Tag: pakistan

Pakistan’s government is its own worst enemy

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorizedLeave a Comment on Pakistan’s government is its own worst enemy

This essay was first published here, by The Friday Times on Sept. 24, 2024.

Pakistanis are a diverse group of people with different perspectives on many topics. One of the few things most of us can probably agree on is that the Pakistani government is unbelievably incompetent and has been since its inception. It has a horrible habit of making the country’s problems worse instead of solving them. The leaked audio of a man from its security services threatening the family of a member of the Pakistani diaspora in Australia shows exactly how.

Here is a link to a YouTube video that contains the audio and provides some context. But for those who prefer a more concise summary, a Pakistani man living in Australia named Salman Shabbir started a petition and sent tweets that offended someone in Pakistan’s government. This official responded by sending armed men to find Mr. Shabbir’s brother in Pakistan, who took him to a local jail. One of these men then called Mr. Shabbir from his brother’s cell phone and proceeded to threaten and beat his brother as he demanded the offensive tweets be deleted. During their conversation, the officer justified his actions on the basis that the tweets were causing “instability” and argued that, as a Pakistani in Australia, Mr. Shabbir should mind his own business.

There are so many troubling aspects to this incident, it is difficult to know where to begin. For starters, never go after someone’s family. Attacking a person’s family is a good way to make an enemy for life. It can only lead to violence. And deservedly so. People will endure almost anything to avenge a loved one, especially when they are unjustly attacked. Pakistan’s rulers would do well to remember the tale of Mohammad Deif, the architect of the Oct. 7th attack on Israel. The Israeli military murdered his wife, infant son, and three year old daughter in 2014. He responded by spending the better part of a decade planning his revenge which consisted of inflicting Israel’s worst military defeat in 50 years.

Thankfully, Mr. Shabbir responded with such overwhelming courage and grace he managed to diffuse the situation before it escalated further. But attacking his family speaks to a level of incompetence and moral depravity that is difficult to fathom. Taking such a drastic step over a petition or social media commentary suggests a complete misunderstanding of when and how the state should use force. It represents a complete failure by the Pakistani government on every level imaginable.

There are certainly times when the state can and must use force. This was not one of those times. As recently explained in reference to the insurgencies in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) and Balochistan, when members of the security forces abuse their authority or use force inappropriately, they undermine the very institutions they are fighting to protect, leading to the “instability” they are trying to prevent. Force must always be a last resort, and it must only be used in extreme situations such as confronting armed assailants. Neither tweeting, nor starting petitions fall into this category. People have every right to criticize their government, particularly when it is so inept. Denying this right does far more to destabilize a country than letting them speak their minds.

As Machiavelli explained centuries ago in his seminal work, The Prince, keeping the people happy is easy. All it takes is NOT abusing or oppressing them. This incident is a vivid reminder Pakistan’s leaders cannot meet even this depressingly low standard.  

Yet another aspect of this episode that illustrates the failings of Pakistan’s rulers is the sentiment Pakistanis living overseas have no right to discuss the affairs of their motherland. This idea is equal parts absurd and shortsighted. 

One of the many toxic side effects of having such an unbelievably incompetent and corrupt government is that Pakistan’s economy is poorly run, inefficient, and exceptionally unproductive. For those without family money or connections, Pakistan is a hard place to make an honest living. We could spend volumes going over the data but suffice it to say, most socio-economic indices suggest it is a miserable place to live for the average person.

As a result, millions of Pakistanis have made the difficult choice to flee their country in search of a better life. Over 1.62 million left in just 2023. There are already more than 625,000 Pakistanis in America and another 1.5 million in the UK along with millions more throughout the Middle East. To expect these people to forget about the place of their birth simply because they no longer reside there ignores an intrinsic part of human nature. People are naturally drawn to the land of their forefathers and will often take an interest in its history and affairs. Many will even retain an inexplicable affection and love for their homeland despite having precious few memories of it.

Pakistan’s rulers should be grateful those lucky enough to escape their dysfunction remain so vested in the well-being of their motherland. As a community, Pakistan’s diaspora remits billions back home every year. These funds provide one of the many crutches its leaders use to mask their theft and misrule, insulating them from the need to change. Suggesting those who send their hard-earned money back home should remain quiet ignores their contributions to the nation’s financial well-being and the longevity of its rulers. It also ignores another obvious truth; those who help pay the nation’s bills have every right to comment on how it is run.

From a more strategic perspective, attacking or dismissing overseas Pakistanis is a criminal waste of resources for a country that has very few to squander. Though our time in foreign lands may have imbued us with strange accents and customs, many of us have acquired skills and perspectives that could greatly benefit Pakistan. Like all Pakistan’s people, we are an asset, not a threat.

This scribe, for example, has often dreamed of returning to Pakistan to build a farm. One covered in solar powered greenhouses filled with hydroponic towers and precise irrigation systems to exponentially increase its yield while drastically reducing the amount of water used to achieve it. But investing the necessary capital in a land with insecure property rights, inefficient courts, needlessly violent security agencies, and an opaque regulatory environment known for its corruption is daunting, to say the least. Compounding the problem, Pakistan’s army has decided it wants to enter the field of corporate farming too. Which means this imaginary farm would be competing against its well-connected generals.

Instead of creating an environment that would allow overseas Pakistanis to help the country to our full potential, Pakistan’s leaders prefer to unjustly attack innocent people. Which is one more reason the assault on Mr. Shabbir’s brother epitomizes the self-inflicted dysfunction that has chased so many Pakistanis away and kept the nation so weak and unstable for so long.

The sad truth is that Pakistan is not on a sound trajectory. It is currently dealing with two violent insurgencies, a failing economy, crushing debt, a rising India and the looming threat of climate change as it struggles to rebuild from the floods of 2022. It is well past time for Pakistan’s leaders to admit their way of doing things is not working. They must change course before it is too late. Unfortunately, the egregious nature of this episode suggests they never will.

Of course, they are not alone in their self-destructive behavior. The phenomenon of transnational repression has been well documented as being practiced by many of the world’s nations. America, Israel, India, Iran, and Russia have all attacked and murdered people outside their territory via extrajudicial means. Compared to the crimes committed by so many of the world’s nations, it may seem unfair to castigate Pakistan’s government over what was ultimately a minimal use of force.

As we were all taught as children, just because the rest of the world is jumping off a bridge does not mean Pakistan should follow. The world’s governments are certainly taking a collective turn towards authoritarianism and right-wing ideologies. Even the supposedly liberal democracies of the West have a very hypocritical view of free speech and often treat peaceful dissent as treason. Jingoism and tribalism are the order of the day. But, as these nations will eventually find out, this is not the path to long-term peace, prosperity, or power.

Building a strong society, especially for a nation as diverse as Pakistan, requires not only tolerating dissent and criticism but encouraging it. Constructive criticism, grounded in logic and the free exchange of ideas. These are the foundations upon which vibrant intellectual climates are built. Without one, it is impossible to nurture technological innovation or create governments that are responsive to the needs of their people. Absent these ingredients, commerce languishes, and military power fails. As such, building a wealthy, powerful state requires guaranteeing freedom of expression and encouraging people to speak their minds.

Pakistan’s leaders need to remember their job is not to stifle dissent but to listen to it and that true patriotism requires criticism, not blind loyalty. Due to its large population and well-equipped military, Pakistan has the potential to be the Muslim world’s most powerful state. However, it will never reach this potential unless its rulers take these lessons to heart. Until then, they will remain their own worst enemy.

Tagged :

On unity and bringing Pakistan, Iran, and the Muslim world together

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorized1 Comment on On unity and bringing Pakistan, Iran, and the Muslim world together

This essay was first published here by the Friday Times on Sept. 15, 2024.

Shortly before his death, Iran’s late President Raisi spent several days visiting Pakistan. Like many state visits between Pakistani and Iranian officials over the years, his trip was filled with grand proclamations about the affinity between both nations and the need to improve ties. Both sides agreed to boost trade to $10 billion within 5 years. They also agreed to work together to bring peace and prosperity to Afghanistan and jointly condemned Israel’s massacre in Gaza.

These were all worthwhile developments the author has advocated for many times, in a variety of contexts. The need to build an alliance between Iran and Pakistan has been obvious for a long time. They are natural allies with overlapping interests and ideological perspectives. An alliance would drastically improve each nation’s geopolitical and economic positions, giving them the tools to deal with a chaotic world.

Despite their lofty rhetoric and the potential benefits, Pakistani and Iranian leaders have yet to deliver on their promises. As Jahangir Jameel recently explained, cross border trade still suffers from a “staggering number of restrictions, hurdles, and hindrances.” As usual, little meaningful progress has been made.

It is therefore time to consider ways to turn these aspirations into reality by discussing steps each nation can take to finally make good on the promise of building a closer relationship. Creating a strong alliance between them will require a multi-pronged approach that binds them in as many ways as possible. A true alliance, one strong enough to compel Pakistan to stand up to America on behalf of Iran or for Iran to stand up to India on behalf of Pakistan, requires developing multiple overlapping interests to form a deep bond between them. Cooperation must extend to the social, cultural, political, commercial, scientific, academic, and military spheres.

The most logical way to start is by building people-to-people ties with a view towards increasing tourism and travel between both nations. Most of the efforts thus far have emphasized government to government cooperation, which is important but also puts the proverbial cart in front of the horse. Bringing people together is the first and most important step to bringing nations together.

To that end, creating trade, civil, cultural, and professional organizations comprised of Iranian and Pakistani engineers, artists, miners, teachers, law enforcement officers, lawyers, poets, scholars, scientists, military officers, politicians, journalists, businessmen, etc. will be extremely important. The think tanks, universities, and research institutes of both nations must also be connected via exchange programs and frequent symposiums and conferences. Essentially, Pakistani and Iranian people from all walks of life must find ways to converse and get to know each other and make as many excuses to travel to each other’s countries as possible. Poetry recitals, festivals, trade shows, academic competitions between students, scholarly conferences on any and every topic under the sun. Any excuse will do.

Yet another way to accomplish this goal is by building sports leagues featuring teams from both countries and holding tournaments and competitions in as many different sports as possible on a regular basis. A semi-annual soccer match between their national teams would be a great place to start but any sport will work. Rugby, martial arts, Olympic sports, etc. The more events and reasons to travel, the better.

Ideally, this exchange of people and ideas and the connections they create will lead to increased trade, which is also of vital importance. To facilitate trade, both nations will need to take several steps. As a starting point, their governments must harmonize their import and export policies to create a common market between them while removing barriers to trade like tariffs and inconsistent regulations. They must also improve the rail, air, and road connections that link them, build financial networks that are insulated from American sanctions, and make it easy for their businesses to invest in and access each other’s markets while providing neutral and efficient dispute resolution mechanisms to protect their investments.

Creating joint ventures to stimulate and improve their manufacturing and technological abilities would also be wise. Both nations would benefit greatly from building semiconductor foundries, investing in renewable energy, factories that make heavy goods like mining and construction equipment, and modernizing and protecting their agricultural sectors from climate change. Sharing the costs associated with these capital intensive investments and pooling their expertise would help reduce the burden on each nation while creating a common market between them would allow for economies of scale that would increase the profitability of these ventures.

Commercial, cultural, ideological, intellectual, and personal connections are the bedrock upon which strong alliances are built. Once they have been established, government to government connections and political cooperation will naturally follow since the perspectives and interests of their people and elites will be more aligned. France and Germany were once implacable foes who fought several wars against each other. Today, they do $120 billion in trade, coordinate policies in a variety of areas, and are the closest of allies. Their alliance began as a customs union to sell coal and grew into the European Union (EU). Pakistan and Iran have the same, if not more, potential. But they must invest in each other and work together to achieve it.

They must also develop strong military ties. That will require expanding the scale and frequency with which they conduct joint training exercises and increased staff level exchanges and interactions. These exercises should include as many different assets as possible and involve large formations to enhance their ability to work together in a variety of scenarios. Eventually, a formal military alliance that leads to joint weapons production, linking their air defense networks, ensuring interoperability between equipment and ammunition, and deep intelligence cooperation will also be necessary. Just as the Western world’s nations work to protect each other via organizations like NATO and the Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance, Pakistan and Iran must do the same following the same blueprint.

They must also coordinate their policies on areas of overlapping interests, like dealing with Afghanistan and its duplicitous rulers, who appear to have learned nothing from their long time in exile. At considerable risk to itself, Pakistan helped the Taliban win their freedom from America just as it helped their fathers defeat the Soviets. Instead of responding with gratitude, the Taliban have quietly reverted to form by allowing their nation to be used as a base to attack their former allies.

Their treachery is rooted in their desire to create a “greater Pashtunistan” by combining Afghanistan with Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. While their designs pose a more immediate threat to Pakistan, they also present a great danger to Iran over the long run since chaos in Pakistan will naturally spill into Iran. More importantly, the Taliban will quickly remember their hatred for Iran’s Shiites once they are done dismembering Pakistan. As such, it is in Iran’s strategic interests to work with Pakistan to counter the Taliban.

The withdrawal of American forces was an important step towards stabilizing Afghanistan, but the next step is helping it build a government that contributes to regional peace instead of destroying it. Pakistan and Iran have the most to gain from ensuring the Taliban take this step and they have the most to lose if it does not. Pakistan has historically been the primary conduit for goods shipped to Afghanistan; however, its attempts to use this as leverage to convince the Taliban to behave have been undermined by their ability to import goods via Iran’s Chabahar Port. It is only by working together and coordinating their policies that either nation has any chance at moderating the Taliban’s destructive behavior.

Despite the urgent need, these nations have not come together due to the many obstacles between them. Pakistan’s dependence on the Arabs to absorb its excess labor and provide financial subsidies is one factor holding its leaders back. As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that close relationships with Iran and the Arab world need not be mutually exclusive. If Saudi Arabia and the UAE can invest billions in India, Pakistan can build ties with Iran.

However, if Pakistan is forced to pick, the choice is obvious. For all their wealth, the Arabs are not the allies Pakistan needs. Aside from money, they offer nothing of value. They have no technical skills, universities, research institutes, or military attributes that can help Pakistan. They can only provide a crutch that keeps it perpetually hobbled and weak. While their generosity is appreciated, it will never satisfy Pakistan’s massive development and socio-economic needs. The only way to do that is to build an economy that thrives on trade, not handouts. Iran is a far better candidate to help in this regard than the Arabs.

Pakistan’s fear of America is an even bigger factor keeping these neighbors apart. The reluctance to defy America is understandable. It has the power of an 800-pound gorilla, the morals of a flea, and a history of attacking or sabotaging those who refuse to obey it. But the truth is America is already Pakistan’s enemy. It has been since 2008 when it formally committed itself to strengthening India’s nuclear capabilities. Over the years it has also sold it weapons worth $20 billion and US Senator Marco Rubio recently introduced legislation that would elevate India to the same status as a NATO ally to facilitate the sale of even more advanced weapons. This bill also calls for monitoring “Pakistan’s use of offensive force, including through terrorism and proxy groups, against India” and barring it “from receiving security assistance if it is found to have sponsored terrorism against India.” Whether Pakistan’s rulers want to admit it or not, America is a serious threat to their long-term safety and prosperity. It is intent on arming India’s fanatical government to the teeth and has no regard for the danger this poses to Pakistan.

As its decades long military presence in the Middle East shows, America is not just a threat to Pakistan, but the entire Muslim world. The nearly 17,000 Palestinian children it helped apartheid Israel murder after Oct. 7th are but the latest in a long line of victims forced to suffer for its imperial ambitions. Its unequivocal support for the massacre in Gaza and refusal to withdraw its military from the region show it learned nothing from the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan or the excesses of its supposed “War on Terror.” This suggests it is perfectly capable of making similar mistakes vis-à-vis Iran.

