginalize women. The exclusion of women from power despite their obvious talents solely because of their gender is an indictment of Muslim men who often twist the tenets of the Islamic faith to justify their behavior. This is particularly frustrating when compared to how women were treated during the era of the Rashidun. The headquarter meetings depicted in Ertugrul are similar to the meetings held during the Rashidun era to decide policies; however, during this era women were active participants in these meetings. The Caliph Omar even appointed a woman as the head of the market in Medina, which is roughly analogous to appointing a woman as the head of the department of commerce in modern times.
Instead of being allowed to utilize their talents for the betterment of the entire Muslim community, Muslim women have been marginalized and disenfranchised in direct contravention of the precedents established under the Rashidun in a manner that has greatly contributed to the Muslim world’s weakness and stagnation. It is impossible to grow and develop in the modern world while preventing half of the potential labor force from participating to the full extent of their talents.
Though Ertugrul is presented as a wise and brave ruler, in my opinion, his sister-in-law Selcan is the most capable member of the Kayi tribe. She is always the first to diagnose subterfuge, has the sharpest business acumen, is brave and would make a worthy ruler. The fact that she is automatically excluded from power explains her volatile personality as she must constantly force people to listen to her while Ertugrul can simply speak during a headquarters meeting. Despite being smarter than almost everyone around her, Selcan is constantly ignored or told to keep her opinions to herself. If Selcan were a man, her intelligence would have catapulted her to a position of leadership but since she is a woman she is ignored and marginalized. The fact that her talents are wasted is an indictment of the tribe’s political structure and the Muslim world in general. The sad truth is that nearly 800 years after the events in Ertugrul, women in the Muslim world are still denied the opportunity to realize their talents and this is one of the main reasons Muslims are so weak and impoverished.
Glorifying war is not the way to promote an Islamic re-birth:
Another important lesson Muslims should learn from Ertugrul is that its glorification of violence is no longer appropriate. The first two seasons show the Kayi tribe under direct attack from both Crusaders and Mongols. The tribe’s military actions are all defensive in nature and, as such, are presented in a morally defensible light. However, it is important to remember that not all Ottoman military actions were defensive in nature. The Ottoman Empire was historically expansionist in its outlook which means that many of its wars were wars of choice. Instead of relying on simplistic tropes that paint the West (or the Crusaders in Ertugrul) as being motivated only by greed and hatred of Muslims, we must understand how our own actions have contributed to the animosity between Muslims and Christians and we must stop seeking solutions that are only based on war. In the same way that the political power of the tribe’s warriors likely caused them to place too much emphasis on military solutions, contemporary Muslims have also been too quick to use war to settle their disputes. The excessive reliance on military power has taken away valuable resources from education and scientific development which are the real basis for civilizational power. The truth is that war is evil. It is chaos, death, and destruction. War should never be glorified and must only be entered into as an absolute last resort because nothing good comes of war. All wars do is create widows and orphans and destroy families which, in turn, destroys society.
In Ertugrul, violence is primarily directed towards Crusaders and Mongols that wish to conquer Muslim territory. The reality is that most violence within the Muslim world is perpetrated by Muslims against other Muslims. If the message of Pan-Islamic unity articulated in Ertugrul is ever going to become a reality, Muslims must learn to emphasize economic and political cooperation as a means to achieving unity amongst ourselves and we must realize that war is not the true path. Again, Ertugrul does not appear to advocate for such violence since the military action from the first two seasons is all defensive in nature, but the glorification of war has often been used to justify fratricidal wars among Muslims or wars of conquest against non-Muslims. If Muslims are ever going to unite it cannot be through war. It must be through peaceful and voluntary economic and political integration. A union of Muslims based on war and death could only ever lead to tyranny and dictatorship. Only a union of Muslims entered into freely and based on Islamic ideas of unity and equality that is implemented by the creation of democratic political institutions that fairly share power among Muslims without allowing any one tribe or group of Muslims to unfairly dominate the others can successfully unite Muslims.
Instead of turning itself into a militarized state, a union of Muslims nations would be better served by investing in its educational institutions so that Muslims can begin developing their scientific abilities. If contemporary Muslims are ever going to follow Ertugrul’s example and resurrect themselves, it will not be through war but by revitalizing the culture and intellectual climate of the Islamic world so that it can reclaim its historical place as the world’s leader in these fields. Muslims once invented algebra, gave Aristotle new life and meaning, pioneered the medical sciences and were the main drivers of culture, technological innovation, and science in the world. We must return to our previous ways of prioritizing intellectual honesty and critical analysis so that we can begin producing a new generation of thinkers that can contribute to humanity’s intellectual development. Glorifying war, though it makes for more exciting television, is not the way to promote the re-birth of the Muslim world.
