This article was first published here by the Friday Times on July 3, 2023.
Understanding the world and where it’s heading requires understanding how seemingly unrelated pieces of information fit together. For example, at first glance a tourism summit, an agreement to build jet engines, and a map in a new parliament building may not seem connected. But these three data points highlight trends that should worry those charged with leading and protecting Pakistan.
India’s G20 tourism summit in Kashmir last month was meant to show the world that the disputed territory was peaceful and prosperous. Despite the heavy presence of Indian soldiers and drastic security measures that strongly suggested otherwise, most of the world seemed to accept India’s Orwellian narrative. Aside from a few of Pakistan’s close allies, the G20’s members were happy to help India whitewash its brutal military occupation of the Himalayan state. One that has claimed the lives of roughly 100,000 Kashmiris who desired nothing more than the right to govern themselves as free people instead of living as second class subjects under a hostile regime.
Next, we have the various military and technological cooperation agreements signed between India and America during Prime Minister Modi’s visit to celebrate the growing strategic partnership between both nations. The deal to build jet engines was one of many designed to drastically improve India’s military capabilities while connecting it to America’s defense industry.
Finally, we have India’s new parliament building which prominently displays a map of an “undivided India” depicting Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Nepal and Pakistan as part of a unified India. When its neighbors voiced their concerns, India’s leaders insisted the map was only meant as an homage to an ancient Indian empire. But India’s Minister of Parliamentary Affairs, Pralhad Joshi, did not partake in such gaslighting. Via twitter, he succinctly explained the map shows India’s resolve to pursue an extremist right-wing agenda predicated on uniting the Subcontinent into a single nation, presumably one governed from New Delhi called “Akhand Bharat.”
In their own way, each of these data points reinforces one unmistakable truth. Pakistan is in trouble. The tourism summit proves the world will turn a blind eye to India’s horrific human rights abuses in Kashmir as well as its increasingly heavy-handed approach to the region. While the military agreements highlight America’s intent to actively help India commit new abuses by turning it into a formidable military power. The map is a frightening indication of how India intends to use its new power. It is a stark reminder of the right-wing lunacy that has fueled the BJP’s rise to power and how these developments might destabilize the entire region.
To understand how, one need only look to the Middle East. Just as its unequivocal support empowered Israel to attack and subjugate the Arabs, America’s support for India could have the same impact on the Subcontinent. Its blind insistence that Israel is a healthy democracy even though it is clearly a violent apartheid state shows it will employ the same gaslighting to shield India if it pursues similar policies.
These are not the only data points that should worry Pakistan. The summit and military agreements are merely a reflection of India’s growing clout on the world stage since it implemented a series of economic reforms in the 90’s. Due to these reforms, India will soon have the world’s third biggest economy. Its increased wealth has translated to more power and significantly larger military budgets.
Similarly, the map of an “undivided India” is not the only example of India’s rightward lurch. The BJP’s attacks on free speech and the marginalization of India’s minorities, particularly its Muslims have already been well documented. Perhaps the biggest indication of India’s growing fanaticism is the fact that the guy pegged to replace Modi, Yogi Adityanath, is a right-wing thug masquerading as a Hindu priest.
Unfortunately, there is so much data pointing to danger for Pakistan that it is difficult to sift through it all or even know which data set to prioritize. Whether from the growing power of its neighbor to the east, its stagnant and inefficient economy, dysfunctional political system, deteriorating internal security situation, exploding population, or climate change, Pakistan faces a myriad of threats that are only getting more challenging by the day. Each is potentially existential in nature.
Thankfully, the solution to all these problems is the same. Pakistan’s government must finally start providing the public services needed to nurture the economic and technological development that can allow it to prosper and protect itself in an increasingly unhinged world. The future belongs to those nations capable of building advanced semiconductors, quantum computers, A.I. powered software, and similar goods. Building a scientific and industrial base that can lead to these abilities will require deep rooted reforms designed to empower and educate its people, improve its finances, and establish the rule of law.
Instead of implementing these desperately needed reforms, its leaders have opted to use China as a crutch. However, creating a neo-colonial dependency on China will only provide the illusion of modernization without any of the substance. As India’s example so poignantly illustrates, Pakistan will never prosper until it creates a democratic political system that can unleash the energy of its people. Until that happens, the threats to its freedom and prosperity will only grow.
This article was first published here by the Friday Times on April 24, 2023.
Even though it was nearly twenty-five years ago, I still vividly remember what it was like to step aboard the USS George Washington for the first time. For those who are not familiar, the G.W. is one of ten Nimitz class aircraft carriers in America’s navy. It is a massive warship made from 60,000 tons of steel that is over 330 meters long and functions as a floating airbase. When fully loaded with its complement of 90 aircraft, it displaces nearly 97,000 tons.
Building one takes 2,500 hundred workers about five years and costs $5 billion, but that is a relative bargain compared to the new Ford class of carriers which cost $4.7 billion in research and development on top of the $12.8 billion price tag to build. These ships are miracles of engineering that highlight America’s industrial might, wealth, and determination to remain the world’s dominant military power.
I would often stand on the GW’s monstrous 4.5-acre (36 kanals) flight deck and marvel at the resources that went into designing, building, and deploying it. Once built, carriers are manned by a crew of 5,000 sailors and airmen and cost another $1.18 billion a year. Which means that simply operating and maintaining these ten ships costs more than Pakistan’s entire annual military budget. And that does not even account for the cost of their aircraft or the cruisers, destroyers, and fast attack submarines that escort them whenever they deploy which brings the total cost to $21 billion a year.
These ships allow America to control the world’s oceans and the 40% of its population that lives within reach of them. They represent a huge investment in its military, but they are just one part of the military power that America has built and sustained since WW2.
Serving aboard America’s gigantic warships was a surreal experience, one that fed an obsession with trying to understand the factors that allowed it to build such a powerful military. But this was merely part of a larger obsession – trying to understand why the Muslim world has been so militarily weak for so long as evidenced by the repeated pattern of conquests it has been subjected to over the past few centuries. Solving the riddle of America’s power therefore holds the key to helping Muslims prevent more violence like the sort that has consumed Kashmir, Chechnya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and far too many other places.
America’s military is the result of several factors working together. It is a large country, well endowed with fertile land and abundant natural resources. Its borders are protected by the Canadian Shield to its north and the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Some might argue that geography, by itself, is enough to explain America’s power. But a comparison with Russia and Israel suggests otherwise.