Just as the Taliban’s designs on Pakistan represent a long-term threat to Iran, America’s military posture in the Middle East, particularly its aggression towards Iran, represents a long-term threat to Pakistan. The invasion of Iraq killed or displaced millions, plunging much of the Middle East into chaos. If America initiates large scale violence that destabilizes Iran, which has a significantly larger population than Iraq, the impact on Pakistan will be devastating. As the increased insurgent activity in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa shows, Pakistan is still dealing with the consequences of America’s actions in Afghanistan. The fallout from similar violence against Iran will be far more consequential. As such, it is in Pakistan’s long term strategic interests to protect Iran from America’s aggression.

Due to the many ways America’s malign activities threaten Pakistan’s long-term security, it should not be viewed as a barrier to closer ties with Iran but as motivation to develop them. Instead of trying to placate America’s hegemonic demands, Pakistan’s leaders must build the strength to protect themselves from its destructive and unhinged behavior. As the author has already warned, if they do not, it is very possible Lahore’s children suffer the same fate as Gaza’s one day.

Though it would be convenient to place all the blame on them, neither the Arabs nor America are the greatest obstacles to unity between Pakistan and Iran. That distinction belongs to the Iranian and Pakistani governments themselves. Each nation is governed by repressive, authoritarian political systems that are simply incapable of creating an environment conducive to promoting technological or economic development of the sort needed to spur large scale, export-based trade. Due to its oil wealth and greater investments in education and infrastructure, Iran is more advanced than Pakistan, which is exceptionally backwards and inefficient. But both suffer from similar structural deficiencies and weaknesses. For example, each has military elites that dominate their economies and wield a disproportionate amount of political power behind the scenes.

As Europe’s example shows, liberal democratic rule supported by a politically powerful merchant class are vital pre-conditions to EU type integration. Without these attributes, creating the mechanisms and institutions that can bring these neighbors together will be impossible. Consequently, developing a strong, trade-based relationship requires each nation empower their merchants and embrace democracy, freedom of expression, and the rule of law. 

The steps discussed above would also work to integrate additional Muslim states. Turkey, for example, would be a valuable addition to the alliance contemplated herein. Turkish President Erdogan’s recent statements regarding the need for an alliance between Muslims suggests Turkey would be receptive to such a venture. However, political and economic realities require Pakistan and Iran first lay a foundation that can lead to including Turkey since the benefits required to induce it to abandon the Western alliance must outweigh the risks. Providing the necessary inducements will only be possible once Iran and Pakistan pave the way. It is oddly fitting then that Shiite Iran and Sunni Pakistan are the key to uniting and revitalizing the Muslim world. If they can overcome their doctrinal, ethnic, and linguistic differences by focusing on their shared Islamic identities, they have a chance at finally ending the cycle of violence and instability that has gripped Muslim societies for centuries.

Tagged : / / / / /

On insurrections and counter insurgency

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorized1 Comment on On insurrections and counter insurgency

This piece was first published here, by the Friday Times on Aug. 28, 2024.

Pakistan is currently dealing with complicated insurgencies in two of its provinces. One is primarily being waged by the Pakistani Taliban (TTP) in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) while the other is being waged by an assortment of Baloch ethno-nationalist groups in Balochistan. These developments have rekindled a debate that has flummoxed military strategists throughout the modern era regarding how to implement an effective counter insurgency (COIN) strategy. Doing so requires developing a multi-pronged approach that combines military, intelligence, and law enforcement operations with political and socio-economic policies to form a cohesive strategy while simultaneously challenging the ideology or raison d’etre of the insurgents. To restore peace in its restive provinces, Pakistan’s leaders must use these different prongs together in a mutually reinforcing way to address the many factors fueling these conflicts.

Balancing them properly requires understanding the nature of the fight Pakistan is facing. There are two basic kinds of insurgencies. The first involves guerillas fighting against a foreign military force occupying their land. This is the kind of conflict America faced in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Though the occupying power may consider the problems of maintaining its occupation complicated, in truth such conflicts are easily resolved by ending the illegal occupations causing them and sending the unwanted foreign forces home.

Pakistan is dealing with the second kind, which involves citizens rebelling against their own state. These are infinitely more complicated. All wars are political, but some are more political than others. Domestic insurgencies are perhaps the most political because they involve disputes as to the nature and legitimacy of the political institutions that govern a particular territory between the people meant to share it. They also touch on difficult issues regarding the power of the state to take the lives of its citizens and the extent to which it must comply with due process norms when doing so.

The power to kill represents the ultimate exercise of political authority. Normally, a state is only justified in using this power against those who have been found guilty of a grave crime after they have been given a fair and transparent trial. Most would probably agree that insurrection should be punishable by death, but this depends on the nature of the state and the reason its citizens are rebelling. Not all states are just or legitimate and despite the ubiquitous use of the term, not all insurgents are “terrorists[1].”

For example, Palestinian and Kashmiri insurgents are fighting to be free of repressive states they were never meant to be a part of that have violently disenfranchised them. Compounding the problem, India and Israel have refused to implement political processes to address their grievances. As such, they have every right[2] to take up arms against those who are oppressing and abusing them. So long as they do so within the bounds of civilized society, meaning they limit their attacks to security forces, their actions are not criminal or immoral.

With these general ideas in mind, the rest of this discussion will focus on the role of security forces, political and socio-economic policies, and the need to counter the ideology of insurgents. 

MILITARY, LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS

The most important point to emphasize with respect to the use of the state’s security forces is that, due to the inherently political nature of domestic insurgencies, they have the smallest part to play. Though force will certainly be required at times, the less it is used, the better. Violence tends to exacerbate the underlying causes of such conflicts, not resolve them.

The improper or excessive use of force is counterproductive because the key to defeating an insurgency is cutting it off and alienating it from the population it needs to hide and thrive. An effective COIN strategy will therefore be one that does not place an undue emphasis on military operations or heavy-handed police tactics. Regretfully, the Pakistani government has a history of relying on such tactics. It is believed to have disappeared over 5,000 people in Balochistan alone.

Pakistan’s leaders must understand that human rights abuses, disappearances, staged executions, and similar conduct are immoral and do infinitely more harm than good, which is not a coincidence. They only serve to agitate the population and strengthen the cause of those rebelling against the state. When security personnel act outside the law, they undermine the very institutions they are fighting to protect. Such conduct must never be tolerated and those guilty of abusing the citizenry must be held accountable.

When citizens are merely suspected of being involved in insurrection or have surrendered to security forces, the government must always use the legal system to punish them in a transparent and fair manner. Punishments, especially for capital offenses, must be based on concrete and tangible evidence, not suspicion or circumstance.

Similarly, military operations resulting in civilian casualties, widespread destruction, or the displacement of civilian populations, even if unintentional, will only swell the ranks of insurgents while creating sympathy and space for them to operate. When the state uses force against its own citizens it is imperative it does not abuse their legal or human rights and that it takes great care to avoid civilian casualties in those instances when violence is necessary.

The tendency of most military strategists, especially those with a background in conventional warfare, is to favor kinetic operations to achieve a military victory that is typically measured by counting bodies. Their obsession with tactical victories blinds them to the strategic defeat they inflict upon themselves whenever their bombs kill an innocent human being, or as some prefer to describe it, cause “collateral damage[3].”

Aside from being counterproductive if not properly employed, the use of force will not lead to victory for Pakistan because of geography. Due to the ability of groups like the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) and TTP to hide in Iran and Afghanistan, Pakistan faces an operational environment like those America faced in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Despite its tactical dominance and superior firepower, it was unable to impose its political will in either of these wars, in part, because it faced insurgents who were able to find sanctuary in neighboring countries. This allowed them to re-group and re-supply in relative safety.

America’s experiences show no amount of firepower can defeat the laws of geography. The long duration of the conflict in Balochistan, which has seen insurgents hiding across international boundaries for decades, and the ability of the TTP to reconstitute itself in Afghanistan after being routed by the Pakistani military is further evidence geography makes a purely military victory impossible.

Although military and law enforcement operations will not, by themselves, lead to victory, they still have an important part to play. Many military strategists believe to win a war one must destroy the enemy’s will and capacity to fight but confuse and conflate the two. Israeli military officers, for example, mistakenly believe destroying the enemy’s will to fight means killing so many people and wreaking so much havoc the enemy is consumed with despair and loses the will to keep fighting. This is a gross misunderstanding of the term.

Neither oppression, murder nor mayhem destroy the enemy’s will to fight. In fact, when directed towards civilians, such actions are more likely to fuel the enemy’s determination. Destroying an enemy’s will to fight is best thought of as resolving the underlying political dispute driving the conflict. It refers to the political dynamics of war. Killing enemy troops, destroying their weapons or their ability to communicate and coordinate with each other, on the other hand, destroys the capacity to fight. This is the domain of violence.

In a conventional war between states, destroying the enemy’s capacity to fight will usually settle the matter, at least in the short term. Egypt’s former ruler Gamal Nasser, for example, may have had the will to fight after the Israeli military destroyed nearly his entire air force, but he no longer had the capacity. Thus ended the Six Day War. Saddam Hussein was equally willing to fight America to hold onto Kuwait, but his military did not have the capacity to do so effectively. 

In an insurgency, destroying the will to fight matters most since these are primarily political affairs. Insurgents, by definition, are lightly armed and often blend into the general population to hide and plan attacks. Destroying their capacity to launch hit and run attacks is exceptionally difficult, particularly when they have bases outside the conflict zone or the benefit of rough and expansive terrain in which to hide. Pakistan’s insurgents enjoy both advantages.

Consequently, the primary role of Pakistan’s security forces will be preventing attacks and maintaining law and order. It is a mostly defensive posture; however, when the rare opportunity to go on the offensive presents itself, it must be seized, despite the difficulties.

These operations must be carried out with extreme precision to avoid any civilian casualties. This will entail relying primarily on intelligence and law enforcement personnel with extensive knowledge of the terrain and enemy paired with well-trained infantry and special operations troops to seek them out in their safe havens, disrupt their finances, and their ability to arm themselves. To do so effectively, Pakistan’s security forces will need to develop strong signals and human intelligence capabilities to locate and attack targets. Timely and accurate intelligence is one of the most important assets in a counter insurgency environment. Without it, wielding force with the precision needed to disrupt the enemy while avoiding civilian casualties becomes impossible.

Instead of following America’s example by relying on drones to attack remote targets, Pakistan will need to rely on mobile infantry as the use of long-range munitions like missiles, rockets, and artillery must be avoided at all costs if civilians are nearby. This also means the use of airpower must be limited to reconnaissance, intelligence gathering, and rapidly deploying troops.

Due to the refusal of Afghanistan’s rulers to reign in the TTP, safe havens and supply depots across the border should be considered fair game but must be attacked with the same emphasis on protecting civilians and precision. Similar attacks on Iranian territory; however, would do more harm than good since they would damage Pakistan’s relationship with a nation it must court as an ally. The author has already discussed the best way to ensure Iran is not used as a base to attack Pakistan here.  

The military and security prongs of Pakistan’s COIN strategy are best thought of as short-term solutions to be employed against those extremists who cannot be reasoned with while the more important job of implementing long term political and socio-economic policies meant to destroy their will to fight and deprive them of their support among the populace is carried out. They must be used sparingly but with ruthless efficiency and, when circumstances allow, in accordance with due process norms.  

POLITICAL SOLUTIONS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

At their root, insurgencies involve people taking up arms against their own governments due to the perceived injustices committed by that government or its lack of legitimacy and competency. Insurgencies are almost always a reaction to bad or unresponsive governance. As such, the fact that two of Pakistan’s provinces are currently dealing with one is an indictment of its incompetent political institutions. Their inability to diffuse tensions before they turn violent or deliver vital public services has created a toxic environment that has allowed chaos to thrive[4].

Though there are many similarities between them, the underlying political dynamics driving the conflicts in Balochistan and KP differ in important ways. Balochistan has been an integral part of Pakistan since the beginning; however, it has always suffered from neglect, abuse, and discrimination. As Nazir Ahmad and Muneeb Yousuf explained for Al Jazeera earlier this year, Pakistan’s leaders have spent years abusing its people and then demonizing or dismissing them when they demand accountability. The rebellion consuming it is best viewed as primarily a reaction to this abuse and neglect.

The rebellion being waged by the TTP has different origins since the tribal areas that are the epicenter of its revolt have historically governed themselves and were only recently integrated into Pakistan. The TTP’s fighters are waging war to maintain the independence their tribes have enjoyed for centuries but have also stated their desire to ensure all of Pakistan is governed according to their strict interpretation of Islamic law. As such, the situation in KP is more intractable due to the fundamentally irreconcilable differences driving the Pakistani state’s confrontation with the TTP.

Whereas ending the conflict in Balochistan requires improving and reforming the political institutions that govern it, ending the rebellion in the former tribal areas requires building many of them from the ground up while fully integrating these territories with the rest of Pakistan. Despite their differences, each conflict boils down to issues of governance that would greatly benefit from finally providing the sort of good governance and public services all governments are supposed to provide their people. Taking this simple step would destroy the will of most of Balochistan’s insurgents to fight by resolving the underlying political and socio-economic issues driving them to violence. Destroying the will of the TTP’s extremists to fight may be impossible due to their illogical demands but depriving them of support among the general population by building a competent government that provides the vital public services people need to thrive in the modern age would still deal it a fatal blow.    

Pakistan’s leaders must focus on three broad categories of political policies and public services. The first relates to ensuring political institutions are inclusive and responsive to the needs of the people. Much of Pakistan’s legal and bureaucratic system was inherited from the British and designed to assert their control over its people. Its current rulers have maintained many of these repressive legal mechanisms to assert their own power. These antiquated laws must be abolished and replaced with those written and enforced by the people they are meant to govern.

In fact, Pakistan’s entire system must be re-designed from top to bottom to empower its provincial and national legislative bodies. As Machiavelli noted centuries ago, these institutions are the key to a well-run state. They must be designed to represent a wide range of political opinions and interest groups and given primary control of the state’s finances as well as meaningful oversight over its various agencies and departments. The ability to use money to influence their deliberations and policies must be strictly prohibited. Half of their seats must be reserved for women and minority groups must be guaranteed seats according to their proportion of the population. Finally, elections to choose their members must be free, fair, held regularly, and offer people legitimate choices about who should rule them while imposing term limits on the number of times they can hold office. These checks are necessary to ensure legislatures remain beholden to the people instead of the monied interests that have a habit of taking control of them.  

Citizens and the civic organizations and associations they create must be free to meet, organize, express themselves, and lobby for their preferred policies without interference. All Pakistani citizens must be able to participate freely in the political systems that govern them and express non-violent opinions without restriction. Empowering people to order their own lives and express themselves are vital parts of creating a political environment conducive to the peaceful expression of ideas which is a critical step in making sure grievances against the state do not lead to violence. The more the government chokes off political speech or represses organizations like the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement, the more space it creates for violence.

The second set of policies relates to maintaining law and order by protecting citizens from each other, fairly settling disputes between them and preventing government excess, abuse, and corruption. This requires creating honest and effective judicial, law enforcement, and regulatory agencies that can maintain the rule of law and extend the writ of the government to all corners of the country.

Without the rule of law, the prosperity and well-being of the entire society declines. Criminality and chaos reign, commerce retracts, and businesses stop investing. This allows insurgencies to thrive in a variety of ways.

