This article was first published here by the Friday Times on July 3, 2023.
Understanding the world and where it’s heading requires understanding how seemingly unrelated pieces of information fit together. For example, at first glance a tourism summit, an agreement to build jet engines, and a map in a new parliament building may not seem connected. But these three data points highlight trends that should worry those charged with leading and protecting Pakistan.
India’s G20 tourism summit in Kashmir last month was meant to show the world that the disputed territory was peaceful and prosperous. Despite the heavy presence of Indian soldiers and drastic security measures that strongly suggested otherwise, most of the world seemed to accept India’s Orwellian narrative. Aside from a few of Pakistan’s close allies, the G20’s members were happy to help India whitewash its brutal military occupation of the Himalayan state. One that has claimed the lives of roughly 100,000 Kashmiris who desired nothing more than the right to govern themselves as free people instead of living as second class subjects under a hostile regime.
Next, we have the various military and technological cooperation agreements signed between India and America during Prime Minister Modi’s visit to celebrate the growing strategic partnership between both nations. The deal to build jet engines was one of many designed to drastically improve India’s military capabilities while connecting it to America’s defense industry.
Finally, we have India’s new parliament building which prominently displays a map of an “undivided India” depicting Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Nepal and Pakistan as part of a unified India. When its neighbors voiced their concerns, India’s leaders insisted the map was only meant as an homage to an ancient Indian empire. But India’s Minister of Parliamentary Affairs, Pralhad Joshi, did not partake in such gaslighting. Via twitter, he succinctly explained the map shows India’s resolve to pursue an extremist right-wing agenda predicated on uniting the Subcontinent into a single nation, presumably one governed from New Delhi called “Akhand Bharat.”
In their own way, each of these data points reinforces one unmistakable truth. Pakistan is in trouble. The tourism summit proves the world will turn a blind eye to India’s horrific human rights abuses in Kashmir as well as its increasingly heavy-handed approach to the region. While the military agreements highlight America’s intent to actively help India commit new abuses by turning it into a formidable military power. The map is a frightening indication of how India intends to use its new power. It is a stark reminder of the right-wing lunacy that has fueled the BJP’s rise to power and how these developments might destabilize the entire region.
To understand how, one need only look to the Middle East. Just as its unequivocal support empowered Israel to attack and subjugate the Arabs, America’s support for India could have the same impact on the Subcontinent. Its blind insistence that Israel is a healthy democracy even though it is clearly a violent apartheid state shows it will employ the same gaslighting to shield India if it pursues similar policies.
These are not the only data points that should worry Pakistan. The summit and military agreements are merely a reflection of India’s growing clout on the world stage since it implemented a series of economic reforms in the 90’s. Due to these reforms, India will soon have the world’s third biggest economy. Its increased wealth has translated to more power and significantly larger military budgets.
Similarly, the map of an “undivided India” is not the only example of India’s rightward lurch. The BJP’s attacks on free speech and the marginalization of India’s minorities, particularly its Muslims have already been well documented. Perhaps the biggest indication of India’s growing fanaticism is the fact that the guy pegged to replace Modi, Yogi Adityanath, is a right-wing thug masquerading as a Hindu priest.
Unfortunately, there is so much data pointing to danger for Pakistan that it is difficult to sift through it all or even know which data set to prioritize. Whether from the growing power of its neighbor to the east, its stagnant and inefficient economy, dysfunctional political system, deteriorating internal security situation, exploding population, or climate change, Pakistan faces a myriad of threats that are only getting more challenging by the day. Each is potentially existential in nature.
Thankfully, the solution to all these problems is the same. Pakistan’s government must finally start providing the public services needed to nurture the economic and technological development that can allow it to prosper and protect itself in an increasingly unhinged world. The future belongs to those nations capable of building advanced semiconductors, quantum computers, A.I. powered software, and similar goods. Building a scientific and industrial base that can lead to these abilities will require deep rooted reforms designed to empower and educate its people, improve its finances, and establish the rule of law.
Instead of implementing these desperately needed reforms, its leaders have opted to use China as a crutch. However, creating a neo-colonial dependency on China will only provide the illusion of modernization without any of the substance. As India’s example so poignantly illustrates, Pakistan will never prosper until it creates a democratic political system that can unleash the energy of its people. Until that happens, the threats to its freedom and prosperity will only grow.
To fix a problem, one must get to the root of the issue. Of course, that is often easier said than done. Pakistan’s economy, for example, is perennially in crisis and unable to provide a decent standard of living for many of its 220 million people.
What is the root of the issue? Corruption? Poor governance and suffocating bureaucracy? Awful or non-existent public schools? A massive trade imbalance? Excessive military spending? The answer to all these questions is a resounding yes. But these issues are themselves the result of Pakistan’s lack of inclusive and open political institutions which has prevented Pakistanis from building an accountable government responsive to their needs. The root of the issue is therefore Pakistan’s lack of democracy.
To be clear, democracy does not start or end with elections, though they are an important feature. A true democracy is based on allowing genuine participation in the political system by all relevant stakeholders. It is based on ensuring the consent of the governed through the creation of institutional mechanisms, establishing the rule of law, and ensuring freedom of expression and peaceful association. Only then can a society create political and social institutions that foster strong economic growth, thereby strengthening the fiscal position of the government through increased tax revenue.
To that end, Pakistan will require a bevy of reforms. It must build a public education system that can finally provide all its citizens with a high-quality modern education. But to build vibrant educational institutions, it must first repeal laws that limit the ability of its citizens to express themselves. That is the only way to create an intellectual climate and electorate capable of engaging in the sort of lively debates necessary to formulate policies in a democratic system. It is also the only way to nurture the technological development so crucial to economic growth.
