Tag: islamic

America’s decline will bring chaos the Muslim world is unprepared for

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorized1 Comment on America’s decline will bring chaos the Muslim world is unprepared for

This article was first published here by the Friday Times on June 15, 2023


Several years ago, when its national debt was just $20 trillion, I wrote an essay arguing America’s weak finances would lead it to withdraw its military from the Muslim world, creating a vacuum China would fill. The underlying premise of my argument was that America’s growing debt would force its leaders to trim military spending and the Muslim world, not being vital to its core interests, would be the first to witness the beginning of the end of the Pax Americana. A retrenchment necessitated by being in a nearly continuous state of either hot, cold, or asymmetrical war for most of the past 80 years.

America’s military presence in the region is still going strong today. It maintains a permanent naval presence in the Gulf and has troops scattered throughout the region. However, its attempts to build an anti-Iranian military coalition between Israel and the Arab world as an eventual substitute for its own forces and the recent rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia brokered by China suggests I was on the right track. Both developments support the argument that its role in the region is diminishing and portend trends that will only accelerate with time. As such, I am still confident in my thesis. But I was wrong about one crucial assumption.

I implicitly believed America’s leaders would react rationally. That they would see the massive pile of debt their wasteful spending and imperial wars of conquest have led to and develop a rational plan to fix the situation. I was wrong.

As evidence, I offer the recent deal reached between the Biden Administration and the Republican led Congress to raise America’s debt ceiling to accommodate a sum that has now grown to $31.4 trillion. There are two aspects of this deal that vividly highlight just how irrational and detached from reality America’s policy elite have become. The first, it cut funding for America’s tax collection and enforcement agency, the IRS. Second, it did not cut military spending. Instead, it increased military outlays by 1%.

Of the government agencies and departments most vital to a nation’s prosperity and security, none is more important than those that collect tax revenue. Not even the military. As Pakistan’s dysfunctional government and economy shows, without a well-funded and efficient tax collection and enforcement agency nothing else works. Paying for the public services like roads, competent law enforcement and regulatory agencies, or schools that glue a nation together and nurture economic activity becomes impossible. Also, as a matter of common sense, when the government has accrued $31.4 trillion in debt, it should be trying to increase revenue and collections.

But America’s conservative faction fought hard to claw back some of the funding that President Biden wisely allocated to the IRS. In doing so they did not just contradict their stated desire to improve America’s finances, they helped illustrate just how irrational its leaders have become.

By itself, the attack on the IRS staged by America’s right was unsettling enough. But what was far more upsetting was how little discussion there was about the root cause of America’s debt by either of its political factions.

Over the past 20 years, America has spent $16 trillion on its military and that is a conservative estimate that does not account for certain intelligence activities like those provided by the CIA or the cost of its nuclear arsenal, parts of which gets budgeted under the Department of Energy for accounting purposes. It also excludes the cost of caring for its veterans and the national security functions performed by the Department of Homeland Security. For those keeping track, the conservative estimate is over half its debt.

Due to this spending, America is the most dominant military power in the world by a wide margin. It fields a massive arsenal of the most advanced tanks, fighters, drones, submarines, and aircraft carriers. Despite having already spent trillions to build this impressive force and having important geographic advantages that protect it from invasion, there was no meaningful discussion about cutting military spending. Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that so many of the professionals paid to discuss these issues work for defense contractors? One can only guess. Thankfully, understanding why is not important. What is important is recognizing the fact that military spending is America’s holy grail. One that neither party will ever meaningfully threaten, no matter how bleak its finances.

Some may argue that events in Ukraine and the Pacific justify America’s refusal to scale back its military. But these arguments do not fare well under closer scrutiny. Aside from the fact that Europe should be defending itself, the bear we were all raised to fear has proven less ferocious than previously imagined. Russia and Western Europe will never be friends and Europe’s nations will always need to prepare accordingly, but the idea that Russia presents a threat to America is ludicrous.

America’s fixation with containing China is equally illogical. Again, as a preliminary matter, protecting Asia is not America’s responsibility. That burden must ultimately fall to Asia’s nations. China’s behavior, particularly its treatment of the poor Uighurs, has been abhorrent, there is no denying that. But it has never threatened America’s commercial or national security interests. America’s obsession with countering China has more to do with its own hegemonic ambitions than anything else and reinforces the argument that its leaders are no longer acting rationally.

The key takeaway: America’s finances will only worsen as it continues to fund a military designed to dominate the world rather than protect the homeland. Instead of taking the steps necessary to reign in spending, America’s leaders seem determined to do the same thing they did in Afghanistan; pretend like nothing is wrong until everything implodes in the blink of an eye.

The only real question is when, but no one can truly answer that. America is a large, wealthy country, making it hard to predict how far down this path it can go before reality rears its ugly head. If I were a betting man, I would wager the inflection point will correlate to the interest payments on its debt. Once this number reaches a certain level, America will be printing money to pay the interest on the money it has already borrowed and printed. It’s hard to predict the exact fallout but debasing a nation’s currency to pay its debts has never ended well for the many governments throughout history that have followed this path.

The rest of the world needs to prepare accordingly. Even in a weakened financial position, America’s massive military industrial infrastructure will still allow it to wreak havoc in many ways. Much like the demise of the Soviet Union flooded the world with its weapons, America’s decline will incentivize it to expand its role as the world’s merchant of death. Many of its weapons will end up in Israel, India, and Greece.

The leaders of Iran, Pakistan, and Turkey should take note. As I argued in a companion piece to the essay about America’s looming military withdrawal, these nations must come together to create new political, economic and military organizations for their mutual defense and prosperity. The key to doing so: creating institutional mechanisms to support trade and joint infrastructure development within the framework of a free trade zone like the one Europe built in the aftermath of WW2. Projects like the long-delayed Peace Pipeline between Iran and Pakistan would serve as the perfect building blocks to increase trade and connectivity.

Unfortunately, the Muslim world’s leaders are even more irrational and illogical than America’s. Despite centuries of conquest and instability, Muslim elites refuse to make the sort of changes that would allow them to prosper either individually or collectively. Pakistan, for example, seems intent on creating the same toxic and ineffective neo-colonial dynamic with China that has repeatedly failed Muslim societies since the Ottomans first tried the same tactic with Germany. Iran’s leaders are still obsessing over how Iranian women dress. One could write volumes about the irrational policies favored by Afghanistan’s rulers.