Many of the insurgent groups fighting Pakistan have already tapped into its black market and lawless environment to arm themselves and generate revenue from drugs, smuggling, kidnapping, and protection rackets. The TTP even has shadow governments in at least seven districts to settle disputes and impose governance on the locals. Like a virus, they will only grow and spread until Pakistan’s government builds competent law enforcement and judicial agencies capable of stopping them.

The third set of policies relate to providing for socio-economic development. In the age of the administrative state, governments play a pivotal and multi-faceted role in this arena. Deciding how to invest public funds to spur socio-economic growth touches on the age-old question of whether it is better to teach someone to fish or just give them the fish. A lot of politicians prefer to give the fish away in the form of subsidies, tax breaks, plum contracts, and welfare since these handouts sustain their power. The wiser course is to use public funds to teach people how to fish.

One of the most important ways to do that is by finally building a modern education system that gives Pakistanis the critical thinking, technical, and problem-solving skills required to thrive in the digital age. Pakistan currently spends less than 2% of its GDP on education and its schools are notorious for emphasizing rote memorization over independent or creative thinking. An estimated 26 million Pakistani children are out of school and many of them live in Balochistan and KP.

The need to build vibrant schools transcends these conflicts but it cannot be overstated how much neglecting to do so has contributed to them. The refusal of Pakistan’s elite to invest in public education due to their ability to pay for private schools is yet one more example of their incredibly short-sighted and self-destructive thinking.

Aside from teaching people to fish, governments must create an environment that allows business and commerce to thrive so they can put their fishing skills to good use. This requires a variety of policies too numerous to adequately address here. At a minimum, governments must build economic infrastructure like fiber optic lines, highways, and power plants while providing the essential but often overlooked services like running water, sanitation, internet access, and electricity that make modern life possible. They must also implement fiscal and banking policies that encourage domestic savings so they can be re-invested towards productive ends in the form of loans and reduce regulations that stifle trade or create barriers to entry for new businesses while investing in modern healthcare infrastructure, renewable energy, and boosting exports.

These are all basic, common-sense steps that should be obvious to everyone. Since Pakistan’s leaders have adamantly refused to implement them for decades, it seemed necessary to explain them.

Pakistan’s elite have not been receptive to these ideas due to a variety of historical and institutional factors that we do not have the space to adequately address either. However, it should be noted that land reforms, which are long overdue in Pakistan, would address one of these institutional barriers while improving the socio-economic situations in both provinces, which would also reduce violence.

Despite the desperate need for land reforms designed to distribute smaller parcels to many of the country’s rural poor, no one has devised a mechanism to achieve this goal that is not mired in corruption or subject to abuse. The most logical way to break up large, unproductive land holdings is by using the tax code[5] and market mechanisms to incentivize their owners to sell parcels they are not using to generate revenue by taxing them at a significantly higher rate than productive land. Note the most important variable here is not the size of the tract but whether it is being used productively since those who put large tracts of land to productive use should be rewarded, not penalized. Over the long run, using tax and market-based incentives to break up Pakistan’s many large parcels of unproductive land would slowly ameliorate the negative impact of having so much of its land owned by so few of its people.

To accelerate the process, the 1 million acres of land recently sought by the Army from the Punjab government for “corporate farming” purposes should be re-distributed to the young men and women looking for work throughout the country. To the extent there is unused land in Balochistan and KP, it should be distributed in a similar fashion. Priority should be given to those displaced by climate disasters or conflict and parcels should not exceed 5-10 acres.

To assist these people in putting this land to productive uses, the government must provide them with the training and resources needed to utilize the latest agricultural techniques by funding universities and nurturing local industry that can supply the necessary goods and expertise. Developing these capabilities will require training the scientists and engineers needed to develop new crops, seeds, and technology to improve yields and productivity. It will also require factories that can produce tractors, drip irrigation systems, solar panels, vertical grow equipment, greenhouses, and even microchips to power the sensors, drones, and software used to monitor crops and inputs.

Land reforms combined with modernizing Pakistan’s inefficient agricultural sector and making it self-sufficient would help stabilize both provinces. Aside from stimulating the industrial activity associated with building the goods described above, it would increase the availability of products for export and the raw materials needed to supply other local industries. Most importantly, as Marie Antoinette and the French aristocracy once learned the hard way, providing people with abundant and cheap food plays a part in staving off insurgencies and revolutions too. The need to develop these capabilities is even more pressing due to the looming threat of climate change which has already hurt crop production throughout the country and will only fuel further unrest.

A healthy, self-sufficient agricultural base is the foundation upon which a strong economy and state is built. And building a strong state is the most fundamental element to quelling domestic insurgencies. There will always be extremists who prefer violence over reason. America is full of well-armed extremist groups and militias. But none of them have turned their weapons on their government because the American state is too powerful to challenge. Pakistan must strive to build a state equally capable of dissuading its own extremists from violence. Combined, the policies suggested above would allow its leaders to do exactly that.

IDEOLOGY AND THE WAR OF IDEAS

Another important, but often underrated, aspect to defeating insurgents is defeating the ideology that motivates them and their supporters. Pakistan’s leaders have taken a step in the right direction by labeling the TTP as “kharijites,” however, the term “munafiqun” would be more accurate. Given their determination to divide and weaken a country with the potential to be the Muslim world’s most powerful state, they are clearly unbelievers masquerading as Muslims or working at the behest of foreign powers against the interests of the Muslim community. In either case, they are hypocrites under both Quranic and contemporary definitions and should be labelled as such.

Aside from accurately describing their enemies, they must do more to articulate why the demands of those rebelling against the state are unjust and irrational. The best way to do that is by explaining why they make no sense.

Though the conflict in Balochistan has primarily been driven by the abuse and neglect its people have suffered over the years, there is also a nationalist element to their cause. The Baloch constitute a unique cultural and linguistic group with their own definable territory. Based on these factors, some believe they deserve their own state.

These views are an extension of the nationalist ideologies that spread to the Muslim world from Europe and helped spur and shape many of the anti-colonial struggles that worked to end its rule of the region. As the Muslim world continues to consolidate and rebuild in the aftermath of these conquests, it is inevitable some of the new states created in the post-colonial period will collapse or be re-shaped based on these same ideas. This is a natural process that has been going on since the beginning of civilization. It can currently be seen at work in Syria, Iraq, Libya, and Sudan, none of which are likely to retain their current boundaries for much longer.

Whether Pakistan suffers a similar fate partially depends on whether the Baloch cause-belli is reasonable or realistic. Thankfully, it is neither.  Though the Baloch certainly constitute a unique ethnic group, there are simply too few of them to assert control over their vast province since they are bordered by substantially greater numbers of Persians, Pashtuns, Sindhis, and Punjabis. The laws of demographics and the way in which larger and denser populations naturally expand into and assert control over sparsely populated adjacent territories suggests the Baloch are destined to remain minorities within a larger political experiment. Whether this experiment is centered in Persia, Afghanistan, or the Punjab is the only real question. For a variety of practical and political reasons, such as their proximity and established connections, the Baloch are better off linked to the latter than either of the former options. For all its faults, the Pakistani government is far more accommodating than either the Taliban or the Ayatollahs who rule Iran.

On a more philosophical level, it should be noted that nationalist ideologies and sentiments have no place in the Muslim world. They may have been necessary to help organize resistance to European control but have played a mostly toxic role in dividing Muslim societies into ever smaller tribes that no longer recognize each other as family. The consequences of these divisions have been made painfully obvious in Gaza, Kashmir, Yemen, Chechnya, Bosnia, and many other places. While one can certainly empathize with the Baloch and must concede their perspective is not without some merit, overall, the notion that Pakistan must be divided to support their nationalist aspirations is not reasonable or just.

Despite its many flaws, Pakistan is a noble cause worth fighting for. The growing right-wing belligerence and saffron themed fanaticism in India proves exactly why the Muslims of South Asia need their own homeland and why Pakistan must remain a unified and strong nation to protect them. The Pan-Islamic ideas that sparked its creation are still worthwhile, but they must be revitalized in a way that reflects the realities of today’s world.

Doing that will require building political systems that devolve power down to local communities to prevent abuse by distant elites or feelings of marginalization. Only a liberal, democratic system that respects the differences between Pakistan’s incredibly diverse people and allows them to govern themselves can keep the country together.

Conversely, the authoritarian and draconian ideas articulated by the TTP will keep Pakistan at war with itself forever. Compared to the Baloch, the arguments put forth to justify the TTP’s violence are completely unhinged. The TTP take their inspiration from their brothers in arms in Afghanistan, who spent a combined thirty years fighting off Russian and American occupiers.  They seek to emulate their example by destroying the Pakistani state and creating an emirate modeled after the one created in Afghanistan. In other words, they want to turn Pakistan into Afghanistan, a mediaeval society, bereft of wisdom, scientific knowledge, industry, or modern armaments that has proven incapable of deterring invaders.

Nothing in Afghanistan’s modern history should be viewed as a victory for Muslims or something to imitate. Afghanistan has been repeatedly invaded by a succession of Great Powers because it is incredibly weak and unstable. As a result, it has been unable to build a central government that can bring its diverse people together or field a modern military to defend them. Millions of innocent Afghan lives were torn apart and destroyed because their rulers were too weak to protect them.

Afghans may have been able to fight off their occupiers, but the fact they were forced to resort to guerrilla tactics to win their freedom is a testament to their enduring weakness, not their strength. They are not an ideal to aspire to but a cautionary tale that should inspire others to avoid making similar mistakes by studying why Afghanistan has been so weak and easily conquered for so long.

Part of the answer lies in the extreme and illogical views espoused by the TTP and their Afghan compatriots. Both believe in a harsh and vicious interpretation of Islam that not only contradicts many of the precedents set during the early Islamic period they claim to idealize but makes no sense in the modern era. Like many authoritarian political movements in the Muslim world, the TTP believe the government’s job is to “command the good” and “forbid the bad.”

Giving the government the power to police religious behavior is the most poisonous and inappropriate use of political power imaginable. It inevitably leads to dictatorship and abuse while corrupting a nation’s political and religious institutions. The only way to prevent this corruption is by keeping politics and religion separate. The government’s role is not to enforce religious practices or conformity but to protect the nation from invasion, maintain law and order, and nurture socio-economic development.

The TTP’s refusal to countenance change, accommodate those with differing religious views or empower women epitomizes the sort of incredibly self-destructive and reactionary ideas that allowed Europe to conquer and colonize the Muslim world in the first place. To embrace their worldview is to embrace suicide by inviting more conquest and destruction. It is the very definition of insanity.

If Muslims ever want to put an end to the massacres and violence that have consumed so many of their communities, they must shun the insane arguments articulated by groups like the TTP and Afghan Taliban. They must also change the authoritarian legal environment and culture that allows them to flourish. Pakistan’s sporadic lynchings by angry mobs, blasphemy laws, and the blatant and violent discrimination Ahmadis face are all tied to the same destructive mentality that allows groups like the TTP to take root. Until Ahmadis are free to worship as they please and people are free to speak their minds without fear of mob violence or legal proceedings, Pakistan will remain a land where evil men try to impose their will on others.

CONCLUSION

Unfortunately, implementing these ideas requires the sort of consensus Pakistan’s rulers are currently incapable of reaching. The country’s most popular leader sits in jail alongside the former director of its premier intelligence agency. Pakistan’s elite is too fractured and focused on doing business as usual to face the nation’s many challenges.

The farcical “election” that brought the current government to power shows the military and its allies have learned nothing from their past mistakes. None of the changes or policies recommended herein will work so long as Pakistan’s military remains its most powerful political and economic actor. As we have explained, defeating insurgencies requires an emphasis on political, not military solutions. Which means Pakistan’s military rulers are ill-equipped to resolve these issues. Nevertheless, they refuse to give way to the civilians best suited to the job or contemplate meaningful reforms. Instead, they appear determined to maintain their power and privileges until the entire country collapses around them or they are swept away in the tumult of revolution.

[1] Also, it should be noted that even “terrorists” deserve due process.

[2] Although the Palestinians are well within their rights to rebel against Israel’s apartheid policies and occupation, as the author has argued many times before, their best course of action is still non-violent resistance.

[3] Another euphemism popular in the West that highlights its moral depravity and ability to de-humanize the victims of its many wars of imperial conquest.

[4] Spill over from the Russian and American occupations of Afghanistan have also contributed to the current situation; however, the choice to arm the most extreme elements within the Mujahideen and support their offspring in the Taliban was made by the government of Pakistan and its short-sighted political elites. As such, Pakistan’s government is guilty of laying the foundations for these insurgencies and exacerbating the issues driving them because of its incompetence.    

[5] This will, of course, require building tax agencies capable of enforcing the tax code and collecting funds without siphoning them.

Tagged : / / / / / / / /

For the record

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorizedLeave a Comment on For the record

President Biden’s decision not to seek reelection was particularly validating for me. This development is consistent with one of the subplots in my forthcoming novel, How the Assassination of Donald Rumsfeld led to the fall of the Milky Way. It is a work of science fiction involving wormholes and time travel that mostly functions as a parable to show why the Muslim world has been so weak for so long. The main protagonist from Part I convinces himself to enlist in the US Space Force in the year 2025, in part, because the White House is occupied by Gavin Newsome, who replaces Biden after he unexpectedly drops out of the race shortly before the election. The character is an Iraqi refugee who grew up in the suburbs of Maryland and has no desire to serve under a Commander and Chief who supports apartheid Israel and its violence against the Palestinians. I wrote this scene in 2022 in reference to one of Israel’s many other violent attacks on Gaza.  

This prediction is one of several I have made since I began my novels and blog, www.mirrorsfortheprince.com.

For example, over the years I have made repeated calls for the Palestinians to adopt non-violent means of resistance to Israel’s apartheid regime. On Nov. 11, 2020, I even suggested “it is time for the Palestinians to surrender.” My calls for non-violence were based on a clear-eyed diagnosis of the dynamics driving this conflict wherein the Palestinians are hopelessly outgunned by people willing to slaughter innocent women and children.

Given recent events in Gaza, my admonition that “armed struggle plays directly into the hands of the considerably more powerful IDF” has proven depressingly prescient. Although the numerous reports of Israeli soldiers shooting unarmed people waving white flags have certainly given me pause, I still believe following my advice to wave white flags of surrender en masse would have prevented much of the bloodshed witnessed since Oct. 7th. 

I also wrote “Israelis just elected a government that will murder thousands of Palestinian civilians” ten months before its massacre in Gaza on Dec. 5th 2022 and that “when the inevitable happens, most Americans will talk about how “complicated” this conflict is while our government continues to supply Israel with the weapons and funding needed to continue the slaughter.” I further argued, “Israel’s new government is crazy and will very likely end up being genocidal” in that same piece. Here, it was obvious the moment Israel’s extremist government was elected that it would do everything in its power to goad the Palestinians into responding and then use their response as an excuse to unleash horrific violence.

Similarly, I argued the August before Hamas’ attack that efforts to bring Saudi Arabia into the Abraham Accords would never lead to real peace because marginalizing the Palestinians would only make the region’s “problems worse by exacerbating its underlying issues.” Foreign Affairs Magazine published a piece that mostly agreed with my analysis. It just took them eleven months and the war in Gaza to see what was obvious to me much earlier (https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/dangerous-push-israeli-saudi-normalization).

My analysis regarding areas outside Palestine has proven equally accurate. On Nov. 17, 2020, I argued the Afghan Republic’s dependence on American military support was a critical vulnerability that would lead to “the development of an entirely new government in Afghanistan that, at best, will have to share power with the Taliban in the near future” eight months before the Taliban marched into Kabul.