Russia has also been blessed geographically, though not to the same extent as America. Its western and southern borders have always been vulnerable to attack and its lands are not nearly as fertile. But it is still a large nation, with lots of natural resources and protected on its northern and eastern borders. It also fields a powerful military, but one that pales in comparison to America’s. Russia’s military is large and moderately well-equipped but mostly used to secure its “near abroad.”
America’s military, on the other hand, extends its reach to the entire world. The easiest way to illustrate this point is to compare the number of carriers deployed by each nation. Between its Ford, Nimitz, America, and Wasp classes, America currently deploys a total of twenty-one aircraft carriers of various shapes and sizes. Russia, even during the height of its Soviet era power, struggled to deploy seven such vessels, most of which were incapable of launching fixed wing aircraft or deploying far from its shores. Of these seven, only one remains in service and it is currently in drydock. When it comes to projecting military power, the ultimate tool is the aircraft carrier. Russia’s inability to build more than a fraction of the carrier fleet built by America is one of many examples that highlight the limits of its power.
On the other end of the geographic spectrum is Israel, a tiny nation bereft of natural resources. Despite its diminutive stature, Israel fields the most powerful military in the Middle East and was able to establish its dominance over the Arabs long before America became its ardent supporter. Israel may not have aircraft carriers, but it does have a sophisticated nuclear triad, advanced tanks and fighter jets, and cutting-edge electronic warfare, signals intelligence, and missile defense capabilities. It also has a proven track record of dominating its enemies on the battlefield.
These examples are important because they show that geography, by itself, does not provide an entirely satisfying explanation. If geography were the only determinant of military power, America and Russia would field roughly equal forces and Israel would have ceased to exist long ago. Geography has certainly played a part in allowing Russia and America to build their large militaries, but the contrasts between them and Israel’s example show it is not the most important factor in explaining why. Instead, we must look to the type of political institutions that govern these nations.
Russia has a long history of being ruled by authoritarian and absolutist political institutions and their negative impact largely explains its relatively weak military abilities. America, on the other hand, features an inclusive, democratic system. Israel does too, for its Jewish citizens, at least. These are the keys to their military power.
Combined, the seminal works Why Nations Fail and The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers show how democracy leads to military power. In the latter, Prof. Kennedy explains that modern wars will typically be won by the side with the greater industrial and technological capabilities. According to Kennedy, military power is based on factors ranging from “geography and national morale to generalship and tactical competence” but primarily rests upon “adequate supplies of wealth, which in turn derive from a flourishing productive base, from healthy finances, and from superior technology.” In Why Nations Fail, the authors show how democratic systems lead to the wealth, industrial capabilities, and technology highlighted by Kennedy.
As Saudi Arabia’s military incompetence shows, by itself, wealth is not enough. It is the ability to design, build, maintain, repair, and use the weapons required to wage modern war that matters. Paying for them is just one step of many in the convoluted process required to master and incorporate them into an effective military force.
The most fundamental step in that process is creating democratic political systems. To be clear, democracy is about far more than elections. It is about devising a political system that uses institutional mechanisms to create pluralistic power structures and ensure governments are responsive to the needs of their people. Voting is just one of several methods used to achieve this. A true democracy establishes the rule of law and the primacy of the individual by creating independent and efficient courts that settle disputes fairly and protect the lives and property of citizens against government excess and each other. They also feature competent law enforcement, administrative, and regulatory agencies, and ensure freedom of speech and association. In doing so, they create an environment conducive to strong economic growth and technological development which can then be used to create strong militaries.
Aside from generating the wealth and technology needed to build powerful weapons, democracies also provide significant advantages with respect to training the soldiers who will use them, which impacts the other factors listed by Kennedy relating to generalship and tactical competence. Wealth and strong free speech guarantees are vital ingredients needed to build vibrant schools that can educate future soldiers and give them the critical thinking skills necessary to thrive in combat. Once they enter military service, these soldiers will typically find themselves promoted based on their professional abilities and merit rather than their perceived loyalty to a particular regime due the ability of democracies to create apolitical militaries.
Taken together, these factors allow democracies to design and build sophisticated weapons, buy lots of them, and staff their militaries with professional and highly trained soldiers, sailors, and airmen who can use them with lethal effect. By inference, these ideas also show why the Muslim world’s lack of democracy has made its nations so weak and vulnerable to conquest. As a result, those who wish to understand the roots of the Muslim world’s weakness must focus on the prevalence of authoritarian and absolutist political systems throughout it and the ways these have stunted its economic and intellectual development, making it impossible to build militaries capable of protecting them from conquest.
At first glance, China’s military modernization would seem to contradict these arguments. However, its well documented issues developing adequate jet engines or advanced semiconductors as well as the intellectual property theft that has fueled much of its progress indicates its authoritarian system has also limited its technological development. In fact, its economy is already showing weaknesses that are directly attributable to its repressive political system as illustrated by its ghost cities, capital flight, and the efforts to control or silence many of its prominent entrepreneurs and their companies. Just as the Soviet Union did during the 1960’s, authoritarian systems may generate growth for a time, but in addition to negatively impacting technological innovation, they are inherently unstable and will inevitably retrench or collapse in on themselves.
Though it still suffers from certain authoritarian tendencies, Turkey’s example also supports these arguments. It has the most extensive experience with democracy in the Muslim world and is, consequently, one of its most advanced and powerful states.
Despite the obvious benefits and the data provided by the different examples offered above, most Muslim states have not embraced democracy due to their unique historical experiences, the entrenched power of their military elites, and the toxic influence of their social institutions. This has led some to argue that Islam is incompatible with democracy. But as argued here in more detail, the history of the Rashidun era shows that not only are democracy and Islam compatible, but that democracy is the form of government closest to the Islamic ideal.
In addition to being the most logical way to strengthen individual Muslim states, creating democratic political systems is also the only way to overcome their geographic weaknesses. The Muslim world is divided into over 50 nations, none of which can compete with the Great Powers alone. As such, Muslims must come together the same way Europe did after WW2 to create new political and economic entities that can allow them to work together to prosper and protect each other through free trade and security alliances. Europe’s democratic political systems were a key factor in allowing it to unite and creating similar systems will be necessary if Muslims ever wish to do the same.
The Muslim world’s authoritarian political systems have prevented such unity because they typically rely on patronage networks glued together by corruption and nepotism. These have made it impossible to build the sort of neutral courts and administrative agencies that can meaningfully connect Muslim states by creating fair and transparent ways for them to trade with each other on a large scale. This has, in turn, made it impossible to build the sort of relationships that can lead to a security alliance.