Like most of the Muslim world, all three suffer under the weight of authoritarian and non-responsive political and social systems that stifle change or serious attempts at reform. Consequently, they are highly unlikely to take the steps necessary to protect themselves from the chaos and upheaval that always accompanies major shifts in the world’s geopolitical sands. That is a pity, because America’s loosening grip on the region also means the time to do so has never been better.

Tagged : / / / / /

Why do some nations conquer, while others get conquered?

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorized1 Comment on Why do some nations conquer, while others get conquered?

This article was first published here by the Friday Times on April 24, 2023.

Even though it was nearly twenty-five years ago, I still vividly remember what it was like to step aboard the USS George Washington for the first time. For those who are not familiar, the G.W. is one of ten Nimitz class aircraft carriers in America’s navy. It is a massive warship made from 60,000 tons of steel that is over 330 meters long and functions as a floating airbase. When fully loaded with its complement of 90 aircraft, it displaces nearly 97,000 tons.

Building one takes 2,500 hundred workers about five years and costs $5 billion, but that is a relative bargain compared to the new Ford class of carriers which cost $4.7 billion in research and development on top of the $12.8 billion price tag to build. These ships are miracles of engineering that highlight America’s industrial might, wealth, and determination to remain the world’s dominant military power.

I would often stand on the GW’s monstrous 4.5-acre (36 kanals) flight deck and marvel at the resources that went into designing, building, and deploying it. Once built, carriers are manned by a crew of 5,000 sailors and airmen and cost another $1.18 billion a year. Which means that simply operating and maintaining these ten ships costs more than Pakistan’s entire annual military budget. And that does not even account for the cost of their aircraft or the cruisers, destroyers, and fast attack submarines that escort them whenever they deploy which brings the total cost to $21 billion a year.

These ships allow America to control the world’s oceans and the 40% of its population that lives within reach of them. They represent a huge investment in its military, but they are just one part of the military power that America has built and sustained since WW2.

Serving aboard America’s gigantic warships was a surreal experience, one that fed an obsession with trying to understand the factors that allowed it to build such a powerful military. But this was merely part of a larger obsession – trying to understand why the Muslim world has been so militarily weak for so long as evidenced by the repeated pattern of conquests it has been subjected to over the past few centuries. Solving the riddle of America’s power therefore holds the key to helping Muslims prevent more violence like the sort that has consumed Kashmir, Chechnya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and far too many other places.

America’s military is the result of several factors working together. It is a large country, well endowed with fertile land and abundant natural resources. Its borders are protected by the Canadian Shield to its north and the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Some might argue that geography, by itself, is enough to explain America’s power. But a comparison with Russia and Israel suggests otherwise.

Russia has also been blessed geographically, though not to the same extent as America. Its western and southern borders have always been vulnerable to attack and its lands are not nearly as fertile. But it is still a large nation, with lots of natural resources and protected on its northern and eastern borders. It also fields a powerful military, but one that pales in comparison to America’s. Russia’s military is large and moderately well-equipped but mostly used to secure its “near abroad.”

America’s military, on the other hand, extends its reach to the entire world. The easiest way to illustrate this point is to compare the number of carriers deployed by each nation. Between its Ford, Nimitz, America, and Wasp classes, America currently deploys a total of twenty-one aircraft carriers of various shapes and sizes. Russia, even during the height of its Soviet era power, struggled to deploy seven such vessels, most of which were incapable of launching fixed wing aircraft or deploying far from its shores. Of these seven, only one remains in service and it is currently in drydock. When it comes to projecting military power, the ultimate tool is the aircraft carrier. Russia’s inability to build more than a fraction of the carrier fleet built by America is one of many examples that highlight the limits of its power.

On the other end of the geographic spectrum is Israel, a tiny nation bereft of natural resources. Despite its diminutive stature, Israel fields the most powerful military in the Middle East and was able to establish its dominance over the Arabs long before America became its ardent supporter. Israel may not have aircraft carriers, but it does have a sophisticated nuclear triad, advanced tanks and fighter jets, and cutting-edge electronic warfare, signals intelligence, and missile defense capabilities. It also has a proven track record of dominating its enemies on the battlefield.

These examples are important because they show that geography, by itself, does not provide an entirely satisfying explanation. If geography were the only determinant of military power, America and Russia would field roughly equal forces and Israel would have ceased to exist long ago. Geography has certainly played a part in allowing Russia and America to build their large militaries, but the contrasts between them and Israel’s example show it is not the most important factor in explaining why. Instead, we must look to the type of political institutions that govern these nations.

Russia has a long history of being ruled by authoritarian and absolutist political institutions and their negative impact largely explains its relatively weak military abilities. America, on the other hand, features an inclusive, democratic system. Israel does too, for its Jewish citizens, at least. These are the keys to their military power.

Combined, the seminal works Why Nations Fail and The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers show how democracy leads to military power. In the latter, Prof. Kennedy explains that modern wars will typically be won by the side with the greater industrial and technological capabilities. According to Kennedy, military power is based on factors ranging from “geography and national morale to generalship and tactical competence” but primarily rests upon “adequate supplies of wealth, which in turn derive from a flourishing productive base, from healthy finances, and from superior technology.”  In Why Nations Fail, the authors show how democratic systems lead to the wealth, industrial capabilities, and technology highlighted by Kennedy.

As Saudi Arabia’s military incompetence shows, by itself, wealth is not enough. It is the ability to design, build, maintain, repair, and use the weapons required to wage modern war that matters. Paying for them is just one step of many in the convoluted process required to master and incorporate them into an effective military force.

The most fundamental step in that process is creating democratic political systems. To be clear, democracy is about far more than elections. It is about devising a political system that uses institutional mechanisms to create pluralistic power structures and ensure governments are responsive to the needs of their people. Voting is just one of several methods used to achieve this. A true democracy establishes the rule of law and the primacy of the individual by creating independent and efficient courts that settle disputes fairly and protect the lives and property of citizens against government excess and each other. They also feature competent law enforcement, administrative, and regulatory agencies, and ensure freedom of speech and association. In doing so, they create an environment conducive to strong economic growth and technological development which can then be used to create strong militaries.

Aside from generating the wealth and technology needed to build powerful weapons, democracies also provide significant advantages with respect to training the soldiers who will use them, which impacts the other factors listed by Kennedy relating to generalship and tactical competence. Wealth and strong free speech guarantees are vital ingredients needed to build vibrant schools that can educate future soldiers and give them the critical thinking skills necessary to thrive in combat. Once they enter military service, these soldiers will typically find themselves promoted based on their professional abilities and merit rather than their perceived loyalty to a particular regime due the ability of democracies to create apolitical militaries.