On Oct. 20, 2022, when America’s leaders and foreign policy establishment were up in arms about Saudi Arabia’s decision to drive oil prices higher, I mocked the idea that their anger portended a long term shift as some other analysts were suggesting. Instead, I argued this episode was just another bump in their often bumpy relationship that would soon be “glossed over.” The rumors these nations are currently negotiating a long-term security agreement that may involve the transfer of nuclear technology shows my analysis was spot on again.

Even the anti-Muslim riots that  recently shook the UK validate the concerns raised in this piece about the dangers Muslims in America face. The only difference: America’s right-wing nuts are armed with AR-15s, not knives.

Admittedly, forecasting geopolitical developments is more art than science since predicting the exact fallout when political, social, military, and economic trends collide is obviously impossible. It is possible, however, to analyze data, compare it to additional data from the historical record, and use this information to make logical inferences and extrapolations.

Even in a fictional setting written several years ago, it seemed clear Biden’s age would force him to step aside. The difficulty was not in predicting he would be unable to run again but in deciding on his successor. I chose Gavin Newsome because I believed America was too racist and sexist to support a candidate like Kamala Harris. That same scene also forecast Ron DeSantis as the Republican nominee because the idea anyone could support Trump for President again after Jan. 6th seemed beyond the pale.

Similarly, I never imagined Putin would be dumb enough to hold on in Ukraine for this long. It was obvious within the first few months of this war that he had marched his forces into an unwinnable quagmire that could easily lead to the disintegration of the Russian Federation. I still stand by that conclusion, but I underestimated Putin’s willingness to double down on a losing bet and Russia’s ability to withstand western sanction and rebuild its forces. Nevertheless, Putin’s stubbornness over Ukraine will likely have a similar impact as the failed Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, though it may take another decade or so before we see the results.

My repeated ability to accurately forecast world events suggests the underlying analysis driving these observations is sound, which should worry people in America and the Muslim world. As I have stated many times, America is headed for disaster. A reasonable analysis of the macro-trends suggests economic upheaval and large-scale violence are very real possibilities within the next few decades. America today reminds me of Prof. Kennedy’s admonition that “a large military establishment may, like a great monument, look imposing to the impressionable observer; but if it is not resting upon a firm foundation (in this case, a productive national economy), it runs the risk of a future collapse.”

America is headed for the same abyss that trapped the Muslim world centuries ago since it is now controlled by military industrialists and elites who can only thrive when it is at war. As the Ottomans once learned, this is the path to self-destruction.

Unfortunately, my warnings have gone unheeded so far. I do not expect these words will convince anyone either. But as a lawyer, I understand the importance of keeping a record. As such, this piece is intended to memorialize yet one more of my accurate predictions since Part I will probably not be ready for publication before the election in November. At the least, I hope these thoughts will be of interest to those studying us many years from now. But that will probably depend on the accuracy of my other longer-term predictions.

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

What has the war in Gaza revealed about the world?

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorized1 Comment on What has the war in Gaza revealed about the world?

Part IV: the “rules” based international system

This essay was first published here, by the Friday Times on July 16, 2024.

This discussion began by focusing on what the war in Gaza teaches us about America. It will now conclude with an examination of what it reveals about its “rules” based international system. Whereas the lessons gleaned from parts I, II, and III were relatively straight forward, using Gaza to understand the nature of the current international order is more complicated due to America’s contradictory behavior and blatant gaslighting.

For example, Jeffery Cimmino and Matthew Kroenig state the Pax Americana is designed to promote stability throughout the world by encouraging “peaceful, predictable, and cooperative behavior among states that is consistent with liberal values and principles” while placing “limits on the use of military force” and advancing “democratic values and human rights.” However, America’s unequivocal support for apartheid Israel and the massacre it unleashed on Gaza’s civilians suggests these lofty principles have no real connection to its actions. Given the disconnect between its stated ideals and actions, this discussion will focus on America’s behavior to determine three aspects of the international system it created, namely, when does it allow people to wage war, does it protect civilians during war, and whether it truly promotes democracy.

WHEN IS WAR JUSTIFIED?

Men have traditionally waged war for power, wealth, women, and territory. Every once and a while they build empires that pretend to aspire to greater things like God or democracy to justify their actions, but organized violence is rarely noble or moral. In the aftermath of WW2, the nations of the world tried to create a new international order based on the idea that war must only be waged as a last resort. The United Nations (UN) was founded to ensure states had peaceful ways of resolving their disputes to try and avoid future wars. Unfortunately, the five nations empowered to keep the peace were also some of the biggest arms dealers on the planet and each had its own imperial or neo-imperial ambitions. Thus, the system failed. It is mostly irrelevant now, but the UN charter is still meant to govern the conduct of nations, including when they are permitted to wage war.

Though some have tried to make nonsensical distinctions between “wars of choice” and “wars of necessity” to suggest otherwise, from a moral and legal perspective, war is only ever justified as a means of self-defense or coming to the defense of others in extreme situations. The right to self-defense is an almost universally acknowledged concept best characterized as a natural or innate right that is enshrined in most legal systems including Article 51 of the UN charter. In theory, the idea that violence is only ever justified as a defensive action should be easy to apply. Gaza, and by extension the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict, prove otherwise.

Despite what many in the West would like to believe, Oct. 7th did not happen in a vacuum. It happened within the context of Israel’s 16-year blockade of Gaza, its total rejection of diplomacy including several attempts by Hamas to negotiate a long-term peace, its apartheid system, 75 years of conquest and ethnic cleansing and its policy of occasionally “mowing the grass,” which is a disgusting euphemism popular in the West that refers to Israel’s policy of preemptively attacking and murdering Palestinians. During the two years preceding this attack, Israel’s extremist government did everything it could to provoke the Palestinians by desecrating their places of worship and murdering a record number of children. It even attacked Gaza five months before Oct. 7th in May of 2023, killing nine civilians, including 3 children.

In addition to brutalizing the Palestinians, Israel has spent years waging a relentless bombing and clandestine campaign against Iran and its allies because of their support for the Palestinians. It has bombed Lebanon and Syria hundreds of times. It is also responsible for murdering numerous high ranking Iranian government officials and conducting several acts of sabotage on its infrastructure. It even helped America murder General Soleimani, one of Iran’s highest-ranking officers who worked in a hybrid role roughly comparable to being the head of the CIA and America’s special forces command. As the recent strike on Iran’s consulate in Syria shows, Israel’s aggression has only grown over the past eight months. Inexplicably, Muslims are denied the right to defend themselves from this violence. They can neither respond to protect themselves nor intervene to save Palestine’s defenseless people.

On the other end of the spectrum, we are frequently reminded that Israel’s right to defend itself is absolute and expansive. Israel’s supporters have gone out of their way to frame its massacre as an act of self-defense meant to prevent future attacks. But the IDF regained control of the border within two days of the initial attack. It killed, captured, or expelled Hamas’ entire force, ending the threat they posed. Once Israel reinforced the border with its tanks and armored fighting vehicles, there was zero possibility of a repeat attack. That Hamas was able to inflict as much damage as it did, given its limited arsenal of light weapons, was shocking and mostly due to catching Israel off guard. But pretending it has the capabilities for a repeat performance is ridiculous. As such, nothing that has happened since that day can reasonably be described as self-defense. The slaughter Israel has carried out can only be classified as revenge and collective punishment.  

The current war in Gaza and the entire conquest of Palestine reveals a tiered international system in which a privileged few are allowed to wage war while others must never resort to violence, no matter the provocation. Americans and Israelis, as members of the West, can use violence whenever they deem it necessary and have no limits on who or how many they can kill. Whereas Muslims must meekly accept their fate when they are attacked, lest they be labeled “terrorists” and subjected to more violence.

Gaza is but one example of many that prove the point. When the countless other invasions and violent actions America has committed or enabled, like the invasions of Vietnam and Iraq or the insurgencies it supported in Central America are considered, the pattern shows America and its allies enjoy a monopoly on violence. They are allowed to do anything to feel safe, even if that means destroying another country for no reason at all or murdering entire families in their homes as they sleep.

Men still wage war for the same reasons they always have in the Pax Americana. The only difference is when they are armed with weapons made in America, their cause is automatically considered just. To oppose such men, even if they are stealing your land or bombing your family, is a crime.

ARE CIVILIANS PROTECTED DURING WAR?

Hamas’s attack killed over 1200 Israelis, 377 of whom were security personnel and 845 of whom were civilians. It also took over 250 hostages, including women and children. As such, its attack was condemned in the West because it intentionally targeted civilians. President Biden described it as “abhorrent” and “unadulterated evil” that caused harm to “innocent civilians.” The US House of Representatives passed a resolution denouncing it as “barbaric” while one Western commentator argued the violence Israel has inflicted on the Palestinians over the decades did not justify Oct 7th because, “no amount of context justifies killing babies.” These responses were largely due to the belief that Hamas broke the rules by targeting civilians, which is consistent with the idea that the Pax Americana limits the use of military force by protecting innocents during war.

The problem, of course, is that Israel’s response has killed or maimed tens of thousands of civilians. Not only has it killed a staggering number of innocents, but as we have discussed throughout this series, it did so intentionally. Its rules of engagement and targeting practices led it to launch missile strikes on the homes of Palestinian families at night while they were sleeping if its AI software decided one of them might be involved with Hamas. That they were full of children or that Hamas’ fighters were hiding underground was deemed irrelevant. 

Once again, Gaza reveals a double standard. Just as westerners are the only ones who have the right to protect themselves and can wage war under a definition of self-defense so broad it loses all meaning; their civilians are off limits too. Palestinian civilians, on the other hand, are fair game. They can be shot, beaten, carpet bombed, starved, arrested en masse, held without trial indefinitely, tortured or expelled from their homes. Similarly, their homes, hospitals, schools, and places of worship are legitimate targets too.  

In truth, this dynamic has been obvious since the end of WW2, which America concluded by firebombing residential neighborhoods in Tokyo and then dropping two atomic bombs on cities full of women and children. Charges related to the intentional bombing of civilians by German and Japanese officials were even dropped during the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials because the Allies were guilty of committing similar crimes. In fact, one of the few successful defenses available to these officials was pointing to similar conduct on the part of the Allies. Through these proceedings, the founders of the Pax Americana began their reign by giving themselves legal license to murder women and children.

Gaza is just one more example that proves when America, or those it empowers, wage war, they are allowed to murder women and children with impunity. Even an attack on a purely military target like Pearl Harbor will be deemed an offense worthy of burning 100,000 civilians to death. But any attempt to target civilians who deserve protection according to Western eyes, like Ukrainians, Israelis, or Americans, will be met with passionate condemnation and a massive escalation in violence.

DOES THE PAX AMERICANA REALLY PROMOTE DEMOCRACY?

To answer this question, we must look beyond Gaza since the current war does not directly touch on this issue. Thankfully, America’s support for apartheid Israel does. There are over 2.8 million Palestinians in the West Bank who have been forced to live under a brutal military occupation and apartheid system since 1967. None of these people have any say over the government that controls their lives and America has actively supported Israel in denying them their right to self-determination for decades. America’s unequivocal support for apartheid Israel unequivocally shows it does not promote democratic values or human rights.

As usual, Palestine is merely part of a broader pattern. In addition to supporting apartheid Israel in its quest to oppress the Palestinians, America has a long history of supporting dictators and juntas across the world. Since listing all the dictators America has armed and supported over the years would take entirely too much space, we will limit ourselves to just a few examples. It is currently the primary arms dealer to the tyrants who rule Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Bahrain, Qatar, and nearly every other Arab country. Without America’s support, the iron grip these dictators have on their societies would be considerably looser.

America’s support for the region’s despots is just the tip of the iceberg. It has also quietly helped undermine or topple the few democratic movements in the region. According to Shadi Hamid, the Obama Administration effectively gave Egypt’s generals the “greenlight” to overthrow their nation’s first democratically elected government. This assertion is supported by its remarkably muted condemnation of their coup and the haste with which it restored ties once the junta was in power, even after it mercilessly slaughtered over 1,000 demonstrators on the streets of Cairo. Mr. Hamid’s work has shed light on the extent to which America actively helped overthrow Egyptian democracy, though its leaders have done their best to obscure these facts.

Given the degree to which Egypt’s military depends on America for many of its weapons, like the F16s it flies or the M1 Abram tanks that form a substantial part of its armored units, it should be obvious, as a matter of simple logic, that Egypt’s generals would never do anything to jeopardize their access to these weapons. As such, it is highly unlikely they would overthrow their government without first getting permission from their favorite arms dealer.    

America played a similar role in toppling Tunisia’s democratic government too, going so far as to deny a coup had even taken place, and has spent decades undermining Pakistan’s civilian rulers while empowering its generals. But nothing illustrates its hostility to democracy in the Muslim world better than its relationship with Turkey. Even with its restrictions on free speech, Turkey’s claim to the title of the only democracy in the Middle East is superior to Israel’s since it has not violently disenfranchised millions of people under its control based solely on their ethnicity. Despite being the only democracy in the Middle East and the frequent proclamations America’s leaders make regarding their preference for working with other democracies, Turkey’s relationship with America has come under increased strain over the past few decades.

Many analysts like to pretend the souring in relations between these two once stalwart allies is due to Turkey’s “democratic back sliding” or disproportionately blame Turkish President Erdogan’s personal ambitions. Nothing could be further from the truth. The primary catalyst for Turkey’s growing rift with the West was its rejection by the E.U, which unmoored and set it adrift from the Western bloc. A secondary driver of this shift is the fact that Turkey’s government has become more responsive to the desires of its people, which is a function of the growing inclusivity of its political system particularly as it relates to the growth of Turkish civil society. Though it is still flawed in serious ways, Turkey’s democracy is getting stronger. As its democratic system has entrenched itself and grown from the shadow of the generals who so frequently tried to control it, Turkey’s leaders have been forced to act according to the wishes of their constituents. The tensions between Turkey and the West are therefore partially due to the fact that its government now gives expression to the Pan-Islamic sentiments of its people. President Erdogan’s passionate denunciations of Israel and embrace of Hamas are just two examples that show how these sentiments impact his rhetoric and policies.

Taken together, these facts show America is actively opposed to the spread of democracy in the Muslim world. Which makes sense considering its goal is to subjugate the region to its interests. Democratic Muslim governments are harder to control and more likely to enact policies that challenge America’s hegemonic policies. A democratic Egypt, for example, would never have worked with Israel to blockade Gaza, just as a democratic Turkey has become more willing to condemn Israeli excesses.

TYING IT ALL TOGETHER

Gaza reveals the true nature of the Pax Americana by showing it is a system that treats Muslim children as legitimate targets during war and denies their parents the rights to defend or govern themselves. As a system predicated on war and domination, it is not based on a set of definable rules but force and coercion. It is designed to violently maintain America’s control over the Muslim world and its resources. Which finally brings us to Gaza’s most important lesson.

America and Israel represent an immediate and existential threat to the peace and prosperity of not just the Palestinians, but the entire Muslim world. They have chosen the path of war and have no interest in real peace. Instead of recognizing that the choice to build Israel on Arab land means they must learn to live as equals with Palestinians, they have chosen apartheid and slaughter. Both believe they have the right to attack any part of the Muslim world they deem fit and have proven capable of mercilessly massacring children in pursuit of their goals.