To establish the rule of law, it must build courts that allow for fair and efficient dispute resolution and that can safeguard the property rights of its citizens. It will also need to tear most of its incompetent law enforcement and regulatory agencies down to the studs before rebuilding them. Without the rule of law, neither democracy nor the economy can prosper.
Finally, it will need to empower provincial legislative bodies and devolve power as much as possible to the local level. Pakistan’s people and provinces are simply too diverse to be properly governed by a strong federal government. Diffusing power locally as much as possible is the most logical way to limit resource extraction by distant elites while ensuring citizens have a say in the laws that govern them.
Rather than implement much needed reforms to strengthen its democracy, Pakistan’s newly installed government has opted for loans from China and the IMF and a new “super” tax on certain corporate sectors. Getting loans from allies and international institutions or imposing temporary tax increases may ameliorate Pakistan’s short term financial problems but they do not address their root causes. In fact, they reinforce its problems by taking away the greatest motivation for reform: necessity. So long as Pakistan can access funds from its patrons, its elite will have no incentive to institute the sort of changes that can finally end its seemingly permanent state of poverty and underdevelopment.
The rapid economic growth of countries governed by authoritarian political institutions in East Asia has led some to conclude that democracy is not a vital pre-condition to economic growth. These examples should be viewed as an exception to the general rule established by America, Germany, Israel, and Japan. It is no coincidence that four of the world’s most innovative and prosperous economies feature democratic political systems, strong free speech protections, and well-funded public schools. Nor is it a coincidence that Turkey is one of the Muslim world’s most developed nations given its long experiment with democracy. Even Turkey’s economic and technological weaknesses prove the point, as its history of military coups and authoritarian tendencies likely explain why it is not on the same developmental tier as the four powerhouse nations referenced above.
The evidence can lead to no other conclusion: Pakistan will remain a poor and weak nation until it creates the sort of democratic political institutions required to support and stimulate strong economic growth.
Some within the Muslim world have argued that democracy is an un-Islamic Western import. They are hopelessly misguided. The political institutions created by the Rashidun during the early Islamic era, though not democratic by modern standards, clearly show that democracy is the form of government closest to the Islamic ideal. Conversely, they also show that monarchies and dictatorships are patently un-Islamic. It is no coincidence that the height of Islam’s power came when its leaders were chosen based on their standing in the community rather than their familial relationship to the prior ruler or ability to violently seize or maintain power.
More importantly, the Saudi regime and the Taliban both prove that blindly mimicking institutions and clinging to ideas that are 1400 years old when establishing modern governments is a recipe for hypocrisy, instability, and violence. They also show why religion and politics are such a toxic mix.
The lessons for Pakistan (and by extension, the wider Muslim world) are obvious and have been for a long time. Unfortunately, its military and feudal rulers refuse to listen. Thus, the root of the problem remains unaddressed, causing its various symptoms to spread and choke off development in a variety of ways.
For more implausible and improbable musings about the Muslim world and international affairs, check out my blog: www.mirrorsfortheprince.com
Here’s a statement most Americans will probably disagree with: America is the wealthiest and most powerful empire the world has ever known. Acknowledging that our wealth and power are without rival is easy, we just have a hard time with the empire part. Especially since we are ruled by an elected president and legislative body instead of a monarch. According to the Oxford Dictionary, that means we cannot be an empire.
No disrespect to the folks at Oxford, but their definition seems limited. Yuval Harari’s definition of empire in his book, Sapien, as “a political order” that rules “a significant number of distinct peoples, each possessing a different cultural identity and a separate territory” is a better one. Based on Harari’s description, a polity that includes territories as varied as Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, Diego Garcia, Southern California, Louisiana, and Massachusetts certainly qualifies as an empire.
Our refusal to self-identify as one is primarily rooted in our democratic ethos and the fact that we once had to fight to break free from the British empire. It also detracts from the idea of American exceptionalism since it forces us to admit our similarity to empires of the past. Despite our historical and philosophical aversion to being described as such, it seems clear that America has evolved into an empire. Without an honest assessment of ourselves, accurately diagnosing what ails us becomes impossible. And the reality is that our empire is in trouble.
We are following a pattern many others have followed. We have expanded over vast territories and built a very expensive military to protect this territory. Doing so required creating a central government with the power to tax and marshal resources on a scale that was far beyond anything envisioned by the creators of our federal system of governance. This also led to the development of interest groups with the means and incentives to push for a massive amount of continuous military spending. Just as the Romans, Ottomans, and British before us, we are slowly collapsing under the weight of maintaining our military. In fact, much of our $30 trillion debt can be traced to this spending. As this number grows, it will continue to weaken the economic foundations that are the true source of American power.
The curious part to all of this is that, unlike the British, Ottomans, or Romans, most of our empire is easily defended. The Pacific and Atlantic oceans and the Canadian shield have always been our best military assets. Yet, our military leaders have developed a force posture and military doctrine that requires twenty aircraft carriers, over a million personnel, thousands of fighter jets and bombers, and around 4,000 nuclear warheads at a cost of $700-800 billion a year.
The size of our military traces its roots to WW2 which saw America ally itself with the Russian, French and British empires to prevent Germany, Italy, and Japan from creating empires for themselves. We did so by building a massive military capable of simultaneously fighting its way onto continental Europe and controlling the Pacific. Part of that process entailed establishing a network of forward bases throughout Europe and Asia. Once the war ended, America did not completely stand down. Instead, it found itself fighting the Cold War against its former allies in the Soviet Union. This conflict led to the entrenchment and expansion of the military infrastructure created to fight the Axis powers.
The Cold War ended over thirty years ago, but America still refused to shrink its military. Instead, shortly after the Soviet Union’s collapse we invaded the Muslim world and began building a network of bases to secure its energy supplies. As a result, our empire has been in a nearly continuous state of war for most of the past 80 years. Our war against the Muslim world is finally wrapping up but instead of talking about a peace dividend, our leaders seem intent on using China to justify maintaining our aggressive military posture.
