Tag: Muslim world

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 : / / / / / / / / / / / / /

A rose by any other name

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorized1 Comment on A rose by any other name

Here’s a statement most Americans will probably disagree with: America is the wealthiest and most powerful empire the world has ever known. Acknowledging that our wealth and power are without rival is easy, we just have a hard time with the empire part. Especially since we are ruled by an elected president and legislative body instead of a monarch. According to the Oxford Dictionary, that means we cannot be an empire.

No disrespect to the folks at Oxford, but their definition seems limited. Yuval Harari’s definition of empire in his book, Sapien, as “a political order” that rules “a significant number of distinct peoples, each possessing a different cultural identity and a separate territory” is a better one. Based on Harari’s description, a polity that includes territories as varied as Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, Diego Garcia, Southern California, Louisiana, and Massachusetts certainly qualifies as an empire.

Our refusal to self-identify as one is primarily rooted in our democratic ethos and the fact that we once had to fight to break free from the British empire. It also detracts from the idea of American exceptionalism since it forces us to admit our similarity to empires of the past. Despite our historical and philosophical aversion to being described as such, it seems clear that America has evolved into an empire. Without an honest assessment of ourselves, accurately diagnosing what ails us becomes impossible. And the reality is that our empire is in trouble.

We are following a pattern many others have followed. We have expanded over vast territories and built a very expensive military to protect this territory. Doing so required creating a central government with the power to tax and marshal resources on a scale that was far beyond anything envisioned by the creators of our federal system of governance. This also led to the development of interest groups with the means and incentives to push for a massive amount of continuous military spending. Just as the Romans, Ottomans, and British before us, we are slowly collapsing under the weight of maintaining our military. In fact, much of our $30 trillion debt can be traced to this spending. As this number grows, it will continue to weaken the economic foundations that are the true source of American power.      

The curious part to all of this is that, unlike the British, Ottomans, or Romans, most of our empire is easily defended. The Pacific and Atlantic oceans and the Canadian shield have always been our best military assets. Yet, our military leaders have developed a force posture and military doctrine that requires twenty aircraft carriers, over a million personnel, thousands of fighter jets and bombers, and around 4,000 nuclear warheads at a cost of $700-800 billion a year.

The size of our military traces its roots to WW2 which saw America ally itself with the Russian, French and British empires to prevent Germany, Italy, and Japan from creating empires for themselves. We did so by building a massive military capable of simultaneously fighting its way onto continental Europe and controlling the Pacific. Part of that process entailed establishing a network of forward bases throughout Europe and Asia. Once the war ended, America did not completely stand down. Instead, it found itself fighting the Cold War against its former allies in the Soviet Union. This conflict led to the entrenchment and expansion of the military infrastructure created to fight the Axis powers.

The Cold War ended over thirty years ago, but America still refused to shrink its military. Instead, shortly after the Soviet Union’s collapse we invaded the Muslim world and began building a network of bases to secure its energy supplies. As a result, our empire has been in a nearly continuous state of war for most of the past 80 years. Our war against the Muslim world is finally wrapping up but instead of talking about a peace dividend, our leaders seem intent on using China to justify maintaining our aggressive military posture.

Our military is no longer designed to defend us but to project American power throughout the world in pursuit of vaguely defined “interests.” As our mounting debt shows, the cost of maintaining our military dominance over the rest of the world is starting to add up. Instead of dealing with the reality of our worsening finances by admitting that it is time for America to finally stand down, our leaders passionately argue against such measures. Their refusal to do so will likely doom us to the same fate suffered by every other empire that has come before us, whether we are willing to admit it or not.

The author is a US Navy veteran. He usually provides improbable and implausible musings about the Muslim world and international affairs on his blog, www.mirrorsfortheprince.com.

Tagged : / / / / / / /

Muslims are still too weak and divided to help the Palestinians

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorized3 Comments on Muslims are still too weak and divided to help the Palestinians

The latest round of violence in Gaza galvanized the Muslim world yet again. Demonstrations and social media campaigns in support of Palestine highlighted the deep feelings of sympathy many Muslims have for its long-suffering people. As encouraging as it was to see so many show their support for the Palestinian people, these expressions of empathy and rage will ultimately lead to nothing.

That is because of one inescapable fact: Muslims are still too weak and divided to effectively confront Israel and its key ally, the United States. Iran is one of the few Muslim nations to actively oppose the neo-colonial power structures imposed upon the region by the West and, in return, it has been isolated and subject to brutal sanctions and clandestine military attacks. Until Muslim nations develop the military capacity to deter Israeli and American aggression, they will always be vulnerable to the type of violence that consumed Gaza.