Pan-Islamic sentiments may seem antiquated in the age of the nation-state, but the inescapable truth is that humanity’s history is a violent one and most of our conflicts have a tribal dimension. As Sam Huntington explains in his work The Clash of Civilizations, the world can be broadly divided into civilizational groups that share historical and cultural commonalities. According to Huntington, the Islamic and Western worlds constitute two such civilizations. These tribal dynamics explain why the West unequivocally backs Israel’s violence against the Arabs as it desperately tries to stop Iran from acquiring the same weapons it helped Israel develop. They also help explain Hindu India’s conflict with Muslim Pakistan. Even Europe’s rejection of Turkey is best understood in reference to their civilizational differences.
The conflict between Russia and Ukraine is intra-civilizational. But it has taken on inter-civilizational dimensions as Western nations side with Ukraine in their bid to box in their civilizational rival in Slavic Russia. There are certainly other contributing factors such as geo-politics and resource competition driving these conflicts but there is no denying their tribal nature.
The key to understanding these conflicts, and who ultimately wins them, is understanding how all the variables referenced throughout this discussion work together and shape each other. To do so properly, one must first recognize the primacy of political systems in shaping and impacting them all. As such, Muslim nations must build genuinely democratic and inclusive political systems if they ever hope to end the cycle of violence that has consumed so many of them. Doing so is the only way to overcome the many political, social, economic, technological, tactical, and geographic factors that have made it so weak for so long. Until that happens, Muslim nations will remain among the ranks of the conquered.
The enormity of the damage wrought by Pakistan’s recent floods is staggering. One third of the country submerged, 3 million acres of agricultural land ruined, almost a million livestock drowned, 1.8 million homes destroyed and 33 million affected. Early figures estimate the cost to rebuild at $30 billion.
Pakistan’s leaders responded by traveling the world to elicit sympathy and donations as they lamented how little their nation has contributed to climate change and pushed for a new “green Marshal Plan.” America has promised $30 million while the UN has pledged another $160 million. China will donate $57 million, and the UK has agreed to provide $17 million. The Asian Development Bank has agreed to provide 2.5 billion in loans. Though helpful, these amounts are a tiny fraction of what is needed, laying bare a painful truth. The international community will not give Pakistan the money it needs. Borrowing more money is not an option either. Pakistan is already “drowning in debt” and unlikely to find creditors willing to lend the necessary amounts.
All of which means Pakistan must shoulder this burden alone. Arguing for climate justice, though worthwhile in theory, is ultimately a waste of time. The world has never been a kind or just place and rising temperatures and sea levels will not change this fundamental truth. If anything, they will reinforce it. Those nations capable of adapting will survive, while those that are not will perish.
That might not be fair and has already led to op-eds highlighting both the dangers and hypocrisy of leaving Pakistan to deal with climate change on its own. But that is exactly what will happen because, for better or worse, that is how the world works. Rather than complain about the injustice of it all, Pakistan’s elite would do well to focus on the harsh realities they now face and act accordingly.
The sad fact is these floods are but a preview of what is to come. Pakistan is home to thousands more glaciers that will continue to melt as the world warms. Sea levels are also expected to rise 1 meter by 2050, placing its commercial capital of Karachi and its flood prone infrastructure in grave danger. It was already experiencing brutal heat waves and diminished crop yields before these floods. These trends will only worsen over the next few years.
As a result, Pakistan must develop a practical and comprehensive plan to deal with the short term need to rebuild and provide disaster relief to roughly 1/7 of its population while simultaneously developing a long-term plan to protect itself from more destruction. And it must do so under the assumption that the international community will not provide substantial aid or assistance. Instead, it must save itself.
The urgent need for action cannot be overstated as time to deal with these potentially catastrophic threats is running out. Pakistan’s last great flood was ten years ago. It will be lucky if the next one waits as long. The consequences of inaction, though impossible to forecast with precision, will be grim.
The cumulative dangers posed by climate change represent an existential threat that could lead to serious political and social upheaval. Calamities of the sort now confronting Pakistan often lead to violent change. For example, some have argued West Pakistan’s poor response to a typhoon that struck its Eastern half in 1970 was an important catalyst for the civil war that followed. It is entirely plausible that a string of climate induced disasters could lead to similar social and political unrest, sweeping Pakistan’s elite away in the turmoil of revolution or civil war.
Unfortunately, their early responses have not been encouraging, indicating they do not appreciate the gravity of the situation. Instead of coming together, they have continued with business as usual as they bicker over politics and leaked recordings. Though not entirely surprising, their inability to adapt could easily doom the entire nation.
To avoid this fate, they will need to embrace reform. They must come together to create their own version of Japan’s Meiji Restoration. Only meaningful political and social reforms that lead to developing the economic, industrial, and technical capabilities needed to deal with these dangers will save them.
The first step is straightforward, long overdue, and yet deceptively difficult. Pakistan must improve its tax collection methods and widen its tax collectors’ nets. In 2021, Pakistan’s government collected only 10.4% of GDP in tax receipts. The average for Asian nations is 19.1%. Pakistan must bridge this gap while bringing more of its estimated $180 billion informal economy into the taxpaying realm. Taxing just a third of its informal economy while getting its tax collection rates to 15% would boost revenues by over $20 billion.
As simple as this seems, achieving these goals has proven out of reach because they require gutting Pakistan’s tax collection agencies from top to bottom, modernizing them, and then subjecting them to vigilant oversight to make sure tax revenue is spent where it is needed rather than stolen by corrupt bureaucrats and politicians. In other words, Pakistan’s elites must do what they have adamantly refused to do for decades: build a modern administrative state and the competent tax, law enforcement, regulatory, and judicial agencies that come with it.
Once Pakistan gets its finances and governance in order, it can focus on climate change. It will need to make massive investments to climate proof its infrastructure while re-locating entire towns from flood prone areas. It will need to wean itself off imported fossil fuels by building an indigenous renewable energy sector focused on green hydrogen and solar power. And it must modernize and climate proof its agricultural sector, in part, by building thousands of acres of indoor, climate-controlled facilities. It will also need to build a modern public education system to provide the skilled labor required to make all of this happen.
Pakistan is entering a pivotal period in its history. One that will decide its trajectory for many years. The days ahead will be hard. They will require sacrifice and drastic social, political, and economic changes. If Pakistan’s elite can successfully guide their nation through these troubled times, they will reap the rewards. If they do not, they will suffer the consequences.
To fix a problem, one must get to the root of the issue. Of course, that is often easier said than done. Pakistan’s economy, for example, is perennially in crisis and unable to provide a decent standard of living for many of its 220 million people.