Our military is no longer designed to defend us but to project American power throughout the world in pursuit of vaguely defined “interests.” As our mounting debt shows, the cost of maintaining our military dominance over the rest of the world is starting to add up. Instead of dealing with the reality of our worsening finances by admitting that it is time for America to finally stand down, our leaders passionately argue against such measures. Their refusal to do so will likely doom us to the same fate suffered by every other empire that has come before us, whether we are willing to admit it or not.
The author is a US Navy veteran. He usually provides improbable and implausible musings about the Muslim world and international affairs on his blog, www.mirrorsfortheprince.com.
Author’s note: I wrote most of this article over a year ago but have been unable to publish it until now. Instead of updating it, I decided to publish it as is because developments over the past year merely support my conclusions. For example, as discussed below, a year ago America’s debt was $20 trillion. It has now climbed to $28 trillion. Similarly, America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan and its refusal to get involved in the latest round of fighting between Israelis and Palestinians both support my central argument: America’s military withdrawal from the Muslim world is inevitable. If I were a betting man, I would wager that America’s military presence throughout the Middle East and North Africa will be a shell of what it is today 15-30 years from now:
INTRODUCTION
Due to a combination of political and economic factors as well as its shifting national security priorities, the US will eventually withdraw its military from the Muslim world. It is not a question of whether America will withdraw its forces, but of when and how. Economically, the financial shocks of the COVID-19 Pandemic combined with the high levels of debt held by the US government and America’s diminished manufacturing capacity will necessitate a sharp reduction in US government spending. Politically, America’s right wing wishes to withdraw from the Muslim world due to its isolationist and nationalist views while its left wing favors a withdrawal due to its anti-imperialist views. They may disagree on why and how, but neither end of America’s political spectrum wants to keep troops in the Muslim world. Finally, America’s military deployments to the Muslim world are no longer supported by pressing national security interests. The combined effect of these factors will inevitably lead to a withdrawal of American troops from this part of the world.
The United States has become the dominant military power in the Middle East and throughout much of the Islamic world. It currently has troops stationed in several Muslim countries such as Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Oman, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. Its naval forces control the Persian Gulf and its allies in Israel and NATO control the Mediterranean. It is the main arms supplier to many Muslim nations such as Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, and the UAE which gives the US significant leverage over these militaries while its allies in Europe supply weapons to many other Muslim states such as Morocco and Algeria. It also regularly conducts military operations and drone strikes throughout Africa as well as Yemen. Iran is the only Muslim country that actively refuses to accept this situation and, as a result, is subject to brutal economic sanctions and clandestine military operations. In other words, the United States and its allies have effective military control over a substantial portion of the Muslim world. The problem is that America’s robust military presence comes with a steep price tag that is becoming increasingly unaffordable[i].
In addition to the $6 trillion cost of America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the constant deployment of troops to the Muslim world has forced its military planners to fund and arm a military that is much larger than would otherwise be needed. These extra funding requirements have been a feature of US defense budgets for decades. Even the official budgets for America’s military underestimate the true cost of its military spending because they do not include all the funds spent on nuclear weapons or intelligence activities[ii]. Although it is difficult to gauge how much of America’s military spending is tied directly to the Muslim world, given its extensive military infrastructure in this part of the world, the long duration of its presence, and large number of troops involved, it is reasonable to assume the true amount significantly exceeds the $6 trillion spent in Iraq and Afghanistan the past two decades.
WHY AMERICA HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO WITHDRAW FROM THE MUSLIM WORLD
ECONOMIC FACTORS:
America’s withdrawal will primarily be driven by its finances. The COVID-19 Pandemic has brought the unhealthy debt levels of the US government into focus once again; however, America’s debt has loomed over it for years. Rather than making the tough compromises necessary to devise balanced budgets, America’s leaders have resolved the age-old debate of guns versus butter by liberally borrowing money to ensure they lacked neither. At the same time, America’s business and political leaders have entered into trade agreements that resulted in severe reductions to its manufacturing capacity. The result has been skyrocketing levels of debt and unsustainable trade imbalances. The staggering amount of resources America pours into its military combined with the significant reductions to its manufacturing base[iii] have drained its economy and, together, pose one of the biggest threats to its continuing prosperity.[iv] At its height, American power was largely derived from its economic, political, and cultural dominance as well as its ability to apply overwhelming military force, as it did in WWI and WWII. Since the end of the Cold War, the US has reacted to its greater freedom of action as the sole remaining superpower by increasingly relying on military power to achieve foreign policy goals. This sustained dependence on military power combined with the gradual dismantling of America’s manufacturing base has diminished its older and more important power centers of their vitality, decreasing the real basis of American power. Over the long run, the continued reliance on military power that is no longer supported by a strong manufacturing base has placed a heavy burden on resources. It has also led to a disconnect between perceptions of American power by its policymaking elites versus the realities and limits of this power.
As a result of America’s weakened financial position, its policymakers must re-prioritize how its military resources are used. Calling for deep cuts to spending may strike some as overly alarmist given the economic growth the US experienced prior to the COVID-19 outbreak. But America’s strong economic growth since the end of the Great Recession has diverted attention from the fact that its massive military spending, particularly since 9/11, has seriously undermined its fiscal position since this spending was only made possible through deficit financing. As the debt burden from this spending grows, it will limit the ability of the US government to meet its spending obligations. As a result, US policymakers must confront serious decisions regarding how to use America’s resources before their policy options become substantially more constrained. American policymakers face two choices. They can proactively adjust their foreign policy goals and military commitments to manage the changes its weak finances require, or they can wait until its debt is so burdensome that they will have no choice but to drastically cut military spending. The former option provides some ability to manage this transition, the latter does not.