Taken together, these factors allow democracies to design and build sophisticated weapons, buy lots of them, and staff their militaries with professional and highly trained soldiers, sailors, and airmen who can use them with lethal effect. By inference, these ideas also show why the Muslim world’s lack of democracy has made its nations so weak and vulnerable to conquest. As a result, those who wish to understand the roots of the Muslim world’s weakness must focus on the prevalence of authoritarian and absolutist political systems throughout it and the ways these have stunted its economic and intellectual development, making it impossible to build militaries capable of protecting them from conquest.

At first glance, China’s military modernization would seem to contradict these arguments. However, its well documented issues developing adequate jet engines or advanced semiconductors as well as the intellectual property theft that has fueled much of its progress indicates its authoritarian system has also limited its technological development. In fact, its economy is already showing weaknesses that are directly attributable to its repressive political system as illustrated by its ghost cities, capital flight, and the efforts to control or silence many of its prominent entrepreneurs and their companies. Just as the Soviet Union did during the 1960’s, authoritarian systems may generate growth for a time, but in addition to negatively impacting technological innovation, they are inherently unstable and will inevitably retrench or collapse in on themselves.

Though it still suffers from certain authoritarian tendencies, Turkey’s example also supports these arguments. It has the most extensive experience with democracy in the Muslim world and is, consequently, one of its most advanced and powerful states.

Despite the obvious benefits and the data provided by the different examples offered above, most Muslim states have not embraced democracy due to their unique historical experiences, the entrenched power of their military elites, and the toxic influence of their social institutions. This has led some to argue that Islam is incompatible with democracy. But as argued here in more detail, the history of the Rashidun era shows that not only are democracy and Islam compatible, but that democracy is the form of government closest to the Islamic ideal.

In addition to being the most logical way to strengthen individual Muslim states, creating democratic political systems is also the only way to overcome their geographic weaknesses. The Muslim world is divided into over 50 nations, none of which can compete with the Great Powers alone. As such, Muslims must come together the same way Europe did after WW2 to create new political and economic entities that can allow them to work together to prosper and protect each other through free trade and security alliances. Europe’s democratic political systems were a key factor in allowing it to unite and creating similar systems will be necessary if Muslims ever wish to do the same.

The Muslim world’s authoritarian political systems have prevented such unity because they typically rely on patronage networks glued together by corruption and nepotism. These have made it impossible to build the sort of neutral courts and administrative agencies that can meaningfully connect Muslim states by creating fair and transparent ways for them to trade with each other on a large scale. This has, in turn, made it impossible to build the sort of relationships that can lead to a security alliance.  

Pan-Islamic sentiments may seem antiquated in the age of the nation-state, but the inescapable truth is that humanity’s history is a violent one and most of our conflicts have a tribal dimension. As Sam Huntington explains in his work The Clash of Civilizations, the world can be broadly divided into civilizational groups that share historical and cultural commonalities. According to Huntington, the Islamic and Western worlds constitute two such civilizations. These tribal dynamics explain why the West unequivocally backs Israel’s violence against the Arabs as it desperately tries to stop Iran from acquiring the same weapons it helped Israel develop. They also help explain Hindu India’s conflict with Muslim Pakistan. Even Europe’s rejection of Turkey is best understood in reference to their civilizational differences.

The conflict between Russia and Ukraine is intra-civilizational. But it has taken on inter-civilizational dimensions as Western nations side with Ukraine in their bid to box in their civilizational rival in Slavic Russia. There are certainly other contributing factors such as geo-politics and resource competition driving these conflicts but there is no denying their tribal nature.

The key to understanding these conflicts, and who ultimately wins them, is understanding how all the variables referenced throughout this discussion work together and shape each other. To do so properly, one must first recognize the primacy of political systems in shaping and impacting them all. As such, Muslim nations must build genuinely democratic and inclusive political systems if they ever hope to end the cycle of violence that has consumed so many of them. Doing so is the only way to overcome the many political, social, economic, technological, tactical, and geographic factors that have made it so weak for so long. Until that happens, Muslim nations will remain among the ranks of the conquered.

Tagged : / / / / / / / / /

When it comes to the Iraq War, neither America nor the Muslim world learned a thing

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorized3 Comments on When it comes to the Iraq War, neither America nor the Muslim world learned a thing

This article was first published here by the Friday Times on March 21, 2023

The twentieth anniversary of America’s invasion of Iraq led to many pieces discussing the legacy of the war and the lessons it offers. Writing for the Intercept, Peter Maass was one of the few commentators to discuss the horrendous cost to Iraq’s people and the indifference of most Americans to the suffering inflicted by their military as he noted how so few of these commentaries even bothered to mention the death toll from the war. The Los Angeles Times, New York Times, and Washington Post all ran human interest pieces that focused on the devastation unleashed against Iraq’s people.

But most chose to ignore this aspect of the war. Though they readily admitted it was “disastrous” or a “tragedy,” they seemed to view it as such primarily because of the negative impact on America. Writing for Foreign Affairs Magazine, Hal Brands described the war as an “American tragedy” that was “born of honorable motives and genuine concerns” while he lamented that “critiques of the war have become so hyperbolic that it can be difficult to keep the damage in perspective.” The President of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haas, echoed these sentiments as he spent most of his time rationalizing America’s decision to launch what he euphemistically refers to as a “war of choice.”

Let’s get one thing straight about this war. There was no legitimate reason to invade Iraq. War is only ever justified as a means of self-defense or coming to the defense of innocents in extreme situations. Despite having plenty of justification, Iraq never attacked America and it had nothing to do with 9/11. As Mr. Haas so helpfully points out, Ukraine’s war against Russia is a war of necessity born of the need to protect itself from a violent invader. While Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is another “war of choice.” Despite his attempts to deflect, Mr. Haas’s use of the same phrase to describe both wars is apt because both were illegal and unjust wars of aggression.

As Mr. Brands points out, “no one knows for sure” how many Iraqis were killed as a result of America’s choices, though he estimates between “100,000 and 400,000” died. Mr. Maass, adds that, “millions” were “injured, forced out of their homes, and traumatized for the rest of their lives.” Some estimates place the death toll as high as 2.4 million. Whatever the number, it is too high, and it is abhorrent that anyone would try to whitewash or rationalize the mass murder of anywhere from 100,000 – 2.4 million men, women, and children.