CONCLUSION:
Ertugrul is one of my favorite television shows, but it is still just a television show. It can provide valuable lessons for Muslims if we examine its various messages and subplots with a critical eye. If Muslims are ever going to resurrect Islamic civilization, we must do so in a way that accounts for the realities of the modern world while still adhering to the appropriate Islamic values. We must invest in our educational institutions and fundamentally change our cultural attitudes towards discussing taboo subjects. And we must allow our fellow Muslims to live their personal lives as they see fit without interference so that people can feel free to 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, or political expression and still create an environment that is conducive to technological innovation or intellectual growth. Authoritarian tendencies bleed over into all aspects of society and even if officially limited to certain areas such as political speech, they will affect unrelated academic areas. If Muslims ever hope to re-establish their former power consistent with the themes developed in Ertugrul we must begin by creating an atmosphere that is conducive to technological innovation and strong economic growth as these are necessary for developing the sort of military abilities that will be necessary to prevent further conquests of Muslim lands. Such inclusive and tolerant attitudes will also be key to uniting Muslims. The Muslim world is so large and diverse that only a culture that embraces diversity and peaceful co-existence can facilitate its unification. Those Muslims who wish to see the unity of the Muslim community restored must therefore embrace Islamic notions of tolerance and compassion as well as the idea that there is no compulsion in religion. Muslims who seek to impose their religious views on others through force or violence are hypocrites because their views and actions prevent the very unity that will be necessary to end the subservience of the Muslim world and the slaughter of innocent Muslims in so many parts of the world.
This brings us to Ertugrul’s last and most painful lesson. There is no real life Ertugrul. Instead of waiting for an idealized hero to come save us, Muslims must begin to work together to build the sort of institutions that can unite and strengthen us and that can finally provide the Muslim world with the leadership it so desperately needs. Part of the reason the Muslim world has been so devoid of leadership is that its institutions and culture have proven incapable of producing the sort of selfless and clear-sighted leaders that characterized the early Ottoman period. It is unrealistic to expect rulers to be selfless on their own. Instead of expecting rulers to voluntarily put the interest of the community ahead of their own personal interests, Muslims must begin to create governments that feature institutional mechanisms that can act as a restraint on the selfish impulses of its rulers. The lesson Muslims must learn from Ertugrul is that if we want our leaders to act like Ertugrul we must create the sort of political institutions and culture that can attract honest people and that can incentivize them to put the needs of the community first. The only way to counter the inherently selfish nature of human beings is by developing institutional checks on rulers so that they can no longer use their power to accumulate personal wealth. Instead of empowering rulers that seek wealth and comfort, Muslims must focus on finding rulers that prioritize fighting injustice and defending the weak. We can use Ertugrul’s example as a guide, but ultimately, it is up to the people of the Muslim world to begin building the sort of institutions and culture that can force Muslim leaders to finally start prioritizing the needs of their people over their own selfish desires.
[1] The present discussion is primarily based on the first 2.5 seasons of the show.
[2] Khaldun, Ibn, Trans by Franz Rosenthal. The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History. Princeton University Press. Princeton and Oxford. 1967. At pgs. 107-111.
Reports coming out of Afghanistan regarding the Taliban’s celebrations are extremely confusing. The end of any war is always cause for joy because it brings hope for peace. But anyone who thinks the Taliban’s “victory” is worth celebrating as a triumph of Muslim military prowess is a fool with extremely low standards. Glorifying events in Afghanistan is an implicit acceptance of the Muslim world’s unbelievably weak military abilities.
America conquered Afghanistan with such ease that one could almost forgive its leaders for underestimating the Taliban’s ability to re-group. It only needed a few special forces troops and air power to conquer a nation that is over 650,000 square kilometers in the span of a few weeks. The Taliban were completely outmatched and ran away almost immediately. Its conquest was so easy that it never even bothered to station more than 20,300 troops there during the first five years of its occupation.
America withdrew from Afghanistan because, as explained here, it shot itself in the foot in a variety of ways, leading to the Taliban’s resurgence. It then realized it did not care enough to stay and clean up its mess. So, it left. It decided long ago that Afghanistan was not worth the effort but only stayed for so long due to its stubborn pride and corporate interests. And yet it still took the Taliban twenty years, an estimated 50,000 dead soldiers, and 40,000 dead civilians to convince them to leave. That is not a victory worth celebrating.