POLITICAL FACTORS
In addition to its financial concerns, political trends within the US will also compel a withdrawal from the Muslim world. The increasing prevalence of arguments that favor withdrawing troops from the Muslim world, regardless of the potential impact on the region, show that many segments of American society have no desire to maintain its presence in the region. For example, when discussing the Middle East, Doug Bandow suggests “Washington should accept instability in the region[v]” as part of its efforts to reduce troop levels. These sentiments illustrate that Americans are tired of their military involvement in the Muslim world. America’s right wing sees its involvement as an unnecessary waste of resources that would be better spent in the US. America’s left sees its involvement as immoral and a continuation of ineffective neo-colonial policies. As such, both left and right favor withdrawing American forces from the Muslim world. In fact, this may be one of the few topics that America’s divided political factions agree on. These political trends are a result of growing dissatisfaction with America’s policies and will add pressure to withdraw troops from the region.
THE MUSLIM WORLD IS NO LONGER A NATIONAL SECURITY PRIORITY
Troop levels in the Muslim world are no longer supported by pressing national security interests. US policies in the Middle East have largely been shaped by the confluence of interests of the defense industry, energy industry, Israel, and the dictators that rule much of the region. Together, these groups have prevented the rise of a Muslim hegemon capable of taking over America’s security responsibilities. Instead, they have pushed the US to become the primary hegemonic power in the region by arguing that 1) increased military spending and arms sales to foreign countries are healthy for the US economy 2) American military forces were necessary to ensure the US had access to energy supplies 3) American troops were necessary to protect Israel and 4) American troops were necessary to provide stability by providing security guarantees to many of the governments of the region. These reasons do not make sense. Because of policies meant to appease these interest groups, the US has spent trillions of dollars and much political and moral capital in pursuit of policies that are too expensive and counter to its long-term interests. The influence of these groups has led to policies that have allowed them to make hundreds of billions of dollars but at a cost of trillions of dollars to American taxpayers. Since each of the interest groups primarily responsible for the development of US policy acts according to its own logic, it will be necessary to analyze them individually.
THE NEED TO SUPPORT THE DEFENSE INDUSTRY
After entering WWII, the United States converted its massive civilian manufacturing base into one that could supply its military with the weapons and supplies needed to defeat the Axis powers anywhere in the world. The ability to harness its extraordinary industrial capabilities for military use propelled it towards victory but also laid the seeds for many of the problems confronting it today. The creation of an industrial complex geared exclusively towards military production created companies with a vested interest in continued military spending and the political and financial means to influence US government policy to ensure high levels of military spending. The defense industry has therefore benefited from US policies in the Muslim world by filling the larger orders for weapons and supplies that were necessary to maintain America’s presence in the region and by supplying weapons to the governments of the Muslim world allied to it.
High levels of military spending have typically been justified on the basis that this spending, even if high in absolute terms, is relatively small as a proportion of US GDP and that such spending boosts both manufacturing and scientific research within the US. Though there is merit to these arguments, these policy justifications are no longer sufficient to support high levels of military spending due to the large debt the US has accrued. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the US government’s debt will reach $20.3 trillion by the end of 2020[vi]. These figures will increase as further stimulus packages to fight the COVID-19 Pandemic are approved and tax revenue shrinks due to reduced economic activity. In light of the rapidly increasing debt held by the US, arguments that justify high levels of military spending or debt by highlighting their relationship to overall GDP levels are no longer persuasive because they ignore the reality of America’s worsening finances. Instead of relying on distorted statistics that argue high levels of debt and military spending are acceptable, as a matter of common sense, it should be obvious that continuing to add to an already bloated deficit will only make repairing America’s financial strength more difficult. As such, even if military spending continues to hover around 3% of GDP (a level some argue is affordable), this spending must be considered too high if it is paid for by more deficit financing when the debt will soon pass $20 trillion! Even if the US has the capacity to borrow more, doing so must be tied to pressing economic needs such as dealing with the COVID-19 Pandemic, not unnecessary military spending.
Again, it is difficult to gauge the percentage of US military spending directly attributable to the Muslim world, but it is much easier to track weapons sales by US companies to foreign nations. The US has consistently been the biggest exporter of weapons to the world and many of its sales have been directed towards governments in the Muslim world. Saudi Arabia is one of the biggest consumers of US weapons, accounting for a fifth of total US weapons sales for the five-year period ending in 2017. Half of America’s weapons sales during this period went to customers in the Middle East or North Africa[vii]. Weapons sales to Islamic nations are justified on the basis that they are necessary to support America’s allies and contribute to economic development.
The problem with this reasoning is that the allies in question are exceptionally incompetent when it comes to engaging in modern warfare[viii]. As a result, selling weapons to these nations does not make them more secure or better able to resist attack from another nation. As the Arab Spring showed, these weapons are primarily meant for use against the people that have been forced to obey the region’s many dictators. Weapons sales to these dictators adds to the instability of the Muslim world by providing its despots with the means to intimidate and murder their people. Supporting these dictators contributes to instability in the region by propping up rulers who cannot adequately protect their nations, reside over extremely weak political and economic institutions, and can only govern based on fear and violence. Though these sales may subsidize the costs of America’s military infrastructure, the long-term moral and political cost is too high to justify the economic gains. Instead of selling weapons to the dictators of the Muslim world, the US must develop policies that can allow it to disentangle itself from the region by focusing on trade that does not involve weapons used by rulers to murder their own people. Aside from the fact that profiting from the pain and suffering of others is morally and ethically disgusting, it also creates a reinforcing loop that forces the US to maintain its military presence in the region. Despite their massive weapons purchases, the region’s dictators are not strong enough to retain power without American support. America’s military presence and weapons sales to the region only reinforces its instability by supporting the dictators that are the primary cause of this instability.