Even the argument that Iraq was believed to possess WMDs fails miserably. America has no right to attack a country for trying to develop the same exact weapons it possesses. Particularly when it is the biggest proliferator of weapons, both conventional and unconventional, in the world. America helped Apartheid South Africa build nuclear weapons. It has turned a blind eye to Apartheid Israel’s nuclear weapons and sells weapons to dictators all over the world. Arguing that Saddam Hussein’s brutality went beyond the pale while ignoring Ariel Sharon’s war crimes, or helping Saudi Arabia commit its own in Yemen shows how hypocritical and non-sensical these arguments have always been. But discussing these obvious truths is a waste of time. As the pieces referenced above indicate, most American’s simply do not care about the double standards and hypocrisy of their actions.

Mr. Haas even tried to exonerate those responsible for unleashing this mayhem by arguing they had no ill intent. Another weak argument that ignores the fact that there are some instances where intent is irrelevant. Culpability must sometimes be based purely on the consequences of one’s actions. Most would probably agree that mass murder falls into this category. Whether George Bush and his cohorts intended to deceive is of no consequence. What does matter is that their decisions led to the murder of a lot of innocent civilians. By any sane legal standard, their actions were criminal, and they must all be held legally accountable. Aside from Mr. Maass, not one of the commentators reflecting on this war was willing to suggest as much. Which further proves that America learned absolutely nothing from this war. As Stephen Wertheim eloquently puts it, “the flawed logic that produced the war is alive and well.”

Since America failed to absorb the correct lessons, the victims of this war, and by extension, those who may find themselves in America’s crosshairs next must work that much harder to learn their own lessons.

Doing so requires examining more than just the war in Iraq, which is not the only part of the world that has been subject to such violence. In fact, the 55th anniversary of the My Lai massacre in Vietnam passed just three days before the anniversary that prompted this piece and the 56th anniversary of Israel’s conquest and continuing occupation of the West Bank is just around the corner.

In addition to contemplating the import of all these anniversaries as well as countless others that we simply do not have the space or time to reference, the victims of America’s various attempts to spread freedom and democracy must also weigh the ramifications of its contradictory actions in support of Ukraine and Israel. And they must do so while they consider the refusal of its leaders to spend less than $800 billion on its military or limit its arms shipments to violent regimes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc.

Thankfully, the lessons gleaned from the cumulative weight of these data points are relatively simple.  First, Iraq will not be the last unprovoked war America or one of its allies starts. That is because we do not live in a “rules based” international system. We live in a world where might equals right and powerful nations can commit mass murder with impunity (unless America decides they should be held accountable). Those nations that do not wish to suffer like Iraq (or Palestine, or Vietnam, etc.) must therefore give serious thought to creating the sort of political, social, and economic institutions that can lead to developing the industrial, technological, and military capabilities needed to protect themselves.

Both China and Japan learned these lessons after their violent interactions with the West. The Muslim world has struggled to do so. Just like America, it has refused to learn the correct lessons from Iraq or the countless other conquests and slaughters that have marred its history over the past several centuries. Pakistan’s Dawn newspaper discussed the impact and aftermath of the war as did Al Jazeera. But neither thought to question the systemic issues that made Iraq, a microcosm of the Muslim world, so vulnerable to conquest or consider ways to prevent such violence from ever happening again.

Muslims refuse to admit that the violence perpetrated against them is a direct result of their own weakness. Societies are never conquered by outsiders until they have sufficiently rotted from within. The authoritarian political and social institutions that have strangled Muslim societies for centuries have stunted its technological and economic development, making it impossible to develop adequate military abilities. Until they wholeheartedly implement serious political, legal, educational, and economic reforms to free themselves from the shackles of dictatorship, Muslim nations will continue to suffer from the same pattern of conquest and violence.

Muslim states must also look to each other for their security needs since none of them can compete with the Great Powers on their own. The only way out of this morass is to embrace the type of unity and collective security architecture built by Europe in the aftermath of WW2. Europe’s unity is, in turn, laid upon a foundation of free trade, which means Muslims must begin the process of learning to work together by linking themselves through trade and infrastructure. These ideas may sound outlandish. Some have even compared them to the quest for nuclear fusion. But the most fundamental lesson of the Iraq war is that without serious changes that address the roots of its weakness, the Muslim world will continue to suffer similar tragedies.  

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

The war in Gaza has put Western and Muslim hypocrisy on full display

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorizedLeave a Comment on The war in Gaza has put Western and Muslim hypocrisy on full display

Between all the propaganda and gaslighting, wars inevitably reveal the ugly truth about a society. The war in Gaza has been no different. We are now five weeks into Israel’s counterattack on Hamas. The IDF (Israel Defense Forces) has responded to the murder of over 1,400 Israelis by killing 11,078 Palestinians, 4,506 of whom were children. Israel’s military spokesman, Brig. Gen. Daniel Hagari, all but admitted these killings were intentional when he stated the IDF’s focus is on inflicting “damage and not on accuracy.” When confronted about the IDF’s habit of dropping bombs on targets it knows are full of civilians in relation to a strike that murdered an estimated 50 innocent people, his fellow IDF spokesperson, Lt. Col. Richard Hecht, unapologetically shrugged these deaths off as “the tragedy of war.” These statements are merely confirmation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s promise that he would respond to Oct. 7th in a way that reverberates “for generations.” A promise made good when 42 members of the Saqallah family were killed by an Israeli airstrike. Three generations, ranging in age from 3 months to 77 years old, were murdered as they were taking shelter in their home.

Given these statements of intent and the indiscriminate devastation being visited upon Gaza, it is painfully obvious Israel is following the Dahiya Doctrine first articulated by former IDF chief of staff Gadi Eisenkot during Israel’s 2006 war with Hezbollah by intentionally murdering Palestinian civilians. At the least, it is guilty of acting with reckless disregard to the fact that its missile and artillery strikes are killing thousands of women and children. In either case, the IDF is committing a massacre.

One can only wonder where those who were so horrified by Hamas’ killing of women and children are now. After all, as Jonah Goldberg pointed out to those who tried to justify Hamas’ brutality by framing it as legitimate resistance to Israel’s 17-year siege of Gaza, “no amount of context justifies killing babies.” Inexplicably, Mr. Goldberg was too busy dissecting the history and significance of the term “settler colonial” with mind numbing detail to offer any outrage over Gaza’s dead babies.