The reasons for the Islamic world’s sustained weakness are too varied and nuanced to adequately address here. Suffice it to say, the prevalence of authoritarian political and social institutions throughout the region have choked off intellectual, political, and economic development in a way that has made it impossible for Muslim nations to develop the military capabilities required to protect themselves. As the always insightful Pervez Hoodbhoy points out in a recent editorial, the Muslim world’s lack of intellectual freedom and investment in education have left it unable to develop the means to counter Western aggression. He is absolutely right. Until the Muslim world revitalizes its intellectual climate, it will never be able to develop the technological base required to free itself from the domination of outside powers.

Compounding the problem is that Muslims refuse to work together. The Arabs are so scared of their Persian neighbors they are willing to work with Israel to weaken them. The Turkish people have finally begun to pivot back to the Muslim world, but their pan-Islamic vision is undermined by their oppression of the Kurds. Pakistan’s generals are so dependent on financial subsidies from their Arab patrons that they refuse to develop meaningful ties with Iran. These divisions play directly into the hands of the men that bombed Gaza and those that empower them. As Mr. Hoodbhoy correctly points out, unity by itself will not be enough. But working towards unification is just one of many changes that Muslims must make if they genuinely wish to change the power dynamics of the current global system in their favor.

The simple fact is that there is no Muslim nation large and powerful enough by itself to challenge the great powers of the world. That is because there is no Muslim nation with the size and resources of the US, China, Russia, or a united Europe. The only way that Muslims will ever end the atrocities in Palestine (or Kashmir, or Xinjiang, or Chechnya, or Burma) is by learning to work together.

The problem is that its authoritarian political institutions make working together impossible because they make it impossible to build the sort of inclusive and open political institutions required for such cooperation. The Muslim world is so large that the only way it will ever come together is by creating inclusive and democratic political institutions that can allow its diverse people to work together for their mutual betterment and protection. As such, the region’s lack of democracy not only limits its intellectual environment, economic strength, and stability but also its ability to bring Muslims together.

If Muslims are serious about helping the Palestinians (or the many other Muslim communities subject to conquest and oppression all over the world) then they must begin to institute deep rooted political and legal reforms to create democratic political institutions and stimulate the sort of intellectual growth necessary to end the dominance of the great powers. Such reforms will be key to supporting economic and technological development which are necessary precursors to acquiring advanced military capabilities.

They must also learn to work together. However, rather than indulge in fantasies about re-creating the Caliphate, ideas that can allow Muslims to work together must be based on a realistic assessment of the political and strategic environment facing the Muslim world today. Sadly, an honest assessment will quickly rule out the Arab, African, and Central Asian Muslim states. Their authoritarian political systems are so entrenched that expecting them to voluntarily reform themselves is not a realistic goal. The only Muslim nations with the right combination of strategic incentives, institutions, and geography that could convince their elites to come together are Pakistan, Turkey, Iran, and Afghanistan.

All four need to undergo serious reforms as well but three out of four are locked in existential conflicts that should incentivize their elites to at least consider such ideas. Though Turkey does not face the same strategic concerns as Iran, Pakistan, or Afghanistan, its elites should also be receptive to such ideas because they are the only way Turkey will ever be able to fully realize its pan-Islamic foreign policy goals.

Of course, the key to convincing these elites to adopt such ideas will be appealing to their pocketbooks. Consequently, the best way to build a sustainable alliance between these four nations is to start by building stronger economic ties and infrastructure that can allow for the free flow of goods, people, and ideas throughout them. The Muslim world divided itself politically long ago but was historically linked through interconnected layers of religious, trade, and political networks. The European conquest of the Muslim world destroyed these connections and today’s rulers have refused to rebuild them out of fear that doing so will threaten their grip on power. It is time for Muslims to rebuild these links so that their interests begin to align in a manner that can eventually lead to greater political and military cooperation.

Some may find calls for Islamic unity to be antiquated and even cliched, but the devastation being wrought upon so many parts of the Muslim world shows that the need for unity has never been greater. The civilizational based theory of international competition articulated by Samuel Huntington is becoming more of a reality every day as a multi-polar world largely centered on the world’s great civilizational blocks emerges. As this new international order takes shape, the Islamic world will continue to be a source of instability that will invite further conflict until its nations take the steps necessary to finally end their protracted weakness. Unity among Muslims will not be a panacea that will cure all the Muslim world’s problems, but it would certainly be a step in the right direction.

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

Muslim rulers really need to read Machiavelli’s The Prince

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorized2 Comments on Muslim rulers really need to read Machiavelli’s The Prince

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.

[2] Id. at 5.

[3] Id. at 13-14.

[4] Id. at 14.

[5] Id. at 14.

[6] Id. at 13-15.

[7] Id. at 20.

[8] Id. at 20-26.

[9] Id. at 39.

[10] Id. at 30-33.

[11] Id. at 60-61

[12] Id. at 31; 60-61; 65.

[13] Id. at 32-33.

[14] Id. at 53.

[15] Id. at 59.

[16] Id. at 20-21.

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