Afghanistan was easily conquered and occupied by both Russia and America because it has never been able to build an industrial base capable of generating the military capacity to deter these invasions. It has been unable to do so because a significant number of Afghans are philosophically opposed to the type of reforms needed to modernize. The Taliban’s views are not an aberration within Afghan society or the Muslim world either. They are just an extreme manifestation of the authoritarian tendencies that have prevented Muslims from instituting the changes necessary to thrive in the modern world. As such, the debacle in Afghanistan is an indictment of Afghan society and a reflection of the weakness that has consumed the entire Muslim world.
While it was occupying Afghanistan, the US decided to invade Iraq too. Using fabricated evidence, it concocted a tale to justify an invasion that led to the slaughter of between 200,000 – 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis. No one is sure how many Iraqis died because no one bothered to count all the bodies. It was able to violently maintain control over both nations simultaneously for many years, and only left after it grew tired of wasting resources on countries that were not part of its core national security interests.
America’s embarrassingly easy conquests and overlapping occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq and the inability of the entire Muslim world to prevent these attacks are just one piece of the puzzle. The tiny nation of Israel has established complete military control over the Eastern Mediterranean and bombs its Arab neighbors with impunity when it is so inclined. It also launches clandestine and aerial attacks against Iran, which can only respond with threats and impotent, asymmetric gestures. Pakistan has tried and failed to take Kashmir from India three times. The string of military defeats suffered by Muslims is too long to list in its entirety. But they are all related to the same root causes.
The simple fact is that Muslim societies would not be so prone to conquest if their institutions had not already rotted from within.
There are still too many Muslim nations living under the tyranny of dictatorship. The violent authoritarian control exercised by the region’s military and/or religious elite[1] has crippled the ability of Muslims to build effective governments and social institutions capable of nurturing the economic and technological development necessary to end their appallingly weak military abilities. Until Muslim societies wholeheartedly implement serious reforms to their political, legal, educational, social, and economic systems to free themselves from the shackles of dictatorship, they will continue to be subject to the same pattern of conquest they have endured these past five centuries. Instead of blaming outsiders, Muslims must accept responsibility for their failures. The simple fact is that Muslim societies would not be so prone to conquest if their institutions had not already rotted from within, making them such inviting targets.
The military incompetence of Muslim nations represents an existential threat that can no longer be ignored.
America’s occupations were but the latest in a long line that all prove a simple point. It is time for change. The military incompetence of Muslim nations represents an existential threat that can no longer be ignored. Imagine what would have happened if Afghanistan and Iraq were actually important to the US. It has already proven it will do anything to win a fight, even if that means dropping atomic bombs on an island full of emaciated women and children. America may not care about the Muslim world today, but the world is volatile, and things change. If it decided to come back, no one could stop it.
America is not the only country Muslims should worry about either. Any Muslim welcoming China, given its treatment of the Uighurs, is a hypocrite and an even bigger fool. In some respects, Russia has been an even more brutal conqueror of Muslims than the West. The Czars conquered vast Muslim populations who have repeatedly tried and failed to throw off the yoke of Russian occupation. These examples highlight a glaring pattern of weakness prevalent across nearly the entirety of the Muslim world. The Taliban and those with similar views may see events in Afghanistan as a vindication of their beliefs, but that only proves how foolish they truly are.
Afghanistan’s new rulers appear to have learned how to deal with Western media. One can only hope they have also studied the deeper causes of the Western world’s military dominance, which is the result of its democratic forms of government, inclusive political and social institutions, secure property rights, and free speech protections. These have allowed the West to create governments, schools, and private companies capable of stimulating the economic and technological development necessary to develop advanced military capabilities. Until the Muslim world implements reforms that can lead to similar capabilities, it will continue to be a victim of conquest.
Instead of celebrating, the Taliban should ask themselves why their nation was so easily conquered and why it took so long to evict Russia and America. Doing so requires deciphering why it has been unable to modernize or develop a system of government that allows its diverse people to work together. Until they solve these riddles, they will be unable to develop policies that can ensure they are never conquered again. By extension, the rest of the Muslim world should be asking, to varying degrees, why it has been so weak for so long. If Afghanistan was a victory for Muslim arms, I shudder to think about what a defeat would look like.
Having discussed the problem of the Muslim world’s military incompetence, here are some ideas to correct these issues.
The author is a US Navy veteran and creator of the blog www.mirrorsfortheprince.com where he examines the causes of the Muslim world’s sustained weakness and suggests reforms that can help it modernize.
[1] Kuru Ahmet, “Islam, Authoritarianism, and Underdevelopment,” (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2019), 3-6, 9-12, 93-101, 225.