But Mr. Goldberg is hardly the only American who does not care when Palestinian babies are murdered. When asked about the rising death toll in Gaza, President Biden dismissed them out of hand, preferring to question the accuracy of the figures instead of addressing the underlying issue.  His apathy, like Mr. Goldberg’s, is yet more proof that most Americans simply do not care when Palestinian children are murdered.

To their credit, at least Messrs. Goldberg and Biden are not blood thirsty sociopaths like Senator Lindsey Graham, Congressman Brian Mast, or Florida state representative Michelle Salzman. Graham does not believe there should be any limits on the number of women and children Israel should be allowed to murder in its quest to rid the world of Hamas’ evil, child killing members. Mast argued there are “no innocent Palestinian civilians.” While Salzman believes Israel should murder “all” Palestinians. 

Of course, none of this is surprising. Anyone who has not been in a coma these past thirty years already knows about America’s pattern of killing Arabs and Muslims and the mix of ambivalence and racist demonization that accompanies it. Its sanctions against Iraq killed an estimated 576,000 children. The War on Terror killed another 4.5 million people. Its direct support for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen added 377,000 more. The great majority of Americans did not care then, and they do not care now. To expect them to suddenly show interest in dead Palestinian, Arab, or Muslim babies at this point would be insane. 

The Western world’s blatant and overwhelming hypocrisy is certainly condemnable but adequately addressing this topic would take volumes while accomplishing very little. Instead of raging against these glaring double standards, I will simply point out that evil always leads to more evil. Even if it’s a delayed harvest, you reap what you sow, and America has sown death and despair throughout the globe.

As I explain here in more detail, these chickens are already coming home to roost. There is a direct correlation between the genocidal violence America has unleashed or enabled around the world and the mass shootings that are now a depressingly routine part of American life. These are a biproduct of being in a nearly continuous state of conflict for most of the past eighty years. They will continue to haunt Americans in their schools, restaurants, shopping centers, movie theaters, etc. until their country ends its militaristic policies and dismantles the weapons factories built to further them. 

Aside from enabling one lone wolf shooter after another, America’s hegemonic pursuits are also slowly draining a foundational part of its power – its wealth. No empire in history has been able to maintain an aggressive military posture for an extended period of time without eventually imploding. Much of America’s nearly 34 trillion dollar debt can be attributed to its military spending. The interest payments on this debt now stand at 659 billion a year and could climb to two trillion by the end of the decade. Eventually, the financial house of cards built to pay for its imperial ambitions will collapse, impoverishing millions in the process.

America’s obsession with global dominance is slowly destroying and bankrupting it. But since most Americans simply do not want to have this conversation, I’m not going to waste more time on the matter. I have already done my best to warn America that it is on the path to self-destruction several times.

Instead of wasting time trying to dissuade America from its genocidal policies, I prefer to focus on the party that bears the most responsibility for the slaughter in Gaza – the Muslim world. Societies are never conquered by outsiders until they have sufficiently rotted from within. Those who cheered the massacre of women and children on Oct. 7th and those who have been tearing down posters of these innocents are all a reflection of this rot. Much like the subject of Western hypocrisy, adequately addressing the roots of the dysfunction that has gripped Muslim societies these past many centuries would take volumes, and then some. The Muslim world is a mess, and it has been a mess for a long time.

Gaza’s woes are just an extreme example of the weakness and instability that is typical of most Muslim societies. Nearly the entire Muslim world features authoritarian and absolutist governments that preside over unproductive economies and stagnant intellectual climates. This has made it incredibly weak and prone to conquest. The massacre happening in Gaza right now is but the latest in a long line dating back to Napoleon, the Czars, and even the Reconquista.

Despite this history of conquest and instability, Muslim leaders refuse to implement the sort of reforms that could help them to finally modernize and stabilize their nations. Instead, they furiously cling to power, refusing to change. In the same way America’s leaders can only offer thoughts and prayers or make impotent demands for legislation they know will never pass after massacres like the one in Maine, the Muslim world’s leaders can only hold meetings and issue scathing press releases as they watch Gaza’s children die. They may pretend to care about the Palestinians, but their refusal to change their ways, the repression they inflict on their own people and their refusal to speak against China’s crimes against its Muslim populations suggests their concern is mostly for show or politics. Due to their inaction and hypocrisy, Muslims are too weak to challenge America’s fleet as it stands watch over another slaughter.

Both the need for reform and the solutions have been obvious for a long time. As explained here, secular democracy has always been the ideal form of Islamic government. Adopting inclusive, democratic forms of government based on the rule of law would significantly improve the Muslim world’s military abilities while paving the way for the sort of regional integration and mutual security arrangements that could finally stabilize it. But aside from a few flawed experiments like those in Turkey and Indonesia, most of the Muslim world’s nations refuse to adopt this model.

I have repeatedly tried to warn the Muslim world’s rulers they are on a dangerous path. I warned that “Israelis just elected a government that will murder thousands of Palestinians” when they first voted Netanyahu and his Kahanists allies to power. I even begged the Palestinians to surrender years ago because it was obvious they had lost the armed struggle for their own state.

As the slaughter happening right now shows, they should have listened. As such, I must renew my call for Hamas and the Palestinians to surrender. Given the IDF’s refusal to distinguish between Hamas and the women and children who live among them, it would be prudent for all Palestinians to wave white flags of surrender. Palestinians in the West Bank and Israel would do well to follow suite in solidarity with their brothers and sisters in Gaza. Peaceful, non-violent resistance is the only sane path left for them.

Unfortunately, my advice and warnings have gone unheeded so far. Which is a pity, because fires of the sort burning in Gaza tend to spread. Israel’s invasion of Gaza, even if it removes Hamas from power, will not lead to peace or even calm without a just political agreement with the Palestinians and dismantling the apartheid apparatus that has been built to subjugate them. Since Israel’s government is run by men incapable of making such an agreement, a repetition and expansion of the cycle of violence is almost certain.  The Muslim world’s rulers would do well to prepare for the chaos that is coming.

Having done my best to highlight the rank hypocrisy of both the Western and Muslim worlds, I must now express my profound shame as I watch my country enable yet another massacre of defenseless women and children while the Muslim world impotently looks on. I am ashamed to be an American. But I am even more ashamed of myself and my fellow Muslims. There are nearly 1.9 billion Muslims in the world and not one of us has the power to stop this evil. Our leaders and governments may bear most of the fault, but even if it’s a distorted view, they are still a reflection of the people and societies they rule over. Every single one of us bears responsibility for what is happening to Gaza. One can only wonder how many more massacres we will watch before we make the desperately needed changes to our societies that can finally give us the strength to stop them.