ACCESS TO ENERGY SUPPLIES
The primary justification behind US policies towards the Islamic world has always been the need to secure access to energy supplies. This justification is not valid for two reasons.
The first is that the Muslim world is incentivized to sell its mineral resources to the West because of the laws of supply and demand. Most energy exporting Muslim countries have been unable to diversify their economies away from their dependence on selling oil and gas. As such, they rely on this revenue to pay for the government services they provide, and do not have the domestic demand necessary to consume their own supplies. As a result, Muslims are just as eager to sell oil to the US as the US is to buy it. The Arabs have only used their oil as a weapon once and the effect of their boycott was just as traumatic to their economies as it was to Western economies. Consequently, they have never used oil as a weapon again. Withdrawing American troops would not affect the ability of the US to import as much oil has it needs for its own consumption. Arguments that rationalize the use of military assets to secure access to these resources or that justify support for dictators on the basis that they can guarantee timely oil deliveries are not persuasive because they ignore the basic laws of economics that should govern such transactions. They also ignore the simple fact that a weak, authoritarian government will be just as incentivized to sell oil as a strong, democratic one.
The second reason the US does not need to maintain its military presence is that it is no longer as dependent on Middle Eastern energy supplies. The US has developed its own domestic energy production capabilities and diversified its oil suppliers away from Muslim producers to such a degree that in 2019 only 11% of its crude oil imports came from the Persian Gulf[ix]. In fact, over half of US crude oil imports now come from Canada and Mexico. The increased ability of the US to satisfy its energy needs through domestic production and diversified suppliers means that it no longer needs to waste military resources securing these energy supplies.
THE NEED TO PROTECT ISRAEL
Part of the reason the US has sought to prevent the rise of an Islamic hegemon is to ensure no power can threaten Israel. The logic underlying this policy does not hold up to scrutiny for two reasons. The first is that Israel has developed a sophisticated nuclear triad that would deter even a powerful Muslim nation. It is Israel’s nuclear capabilities, not American support, that act as the ultimate guarantor of its survival and independence. As such, US efforts to ensure no Islamic nation or political entity can develop enough power to threaten Israel are an unnecessary waste of resources. The second is that the lack of a Muslim hegemonic power has removed any pressure on Israel to compromise with the Palestinians under its control. Israel’s right wing may see this as a victory, but it will eventually turn into a pyrrhic one because it will either lead to the inclusion of millions of Palestinians into Israel as equal citizens (a result many Israelis do not want) or it will lead to the creation of a new Apartheid regime in the Middle East. Israel’s right seem intent on creating the latter scenario even though doing so will turn it and its supporters in the US into international pariahs and ensure that it remains involved in low level conflict in perpetuity.
Israel has overwhelmingly won its conflict with the Palestinians and its Arab neighbors. There is almost no prospect for the creation of a viable Palestinian state because Israel has resoundingly defeated the Palestinians politically and militarily. The last vestige of meaningful Palestinian resistance offered by Hamas cannot match Israel’s military capabilities. Its policy of continued resistance plays directly into the hands of right-wing Israelis who seem intent on creating small cantons of weak and divided Palestinians like the homelands created by the Apartheid regime in South Africa. Israelis have managed to create a state that has allowed its Jewish citizens to prosper while maintaining military control over millions of Palestinians who have been denied their basic rights while having to endure decades of military occupation. Despite their long running conflict, the Palestinians are still fragmented and weak and have been unable to develop military capabilities that could force Israel to change its policies. The political and diplomatic influence of the United States has neutralized attempts to gain international support and the political dynamics within the Middle East have deprived them of support from the surrounding Arab states. The result has been Israel’s complete subjugation and/or neutralization of the Palestinians living under its control or in surrounding territories. This victory may turn to defeat in the long run because it is so complete that it has incentivized Israel’s right-wing government to pursue policies that will allow this conflict to fester with no end in sight. Without a meaningful political solution that addresses the legitimate concerns of the Palestinians, Israel will be involved in low level conflict against an opponent that cannot defeat it but will have no incentive to stop fighting it either.
As explained above, a Muslim hegemonic power would not threaten the existence of Israel due to its formidable nuclear arsenal. It would; however, limit the ability of Israelis to attack, either overtly or clandestinely, its neighbors and it would force Israel to treat its Arab citizens with dignity and justice. Aside from not being contrary to American interests, such an outcome would greatly help them by finally creating the conditions that could lead to sustainable peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Israel has taken advantage of the lack of a Muslim hegemonic power to grind Palestinian opposition into the dirt and, in doing so, has ensured the region will suffer from low level violence and instability for the foreseeable future. Its complete and total military victory has empowered it to refuse even the smallest compromises with the Palestinians and has created a situation with no end in sight that necessitates continued American involvement in the region.
INFLUENCE OF RULERS WITHIN THE MUSLIM WORLD
Many of the Muslim world’s governments expend a tremendous amount of resources in order to secure American support for their rule. For example, Saudi Arabia is estimated to have spent $60 million since 2016 to retain lobbyists, public relations firms, and fund think tanks[x] to maintain American support. This influence has ensured that criticism of Saudi Arabia’s brutal war in Yemen, abysmal human rights record, and financial support for extremist Muslims does not lead to a withdrawal of US support. In fact, the US has actively helped Saudi Arabia prosecute its war in Yemen despite the catastrophic effects on Yemen’s civilian population[xi]. Though considered the most proficient, the Saudi government is not the only authoritarian Muslim government to take advantage of America’s lobbying and PR firms. Nations such as Egypt,[xii] the UAE, and Qatar[xiii] also spend millions of dollars to make sure that America supports their interests.