By any sane measure, meaning one that values all human life equally regardless of the faith or identity of the victims, America has been an agent of chaos, violence, and repression throughout the region. One can only hope those responsible for its crimes live long enough to see justice. There is no statute of limitations on mass murder, after all. Just as Israel’s spies famously tracked down Nazi officials decades after WW2, there must come a day when its soldiers and politicians are dragged before tribunals to face justice for their transgressions alongside their American accomplices.

Before that can happen, Muslims must take the steps needed to protect themselves. Given the unhinged people Israelis and Americans keep choosing to lead them, their racist world views, lethal arsenals, and history of using chemical or nuclear weapons against defenseless women and children, Muslims should be very frightened of the type of violence they are capable of unleashing. The only way to put an end to the threat they pose is by finally taking the long overdue steps needed to build strong states that can defend them and work together.

The key to doing that is building inclusive and democratic political and social systems and institutions that can lead to the economic and technological growth they so desperately need. Muslim nations do not need more guns but more factories, start-ups, universities, research institutes, laboratories, political parties, and independent and honest judges, prosecutors, and journalists. Societies that do not possess such ingredients are incapable of building prosperous economies driven by innovation and technological growth which means they are incapable of building powerful militaries armed with the most advanced weapons.   

These ingredients will also help bring Muslims together, which is the only way to counter the Western coalition’s far greater strength. There is no single Muslim state powerful enough to stand up to America and its friends. The Arab, Central Asian, and African parts of the Muslim world are too weak or servile to be of any use in this regard while those in Southeast Asia are too remote. As such, the burden must fall to Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan. It is only by creating a deep-rooted alliance between these nations that Muslims have any chance at finally ending the neo-colonial dynamics that have ensnared them and regaining sovereignty over their lands in both name and fact.

America realized the possibilities of such an alliance decades ago when it created CENTO. The logic that compelled it to do so is still sound. Combining the power of these three nations would give them the strength to protect the Muslim world while stabilizing a large chunk of it. Turkish and Pakistani leaders may not wish to openly break with America, but any fool can see this is inevitable and necessary. America has denied both nations its most advanced weapons while offering them to their archrivals in Greece and India. It is investing in India’s defense industry while sanctioning Pakistan’s and it has an unstated policy of ensuring no Muslim state can ever develop enough power to threaten Israel or its control of the region. Whether they realize it or not, Pakistan and Turkey have no choice but to create an alliance with Iran. All three desperately need each other.

Effectively combining their powers will require linking them on multiple levels. They must create free trade zones reinforced by infrastructure designed to increase the flow of people, goods, and ideas between them. Encouraging tourism by creating international organizations designed to increase people to people contact like sports leagues and professional, civil, trade, and academic associations would also be wise. Even something as simple as starting a soccer league featuring teams from each country would go a long way towards building the sort of ties that can bind these nations. Most importantly, they must create fair and transparent ways for their people to trade with each other on a large scale. The best way to do that is by creating democratic systems based on the rule of law. Which highlights, yet again, the desperate need to build such systems. Bringing these nations together represents the Muslim world’s best hope for finally ending the pattern of conquests and massacres that have plagued it for centuries.

As explained in Part III, it is only a matter of time before America implodes. Its decline will add to the chaos over the short term but may bring some reprieve over the long run. The problem is that at some point, another nation will step in and the same dynamics that prevented Muslims from protecting themselves from the West will still exist. Due to its unique geographic position as a bridge that connects Western Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, India, and China, there will always be powerful states with an interest in controlling the Muslim world. As a result, Muslims nations must remain vigilant about safeguarding their freedoms.  As Palestine shows, the price for failing in this vigilance is paid in blood. If Muslims ever want the bloodshed to stop, they will need to make some serious changes to their societies consistent with the ideas discussed above. Until they do, they will be forced to obey the ridiculous “rules” others impose on them.

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

What has the war in Gaza revealed about the world?

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorized2 Comments on What has the war in Gaza revealed about the world?

Part III: Muslims in America

This essay was first published here, by the Friday Times on July 10th, 2024.

We will now focus on what lessons the carnage in Gaza holds for America’s Muslims. To appreciate the full impact of this war, one must first understand how it fits within the context of America’s relationship with the wider Muslim world, which has largely been shaped by its desire to control the Middle East’s energy resources and make sure no Muslim state can threaten apartheid Israel.

In pursuit of these goals, it established de facto military control over much of the Middle East. It has had bases in Turkey since the advent of the Cold War, but once that conflict ended it used Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait as a pretext to establish a permanent military presence in the Gulf. As the recent attacks on its forces in Jordan, Iraq, and Syria show, it has troops scattered throughout the region. It maintains several air squadrons composed of advanced fighters, bombers, and drones and a permanent naval presence in the region that includes constantly rotating at least one aircraft carrier battle group into either the eastern Mediterranean Sea or Persian Gulf. In total, America has roughly 60-80k troops in the region on any given day. 

In addition to its substantial military presence, it has managed to ensure every Arab state, except Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and Sudan, is governed by dictators who must comply with its wishes. To make sure Muslim states are ruled by compliant rulers, it has employed the full spectrum of violence from assassinations and coups to all out invasions. It has also used special forces, drone strikes, and the occasional missile volley to quiet those opposed to its agenda. However, its preferred method of control is selling weapons to Muslim states, thereby making them dependent on America to maintain and equip their militaries. Through these various mechanisms, it has established a form of neo-imperial military control over much of the region and fittingly given it a neo-colonial façade.

It has achieved this power by inflicting unspeakable pain and suffering throughout the region. Gaza is but the latest in a long line of massacres America has committed or enabled against Muslims. An estimated 576,000 Iraqi children died because of the sanctions it imposed before the 2003 invasion, another 4.5 million died because of the War on Terror, and its support and weapons allowed Saudi Arabia to kill 377,000 Yemenis and Egypt to jail 60,000 non-violent political prisoners. Due to these actions, as well as many others we simply do not have the space to list, America has the blood of millions of innocents on its hands.

In sum, at the same time America was inviting Muslims from all over the world to its shores via immigration policies that made it easy for educated professionals to settle there, it was also violently attacking their homelands or supporting the brutal regimes that may have prompted some of them to seek new homes. Given this history and its long-standing support for apartheid Israel, being Muslim in America has always been complicated. By virtue of its decades long attempt to subjugate and control the Muslim world, America’s Muslims have often been in the uneasy position of being viewed and treated as a fifth column who cannot be fully trusted. As a result, dealing with bigotry and Islamophobia is an implicit part of the Muslim American experience.

Despite everything, America’s Muslims have thrived as a community. The Economist went so far as to call the twenty year period after 9/11 a “golden age” for us in which our population doubled and our influence grew. Until eight months ago, we were fully integrated into the fabric of American life and enmeshed in the pursuit of our American dreams.

Gaza has shattered those dreams. The images of mutilated and lifeless Palestinian children have reminded us that America is still perfectly capable of massacring Muslims while hiding behind vile, racist justifications to obscure its crimes. Watching Gaza’s poor people brutally murdered from afar and living in and paying taxes to the country enabling these crimes has been excruciatingly painful.

It has also led to action. As a community, America’s Muslims have spoken out loudly in defense of Gaza’s children. We have marched, petitioned our leaders, and even blocked traffic to bring attention to their plight. Despite our desperate pleas and the overwhelming evidence of Israel’s crimes, most have demonized, dismissed or ignored us. Instead of listening, many accused us of being terrorist sympathizers, pro-Hamas, or antisemitic. Congressman Mike Rollins went so far as to praise blatantly racist counter protesters in Mississippi, one of whom was mimicking an ape and gesturing towards a Pro-Palestinian African American protester. But Mr. Collins is hardly the only bigot in Congress. Rashida Tlaib, the only Palestinian-American member of Congress, was censured by 234 of her colleagues for daring to object to the slaughter of her people and call for their freedom. On the other hand, Brian Mast faced no consequences for justifying the murder of Palestinian babies by comparing them to Nazis.

These officials are merely a reflection of the society that elected them. America has always tolerated violence and discrimination towards Muslims. Since the start of this war, our children have been stabbed and shot. We have been fired from our jobs, arrested, expelled from our schools, sued, and even barred from speaking at our graduations. All because we refuse to be silent when Israel’s military murders children or ignore that it is a brutal apartheid state guilty of denying millions of Palestinians their basic human rights for nearly 60 years.

While all of this has been going on, most Americans have proven they simply do not care. About the mass murder their government is enabling in Gaza, or the blatant discrimination Muslim Americans face. Aside from a small, vocal minority, most have done their best to ignore Israel’s crimes and their nation’s role in aiding them.

The cumulative weight of this data reveals some very harsh truths. The most obvious: America’s Muslims are second class citizens who do not have the same right to express ourselves as our neighbors. Even when our government actively helps slaughter thousands of children, we must accept its actions without dissent or suffer the consequences. Despite our increased numbers and influence, neither our lives nor our voices matter. Not only do they not matter, but those who insist on expressing them will be silenced.

In many ways, Gaza reinforces what we have known the whole time. Muslims in America will always be viewed with suspicion and hostility. Even when we fully embrace the American ethos and fight for universal concepts like defending children from mass murder, we will be vilified, then ignored.

Gaza has reminded us how precarious it is to be Muslim in America. Nothing proves the point better than the upcoming presidential election. Our choices are Genocide Joe Biden, a self-described Zionist guilty of enabling the worst massacre of Palestinians since 1948 or Donald Trump, another self-described Zionist who believes his opponent has shown too much restraint in trying to limit Israel’s massacre. The only difference between these men is that one gaslights and lies to deflect criticism of his crimes while the other openly embraces and celebrates them. But when it comes to valuing Muslim lives or protecting children from slaughter, they are the same.  

Which leads us to another even harsher truth: Muslims do not belong in America. We are not wanted, and will not be safe if we stay here. As referenced in Part I, America is not on a sound trajectory. Over the next few decades, several seemingly unrelated factors will come together to cause economic and political upheaval of the sort that often leads to violence.

The starting point for such a discussion must begin with the massive debt America has accumulated to pay for its hegemonic ambitions and the exponential rate at which the interest payments required to service it are growing. This expense will cost $12.4 trillion over the next decade, making it the largest item in the budget and creating an unsustainable situation in which America will be printing and borrowing money to pay interest on the money it has already printed and borrowed. In an ironic twist, the debt Ronald Reagan first took on to pay for the arms race that bankrupted the Soviets now threatens to do the same to America. It is no longer difficult to imagine a day when it reaches $70-80 trillion, and the interest payments alone consume more than the federal government collects in tax receipts.  

Aside from printing the dollar into oblivion, America’s leaders have also been entering into free trade agreements that incentivized their companies to shift their manufacturing operations overseas. These agreements have caused millions of once high paying factory jobs to disappear. What was once described as the world’s workshop now consistently imports far more than it exports and has had an incredibly weak balance of payments for over thirty years in a row. This has had wide ranging political, social, and economic effects, the most obvious of which is the MAGA movement. As America’s leaders continue to debase their currency, paying for the massive quantity of goods and inputs their economy no longer produces will become prohibitively expensive. The destabilizing impact of dismantling its manufacturing base will only grow over the next few decades.

The root cause of America’s financial distress is its insistence on maintaining a military that can simultaneously control Western Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia. America’s military is not built to protect the homeland but to project power throughout nearly the entire world. Due to its hegemonic ambitions, it has spent an obscene amount of money on national security over the years and continues to do so. It spent $21 trillion on its military between just 9/11 and 2021 and another $1.7 trillion in 2022 and 2023, which accounts for most of its $34 trillion debt. In its quest to dominate the world, America maxed out its credit cards and the bills are starting to come due.

Alas, its corporate military interests now have such a strangle hold on its political economy that having an honest conversation about the desperate need to stand down and re-adjust the country’s spending and national security priorities is impossible. Instead of being honest about its dire finances, America’s elite wax on about silly ideas like modern monetary theory. Its rival political factions can only agree on massive spending packages that further add to its debt and their desire to dominate the world.  Due to their refusal to accept simple truths, America’s leaders have overextended themselves.

Having dismantled the factories that were the true source of their nation’s power, they no longer have the resources to control Eurasia from end to end. Not only have they overextended themselves, but they have gone against decades of very sensible policies that sought to prevent China and Russia from coming to together by doing everything in their power to unite these giants and their interior lines of communication. If Eurasia is the world island, America is firmly on the outside, looking in, and trying to dominate from the perimeter.

From both a financial and geopolitical perspective, America’s leaders are doing everything possible to accelerate their own demise. When historians look back at their fall, they will probably describe it as the greatest own goal in history. America is arguably the most geographically blessed political entity that has ever existed. It possesses formidable natural defenses that could have allowed it to spend a minimal amount on its military. Rather than use these blessings to strengthen themselves by educating their people and building world class infrastructure to maintain their considerable economic advantages, its leaders spent the past eighty years investing in war and hegemony. In doing so, they have neglected the true source of civilizational power, namely, economic, scientific, and industrial infrastructure and capabilities.

The only thing propping up this house of cards is the dollar, which is the currency of choice for people and governments throughout the globe. In their drive to control the world, America’s leaders are doing their best to change this. They have turned their control of the dollar and the international trading system that relies on it into a cudgel to punish their enemies and coerce any who might disobey their wishes. In doing so, they are incentivizing the rest of the world to find a substitute currency that cannot be controlled from Washington DC. The long-term economic consequences of using the dollar as a geopolitical weapon will ultimately be reduced demand that lessens its value.

Combined these factors will lead to a variety of woes like hyperinflation, exorbitant taxes, high interest rates, higher input costs, reduced investment, diminished public services, and insolvency. These will, in turn, lead to spiraling social and political chaos. By themselves, these developments would be enough to cause violence, but they are not the only trends to consider. At the same time its finances are collapsing, America will also be undergoing significant demographic changes that will only add to the tumult. By 2045, white people will no longer form the majority in America.  

Western societies have frequently featured overtly racist ideologies and discriminatory policies that violently oppressed people based on their faith, race, or ethnicity. The Inquisition, the various progroms against Jews culminating in the Holocaust, the Atlantic slave trade, the genocide perpetrated against Native Americans, America’s and South Africa’s histories as apartheid states, the internment of Japanese Americans during WW2, and Israeli apartheid all have their origins in the Western world’s bigoted and violently xenophobic cultures. These values have been an important component of the Western ethos for centuries and, as Gaza shows, still shape the perspectives of many Americans. Considering this history, it is not unfair to wonder how white people will react to having to share power as a minority, particularly since their declining numbers and power will be accompanied by significant economic upheaval.

As January 6th showed, there are already large swathes of white America who feel alienated and marginalized by the way their country is changing. As their share of the population shrinks, these feelings will only grow. That awful day may have marked the first violent coup attempt in America’s history, but it will not be the last.

Over the decades, America has trained millions of its men in the arts of subverting governments and organized violence. It has also made it easy for them to arm themselves. As the world’s preeminent merchant of death, America is flooded with weapons. There are over 400 million personal firearms floating around the country. According to the Washington Post, 20 million of them are AR15 style assault rifles. In addition to personal firearms, America is one of the world’s leading manufacturers of jet fighters, tanks, armored fighting vehicles, large caliber machine guns, rocket launchers, drones, and literally anything else needed to kill or maim human beings en masse. It features warehouses, factories, military bases, storage depots, and armories full of the tools needed to level places like Gaza. Each of its fifty states even has its own military.

Climate change will only make things worse. The increasing severity and frequency of large-scale natural disasters like wildfires, flooding, and exceptionally strong hurricanes and storms has already caused some insurance companies to abandon several particularly vulnerable states like Florida and Iowa. As the scale of these disasters grows, the costs and impact will too. The burden to rebuild and make the victims whole will ultimately fall to a federal government drowning in debt and therefore unable to adequately cope.