What is the root of the issue? Corruption? Poor governance and suffocating bureaucracy? Awful or non-existent public schools? A massive trade imbalance? Excessive military spending? The answer to all these questions is a resounding yes. But these issues are themselves the result of Pakistan’s lack of inclusive and open political institutions which has prevented Pakistanis from building an accountable government responsive to their needs. The root of the issue is therefore Pakistan’s lack of democracy.
To be clear, democracy does not start or end with elections, though they are an important feature. A true democracy is based on allowing genuine participation in the political system by all relevant stakeholders. It is based on ensuring the consent of the governed through the creation of institutional mechanisms, establishing the rule of law, and ensuring freedom of expression and peaceful association. Only then can a society create political and social institutions that foster strong economic growth, thereby strengthening the fiscal position of the government through increased tax revenue.
To that end, Pakistan will require a bevy of reforms. It must build a public education system that can finally provide all its citizens with a high-quality modern education. But to build vibrant educational institutions, it must first repeal laws that limit the ability of its citizens to express themselves. That is the only way to create an intellectual climate and electorate capable of engaging in the sort of lively debates necessary to formulate policies in a democratic system. It is also the only way to nurture the technological development so crucial to economic growth.
To establish the rule of law, it must build courts that allow for fair and efficient dispute resolution and that can safeguard the property rights of its citizens. It will also need to tear most of its incompetent law enforcement and regulatory agencies down to the studs before rebuilding them. Without the rule of law, neither democracy nor the economy can prosper.
Finally, it will need to empower provincial legislative bodies and devolve power as much as possible to the local level. Pakistan’s people and provinces are simply too diverse to be properly governed by a strong federal government. Diffusing power locally as much as possible is the most logical way to limit resource extraction by distant elites while ensuring citizens have a say in the laws that govern them.
Rather than implement much needed reforms to strengthen its democracy, Pakistan’s newly installed government has opted for loans from China and the IMF and a new “super” tax on certain corporate sectors. Getting loans from allies and international institutions or imposing temporary tax increases may ameliorate Pakistan’s short term financial problems but they do not address their root causes. In fact, they reinforce its problems by taking away the greatest motivation for reform: necessity. So long as Pakistan can access funds from its patrons, its elite will have no incentive to institute the sort of changes that can finally end its seemingly permanent state of poverty and underdevelopment.
The rapid economic growth of countries governed by authoritarian political institutions in East Asia has led some to conclude that democracy is not a vital pre-condition to economic growth. These examples should be viewed as an exception to the general rule established by America, Germany, Israel, and Japan. It is no coincidence that four of the world’s most innovative and prosperous economies feature democratic political systems, strong free speech protections, and well-funded public schools. Nor is it a coincidence that Turkey is one of the Muslim world’s most developed nations given its long experiment with democracy. Even Turkey’s economic and technological weaknesses prove the point, as its history of military coups and authoritarian tendencies likely explain why it is not on the same developmental tier as the four powerhouse nations referenced above.
The evidence can lead to no other conclusion: Pakistan will remain a poor and weak nation until it creates the sort of democratic political institutions required to support and stimulate strong economic growth.
Some within the Muslim world have argued that democracy is an un-Islamic Western import. They are hopelessly misguided. The political institutions created by the Rashidun during the early Islamic era, though not democratic by modern standards, clearly show that democracy is the form of government closest to the Islamic ideal. Conversely, they also show that monarchies and dictatorships are patently un-Islamic. It is no coincidence that the height of Islam’s power came when its leaders were chosen based on their standing in the community rather than their familial relationship to the prior ruler or ability to violently seize or maintain power.
More importantly, the Saudi regime and the Taliban both prove that blindly mimicking institutions and clinging to ideas that are 1400 years old when establishing modern governments is a recipe for hypocrisy, instability, and violence. They also show why religion and politics are such a toxic mix.
The lessons for Pakistan (and by extension, the wider Muslim world) are obvious and have been for a long time. Unfortunately, its military and feudal rulers refuse to listen. Thus, the root of the problem remains unaddressed, causing its various symptoms to spread and choke off development in a variety of ways.
For more implausible and improbable musings about the Muslim world and international affairs, check out my blog: www.mirrorsfortheprince.com
Author’s note: I wrote most of this article over a year ago but have been unable to publish it until now. Instead of updating it, I decided to publish it as is because developments over the past year merely support my conclusions. For example, as discussed below, a year ago America’s debt was $20 trillion. It has now climbed to $28 trillion. Similarly, America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan and its refusal to get involved in the latest round of fighting between Israelis and Palestinians both support my central argument: America’s military withdrawal from the Muslim world is inevitable. If I were a betting man, I would wager that America’s military presence throughout the Middle East and North Africa will be a shell of what it is today 15-30 years from now:
INTRODUCTION
Due to a combination of political and economic factors as well as its shifting national security priorities, the US will eventually withdraw its military from the Muslim world. It is not a question of whether America will withdraw its forces, but of when and how. Economically, the financial shocks of the COVID-19 Pandemic combined with the high levels of debt held by the US government and America’s diminished manufacturing capacity will necessitate a sharp reduction in US government spending. Politically, America’s right wing wishes to withdraw from the Muslim world due to its isolationist and nationalist views while its left wing favors a withdrawal due to its anti-imperialist views. They may disagree on why and how, but neither end of America’s political spectrum wants to keep troops in the Muslim world. Finally, America’s military deployments to the Muslim world are no longer supported by pressing national security interests. The combined effect of these factors will inevitably lead to a withdrawal of American troops from this part of the world.
The United States has become the dominant military power in the Middle East and throughout much of the Islamic world. It currently has troops stationed in several Muslim countries such as Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Oman, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. Its naval forces control the Persian Gulf and its allies in Israel and NATO control the Mediterranean. It is the main arms supplier to many Muslim nations such as Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, and the UAE which gives the US significant leverage over these militaries while its allies in Europe supply weapons to many other Muslim states such as Morocco and Algeria. It also regularly conducts military operations and drone strikes throughout Africa as well as Yemen. Iran is the only Muslim country that actively refuses to accept this situation and, as a result, is subject to brutal economic sanctions and clandestine military operations. In other words, the United States and its allies have effective military control over a substantial portion of the Muslim world. The problem is that America’s robust military presence comes with a steep price tag that is becoming increasingly unaffordable[i].
In addition to the $6 trillion cost of America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the constant deployment of troops to the Muslim world has forced its military planners to fund and arm a military that is much larger than would otherwise be needed. These extra funding requirements have been a feature of US defense budgets for decades. Even the official budgets for America’s military underestimate the true cost of its military spending because they do not include all the funds spent on nuclear weapons or intelligence activities[ii]. Although it is difficult to gauge how much of America’s military spending is tied directly to the Muslim world, given its extensive military infrastructure in this part of the world, the long duration of its presence, and large number of troops involved, it is reasonable to assume the true amount significantly exceeds the $6 trillion spent in Iraq and Afghanistan the past two decades.