This is problematic because the interests of these governments are often counter to the interests of the US. While arms sales to these nations may support economic activity within the US, their destabilizing effect also forces the US to maintain its costly military presence in the region. The Islamic world’s dictators and despots are the primary cause of its instability and weakness because of the inherently weak and violent nature of authoritarian and autocratic political institutions. These institutions have concentrated political and economic power in the hands of small groups of elites throughout the Muslim world that do not respect human rights, the rule of law, or freedom of expression. They use the machinery of the state to maintain their control and inflict violence on any citizens who oppose their rule even if that opposition is peaceful in nature. The rule of these elites has prevented Muslim nations from providing the government services necessary to support dynamic economies. It has also fueled the growth of extremist non-state actors that have reacted to the oppression and blatant theft of their governments by articulating violent ideologies that have plunged many Muslim nations into a state of chaos and anarchy which has, in turn, driven millions of Muslim refugees out of their homelands. American support for these rulers helps to keep the political institutions responsible for the Muslim world’s weakness in place and this weakness has directly led to the US military presence in the region. As such, it is in the long-term interests of the US to support the creation of democratic institutions in the Muslim world that can finally stabilize the region.
Some have looked at the actions of the US and seen a conspiracy to keep Muslims weak. The most likely explanation for America’s actions is much more mundane. The sad truth is that America’s politicians are for sale due to its corrupt (though technically legal) political system that incentivizes short term thinking focused on election cycles and obtaining the funds necessary to effectively contest these elections. The interest groups discussed above have manipulated America’s legislative process by exploiting these weaknesses to their own advantage. America’s policies towards the Muslim world are therefore best explained as resulting from the undue legislative influence of groups that have prioritized their own narrow self-interests over the long-term strategic interests of the US or the human suffering their actions cause. These groups have used their control of the legislative process to secure access to resources in a way that has subverted many of America’s basic ideals and principles and resulted in policies that are counterproductive and unsustainable. However, the arguments of those advocating for a continued American presence in the region can no longer outweigh the urgent need to fix America’s finances, the fact that so many Americans simply do not want to maintain its presence in the region, or the fact that most of the arguments used to rationalize current troop levels are not tied to national security needs.
Given these economic, political, and national security dynamics, the only real question is how and when America will withdraw its troops. Despite agreeing on the need to withdraw, the differing perspectives of its political factions will likely lead to conflict regarding the manner of America’s withdrawal. As such, while America’s withdrawal may be inevitable, the nature and timing of this withdrawal is uncertain. If the US does not adequately plan for and manage its withdrawal from the Islamic world, the results could be dire. Instead of following the same path they followed in Afghanistan, US policymakers must make an objective and realistic assessment of their policy options given the looming reduction in financial resources. They must stop engaging in the same arrogant behavior that prevented them from acknowledging the reality of their position in Afghanistan for so long. Turkey, Iran and Pakistan have already reacted to America’s inconsistent policies and hostility by developing close relationships with China. This is a foreshadow of what will happen if the US abandons the region without a plan in place.
CONCLUSION
The US must realize that due to its weakened finances and increasingly isolationist political trends, it can no longer continue as the dominant military power in the Muslim world. As such, it needs to develop and implement policies that will incentivize the creation of inclusive and pluralistic political and economic institutions and it needs to develop meaningful alliance relationships with these countries based on mutual respect rather than the traditional neo-colonial dynamic. The fundamentally imperial perspective of US policy makers must change; instead, they must treat the governments of the Islamic world as equal partners rather than clients to be bullied or cajoled. This will only be possible once these governments are run by competent officials that have been placed in power through the result of free, fair, and transparent democratic processes.
America’s reluctance to protect Saudi oil facilities from Iran as well as its desire to withdraw from Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan indicates its withdrawal is already under way. To better manage these changes, policies need to be clearly explained and agreed upon. Currently, America’s policies are a mix of hawkish rhetoric and haphazard military deployments that are not part of a clear strategy. America’s military leaders have explained their reduced commitment to the Middle East by referencing the need to focus on China but have yet to develop a new strategy that accounts for its lower importance and the smaller budgets likely to characterize military spending in the future. Instead, America’s military elite and their political and business allies have historically fought against serious cuts to military spending even as its debt was growing exponentially[xiv]. Given America’s high debt levels, massive military spending, the political infeasibility of raising taxes, and the refusal of its military and industrial elites to drastically reduce military spending, its long-term economic outlook was extremely precarious before the COVID-19 outbreak and is now particularly bleak. This is compounded by the fact that the aforementioned economic recovery was largely based on monetary manipulation (printing money, a.k.a., quantitative easing, borrowing money, and artificially keeping interest rates low to incentivize more borrowing) rather than strengthening America’s manufacturing base and overall fiscal position.
These pressing economic concerns combined with the growing belief among Americans across the political spectrum that American troops have no business in the Muslim world and its changing national security priorities will force it to withdraw from the Muslim world. The need to re-allocate resources to the Pacific, America’s energy independence, Israel’s dominant military capabilities, and the seemingly permanent instability of its Arab allies will outweigh the arguments traditionally used to justify its presence in the Islamic world. Having discussed the many factors that will lead to an American withdrawal from the Muslim world, the next step is to discuss the potential impact on the Muslim world and how Muslim nations should react to the coming changes. This discussion is available here.
[iv] This sentiment is partially shared by former Secretary of Defense James Mattis and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen who also see America’s debt as a threat to its national security. See: Kazda, Adam, “Military Spending: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly,” Pursuit, June 19, 2018, https://www.ourpursuit.com/military-spending-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/.
[viii] For a more detailed discussion of the performance of various Arab militaries since WWII see: Pollack, Kenneth, Armies of Sand, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019).