What America and Israel are doing is evil. Murdering more children will never lead to peace. There is no justification for what is being done to the people of Gaza. America is not the arsenal of democracy, as some like to pretend. It is the arsenal of dictators and apartheid and the world’s preeminent merchant of death. That much is obvious. But none of this would be happening if Muslims were not so unbelievably weak.  

Since our governments do not have the strength to take action, every one of us must speak out to stop this madness. The IDF beat back Hamas’ attack and captured many of its fighters while the rest retreated. The battle Hamas started on Oct. 7th is over. Israel’s military has re-established control of Gaza’s border, removing the threat of more attacks. What is happening now is not self-defense but revenge and collective punishment. Completely destroying Hamas, if it is even possible, would require destroying the entire Gaza strip and murdering tens or possibly even hundreds of thousands of women and children.

Those who remain silent are just as complicit as those depraved souls who rationalize these crimes by conflating Hamas with the Palestinian people or making disingenuous and grossly inaccurate comparisons with the Nazis. Unless Hamas has 100 panzer divisions along with a fleet of powerful aircraft and ships in its tunnels, the comparison is misguided, at best.  Its primary purpose is to help Israel’s leaders deflect calls to pursue a diplomatic solution. Israelis may find the idea of negotiating with Hamas repugnant and, given the thousands of children murdered these past few weeks, Hamas’ leaders probably feel the same way. Regardless, the only way to salvage anything worthwhile from this war is to use it as a path to real peace but that requires dialogue, not dropping thousands of pounds of explosives on residential areas. Otherwise, the cycle will only repeat itself with greater intensity.

Sadly, we live in a world where even our “liberal” leaders prefer war over peace. President Biden could have tried for a Camp David moment. Instead, he responded to a massacre by green lighting another massacre. Yet one more horrible decision from a man who chose Clarence Thomas over Anita Hill, supported the Iraq War, denied Israel was an apartheid state and considered giving Saudi Arabia nuclear technology in a misguided attempt to seek peace by marginalizing the Palestinians. Hopefully, the President’s actions will cost him the swing states of Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania during the next election, sparing the world from more of his awful decisions.

As a brown man in America, I have learned to be very careful when I share my thoughts. Particularly since there are people who think speaking up for children makes me a terrorist sympathizer or that calling Israel what it is – an apartheid state – makes me an antisemite. Despite these risks, I have no choice but to say something when children are murdered by American made bombs funded by my taxes.

I realize most Americans will never read these thoughts and those few who do will either vilify me or follow President Biden’s lead and dismiss them out of hand. Nevertheless, I will continue to remind everyone that men who hurt children are evil. Children are off-limits. Whether their parents are terrorists or settler colonialists is irrelevant. The ease with which so many rationalize or ignore the slaughter of children is disgusting and shameful. It may seem pointless but the only thing we can do is continue to speak for peace and sanity and answer hate with love. Be the change, as a wise person once advised. Violence is never the answer.

These events have also forced Muslims in the West to confront our place here yet again. There are millions of us who have grown up here, across multiple generations. We have in many ways become embedded into Western society and culture. But our increased numbers and influence did not matter. The leaders we voted for betrayed us and the alternative is even scarier. What are we to do?

I can only speak for myself, and I have decided to vote with my feet and leave. I do not counsel this lightly, particularly since the Muslim world is not a very attractive place either. In an ideal world, we could take the skills and capital we have acquired during our stay in the West and return to our homelands to stimulate a much needed renaissance. But the Muslim world is a repressive place and many of us would quickly run afoul of its stifling rules. The same blasphemy laws, political repression, and corrupt, backwards economies that make it so weak would make for a tough transition and risky investment.

But at some point, we may not have a choice. There are 20 million AR15 style assault rifles floating around America. When it finally collapses under the weight of its massive spending and debts, things are going to get ugly. If another war in the Middle East hastens these trends, Muslims will suffer for it. There is a dark side to Western civilization that is often ignored. Westerners have a history of committing brutal violence against those they consider inferior or find suspicious and those suspicions are often rooted in racial and religious bigotry. The Inquisition, the era of violent colonial conquests, the Holocaust, the reign of the KKK in the American south and South Africa’s and Israel’s embrace of apartheid are just a few examples of this history. To expect that Muslims will continue to prosper and remain safe given this pattern and America’s current trajectory is simply not realistic. As much as we have all grown to love our homes in the West, we must face the fact that we are not wanted and may not always be safe here. There will always be elements who view us as outsiders and these same elements own a lot of those AR 15s. Escape, especially when it is properly planned for, may be the best option. The real dilemma is figuring out the destination.

The author is a US Navy veteran and lawyer who usually writes about ways to modernize the Muslim world on his blog, www.mirrorsfortheprince.com

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

Applying Ibn Khaldun’s ideas to China and Saudi Arabia

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorized4 Comments on Applying Ibn Khaldun’s ideas to China and Saudi Arabia

The last few years have seen two similar, but independent developments occur in Saudi Arabia and China. Both nations have witnessed the rise of leaders who have upended long standing traditions and norms as they accumulated an unprecedented amount of power for themselves.  

Though unrelated, these simultaneous power grabs provide an opportunity to revisit the ideas first discussed by Ibn Khaldun many centuries ago. It may seem odd to rely on a 14th century North African historian to explain why these developments will cause serious long-term issues in both nations, or even to discuss them together, but that is exactly what this essay shall endeavor.

Ibn Khaldun’s Muqadeema has been described as one of the greatest history books ever written. Though well deserved, this lofty praise hardly does justice to the scope and breath of his work. The Muqadeema is more than just a history book. It provides an analytical framework that explains the ebb and flow of history itself.

Khaldun developed a generational decay model that explains the lifecycle of dynasties as they are founded, grow powerful, and inevitably fall into decay and ruin. He did so after examining the Umayyads, Abbasids, and various North African and Iberian Muslim dynasties. Despite focusing on the evolution of Muslim dynasties, his ideas are based on universal themes regarding the differences between absolutists and pluralistic political institutions and how success often carries the seeds of its own doom with it. As a result, they are still useful when examining modern political systems.