Predicting the exact fallout when these trends collide is obviously impossible. Nevertheless, it is possible to analyze this data, compare it to additional data from the historical record, and use this information to make logical inferences and extrapolations. A reasonable analysis of the macro-trends suggests large scale violence is a very real possibility within the next few decades and that America will soon find itself in serious trouble. Of course, “soon” is a relative term in the historical scheme of things. The Abbasid, Roman, and Ottoman Empires took centuries to fully collapse and be reborn. America seems poised to follow a similar path.  

It is certainly possible its leaders react to the collapse of the dollar by peacefully dismantling the security state they have built, thereby managing a soft landing for the end of Pax Americana. However, given the number of resources they have invested into war and death and the degree to which this has warped their minds, this is not a likely scenario. A society that empowers men like Congressman Thomas Massie, who sends holiday greeting cards showing his family armed with assault rifles, is unlikely to react rationally.

The more likely scenario is that the same people who stormed the Capitol blame this collapse on a “woke” Federal government and react by launching an insurgency that eventually grows into a civil war. They may not even wait for the dollar to collapse and could easily resort to violence if Donald Trump is imprisoned or the next time they refuse to admit they lost an election.  

These possibilities present America’s Muslims with impossible choices. Do we stay where we are not wanted and may not be safe, or do we return to the Muslim world and the hyenas and jackals who rule it?  We will not fare well in an America experiencing economic collapse and social unrest. As a visible minority that has always been viewed with hostility, we would be particularly vulnerable to violence and systemic abuse if the situation devolves into lawlessness or civil war. But for the reasons addressed in Part II, returning to our homelands is fraught with danger too. It will be up to each of us to consider our unique situations when deciding what path to take. Both are full of peril and risks.  

When making this choice, the author can only suggest that the skills and capital we have acquired during our stay in the West might be put to good use in those few Muslim countries like Turkey, Bosnia, Malaysia, or Indonesia that have more inclusive political, social, and economic systems. If we were to move to these countries in sufficient numbers, it is entirely possible we could have a positive impact like the one Crusaders returning from the Holy Land had on Europe so long ago. Their experiences in the more developed Muslim world changed their tastes and perspectives, sparking changes that eventually led to Europe’s Renaissance. There may come a day when America’s Muslims have no choice but to try and spark a similar transformation in their former homelands. Those Muslims who would prefer to avoid the anarchy and upheaval that is sure to accompany America’s looming implosion would do well to start planning for that day now.   

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

What has the war in Gaza revealed about the world?

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorizedLeave a Comment on What has the war in Gaza revealed about the world?

Part II: the Muslim world

This essay was first published here, by the Friday Times on July 6th, 2024.

Having discussed what truths the war in Gaza reveals about America, it is now time to consider what it has shown us about the Muslim world. Here, the lesson is simple and has been painfully obvious for a long time. The Muslim world is incredibly weak.

Not one of its 57 nations had the power to stop Israel from murdering Gaza’s defenseless people. Over 14,000 Palestinian children have died so far. Many were just babies or toddlers who were intentionally murdered in their homes as they slept because Israeli soldiers decided it was more cost effective to kill their fathers while they were asleep among their loved ones. Instead of trying to protect these children, nearly the entire Muslim world impotently watched as they were torn apart by Israeli and American bombs and missiles.

The Arab world’s reaction was particularly muted and cowardly. But the Arabs were hardly alone in standing aside while the IDF was busy massacring children. Muslim leaders across the world busied themselves issuing scathing press releases denouncing Israel’s crimes. Turkey, to its credit, even cut off trade ties. But most of them took no real action.

Those few who tried, like Iran and its allies, were immediately labeled “terrorists” and attacked. Since Oct. 7th, Israel and America have worked hard to prevent this conflict from “escalating” by bombing Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, and Iran. Hundreds have been killed and the message sent: anyone who tries to help the Palestinians will suffer.  

Aside from the Houthis and Hezbollah, the entire Muslim world has been cowed into submission. Though the willingness of Yemen’s and Lebanon’s fighters to engage Israel’s far more powerful forces is certainly commendable, the sad truth is their arsenals are inferior in every way. They do not possess air defenses that can protect them from Israel’s deadly fleet of F35s and F15s. Nor do they possess fighter aircraft that can match them. As such, they are forced to cede control of the skies to their adversaries and suffer immensely as a result.

Their supporters in Iran possess a more potent arsenal; however, it is still qualitatively inferior to Israel’s in every way. Iran has a few 3rd and 4th generation fighters it purchased from Russia and China and has even managed to keep some of its vintage American gear working. But on their best days, none of them can match the lethality of Israel’s and America’s fighters. Similarly, its air defenses would quickly be overwhelmed by a determined Western led bombing campaign. Perhaps most consequential of all, Iran is highly vulnerable to cyber-attacks that could disable large chunks of its infrastructure in the event of a war.

Iran and its proxies suffer from the same weakness as every other Muslim nation. They cannot build the same sort of advanced weapons as their adversaries. Their economies and industrial bases are too backwards and underdeveloped. Many, like Iran, Pakistan, and Turkey have worked hard to close the gap in manufacturing and technological abilities. None have fully succeeded.

Iran has come a long way since the days it was forced to use human wave tactics to defend itself against Iraq’s forces. It has built an industrial base that can supply its military with moderately capable weapons like ballistic missiles and drones; however, its technological and manufacturing capabilities are still primitive in many ways. This has prevented it from building aircraft or air defense systems that can protect it. Even its vaunted drones are built from mostly imported parts. Its economy suffers from numerous structural defects, some imposed by the West, most self-inflicted and related to its corrupt and repressive government.  

Pakistan, as a nuclear power, is considered to have the most powerful military in the Muslim world but lacks the means to project power far beyond its borders. Its economy is hopelessly inefficient and most of its “factories” are used to assemble imported parts rather than build goods they can sell to the world. As a result, Pakistan developed neo-colonial relationships with America and then China to supply it with the arms it cannot build itself. Its forces still use several American made weapons, like the F16 fighter jet. Since Pakistan is dependent on America for the spare parts needed to maintain these aircraft, it could never take a strong stance against Israel for fear of being cut off from them. In fact, it is so wary of angering America it cannot even build a gas pipeline with Iran without first asking for permission.

Turkey is also one of the Muslim world’s most powerful states. It has a well-developed manufacturing base and a strong military. However, it must still import its most advanced weapons like the S-400 air defense system it purchased from Russia or the F35 fighters it was supposed to buy from America before being cut off due to the S-400 purchase. Despite years of trying, Turkey has been unable to build a jet with capabilities like the F35. Due to these constraints and the fact that many of its weapons require spare parts imported or licensed from America, Turkey also suffers from critical vulnerabilities that prevent it from meaningfully helping the Palestinians.

In addition to suffering from similar industrial and technological deficiencies, the conventional military forces of the Arab world are incompetent on the battlefield. Saudi Arabia, for example, is the fifth largest military spender in the world and possesses an array of deadly American weapons. Despite spending hundreds of billions to arm itself, the Saudi military is useless. It is entirely dependent on American and Pakistani mercenaries to function on a day-to-day basis and its officers have proven incapable of properly using their sophisticated American weaponry.

Saudi Arabia is, in many ways, representative of the rest of the Arab world, which has become a bastion of incompetence, cowardice, repression and regressive thought. Arab leaders, particularly those in the Gulf, are an anchor keeping the Muslim world stuck in place while slowly pulling it under the waves. Though some have implemented superficial social reforms, none have embraced the sort of political changes that could truly free their people. Instead, those who rule the Gulf have worked hard to destroy any trace of democracy in the region as evidenced by the significant roles they played in the coups that toppled Egypt’s and Tunisia’s democratic governments and even Sudan’s recent descent into civil war.  

Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia are some of the most powerful Muslim nations and yet each suffers from similar weaknesses, to varying degrees, that have prevented them from developing the industrial and technological capabilities needed to build militaries that are not dependent on outside powers for support. Aside from Saudi Arabia, they have managed to build decent military industrial complexes capable of producing heavy weapons like tanks and artillery, but they are still incapable of building the most advanced weapons they need. For example, outside of Malaysia, no Muslim nations have the foundries needed to make the weapon most vital for modern warfare: microchips. Due to their technical deficiencies, Muslim societies are still hopelessly outgunned by the Western and Russian armies that have been invading them and massacring their people for centuries. As a result, they simply do not have the power to protect Gaza’s children. Which raises the question of why. Why have Muslims been so weak, for so long?

Like America, the Muslim world’s dysfunction can be traced to its relationship with the truth. In the Muslim world, the truth is forbidden. The tyrants who have ruled it for centuries refuse to allow their people to speak their minds about anything that might threaten their power, under penalty of death or jail. Even democratic Turkey features a stifling intellectual climate in which saying or tweeting something critical of its leaders can lead to jail time. By suppressing the truth, Muslim leaders have crippled the ability of their societies to evolve or have honest conversations about complicated issues.  A society that forbids people from expressing themselves will always be weak because it will always be ruled by dictators who rely on force instead of persuasion to sustain their power. When a society is ruled through force, its leaders’ only preoccupation will be doing whatever it takes to hold onto their power and the privileges and impunity that comes with it. As the Muslim world shows, this is the path to weakness, servitude, and slaughter.  

Muslims have been ruled by dictators for so long, they have lost sight of some fundamental truths. The first and most obvious: they will remain weak until they build governments designed to empower and educate their people, not oppress and control them. To do so, they must establish democratic and inclusive political systems based on the rule of law that guarantee freedom of expression. That is the surest path to nurturing the economic and technological development needed to build powerful militaries.

Inexplicably, some Muslims have argued democracy is not compatible with Islamic values. Scholars working for Iran’s Qajar dynasty went so far as to proclaim monarchies are the only type of government sanctioned by Islamic law. However, as discussed in more detail here, even an elementary understanding of Islamic history shows hereditary monarchies, like the one that rules Saudi Arabia today, are patently un-Islamic and that democracy is the only form of governance consistent with Islamic values.

The early Islamic period is referred to as the Rashidun era and corresponds to the reigns of the first four Caliphs to rule the Islamic world. Many Muslims believe the precedents established during this period represent the ideal towards which they should aspire, and that contemporary governments should be modeled after their example. Groups such as ISIS have even waged war to try and re-establish their own version of the Caliphate, while the Taliban claim to model their government after it. But they do not understand the defining characteristics of the government they idealize or the lessons they should learn from its example.

Though some of the details surrounding the appointment of the Rashidun are unclear, certain facts are not in dispute. Not one of Islam’s first four Caliphs used violence or the threat of violence to secure their reigns. They were chosen by building a consensus through dialogue between members of the community, including its women. Not one of them tried to pass power onto their son either. Instead, each left the choice of successor to the community or engaged it in the selection process when circumstances allowed.

The Caliphate may not have been a democratic system by modern standards, but it was a far cry from the dictatorships that dominate the Muslim world today. Caliphs were chosen after getting input from the community in Medina and they ruled by engaging with this same community to get its opinion regarding policy debates.

The only real question is how to apply these principles to modern-day realities considering the vast cultural, technological, and demographic changes that have taken place over the past fourteen centuries. The Muslim world is no longer comprised of a small elite ruling over masses of non-Muslims in distant lands. Instead, it has been separated into independent nations like Turkey and Iran populated by millions. Pakistan has over 240 million people, 97% of whom are Muslim but separated through myriad linguistic, ethnic, regional, and doctrinal differences. Engaging in dialogue or achieving consensus is a lot harder today than it was in the much smaller and homogenous community of Medina.

Groups like ISIS, the Taliban, and their friends in the Pakistani Taliban (TTP) believe the answer is simple: nothing changes. Not only do they believe nothing changes, but they have violently tried to stop their societies from making some necessary changes. They even blame the changes various Muslim societies tried to make for Europe’s conquest of the Muslim world, which is a laughable and completely insane argument that highlights the irrational nature of their ideas. It was the Muslim world’s inability to change that led to its conquest. And its continuing refusal to do so makes it incredibly weak today.

Despite the incoherence of these literalists, it should be obvious that it is the broad values and ideals of this era that must guide Muslims, not the minutiae of how they were implemented. The only practical way to emulate the values of the Rashidun era today, given the much larger populations and advances in communications technology, is to create democratic systems that give citizens the ability to choose their rulers and freely voice their opinions.

Muslims have bathed themselves in conservative ideologies that deny simple truths for too long. As a political philosophy, conservatism makes no sense because it is opposed to one of the most basic natural laws. As humans learn through the simple process of aging, change is an intrinsic part of life. Philosophies that deny this truth are incapable of forming coherent or moral ideologies because they are inherently illogical and, as a result, must resort to authoritarian methods to maintain power. Hence, the violent oppression instigated by men using religion and tradition as an excuse to stop their societies from evolving.

This religious repression is based on the political absurdities created by the dictators who have taken over the region. Enforcing religious orthodoxy goes hand in hand with suppressing political speech. The two reinforce each other and help to buttress the region’s dictators who have spent centuries obscuring the fact that the ideal Islamic government is, and always has been, a democratic one based on consent rather than force. Until Muslims accept these truths, they will remain too weak to prevent massacres like the one consuming Gaza. 

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

When it comes to trading with Iran, Pakistan must tell America to go to hell

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorized1 Comment on When it comes to trading with Iran, Pakistan must tell America to go to hell

This essay was first published here, by the Friday Times on April 3rd, 2024.

Pakistan’s government recently announced its intention to seek a waiver from the sanctions America imposes on nations that trade with Iran so it can finally complete the long-delayed Peace Pipeline between both countries. Which is a fancy way of saying it is asking America for permission. Sadly, the US has signaled it will not agree, dashing the government’s hopes.

This project is designed to supply Pakistan with 750 million cubic feet of natural gas a day. This would allow it to generate 5,000 megawatts of power for Pakistan’s energy starved cities and factories. Not only would completing this pipeline significantly enhance Pakistan’s energy security, it would also further improve connectivity with Iran, which is vital to Pakistan’s interests for a variety of reasons.

As the author has argued many times, creating a free trade zone and security organization similar to NATO between Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey represents the best long term plan to improve each nation’s geopolitical and economic positions. Doing so would create a large internal market comprised of over 400 million people while significantly improving their national security situations. At the least, connecting to Iran is an important prerequisite if Pakistan ever hopes to substantially increase trade with Turkey, a key ally. As such, for both economic and military reasons, building infrastructure with Iran is vital to Pakistan’s long term national interests.

The fact that Pakistan’s leaders must beg America for permission or, as Pakistani President Asif Zardari suggested in the face of America’s opposition, resort to medieval forms of barter trade to pursue policies that are so important to its interests is both embarrassing and infuriating. It also provides yet another example of how incredibly weak and subservient Pakistan still is to the Western powers. Instead of taking orders from colonial rulers in London, Pakistan’s leaders must now obey neo-colonial masters in Washington DC.

Despite what America’s imperial overlords may think, they have no right to decide who Pakistan can trade with just as Pakistan has no right to decide which nations America can trade with. Unfortunately, despite gaining its independence nearly 80 years ago, Pakistan is still too weak to be the master of its own fate.

Pakistan’s servility is a by-product of its authoritarian political institutions and lack of democracy. This has led to the creation of a political economy designed to serve the narrow interests of its elite rather than empower the masses. As a result, Pakistan’s government has proven incapable of building an economy and technological base that would allow it to act as a truly independent nation.