Although widely recognized as an astute student of statecraft today, Machiavelli has historically been one of the more controversial political thinkers in the Western world. His ideas have been criticized because they are primarily concerned with how rulers attain and augment their power. They do not deal with questions related to the moral exercise of power. As such, the dictators of the Muslim world should pay attention to his ideas because they only seem to care about power as well and have shown no interest in creating governments imbued with any sense of morality or decency. The following discussion is based on George Bull’s translation[1] and will analyze Machiavelli’s ideas in order to suggest what Muslim rulers can learn from Italy’s most infamous political thinker.
The similarities between the political and military situation in Italy that gave rise to the ideas expressed in The Prince and the current political and military dynamics of the Muslim world are quite striking. The Prince was written in response to the fractured nature of Italy’s politics during a time when the French and Spanish were attempting to dominate its smaller and divided city-states. Rather than work together to prevent these powerful kingdoms from subjugating Italy’s city-states, Italy’s rulers pursued policies that prioritized their own short-term retention of power even if doing so allowed powerful outsiders to entrench their dominant positions. This resulted in the effective military control of the Italian peninsula by outside powers during much of Machiavelli’s lifetime. The rulers of the Muslim world have pursued similarly short-sighted policies that have resulted in the complete domination of the Islamic world by the West, Russia, and China. Despite these broad similarities, there are also some important differences.
One of the key differences between Italy during this period and the Muslim world today is that Italy’s problems were mostly political. The political divisions within Italy prevented building armies powerful enough to counter the French or the Spanish. Italian arms were not lacking in technical or tactical skills nor were they weak because Italy’s economy was incapable of equipping Italian soldiers with modern weaponry (by the standards of the time). The military weakness of the Muslim world is also primarily rooted in its weak political institutions and rulers. However, its inability to develop modern economies capable of producing advanced weapons like those made by the West or to competently use the advanced weapons they import are also based on the cultural climate of the Muslim world which discourages critical thinking and the free exchange of ideas. The stagnant intellectual climate of the Muslim world has therefore greatly contributed to its weakness by preventing Muslims from creating strong economies or vibrant educational and research institutions that can develop the minds of its scientists, soldiers, and industrialists. As such, the military weakness of the Muslim world is best viewed as resulting from a combination of political, economic, cultural, and technical factors whereas Italy’s weakness was mostly political.
It is important to keep these contextual factors in mind when discussing how Machiavelli’s ideas might apply to the Muslim world so they can be analyzed with the proper perspective. Yet another factor to note in this regard is that, as referenced above, The Prince does not provide a coherent political philosophy. Machiavelli wrote his book as an attempt to provide advice to one of Italy’s most prominent rulers by providing him with a practical guide about how to retain and augment his power. He did not write The Prince in order to formulate a new political philosophy that could be used to provide the intellectual basis for Italian unity. Nor did he concern himself with greater questions of political philosophy. It is likely he felt that such concerns were irrelevant so long as the ruler in power was strong and just. As a result, he was focused on developing ideas that could substantially increase the power of a ruler. Given his concentration on how to acquire, maintain, and increase power, his advice should be considered indispensable to the rulers of the Muslim world who also care about power over all other considerations.
The Prince is primarily concerned with analyzing “hereditary principalities[2]” in which power is held by one ruler who can pass on authority to a designated heir. Most nations within the Muslim world are best treated as “hereditary principalities” as well since they consist of kingdoms such as Jordan or Morocco or republics ruled by men who act as though they rule over a kingdom instead of a true republic. For example, even though Egypt under Mubarak was officially designated as a republic, Mubarak was grooming his son to take power and governed Egypt much like it was his own kingdom rather than a republic. Egypt’s current ruler, General Sisi, appears likely to continue this trend.
According to Machiavelli, there are two basic types of “hereditary principalities.” The first are those that are governed by a ruler “to whom everyone is subservient[3]” while the second type are those in which the ruler governs with the aid of nobles who do not owe their position to the ruler’s favor. The basic dichotomy described here is between an absolutist political system in which the ruler concentrates as much power in his person as possible as opposed to a feudal system in which the ruler must share power with nobles. In discussing the former, Machiavelli cites to the Ottoman Empire, stating that “the Turkish empire is ruled by one man; all others are his servants[4]” whereas “the king of France is surrounded by a long-established order of nobles[5]” who have their own subjects and are “loved by them[6].” According to Machiavelli, principalities governed like the Turkish empire are difficult to conquer because outsiders cannot manipulate elements within it to support an invasion. An enemy attempting to conquer absolutist principalities must therefore defeat its army in the field before it can assume control whereas an enemy trying to conquer a principality that features an independent nobility will have an easier time conquering it because it can use the nobles against the ruler. Once conquered; however, it is much easier to maintain control over an absolutist principality whereas it is much harder to maintain control over principalities that feature multiple independent power centers. This seems logical since principalities with a powerful nobility will have leaders with their own troops who can resist an invasion even if the ruler falls. While principalities governed by absolutist rulers will have no other power centers that can resist an invasion once the ruler is defeated because no other groups within it have been allowed to accumulate the power to do so. Applying these ideas to the Muslim world, one can see how its absolutist political institutions made it more prone to conquest and colonization once the West was able to develop military tactics and technology that the Muslim world could not match. Once European armies defeated the absolutist rulers of the Muslim world there were no independent power centers that could oppose them. As such, one of the first and most basic lessons today’s Muslims can learn from Machiavelli is that their absolutist political institutions made it easier for Europeans to conquer and colonize them and the continuing prevalence of such political institutions continues to make the Muslim world vulnerable to conquest.