According to Khaldun, all dynasties follow a natural pattern. They are founded by powerful groups who take political control of their societies based on their group cohesion and toughness, and the way in which these characteristics lead to martial abilities. He calls this “group feeling[1],” which is his shorthand way of describing the bonds that allow people to work together to attain what he calls “royal authority[2]” or political control over their societies. In Khaldun’s day, these bonds were mostly familial or tribal, but he also understood that they can be based on additional factors like religion or shared experiences[3].

Saudi Arabia is but the latest in a long line of Arab hereditary dictatorships dating back to the Umayyad era and, as a result, fits exceptionally well within Khaldun’s model. The more interesting exercise is thinking about how the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) functions much like the tribes and familial groups of Khaldun’s day. The founders of modern China may not have possessed the Bedouin toughness of the Arab tribes Khaldun studied. But just as his theories proved equally applicable to the Turkish tribes that founded the Ottoman Empire and how their lives on the Steppe shaped them and allowed them to supplant the Arabs, they can be seen at work among those who survived the ordeals of the Long March to found China’s modern state.

Khaldun explains that as a new dynasty is formed, the strong group feeling of its members allows them to create power structures that are more pluralistic and implement policies conducive to growth and prosperity since their frugality and simple lifestyles leads to relatively benign, laissez faire governance. But over time, as the dynasty ages, two related but independent factors lead to its demise.

The first is that once the group takes power, its members begin to live luxurious lifestyles, which corrupts their character[4] and leads to weakened finances[5]. As this is happening, a ruler emerges who concentrates the lion’s share of power in his hands or those of his close supporters. In Khaldun’s opinion, it is the excessive consumption of luxury and concentration of power in the hands of an all-powerful ruler that ultimately dooms dynasties.

Once the ruler accumulates most of the power for himself and his close supporters, the exercise of political power is no longer restrained by institutional mechanisms or consensus building arrangements. It therefore becomes more dependent on the personalities and capabilities of those individuals wielding it. At the beginning of the dynasty the ruler still has the “desert toughness[6]” (or something comparable) that allows for good leadership. Having learned directly from their fathers, the second generation will typically be effective rulers too. But as dynasties age, they grow soft and spoiled. Each successive generation of rulers becomes weaker the further removed they are from the strength and vitality present at the founding of the dynasty.

The process does not happen overnight. Khaldun states it typically takes between three to six generations[7], because as each successive generation grows up in more and more luxury, they lose their “manliness[8]” because of the way that “luxury corrupts character[9].” While Khaldun’s choice of words may be somewhat outdated for our time, the point he is trying to make is that inheriting power and growing up in wealth and luxury makes for weak rulers.

The key trigger is the accumulation of power by the ruler since Khaldun’s model does not begin to take effect until the ruler “claims all the glory for himself[10].” As dynasties age, they become more absolutist, concentrating power in the hands of people who are unfit to rule. Once this happens, rulers begin to fall for the trappings of power and pursue luxury and comfort above all else. This leads to wasteful spending as rulers must pay for increasingly lavish lifestyles and higher state expenditures. This inevitably leads to higher taxes and insecure property rights as rulers seize the property of their subjects to pay for their expenses[11].

This simultaneously depresses economic activity, undermining the fiscal position of the government, and reduces social cohesion by eroding trust between ruler and subjects. This process weakens all societies, but those governed by dictatorships decay the fastest because of the way in which they concentrate power at the top. Once this happens dynasties reach their “senility[12],” the final stage in their lifecycle. Democratic political systems are better at delaying the effects of Khaldun’s model because of the way in which they diffuse power.

By now, the relevance to both China and Saudi Arabia should be obvious. China’s premier Xi Jinping used the Chinese Communist Party’s recent 20th party Congress to give himself an unprecedented third term in office. But the events of the 20th Congress were years in the making. Over the past ten years, Xi has gradually eroded the norms that have maintained balance between the various factions of China’s communist party elite to make sure no one could oppose his desire for an extended stay in office.

In a recent article for Foreign Affairs, Jude Blanchette described the process in detail as he explained how Xi “moved rapidly to consolidate his political authority” by marginalizing “his enemies,” and taming “China’s once highflying technology and financial conglomerates” to “crush internal dissent.” He also led a “campaign to eliminate political pluralism and liberal ideologies from public discourse, announced new guidelines restricting the growth of the party’s membership, and added new ideological requirements for would-be party members.” As a result of these efforts, he installed allies and loyalists in key positions thus guaranteeing his ability to retain power beyond two terms. In the process he has turned himself into China’s most powerful leader since Deng Xiaoping.

Saudi Arabia has gone through a similar process as the young Mohammad Bin Salman (MBS) has undertaken a similar power grab by upending long standing family traditions and re-balancing its power structures in his favor. In his work on the Crown Prince, Ben Hubbard detailed how he used an anti-corruption drive featuring the use of the Ritz Carlton as a make-shift prison to end “the days when the kingdom had relatively independent power centers with lucrative and rich tycoons linked to them. Now they all answered to MBS[13]” who “now ruled the Saudi economy[14].” According to Hubbard, “the royal family no longer functioned as it once had. Gone were the days when seniority reigned, elder princes divided portfolios among themselves, and made decisions through consensus. MBS has destroyed that system, extending control over the military, the oil industry, the intelligence services, the police, and the National Guard replacing senior princes with younger ones who answered to him[15].”

The developments described by Blanchette and Hubbard are consistent with the same process Khaldun described in which pluralistic power structures give way to more absolutist arrangements.

As an established hereditary dictatorship, the steps taken by MBS in Saudi Arabia will undoubtedly lead to instability and chaos sooner rather than later. But as the Ottomans showed, Khaldun’s model predicts general patterns, not specific timelines. Customs and institutions created at the founding of a dynasty can either delay or accelerate the process. The Ottomans delayed the effects of Khaldun’s model for so long because their tradition of awarding leadership to the most militarily capable claimant to the throne led to a succession of strong rulers who were able to build strong institutions. These institutions were able to maintain the decadent lifestyles of their descendants for much longer than even Ibn Khaldun would have guessed. Kennedy states that “after 1566 there reigned thirteen incompetent sultans in succession[16]” which caused the Ottoman Empire to “increasingly suffer from some of the defects of being centralized, despotic, and severely orthodox in its attitude toward initiative, dissent, and commerce. An idiot sultan could paralyze the Ottoman Empire.[17]” Kennedy is describing how the Ottomans succumbed to the same process Khaldun described. Successive generations of Sultans became weaker and weaker and were no longer able to hold their empire together or govern effectively.