Of course, Pakistan is a microcosm of the wider Muslim world, which is also incredibly weak for much the same reasons. Nearly every Muslim nation is ruled by tyrants who secure their power through violence instead of the consent of their people. This has made them too weak and unstable to effectively challenge America’s domination of their lands.

Instead of seeking America’s approval, Pakistan and the entire Muslim world should be working together to oppose its hegemonic policies. Between its unequivocal support for apartheid Israel, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and its massive weapons sales to the region’s many dictators, America has the blood of millions of Muslims on its hands. The massacre it is currently enabling in Gaza is only its most recent crime and pales in comparison to the 576,000 children it starved to death in Iraq, the estimated 4.5 million souls who died because of its supposed “War on Terror,” or the 377,000 Yemeni civilians it helped Saudi Arabia murder.

This pattern of violence and domination will never end until Muslims take the steps needed to end it. Part of that process must entail building stronger connections to each other. By obeying America’s orders and refusing to develop close ties with Iran, Pakistan’s leaders are helping to perpetuate its control of the region.

America will not allow Pakistan to trade with Iran because it refuses to accept America’s violent control and subjugation of the Muslim world. Due to its anti-imperial policies, Iran is the only country that has meaningfully tried to help the Palestinians by giving them the means to defend themselves against Israel’s genocidal violence. It also refuses to allow the West to control its natural resources. For these “crimes,” it has been isolated and attacked.

Unity between Muslims, by itself, will not be enough to end America’s dominance. But it is an important facet of the multi-pronged approach Muslims must take if they wish to destroy the neo-colonial power structures that have ensnared them since the end of the colonial era. The most important step towards that end would be creating democratic political institutions based on the rule of law that guarantee freedom of expression and religion for all citizens.

That is the most logical way to stimulate the sort of economic and technological development that could finally free the Muslim world. But building infrastructure and new economic institutions that do not depend on the US dollar to facilitate trade between Muslim nations would also be vitally important. Which is why, when it comes to completing the Peace Pipeline, the best thing Pakistan’s leaders can do is tell America and its imperial pretensions to go to hell.

Tagged : / / / / / / / /

Rather than help Gaza, Iran and Pakistan prefer to attack each other

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorized4 Comments on Rather than help Gaza, Iran and Pakistan prefer to attack each other

This essay was first published here, by the Friday Times on Jan. 23, 2024.

Israel’s rampage through Gaza has left an unprecedented swath of destruction in its wake. Its military has now murdered at least 24,762 Palestinians, including 9,600 children. 85% of Gaza’s people have been displaced while a third of its buildings have been destroyed, leaving roughly half a million Palestinians homeless. Due to this destruction and Israel’s continuing blockade, 576,000 Gazans face the very real prospect of starving to death this winter. In the words of one analyst, Israel is waging a war of “extermination” against the Palestinians, one its leaders have promised to continue without mercy or reprieve regardless of the international outcry.

It was obvious at the outset of this war that the Muslim world is too weak to help the Palestinians and would therefore be forced to impotently watch this massacre unfold. The recent hostilities between Pakistan and Iran show exactly why. In fact, it is hard to conceive of a better example to illustrate the dysfunction that has gripped Muslim societies for centuries. Instead of working together to stop Israel’s brutal assault, these two Muslim nations reacted to its outrages by attacking each other.  

Iran’s decision to attack Pakistan had little to do with animosity towards its neighbor and everything to do with the war in Gaza and its long confrontation with America and the West. It has been locked in conflict with the Western alliance since its religious elite deposed the Shah and took power in 1979. Since that time, it has adopted an anti-imperial agenda predicated on challenging Western domination of the Muslim world. To that end, its leaders have invested in improving their technological abilities so they can design and build the weapons needed to protect themselves. They have also provided money, training, weapons and diplomatic support to the Palestinians as well as like-minded allies throughout the region. As a result, Iran is the only Muslim nation to openly defy the West.

For these crimes, it has been forced to endure brutal economic sanctions, its government officials are routinely assassinated, and even the ceremonies commemorating these fallen leaders are subject to attack. The Western bloc has also used its coercive powers to prevent other Muslim states from developing close relations with it, which is why it has been forced to develop alliances with mostly non-state actors.

Given these dynamics, Iran’s desire to defend itself is understandable. Its decision to target other Muslim nations is not. Iran’s volley was part of a three-pronged attack that also targeted Iraq and Syria. These targets and the means used to attack them were intended to deter Israel by showing off its robust missile capabilities. While its attacks certainly showed what its missiles are capable of, they are best viewed as an admission that, despite having ample justification, Iran does not possess the power to directly attack its enemies. Iran’s leaders were forced to vent their frustrations on their Muslim neighbors precisely because they knew an attack on Israeli or American targets would lead to a violent and unpredictable reprisal.

This episode also shows that talk of an axis of resistance is mostly bluster. Israel and America are happy to exaggerate the threat posed by Iran and its allies since it provides a convenient excuse for their aggressive policies. But despite their tough talk and impressive arsenal of rockets and missiles, they were powerless to stop the massacre in Gaza. Hezbollah and the Houthis have done their best to dissuade Israel from its current course, but their efforts have done little to lower the body count. Neither Iran nor its allies have been willing to fully commit to the fight because they do not have the means to protect themselves from the combined might of Israel and its Western backers. Thus, they have been unwilling to escalate their attacks beyond a limited threshold.

Iran’s leaders deserve praise for their willingness to stand up to the genocidal policies and racist hypocrisy of the West, but they also deserve a great deal of criticism. Their inability to effectively help the Palestinians is rooted in the authoritarian political system they have built to oppress their people. As explained previously, democratic systems are the best at allowing a nation to develop the technological and economic abilities needed to build powerful militaries in the modern age. By refusing to acknowledge this obvious truth, Iran has been fighting America and Israel with one hand tied behind its back. The ease with which Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency operates inside Iran and the massive protests that have rocked it since 2009 are the natural result of this oppression. One does not need to be Sun Tzu to realize that alienating your own people while locked in a confrontation with foes as powerful and ruthless as America and Israel is not a smart strategy. But that is the path its rulers have chosen.

Iran’s leaders have clearly made mistakes in their quest to help the Palestinians, but at least they are doing something. The same cannot be said for the rest of the Muslim world. The leaders of Pakistan and Turkey, for example, have repeatedly expressed their outrage at Israel’s atrocities but taken no actions to stop them. Despite possessing stronger militaries than Iran’s in many ways, both are fundamentally more constrained in their freedom of action because of their dependence on America for some of their most advanced weapons and their desire to remain part of an international trading system that runs on the US dollar. Neither can defy America’s wishes out of fear it may cut off their supply of weapons or torpedo their economies with the same sort of sanctions it has levied against Iran.

Based on these factors and their unwillingness to upset their Arab patrons, Pakistan’s leaders have refused to build closer relations with Iran. As usual, they are prioritizing short-term needs while ignoring the bigger picture. America’s history of violence in the Muslim world, its unequivocal support for apartheid Israel and its growing relationship with India’s extremist government show it is a threat to Muslims everywhere. This threat will only grow during the next few decades.

America’s political system is broken but its leaders are too busy printing money to pay for their massive military to notice. This has led to $34 trillion in sovereign debt. The interest payments required to service this debt are growing by the day. It spent $659 billion on interest payments this past year and this figure is expected to grow to $2 trillion by the end of the decade. When the financial house of cards America built to pay for its imperial ambitions finally implodes, the dollar will be worthless. Those nations that have tied their economies and currencies to it will find themselves impoverished and their central banks filled with piles of worthless green paper. The sooner Muslims build an economic system that is no longer ruled by the dollar, the better off they will be.

The simple truth is that Pakistan and Iran need each other. Both will need to protect themselves from the chaos that is sure to accompany America’s decline. Both have a moral obligation to help the Palestinians, and of course, there is the need to secure the sparsely populated and lawless border areas that sparked this controversy. These have often been used as a base for those opposed to being ruled by elites in Tehran or Islamabad. It is in the interest of both nations to secure this area. The most logical way to do that is to work together. Instead of using missiles or airstrikes, the camps that prompted these attacks should have been destroyed via a joint operation involving troops from both militaries. The fact that these neighbors have not developed the means to conduct such operations is an indictment of both their leaders. This entire fiasco could have served as the perfect springboard to further enhance Pakistan’s and Iran’s ability to cooperate with each other. Instead, it proved why Gaza has been forced to suffer on its own and why Muslims have been so weak for so long.  

Tagged : / / / / / / / / /

21st century lessons for Pakistan’s military 

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorized1 Comment on 21st century lessons for Pakistan’s military 

This essay was first published here by the Friday Times on Dec. 20, 2023.

War is an enduring and ugly feature of human society. Though humanity would be far better off focusing on more enlightened pursuits, the carnage consuming Palestine and Ukraine shows what happens to those nations that do not adequately prepare to protect themselves. The following discussion is predicated on the belief that the best way to prepare for peace is to first prepare for war, which is an inherently evolutionary process. Just as human societies are constantly evolving, the way we fight does too. Those who cannot adapt to how technological changes impact the way nations fight each other are doomed to go extinct. As such, military officers across the world should be furiously studying the wars in Palestine, Ukraine, and Azerbaijan for insights that can help them better prepare for their next fight.

Each of these wars contains lessons for Pakistan’s military planners, but they should be particularly interested in the war in Ukraine due to the many parallels between both nations. Like Ukraine, Pakistan shares a long, vulnerable border with a much larger and hostile neighbor to its east. One that has built a massive force of tanks designed to strike deep into its territory and enjoys significant numerical advantages with respect to men and material.

One important difference is that, unlike Ukraine, Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons. Pakistan’s military leaders have developed a doctrine based on using low yield tactical devices to protect themselves, but it is vitally important they prepare for scenarios that do not involve these weapons. Even if the odds are low, they must prepare for all contingencies. Just as the crossbow once rendered the armored knight obsolete, it is inevitable a new weapon or technology will emerge one day that renders nuclear weapons or their delivery systems obsolete too.

Even if they are available for use, detonating nuclear devices to stop advancing Indian armor must be a last resort due to the toxic impact they would have on Pakistan’s already fragile environment. Even if such tactics were successful, they would only provide a pyrrhic victory that would leave many parts of Pakistan’s most fertile land a radioactive cesspool. It is therefore imperative Pakistan’s military prepare to repel an Indian invasion using only conventional weapons. Thankfully, the war in Ukraine offers an excellent opportunity to study how given the way its military has stymied Russia’s advances while inflicting unprecedented casualties on its forces.

Lesson 1: the importance of combined arms and integrating drones into the order of battle

Though not exactly a new lesson, the war in Ukraine has reinforced the importance of mastering combined arms operations, which involves using different assets like tanks and infantry together, in a mutually reinforcing way. Russia’s lumbering assault during the early days of its invasion prevented it from taking Ukraine’s capital city of Kiev and exposed its overextended forces to the nimble counterattack of Ukrainian artillery, armor, infantry armed with anti-tank weapons, drones, special operations troops, snipers, and information warfare specialists. These different units all worked together to wreak havoc and confusion on their enemies. Russia’s troops, on the other hand, did not work together to reinforce each other. Instead, its armor often advanced without proper support or coordination with infantry or air assets, making them easy targets for Ukraine’s forces.

The real lesson here is not in the value of combined arms, which has been obvious for a long time, but in appreciating that the list of weapons platforms that must be combined into a cohesive fighting force has grown considerably longer. Whereas older generations of soldiers merely had to integrate infantry, armor, artillery, and air support, today’s troops will need to add drones, loitering munitions, missiles, rockets, and even social media that can provide open-source intelligence into their arsenals. Ukraine’s ability to integrate these different assets into its order of battle was a key factor in allowing it to stop Russia’s advances and target its supply lines and rear areas. This allowed it to kill an unprecedented number of Russian troops, decimating many of its units. According to retired Admiral James Stavridis, Ukraine’s tactics fused “intelligence provided by the West; the portability of the missile and drone systems,” allowing it to destroy thousands of Russian tanks, armored fighting vehicles, and heavy trucks while killing an estimated 30,000-47,000 of its soldiers (by way of comparison, Russia lost a total of 14,500 soldiers during the entirety of its ten year occupation of Afghanistan).

Out of all these new weapon systems, drones are obviously the most important while tactical missiles are a close second. Ukraine’s ability to use drones for offensive operations, gathering intelligence, as automated mines, and even for medical evacuations should, by itself, occupy students of warfare for years. Their importance is also confirmed by the results of Azerbaijan’s offensive against Armenian forces in Nagorno-Karabakh which introduced the world to Turkey’s now famous Bayraktar drone platform. Much like Ukraine’s military, Azerbaijan’s extensive use of drones to scout the location of enemy units and then deliver precision fire onto those targets played a pivotal role in allowing it to retake its lost territory. One of the factors that made both nations’ use of drones so effective was the degree to which they were used in conjunction with other assets like artillery and rockets and the way troops on the front lines were able to use them to coordinate strikes with command elements in rear areas.  

The key point is that Pakistan’s military must invest in drones and missiles of all shapes, sizes, and functions and it must integrate them within all levels of its forces from the squad and platoon level to the divisional headquarters level to ensure their maximum effectiveness. Drones and tactical missiles are not just the latest military technology of import, but also represent a cost-effective way to counter India’s numerical advantages. Ukraine has been able to use relatively cheap drones and anti-tank weapons that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to destroy multi-million dollar tanks, aircraft and naval vessels. For example, one of its naval drones only costs $433,000 dollars, which is a bargain compared to the vessels it is designed to sink. Pakistan would be wise to invest in similar capabilities.

Lesson 2: the need to operate in dispersed formations

One of the more important developments in Ukraine has been the use of drones, open-source intelligence, and satellites to provide targeting information for artillery, aircraft, missiles, and rockets. This has allowed Ukrainian forces to attack large formations of Russian troops and personnel from vast distances. In one instance, it launched a missile strike on the headquarters of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, killing many of its top officers, including its commander Vice Admiral Victor Solokov. In another, it killed 400 Russian troops in a staging area using America’s HIMARS rocket system. But these are just two of many examples that highlight its ability to attack troops miles from the front or deep within Russian territory.

The ability to launch precise strikes on troop formations over long distances has brought home the need to disperse formations into smaller units. This issue was raised in the nineteenth century by the famous German strategist Von Moltke when he discussed the need to “march divided; strike united” but now takes on heightened importance.

Armies will need to hide their troops and weapons over wide geographical areas but still use them in a coordinated fashion. This will require devolving command down to junior officers in the field as much as possible and teaching them to act independently. Massing troops or tanks against an enemy like India which has satellites, drones, and long-range strike capabilities will be tantamount to suicide.

3. the need for secure communications   

The implications of lessons 1 and 2 lead us to our next point. The need for secure communications networks cannot be overstated. Ukraine’s ability to use drones so effectively is based, in part, on its access to American satellites and communications support which allows it to securely coordinate forces in the field. Operating drones, integrating open-source intelligence from social media with artillery and missile units, and dispersing formations over large geographical areas cannot happen without a secure and reliable communications network. That means satellites, encryption, and cyber warfare capabilities to protect one’s network while attacking or exploiting the enemy’s network. For example, many of the Russian flag officers killed by Ukrainian forces were likely betrayed by their own cell phones, and Ukraine’s ability to track them.