WHY AMERICA HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO WITHDRAW FROM THE MUSLIM WORLD
ECONOMIC FACTORS:
America’s withdrawal will primarily be driven by its finances. The COVID-19 Pandemic has brought the unhealthy debt levels of the US government into focus once again; however, America’s debt has loomed over it for years. Rather than making the tough compromises necessary to devise balanced budgets, America’s leaders have resolved the age-old debate of guns versus butter by liberally borrowing money to ensure they lacked neither. At the same time, America’s business and political leaders have entered into trade agreements that resulted in severe reductions to its manufacturing capacity. The result has been skyrocketing levels of debt and unsustainable trade imbalances. The staggering amount of resources America pours into its military combined with the significant reductions to its manufacturing base[iii] have drained its economy and, together, pose one of the biggest threats to its continuing prosperity.[iv] At its height, American power was largely derived from its economic, political, and cultural dominance as well as its ability to apply overwhelming military force, as it did in WWI and WWII. Since the end of the Cold War, the US has reacted to its greater freedom of action as the sole remaining superpower by increasingly relying on military power to achieve foreign policy goals. This sustained dependence on military power combined with the gradual dismantling of America’s manufacturing base has diminished its older and more important power centers of their vitality, decreasing the real basis of American power. Over the long run, the continued reliance on military power that is no longer supported by a strong manufacturing base has placed a heavy burden on resources. It has also led to a disconnect between perceptions of American power by its policymaking elites versus the realities and limits of this power.
As a result of America’s weakened financial position, its policymakers must re-prioritize how its military resources are used. Calling for deep cuts to spending may strike some as overly alarmist given the economic growth the US experienced prior to the COVID-19 outbreak. But America’s strong economic growth since the end of the Great Recession has diverted attention from the fact that its massive military spending, particularly since 9/11, has seriously undermined its fiscal position since this spending was only made possible through deficit financing. As the debt burden from this spending grows, it will limit the ability of the US government to meet its spending obligations. As a result, US policymakers must confront serious decisions regarding how to use America’s resources before their policy options become substantially more constrained. American policymakers face two choices. They can proactively adjust their foreign policy goals and military commitments to manage the changes its weak finances require, or they can wait until its debt is so burdensome that they will have no choice but to drastically cut military spending. The former option provides some ability to manage this transition, the latter does not.
POLITICAL FACTORS
In addition to its financial concerns, political trends within the US will also compel a withdrawal from the Muslim world. The increasing prevalence of arguments that favor withdrawing troops from the Muslim world, regardless of the potential impact on the region, show that many segments of American society have no desire to maintain its presence in the region. For example, when discussing the Middle East, Doug Bandow suggests “Washington should accept instability in the region[v]” as part of its efforts to reduce troop levels. These sentiments illustrate that Americans are tired of their military involvement in the Muslim world. America’s right wing sees its involvement as an unnecessary waste of resources that would be better spent in the US. America’s left sees its involvement as immoral and a continuation of ineffective neo-colonial policies. As such, both left and right favor withdrawing American forces from the Muslim world. In fact, this may be one of the few topics that America’s divided political factions agree on. These political trends are a result of growing dissatisfaction with America’s policies and will add pressure to withdraw troops from the region.
THE MUSLIM WORLD IS NO LONGER A NATIONAL SECURITY PRIORITY
Troop levels in the Muslim world are no longer supported by pressing national security interests. US policies in the Middle East have largely been shaped by the confluence of interests of the defense industry, energy industry, Israel, and the dictators that rule much of the region. Together, these groups have prevented the rise of a Muslim hegemon capable of taking over America’s security responsibilities. Instead, they have pushed the US to become the primary hegemonic power in the region by arguing that 1) increased military spending and arms sales to foreign countries are healthy for the US economy 2) American military forces were necessary to ensure the US had access to energy supplies 3) American troops were necessary to protect Israel and 4) American troops were necessary to provide stability by providing security guarantees to many of the governments of the region. These reasons do not make sense. Because of policies meant to appease these interest groups, the US has spent trillions of dollars and much political and moral capital in pursuit of policies that are too expensive and counter to its long-term interests. The influence of these groups has led to policies that have allowed them to make hundreds of billions of dollars but at a cost of trillions of dollars to American taxpayers. Since each of the interest groups primarily responsible for the development of US policy acts according to its own logic, it will be necessary to analyze them individually.
THE NEED TO SUPPORT THE DEFENSE INDUSTRY
After entering WWII, the United States converted its massive civilian manufacturing base into one that could supply its military with the weapons and supplies needed to defeat the Axis powers anywhere in the world. The ability to harness its extraordinary industrial capabilities for military use propelled it towards victory but also laid the seeds for many of the problems confronting it today. The creation of an industrial complex geared exclusively towards military production created companies with a vested interest in continued military spending and the political and financial means to influence US government policy to ensure high levels of military spending. The defense industry has therefore benefited from US policies in the Muslim world by filling the larger orders for weapons and supplies that were necessary to maintain America’s presence in the region and by supplying weapons to the governments of the Muslim world allied to it.
High levels of military spending have typically been justified on the basis that this spending, even if high in absolute terms, is relatively small as a proportion of US GDP and that such spending boosts both manufacturing and scientific research within the US. Though there is merit to these arguments, these policy justifications are no longer sufficient to support high levels of military spending due to the large debt the US has accrued. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the US government’s debt will reach $20.3 trillion by the end of 2020[vi]. These figures will increase as further stimulus packages to fight the COVID-19 Pandemic are approved and tax revenue shrinks due to reduced economic activity. In light of the rapidly increasing debt held by the US, arguments that justify high levels of military spending or debt by highlighting their relationship to overall GDP levels are no longer persuasive because they ignore the reality of America’s worsening finances. Instead of relying on distorted statistics that argue high levels of debt and military spending are acceptable, as a matter of common sense, it should be obvious that continuing to add to an already bloated deficit will only make repairing America’s financial strength more difficult. As such, even if military spending continues to hover around 3% of GDP (a level some argue is affordable), this spending must be considered too high if it is paid for by more deficit financing when the debt will soon pass $20 trillion! Even if the US has the capacity to borrow more, doing so must be tied to pressing economic needs such as dealing with the COVID-19 Pandemic, not unnecessary military spending.