Machiavelli also discusses the various ways that rulers acquire and maintain power. One tactic that rulers often use is to form a client relationship with a foreign power to obtain the support they need to either seize or maintain their power. Machiavelli believed that relying on the favor of a foreign power leads to instability because it makes rulers dependent on the “goodwill and fortune of those who have elevated them[7].” Instead, Machiavelli states that rulers must have their own armies, loyal only to them, and must come to power exclusively by this power rather than using foreign troops[8]. Dependence on foreign military assistance is therefore viewed as a fatal weakness by Machiavelli, one that will often lead to the demise of the ruler. The history of the Muslim world confirms Machiavelli’s views. For example, the only branch of the Hashemite dynasty installed by the British to have survived past its infancy is the one that was able to develop an alliance with local Bedouin and Circassian tribes that gave it the independent military power necessary to ensure its survival. Neither dynasty in Egypt nor Iraq was able to do so, much to their regret. The current leaders of both Iraq and Afghanistan are in the process of learning this lesson as well since neither can rely on their militaries to ensure their power. Their inability to develop military power independent from the United States will likely result in the disintegration of Iraq within the next few decades and the development of an entirely new government in Afghanistan that, at best, will have to share power with the Taliban in the near future.
This illustrates that those Muslim rulers that are reliant on foreign military forces to maintain their regimes should be wary. Machiavelli would argue that you are setting yourselves up for failure and conquest. The Arab nations of the Persian Gulf are particularly vulnerable in this regard. Their reliance on foreign military contractors (a.k.a. mercenaries) to ensure their advanced imported arms remain operable is a serious vulnerability. As is their general reliance on the military power of the United States to ensure their rule. This makes their continued power subject to the whims and fortunes of the US instead of placing their fate in their own hands. Machiavelli’s views on mercenaries[9] and the use of foreign military power highlight a general animosity towards reliance on the aid of others, instead he seems to understand what common sense also dictates: that a nation must be able to rely on itself when it comes to matters of defense. As such, those Muslim rulers that have outsourced this responsibility to a foreign power or are dependent for such matters on the goodwill of another nation must begin to seriously reconsider their policies.
This extends to those Muslim nations that remain dependent on outside suppliers to meet their most advanced defense requirements. The same logic that dictates a ruler must have resort to his own army and cannot be dependent on foreign troops to maintain his power also extends to the conclusion that no military can claim to be powerful until its armaments are manufactured within territories under its direct control. The Muslim world’s dependence on imported weapons is therefore a serious military vulnerability that impacts its ability to prevent the conquest of Muslim nations. Again, the historical record of the Muslim world and its string of military defeats and territorial contraction over the past few centuries confirms this view.
In addition to discussing military matters, Machiavelli also discusses internal political matters. He suggests that there are three main interests a ruler must balance. The people, the nobles[10], and the army[11]. According to Machiavelli, the people are easy to appease because they ask only not to be oppressed while the nobles and the army are the most difficult to placate because the nobles actively seek to oppress the people while the army constantly demands to go to war and will often resort to violence to get its way[12]. In today’s parlance we would replace the word nobles with the word elite, but the same concept applies. The political and economic institutions of the Muslim world are dominated by an elite comprised mostly of its military and large landowning class that have concentrated power in the hands of an extremely small elite which often uses it power to maintain violent control over their people. As such, the rulers of the Muslim world have traditionally come from and served the interests of what Machiavelli would call the nobles and the army. He would likely disapprove of this power structure because he suggests that the first thing a ruler must do to secure power is to seek the friendship of the people as he correctly understands that power is ultimately derived from them[13]. The instability of the Muslim world and the weakness of so many of its governments can therefore be directly attributed to power structures that intentionally marginalize the masses they govern. This is particularly frustrating because Machiavelli states that all a ruler has to do to maintain order is make sure he executes people only when there is good cause to do so and abstain from disturbing the property or women of his subjects.[14] This is consistent with his statement that the only thing people really want is to not be oppressed. Sadly, most of the rulers of the Muslim world have been unable to meet these depressingly low standards. Their inability to check their greedy impulses to steal and enrich themselves and their willingness to use violence against their subjects without proper justification has resulted in the severe oppression of their people. Instead of trying to maintain the friendship of their people as Machiavelli advises, the rulers of the Muslim world have sided with their elites (nobles) and soldiers. This has led to the instability and weakness that has plagued the Muslim world for centuries.
Machiavelli states that one of the key institutions necessary to ensure good laws and governance is a parliament since it alleviates rulers of the need to pick sides with either the people or the nobles. He explains that the nobles and people can use this institution to govern together, stating there is “no better or more sensible institution, nor one more effective in ensuring the security of the king and the kingdom[15].” Although many Muslim nations have governments featuring legislative assemblies, most of them are not adequately empowered to govern their nations as most power is concentrated in the hands of an executive position or within a military/landowner/tribal oligarchy of some sort. As such, the political structure of most Muslim societies concentrates power in the hands of people from its elite and/or military class in a manner that has undermined its ability to develop effective representative bodies, the very institution highlighted as being key to a well governed state and the longevity of the ruler.
Based on their complete disregard for Machiavelli’s advice, the author can only conclude the rulers of the Muslim world have yet to read The Prince. This is unfortunate because they could have benefited from his observations. The fragility of so many Muslim governments proves that these rulers have ignored the advice discussed above to their great sorrow. Those rulers that have survived thus far should not fool themselves into thinking they can ignore the lessons of history either. They have not survived due to their own prowess but rather because fortune has favored them.[16] Eventually fortune will turn as it always does and, given their refusal to adhere to the sensible ideas discussed above, they will likely find themselves unprepared. The author humbly suggests they take some time to read what their former colleagues in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Iraq, Yemen, and far too many other Muslim nations ignored to their detriment or they are likely to suffer similar fates.
[1] Machiavelli, Niccolo, Trans by George Bull. The Prince. Penguin Books. London. 1961.