Here, Pakistan relies mostly on Chinese equipment and expertise and will certainly benefit from its ally’s growing capabilities in all these areas, especially those related to satellites. However, India will still have an edge for two reasons. One, as its recent lunar mission shows, it has already developed strong indigenous capabilities in this area. And two, its growing relationship with America and Israel will give it access to cutting edge technology related to AI and quantum computers over the next few decades that could enable it to successfully monitor or disrupt Pakistani communications during a war.

Pakistan must work to overcome its critical weaknesses in these areas by investing in developing the necessary indigenous capabilities as well as a backup plan should India disrupt its communications networks. To that end, studying the low-tech tactics used by Hamas to evade Israel’s expansive signals intelligence net would be wise. Whether it uses advanced satellites or pigeons is irrelevant so long as it develops a plan with lots of redundancies to maintain control over its forces in the face of sophisticated and wide-ranging attempts to disrupt that control.

Lesson 4: denying the enemy air and naval supremacy is an effective substitute for achieving it1

In terms of fighter aircraft and naval assets, Russia vastly outnumbers Ukraine. However, Ukraine has managed to deny Russia both air and naval superiority, in part, by using anti-aircraft and anti-ships missiles to inflict heavy casualties, including sinking Russia’s flagship vessel, the Moscova and destroying 90 of its planes. It has also protected its forces by dispersing and constantly moving its own assets.

Rather than pursuing the unrealistic goal of achieving air or naval superiority, Ukraine has focused on denying Russia this ability. In doing so, it has maintained freedom of action for itself in both domains while forcing Russia to think twice before deploying its own assets.

The implications should be obvious for Pakistan as it suffers from comparable numerical disadvantages. Instead of trying to match India ship for ship or fighter for fighter, investing in sea and air denial capabilities like anti-aircraft and missile defense systems capable of intercepting hypersonic cruise missiles and drones would be a more prudent allocation of resources. The ability to launch and defend missile barrages and long-range drone attacks will play a crucial role in the wars of the next few decades.

As the war in Gaza shows, those who cannot protect themselves from such attacks will suffer mightily. While those like Israel, who can, will gain a significant advantage. In fact, Iran and Hezballoh did not enter the fight after Oct. 7th precisely because they know Israel’s air defenses, like its Iron Dome system, can protect it from their missile attacks, while they cannot protect themselves from Israel’s air force.  

With respect to targeting India’s navy, the use of drones and long-distance munitions guided by satellites would prove invaluable and highlight once more the importance of acquiring such capabilities. By using such methods along with naval drones that can act as mines, Pakistan could exact a heavy toll on any attempt by India to impose a naval blockade on its cities for a relative bargain.

Lesson 5: supply chains and the need for self-reliance

Modern wars require sophisticated and expensive weapons platforms like advanced fighters, tanks, and satellites. They also require consumables like the unbelievably large number of shells, bullets, bombs, missiles, and rockets expended in Ukraine and Gaza. Within just the first month of the war, Ukraine went through  17,000 Javelin anti-tank weapons. Russia is estimated to be using 20,000 artillery shells a day compared to 4,000 for Ukraine. Similarly, Israel used 25,000 tons of explosives and 100,000 shells to destroy Gaza in just six weeks.

The resources spent acquiring weapons, the high consumption rate of battlefield items, and the extent to which these must be imported from allied nations raises the age-old debate of guns versus butter and the degree to which nations must be self-reliant in such matters. There are several layers to this dilemma. Pakistan must build or acquire a range of new weapons like drones and missile defense systems that will cost billions. It must ensure it has the capacity to replenish its supplies during a war. And it must pay for all this without destroying its economy while still providing the social services its people so desperately need. Which raises the question of how.

Israel, Azerbaijan, and Ukraine have all received substantial support from allies in supplying their forces. Azerbaijan benefited from Turkish and Israeli weapons and training. Ukraine received $44 billion in arms from America while Israel has received $260 billion over the decades.

Having powerful allies certainly helps, but developing an excessive dependance on them is not the answer. Ukraine is very likely to learn this lesson the hard way if a Republican wins the Presidency next year and cuts off America’s support. Even Israel’s need for a steady delivery of munitions or to have two American aircraft carriers positioned nearby highlights its long-term vulnerabilities if it must ever survive on its own.  

Pakistan is following a similar path by making itself dependent on China for its military and economic needs. This is a crucial mistake. Pakistan may consider China its “iron brother” but that ignores the simple fact that no one knows what the future will bring. China’s political system is inherently unstable in the same way all authoritarian dictatorships are. Believing China will always be there to help is more of a child’s wish, than a strategy and ignores a universal truth. No state that wishes to be certain it can protect the lives of its citizens can become dependent on another state for its basic security needs. As the Muslim world’s colonial past illustrates, this is the path to servitude and conquest, not freedom. The evidence provided by the historical record leaves no doubt; when it comes to matters of defense, a nation must be self-reliant.

To make itself self-reliant, Pakistan must embrace democracy. As explained previously, democratic political systems are ideally suited to building and sustaining military power in the modern age. They are the best at generating the wealth, technology, industrial capabilities, and well-trained soldiers needed to field powerful militaries. Pakistan must also create a business-friendly environment by minimizing red tape and regulation, and an honest and efficient court system and law enforcement apparatus. Democracy and the rule of law go hand in hand. One cannot function without the other.

These reforms will be necessary if Pakistan’s leaders ever hope to build an advanced industrial sector. The key to protecting Pakistan is not just importing more tanks or bombs but building an industrial and scientific base that can continually design and manufacture the next generation of weapons. Building one will also require investing in its public education system and universities. Of course, there is no point in building schools if their students are not given a proper education that encourages them to think for themselves. That requires creating an intellectual climate where people are free to speak their minds and express themselves.

In addition to these political, economic, legal, and social reforms, Pakistan must get its finances in order. In 2021, its government collected only 10.4% of GDP in tax receipts. The average for Asian nations is 19.1%. Pakistan must bridge this gap while bringing more of its estimated $180 billion informal economy into the taxpaying realm. Taxing just a third of its informal economy while getting its tax collection rates to 15% would boost revenues by over $20 billion.   

Implementing these reforms has proven impossible because they would require gutting Pakistan’s government agencies from top to bottom, modernizing them, and then subjecting them to vigilant oversight to make sure public funds are spent where they are needed rather than stolen by corrupt bureaucrats and politicians. In other words, Pakistan’s elites must do what they have adamantly refused to do for decades: build a modern administrative state and the competent tax, law enforcement, regulatory, and judicial agencies that come with it. Instead of providing these desperately needed public services, Pakistan’s leaders have hijacked their government to enrich themselves. 

Like most Muslim nations, Pakistan’s government is non-democratic, non-responsive to the needs of its people, and excessively authoritarian. Its generals, both retired and active duty, hold the lion’s share of the country’s political, economic, and military power. They have created the veneer of democracy, but no true democracy can function properly with the military as its center. Their actions even go against the advice of one of the Muslim world’s greatest thinkers. Ibn Khaldun warned centuries ago that military commanders or “Amirs” should never go into business for themselves. It eventually ruins a nation’s economic foundation and tax base, impoverishing and destroying it in the process.

Sadly, Pakistan’s generals will never voluntarily give up their power or their business interests since they feed off and reinforce each other. Which is a pity, because their time would be better spent focusing on how the developments heralded by the many wars raging around the world might impact their doctrine and tactics. Better yet, they should be in the field, constantly training to hone and perfect their skills, which must be varied and versatile. The soldiers of today must be able to punch and counterpunch in a variety of settings. They must be adept at urban warfare, maneuver warfare, and preparing and protecting static defenses in depth. The fluidity of war demands troops who can handle a variety of contingencies. That requires constant training for different scenarios and practicing different skills. Business ventures, corporate farming, and political machinations are all a distraction from these more important pursuits. Instead of assigning infantry and intelligence officers to the NAB, the army should be billeting officers to posts that will help them be better soldiers.  

Pakistan’s refusal to change, even though it has lost every war it has fought with India, has also prevented it from building the sort of strategic depth with its Muslim neighbors that could help it resist Indian hegemony. Yet one more benefit of democracy is that it makes creating strong alliances, like the one Europe’s nations created after WW2, much easier. The Muslim world’s lack of democracy has not only kept its nations individually weak and backwards, but it has also prevented them from meaningfully connecting to each other. Secular democracy is the key to uniting the Muslim world, whereas ideologies like those articulated by the Taliban or ISIS will only keep its incredibly diverse nations and people divided.

Lesson 6: the need for strategic depth

While self-reliance may be essential to ensuring one’s freedom, nations still need allies. Developing strong alliances is an important facet of augmenting a nation’s geo-political strength. But they must be the right kind of alliance.

Pakistan’s alliance with China, as currently structured, is counter to its long-term interests. Putting aside China’s repression of the Uighurs, which is enough by itself to question the viability of this pairing, Pakistan has become dependent on importing Chinese expertise, capital, and goods, stunting its own development in the process. Instead of building a neo-colonial relationship with China, Pakistan must build alliances that help it develop its own capabilities. CPEC is designed to turn Pakistan into a shipping and distribution hub for the goods China makes. If Pakistan wants real wealth and power, it must learn to manufacture its own goods, raise its own capital, and develop its own expertise.

The allies most suited to helping it achieve these goals are Turkey and Iran. The former’s advanced industrial base and weapon’s industry and the latter’s advanced missile and space programs would prove vital in helping Pakistan improve its capabilities in these areas. Building a free trade zone and increasing military cooperation between these three nations would not only provide Pakistan the strategic depth it has always sought, but represents a smart, long term move for each country. One that would significantly improve each nation’s geo-political position. As the author has already argued on many occasions, these countries have the potential to form the core of a new Muslim security organization similar to NATO and a powerful economic bloc of over 400,000,000 million people.   

Like all good ideas, an alliance between Turkey, Pakistan, and Iran recommends itself on many levels. Ideally, it would help Pakistan develop enough power to dissuade India from ever attacking it. Failing that, it would give Pakistan the power to decisively defeat an Indian attack. In a worst-case scenario, it could also form the basis for a network to supply an anti-India insurgency in the event such efforts ever became necessary. In this regard, developing close ties with Iran is extremely important.

The idea of attaining strategic depth is a concept most Pakistanis are already familiar with, though it is typically and unimaginatively limited to the Afghan context. Pakistan’s narrow width and the vulnerability of its key population and industrial centers has long been a source of worry for its leaders. Events in Ukraine have only highlighted the validity of their concerns. Despite launching a clumsy offensive that failed to reach its primary objectives and suffering heavy casualties, Russia’s military still managed to capture and occupy 110,000 square kilometers of Ukrainian territory during the first month of its invasion. It still controls roughly 60,000 square kilometers of this territory. The implications for Pakistan are extremely worrying. Russian numerical superiority was simply too overwhelming to prevent it from taking at least some territory. Luckily, Ukraine is a large country, and its capital is located far from Russian territory. As such, it was able to absorb these losses.

Pakistan’s ability to cede land is far more limited. Nonetheless, a determined Indian attack could very easily lead to captured territory. Over the long run, dispersing India’s forces over a wide swath of hostile territory would ultimately turn to Pakistan’s advantage so long as it can still maintain organized resistance. Building joint infrastructure and weapons production facilities with Iran represents the most obvious way to do that. Geography, religion, and their shared mutual interests all dictate that Pakistan and Iran form an alliance. Each even has ports the other could use to break a blockade. Unfortunately, the Muslim world is in such a pitiful state these days that Iran’s Chabahar Port is under management with an Indian company, which means it is far more likely to be used to destabilize Pakistan than protect it.

China would do its best to keep Pakistan armed in the event of a war with India, but the supply lines that connect them are extremely vulnerable to attack. Due to India’s naval superiority in the Indian Ocean and the ease with which it could target the Karakoram highway, China’s attempts to replenish Pakistan’s stocks could easily be interdicted by India. Iran, on the other hand, would provide the perfect base to build factories in a safe and accessible area.

Pakistan has failed to develop strong economic or military ties with Iran, despite the obvious benefits, primarily because neither America nor the Arabs would react well. Here again, we see the consequences of Pakistan’s fragile political economy. Its leaders are so beholden to America and their Arab patrons, they are not even free to pursue a strategy that would drastically improve their nation’s economic and geo-strategic position.

Pakistan’s leaders would do well to remind those Arab nations that complain about its pursuit of brotherly relations with Iran of their own multi-billion dollar investments in India. Similarly, if America is free to arm and invest in India, then Pakistan must also be free to build its relationship with Iran. America has no right to prevent neighbors from trading with each other and Pakistan’s leaders must not give in to its blackmail and threats. Even if America were to punish Pakistan by refusing to trade with it, the late Zia Ul-Haq would probably describe losing $6 billion in exports as mere “peanuts” compared to the revenue properly linking with Iran and Turkey could generate.

While Pakistan should strive for good relations with America, it must not sacrifice its vital interests to appease it. Linking with its Muslim neighbors, particularly Iran, is Pakistan’s surest and most logical path to building the strength needed to protect itself. Connecting with them is far more important to Pakistan’s long-term interests and survival than maintaining its perpetually strained and disappointing relationship with America.

Lesson 7: the price of failure

One does not need to be a student of war to understand the devastation being visited upon the poor people of Gaza. The Israeli military has already killed at least 18,412 people, roughly 70% of whom were women and children. Out of all the lessons discussed thus far, it is the rubble of Gaza that holds the most important ones. Those charged with protecting Pakistan should spend several hours staring at pictures of Gaza’s smashed and bloodied babies or the burial pits filled with their bodies. They should intently study the blocks of rubble that once held homes, mosques, and shops but now serve as tombs for countless innocent women and children. This is the price of failure. This is what the supposedly enlightened, liberal West is still capable of doing to those it considers less than human. Those who believe Gaza is the exception, not the rule, have clearly not been paying attention. It is hardly the only part of the Muslim world that has been subject to such violence. Chechnya, Kashmir, Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan. The list is long, depressing, and barely scratches the surface.

If Pakistan’s leaders do not drastically change course, Lahore’s children could very easily suffer the same fate as Gaza’s thirty years from now. If India is using American made missiles and jets to inflict this pain, no one will stop it. No one will help.

The “rules based” international order touted by the West does not exist. The only discernible rule is that America and its allies are allowed to do as they please while the rest of the world must follow their rules. The truth is that America and Russia broke the international system that was supposed to guarantee peace after WW2. Since defeating the Nazis, these two nations have invaded numerous countries, supported coups or violent insurgencies in many others, and flooded the world with their weapons. Their actions have infected the world’s nations with a lust for war and the means to act on their worst impulses.

Ideally, Pakistan, India, and China should learn from their colonial past by cooperating and working together rather than waste their money enriching Western or Russian arms dealers. War is never the ideal solution.  But given the world we live in; it is one all sane governments must prepare for. As nations fill their arsenals with deadlier and deadlier weapons, the devastation they visit upon each other will only grow in intensity and cruelty. Pakistan’s leaders must prepare accordingly by focusing on long-term solutions that can ensure they have the resources needed to protect their country.

The amount of resources each nation must devote to such matters is determined by their unique geopolitical situation. Given the right-wing lunacy gripping India and the degree to which America is arming its new ally, Pakistan finds itself confronted by an increasingly dangerous, powerful, and hostile neighbor. While it must certainly consider how its own actions have contributed to India’s hostility and work towards peace, its leaders must also take a clear-eyed view of the ramifications of India’s growing power and belligerence. As its arsenal grows, the desire to use it will too.    

  1. The ideas discussed in this section borrowed heavily from the ideas expressed by Stephen Biddle in his article about the war in Ukraine published by Foreign Affairs Magazine. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/back-trenches-technology-warfare
Tagged : / / / / / / / /