Again, it is difficult to gauge the percentage of US military spending directly attributable to the Muslim world, but it is much easier to track weapons sales by US companies to foreign nations. The US has consistently been the biggest exporter of weapons to the world and many of its sales have been directed towards governments in the Muslim world. Saudi Arabia is one of the biggest consumers of US weapons, accounting for a fifth of total US weapons sales for the five-year period ending in 2017. Half of America’s weapons sales during this period went to customers in the Middle East or North Africa[vii]. Weapons sales to Islamic nations are justified on the basis that they are necessary to support America’s allies and contribute to economic development.
The problem with this reasoning is that the allies in question are exceptionally incompetent when it comes to engaging in modern warfare[viii]. As a result, selling weapons to these nations does not make them more secure or better able to resist attack from another nation. As the Arab Spring showed, these weapons are primarily meant for use against the people that have been forced to obey the region’s many dictators. Weapons sales to these dictators adds to the instability of the Muslim world by providing its despots with the means to intimidate and murder their people. Supporting these dictators contributes to instability in the region by propping up rulers who cannot adequately protect their nations, reside over extremely weak political and economic institutions, and can only govern based on fear and violence. Though these sales may subsidize the costs of America’s military infrastructure, the long-term moral and political cost is too high to justify the economic gains. Instead of selling weapons to the dictators of the Muslim world, the US must develop policies that can allow it to disentangle itself from the region by focusing on trade that does not involve weapons used by rulers to murder their own people. Aside from the fact that profiting from the pain and suffering of others is morally and ethically disgusting, it also creates a reinforcing loop that forces the US to maintain its military presence in the region. Despite their massive weapons purchases, the region’s dictators are not strong enough to retain power without American support. America’s military presence and weapons sales to the region only reinforces its instability by supporting the dictators that are the primary cause of this instability.
ACCESS TO ENERGY SUPPLIES
The primary justification behind US policies towards the Islamic world has always been the need to secure access to energy supplies. This justification is not valid for two reasons.
The first is that the Muslim world is incentivized to sell its mineral resources to the West because of the laws of supply and demand. Most energy exporting Muslim countries have been unable to diversify their economies away from their dependence on selling oil and gas. As such, they rely on this revenue to pay for the government services they provide, and do not have the domestic demand necessary to consume their own supplies. As a result, Muslims are just as eager to sell oil to the US as the US is to buy it. The Arabs have only used their oil as a weapon once and the effect of their boycott was just as traumatic to their economies as it was to Western economies. Consequently, they have never used oil as a weapon again. Withdrawing American troops would not affect the ability of the US to import as much oil has it needs for its own consumption. Arguments that rationalize the use of military assets to secure access to these resources or that justify support for dictators on the basis that they can guarantee timely oil deliveries are not persuasive because they ignore the basic laws of economics that should govern such transactions. They also ignore the simple fact that a weak, authoritarian government will be just as incentivized to sell oil as a strong, democratic one.
The second reason the US does not need to maintain its military presence is that it is no longer as dependent on Middle Eastern energy supplies. The US has developed its own domestic energy production capabilities and diversified its oil suppliers away from Muslim producers to such a degree that in 2019 only 11% of its crude oil imports came from the Persian Gulf[ix]. In fact, over half of US crude oil imports now come from Canada and Mexico. The increased ability of the US to satisfy its energy needs through domestic production and diversified suppliers means that it no longer needs to waste military resources securing these energy supplies.
THE NEED TO PROTECT ISRAEL
Part of the reason the US has sought to prevent the rise of an Islamic hegemon is to ensure no power can threaten Israel. The logic underlying this policy does not hold up to scrutiny for two reasons. The first is that Israel has developed a sophisticated nuclear triad that would deter even a powerful Muslim nation. It is Israel’s nuclear capabilities, not American support, that act as the ultimate guarantor of its survival and independence. As such, US efforts to ensure no Islamic nation or political entity can develop enough power to threaten Israel are an unnecessary waste of resources. The second is that the lack of a Muslim hegemonic power has removed any pressure on Israel to compromise with the Palestinians under its control. Israel’s right wing may see this as a victory, but it will eventually turn into a pyrrhic one because it will either lead to the inclusion of millions of Palestinians into Israel as equal citizens (a result many Israelis do not want) or it will lead to the creation of a new Apartheid regime in the Middle East. Israel’s right seem intent on creating the latter scenario even though doing so will turn it and its supporters in the US into international pariahs and ensure that it remains involved in low level conflict in perpetuity.
Israel has overwhelmingly won its conflict with the Palestinians and its Arab neighbors. There is almost no prospect for the creation of a viable Palestinian state because Israel has resoundingly defeated the Palestinians politically and militarily. The last vestige of meaningful Palestinian resistance offered by Hamas cannot match Israel’s military capabilities. Its policy of continued resistance plays directly into the hands of right-wing Israelis who seem intent on creating small cantons of weak and divided Palestinians like the homelands created by the Apartheid regime in South Africa. Israelis have managed to create a state that has allowed its Jewish citizens to prosper while maintaining military control over millions of Palestinians who have been denied their basic rights while having to endure decades of military occupation. Despite their long running conflict, the Palestinians are still fragmented and weak and have been unable to develop military capabilities that could force Israel to change its policies. The political and diplomatic influence of the United States has neutralized attempts to gain international support and the political dynamics within the Middle East have deprived them of support from the surrounding Arab states. The result has been Israel’s complete subjugation and/or neutralization of the Palestinians living under its control or in surrounding territories. This victory may turn to defeat in the long run because it is so complete that it has incentivized Israel’s right-wing government to pursue policies that will allow this conflict to fester with no end in sight. Without a meaningful political solution that addresses the legitimate concerns of the Palestinians, Israel will be involved in low level conflict against an opponent that cannot defeat it but will have no incentive to stop fighting it either.
As explained above, a Muslim hegemonic power would not threaten the existence of Israel due to its formidable nuclear arsenal. It would; however, limit the ability of Israelis to attack, either overtly or clandestinely, its neighbors and it would force Israel to treat its Arab citizens with dignity and justice. Aside from not being contrary to American interests, such an outcome would greatly help them by finally creating the conditions that could lead to sustainable peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Israel has taken advantage of the lack of a Muslim hegemonic power to grind Palestinian opposition into the dirt and, in doing so, has ensured the region will suffer from low level violence and instability for the foreseeable future. Its complete and total military victory has empowered it to refuse even the smallest compromises with the Palestinians and has created a situation with no end in sight that necessitates continued American involvement in the region.