China has been ruled by a single party dictatorship since the end of WWII with different premiers passing power in 5-10 year increments based on a consensus reached by various factions within the party. The institutional mechanisms in place these past many decades have prevented it from developing into the sort of hereditary dictatorships that reign in the Muslim world.

Nevertheless, it is now following the same pattern predicted by Khaldun. Those who endured the Long March to found the communist state and implement the reforms that led to its current economic growth have been replaced by a younger generation of leaders that covets luxury and the sort of ostentatious displays of wealth that their predecessors would likely have found obnoxious. The success of its economy has undermined the character of its ruling class and their increased greed, inefficient resource allocation, nepotism, and corruption will continue to undermine its economic growth in a manner that creates significant instability. These issues will only grow as its political system becomes more absolutist.  

The impact of Xi’s power grab can already be seen at work. Blanchette highlights the “flagging productivity” of its economy and how “for many companies, success depends on favors granted by the party.” Similarly, the less “nuanced diplomacy” practiced by Xi when compared to Mao and Deng is also consistent with Khaldun’s generational decay process. If his model is accurate, one can expect Xi’s concentration of power to lead to “senility[18]” though it may take several decades to manifest.

It is possible, but unlikely, that the CCP returns to more pluralistic power structures the same way it did after Mao’s disastrous reign. However, consistent with Khaldun’s ideas, the group feeling and pragmatism of those who took over after Mao has dissipated over the years. Those who succeed Xi are therefore more likely to continue his absolutists trajectory[19]. The degree to which Xi’s policies impact China’s long-term development will correlate to the length of time he stays in power and whether he passes power to a family member, though there are no indications of this yet.

Many in America view China’s growing power as an existential threat. The trends discussed above would indicate otherwise. An unstable China presents problems, but mostly to its immediate neighbors and its own people (like the unfortunate Uyghurs). It is unlikely to pose a serious long-term challenge to America so long as it remains a healthy democracy. America’s surest path to maintaining its dominant position vis-à-vis China is to ensure its political system remains inclusive, pluralistic, and democratic. America’s obsession with countering China, much like its obsession with countering the spread of communism, will ultimately prove unnecessary.

By inference, the ideas discussed above also show why communism, as an ideology and political force, has been such a spectacular failure. China may still use the vocabulary and rhetoric of its communist roots but ceased functioning like a classical communist state decades ago. In fact, aside from Cuba, no government based on communist ideology has been able to survive. Even North Korea is better classified as totalitarian dictatorship than a communist state. However, this discussion still provides a good opportunity to briefly explain why communist polities are inherently unstable, if it is not already apparent.

Communist systems suffer from two fatal flaws. The first is that they concentrate power within centralized governments in a way that naturally lends itself to the development of authoritarian dictatorships. We have seen the inevitable result of concentrating power in political systems.

By allowing politicians to centralize control of economic resources, communist systems concentrate power in the hands of the few or as Lenin called them the “vanguard.” Concentrated power always leads to abuse as the people wielding it are tempted to use it for their personal benefit. As such, the inherently unstable and violent nature of communist systems also stems from the fact that communist ideas lend themselves to the development of absolutist and authoritarian institutions. That is why these ideas have never led to the creation of a prosperous or stable political entity underpinned by the strength of its ideas as opposed to the strength of its armed enforcers.   

The second flaw is that, as an ideology, communism is not based on a realistic assessment of how humans are motivated by incentives. It is an inherently illogical system that seeks to achieve the impossible. Hierarchy and social strata are intrinsic to human societies. Trying to change this fact through public policy, even if well-intentioned, is a fool’s errand. As a result, communist ideas can never form the basis for a stable political system. The better path is to ensure social mobility between classes by providing resources such as public education to all citizens so that those with the talent and desire to do so can change their station in life. But attempting to create economic equality for all only leads to dictatorship and poverty.

This is also consistent with Khaldun’s ideas regarding the purpose of government.  For Khaldun, political authority is meant to act as a restraining influence[20] on people to prevent lawlessness and strife. The laws and customs that govern must be “rational[21]” and the ruler fulfills his purpose best when he allows “people to act in their own best interests[22].” He also explains that “attacks on people’s property remove the incentive to acquire and gain property[23]” which leads to ruin because “civilization and its well-being as well as business prosperity depend on productivity and people’s efforts in all directions in their own interest and profit. When people no longer do business in order to make a living, and when they cease all gainful activity, the business of civilization slumps, and everything decays[24].” Communist systems, to the extent that they destroy the incentive to acquire property/capital, will always lead to instability and collapse because they are irrational and unjust and “injustice ruins civilization[25].”

The ideas discussed above are self-evident and based on common sense and logic; however, the degree to which rulers like those in China and Saudi Arabia habitually ignore them motivated this essay.

[1] Khaldun, Ibn, The Muaqddimah An Introduction to History, trans. Rosenthal, Franz (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005), 111)

[2] Id. at 111-113.

[3] Id. at 124-26; 292.

[4] Id. at 135.

[5] Id. at 231-34.

[6] Id. at 137.

[7] Id. at 136-42.

[8] Id. at 150.

[9] Id. at 135.

[10] Id. at 134.

[11] Id. at 231-32.

[12] Id. at 142.

[13] Hubbard, Ben, MBS (New York: Crown), 202.

[14] Id. at 202.

[15] Id. at 267.

[16] Kennedy, Paul, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, (New York: Vintage Books), 11.

[17] Id. at 11-12.

[18] Khaldun at 142.

[19] Which would also be consistent with the Iron Law of Oligarchy described in Why Nations Fail.

[20] Id. at 152.

[21] Id. at 153.

[22] Id. at 189.

[23] Id. at 238.

[24] Id. at 238.

[25] Id. at 239.

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

America’s alliance with Saudi Arabia reminds me of a bad movie

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorizedLeave a Comment on America’s alliance with Saudi Arabia reminds me of a bad movie

“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.

Tagged : / / / /

Iran is fighting America and Israel with one arm tied behind its back

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorized4 Comments on Iran is fighting America and Israel with one arm tied behind its back

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)

Tagged : / / / / /

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Tagged : / / / /

Lessons from the war in Ukraine

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

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

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

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

PUTIN’S BEST OPTION IS TO RETREAT IMMEDIATELY

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

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

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

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

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

LESSONS AND ADVICE FOR UKRAINE

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

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

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

LESSONS FOR THE REST OF US

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TYING IT BACK TO THE MUSLIM WORLD AND WRAPPING IT UP

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

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

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

Tagged : / / / /