INFLUENCE OF RULERS WITHIN THE MUSLIM WORLD
Many of the Muslim world’s governments expend a tremendous amount of resources in order to secure American support for their rule. For example, Saudi Arabia is estimated to have spent $60 million since 2016 to retain lobbyists, public relations firms, and fund think tanks[x] to maintain American support. This influence has ensured that criticism of Saudi Arabia’s brutal war in Yemen, abysmal human rights record, and financial support for extremist Muslims does not lead to a withdrawal of US support. In fact, the US has actively helped Saudi Arabia prosecute its war in Yemen despite the catastrophic effects on Yemen’s civilian population[xi]. Though considered the most proficient, the Saudi government is not the only authoritarian Muslim government to take advantage of America’s lobbying and PR firms. Nations such as Egypt,[xii] the UAE, and Qatar[xiii] also spend millions of dollars to make sure that America supports their interests.
This is problematic because the interests of these governments are often counter to the interests of the US. While arms sales to these nations may support economic activity within the US, their destabilizing effect also forces the US to maintain its costly military presence in the region. The Islamic world’s dictators and despots are the primary cause of its instability and weakness because of the inherently weak and violent nature of authoritarian and autocratic political institutions. These institutions have concentrated political and economic power in the hands of small groups of elites throughout the Muslim world that do not respect human rights, the rule of law, or freedom of expression. They use the machinery of the state to maintain their control and inflict violence on any citizens who oppose their rule even if that opposition is peaceful in nature. The rule of these elites has prevented Muslim nations from providing the government services necessary to support dynamic economies. It has also fueled the growth of extremist non-state actors that have reacted to the oppression and blatant theft of their governments by articulating violent ideologies that have plunged many Muslim nations into a state of chaos and anarchy which has, in turn, driven millions of Muslim refugees out of their homelands. American support for these rulers helps to keep the political institutions responsible for the Muslim world’s weakness in place and this weakness has directly led to the US military presence in the region. As such, it is in the long-term interests of the US to support the creation of democratic institutions in the Muslim world that can finally stabilize the region.
Some have looked at the actions of the US and seen a conspiracy to keep Muslims weak. The most likely explanation for America’s actions is much more mundane. The sad truth is that America’s politicians are for sale due to its corrupt (though technically legal) political system that incentivizes short term thinking focused on election cycles and obtaining the funds necessary to effectively contest these elections. The interest groups discussed above have manipulated America’s legislative process by exploiting these weaknesses to their own advantage. America’s policies towards the Muslim world are therefore best explained as resulting from the undue legislative influence of groups that have prioritized their own narrow self-interests over the long-term strategic interests of the US or the human suffering their actions cause. These groups have used their control of the legislative process to secure access to resources in a way that has subverted many of America’s basic ideals and principles and resulted in policies that are counterproductive and unsustainable. However, the arguments of those advocating for a continued American presence in the region can no longer outweigh the urgent need to fix America’s finances, the fact that so many Americans simply do not want to maintain its presence in the region, or the fact that most of the arguments used to rationalize current troop levels are not tied to national security needs.
Given these economic, political, and national security dynamics, the only real question is how and when America will withdraw its troops. Despite agreeing on the need to withdraw, the differing perspectives of its political factions will likely lead to conflict regarding the manner of America’s withdrawal. As such, while America’s withdrawal may be inevitable, the nature and timing of this withdrawal is uncertain. If the US does not adequately plan for and manage its withdrawal from the Islamic world, the results could be dire. Instead of following the same path they followed in Afghanistan, US policymakers must make an objective and realistic assessment of their policy options given the looming reduction in financial resources. They must stop engaging in the same arrogant behavior that prevented them from acknowledging the reality of their position in Afghanistan for so long. Turkey, Iran and Pakistan have already reacted to America’s inconsistent policies and hostility by developing close relationships with China. This is a foreshadow of what will happen if the US abandons the region without a plan in place.
CONCLUSION
The US must realize that due to its weakened finances and increasingly isolationist political trends, it can no longer continue as the dominant military power in the Muslim world. As such, it needs to develop and implement policies that will incentivize the creation of inclusive and pluralistic political and economic institutions and it needs to develop meaningful alliance relationships with these countries based on mutual respect rather than the traditional neo-colonial dynamic. The fundamentally imperial perspective of US policy makers must change; instead, they must treat the governments of the Islamic world as equal partners rather than clients to be bullied or cajoled. This will only be possible once these governments are run by competent officials that have been placed in power through the result of free, fair, and transparent democratic processes.
America’s reluctance to protect Saudi oil facilities from Iran as well as its desire to withdraw from Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan indicates its withdrawal is already under way. To better manage these changes, policies need to be clearly explained and agreed upon. Currently, America’s policies are a mix of hawkish rhetoric and haphazard military deployments that are not part of a clear strategy. America’s military leaders have explained their reduced commitment to the Middle East by referencing the need to focus on China but have yet to develop a new strategy that accounts for its lower importance and the smaller budgets likely to characterize military spending in the future. Instead, America’s military elite and their political and business allies have historically fought against serious cuts to military spending even as its debt was growing exponentially[xiv]. Given America’s high debt levels, massive military spending, the political infeasibility of raising taxes, and the refusal of its military and industrial elites to drastically reduce military spending, its long-term economic outlook was extremely precarious before the COVID-19 outbreak and is now particularly bleak. This is compounded by the fact that the aforementioned economic recovery was largely based on monetary manipulation (printing money, a.k.a., quantitative easing, borrowing money, and artificially keeping interest rates low to incentivize more borrowing) rather than strengthening America’s manufacturing base and overall fiscal position.
These pressing economic concerns combined with the growing belief among Americans across the political spectrum that American troops have no business in the Muslim world and its changing national security priorities will force it to withdraw from the Muslim world. The need to re-allocate resources to the Pacific, America’s energy independence, Israel’s dominant military capabilities, and the seemingly permanent instability of its Arab allies will outweigh the arguments traditionally used to justify its presence in the Islamic world. Having discussed the many factors that will lead to an American withdrawal from the Muslim world, the next step is to discuss the potential impact on the Muslim world and how Muslim nations should react to the coming changes. This discussion is available here.
[iv] This sentiment is partially shared by former Secretary of Defense James Mattis and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen who also see America’s debt as a threat to its national security. See: Kazda, Adam, “Military Spending: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly,” Pursuit, June 19, 2018, https://www.ourpursuit.com/military-spending-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/.
[viii] For a more detailed discussion of the performance of various Arab militaries since WWII see: Pollack, Kenneth, Armies of Sand, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019).
As explained in more detail here, America no longer has the desire to act as the Muslim world’s military hegemon. As such, it is only a matter of time before the US relinquishes its role as the dominant military power within the Islamic world. Though the contours and timing of its withdrawal are still uncertain, Muslim nations must begin considering how this withdrawal will impact them and how they should react. The changes that are likely to transpire represent a “critical juncture[i]” in the history of the Muslim world that will determine its trajectory for several decades. The reaction of Muslim nations will be pivotal in determining this trajectory. The following is not an attempt to predict what Muslim nations will do, but to suggest what they should do.
THERE IS NO SINGLE MUSLIM NATION POWERFUL ENOUGH TO ASSUME THE SECURITY ROLE THE US HAS FULFILLED
There is currently no Muslim nation with the military and economic resources to act as a military hegemon within the Muslim world. In fact, the most powerful military in the Middle East belongs to Israel. Among Muslim nations, Pakistan fields the most powerful military but given its fixation on India and extreme underdevelopment, it does not have the capacity to project military power beyond its borders. Given the current security dynamics in the region and the military weakness of most Muslim states, particularly the Arab states[ii], a withdrawal of US forces from the Islamic world will lead to further instability due to the security vacuum such changes will create[iii]. As such, the governments of the region must devise new policies that can fill the vacuum created by America’s inevitable withdrawal. Though not a direct cause of the Muslim world’s underlying weakness, America’s military presence has certainly helped entrench it and the dependence of Muslim nations on its power will make developing adequate military capabilities considerably more difficult.
There is no single Islamic nation capable of becoming a military hegemon on its own because none of them have the size and resources to compete with Russia, China, the US, or a united Europe. The Ottoman Empire was the last great Islamic empire, and it was never able to overcome the geographic vulnerability of having to defend itself against a powerful and antagonistic Persia to the East, an expansionist Russia to its North and a resurgent Europe to its Northwest. Ultimately, Muslims have no choice but to pursue policies that will lead to the sort of unification that Europe has undergone since the end of WWII since this is the only way to create an Islamic political entity with the resources to provide the Muslim world with the security and stability it so desperately needs.
Talking about the integration of Muslim countries considering their highly fractured relations may strike some as fantasy and to a certain extent, it is. However, it is highly doubtful anyone standing in the rubble of Germany or France after WWII could ever have imagined how integrated and prosperous both countries would be so soon after the end of that conflict. In many respects, Europe has a much greater legacy of conflict between its nations than the nations of the Muslim world. In fact, WWII is most accurately interpreted as the culmination of a series of wars resulting from the evolution of Prussia into modern day Germany. As the individual German states united, the power dynamics in Europe shifted, resulting in a series of wars that included WWI and WWII. The chaos and constant warfare that plagued Europe did not stop until a comprehensive political and economic solution in the form of the European Community was created. Some may counter that it was the absolute military victory of the Allied powers that ended this cycle of conflict, and this is true to a degree. But the Allies also decisively won WWI and despite all the carnage of that conflict, Europe was engulfed in war just two decades later. It was not until Western Europe integrated its economies and created the political institutions to manage this integration that the cycle of warfare between Europe’s nations stopped.
From this perspective, working towards the integration of Muslim nations is a realistic though difficult goal. The Muslim world is obviously in a different situation than Europe at the end of WWII. In some respects, it has advantages that Europe did not have since it has not experienced the destruction of a cataclysmic war and does not need to completely rebuild itself. However, this same advantage is also a handicap since the shock of WWII was likely a catalyst behind the first efforts to integrate Europe. On the other hand, if the conquest of Muslim lands and the continuing domination of Muslims by outside powers is still not enough to convince Muslims that working together to ensure their freedom and prosperity is a goal they should aspire to, then it is unlikely even a conflict on the scale of WWII would have any effect either. The biggest disadvantage Muslims face in their quest to integrate is the fact that the political institutions of most Muslim countries are closed and extractive[iv] whereas Europe’s institutions were mostly open and inclusive. The most difficult part of trying to integrate Muslim countries will therefore be reforming these repressive and closed political institutions. If Muslims can successfully reform these institutions, they have the potential to finally end their protracted weakness.
THERE ARE ONLY A HANDFUL OF MUSLIM STATES WITH THE CAPACITY TO CREATE SUCH AN ENTITY
The only way to strengthen the Muslim world’s military capabilities is to create a new political entity that can assume the security responsibilities America has performed for the past several decades since there is no Muslim nation capable of handling this role by itself. The most logical route to accomplishing this goal is to resurrect the concepts that led to the creation of CENTO. As the US understood in the 1950s, the nations of Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan have the capacity to form the backbone of a security alliance that could develop into a hegemonic Muslim power. Due to its geography and strategic concerns, Afghanistan should also join this alliance.
The main difference between CENTO and the entity being proposed here (hereinafter referred to as P.A.I.T.) is that the US should not be an active participant. It should support the creation of such an entity, but since the goal is to relieve the US of its security responsibilities, it would make no sense for it to be actively involved in its creation. Instead, it must grow and develop as a purely regional security system that allows Muslims to develop the capacity to work together for their own protection. Due to the extremely weak nature of most governments within the Muslim world, P.A.I.T. also represents the only Islamic countries with the institutional capacity and strategic incentives to create such an entity. Most of the Arab, African, and Central Asian parts of the Muslim world feature either unstable authoritarian governments that are dependent on American or Russian military and economic assistance to maintain their power or failed states that do not have the requisite degree of state centralization to create political, military, and economic institutions that can form the basis for a stable, democratic government, let alone a new multi-national political entity[v].
A security alliance between P.A.I.T. will not work nor be of lasting duration unless it is underpinned by an economic alliance. The first step in creating such an alliance will therefore be creating free trade agreements that can bind the economies and infrastructures of these nations together. Despite their weaknesses and different strategic concerns, the long-term goals of P.A.I.T. are all best served by economic integration meant to create an entirely new political entity with the strength to fill the power vacuum left by America’s departure. Combining the populations of these four countries would create an entity with a large internal market of over 400 million people that is well endowed with natural resources and defensible borders. The presence of such an entity would allow the US to withdraw its troops from the region by taking over its security responsibilities in the same way that the creation of the UAE allowed the British to withdraw their forces from the former Trucial States.
All four nations face strategic environments that should make their elites more receptive to integrationist ideas. In fact, three out of four are locked in existential conflicts they are not strong enough to resolve on their own. As a result, their governments are not as likely to prevent such an alliance from developing out of fear that it may threaten their grip on power. The main issue is that their elites must see an alliance as being in their interests despite their ethnic and doctrinal differences and the short-term upheaval such changes may cause. Though each has its own weaknesses and strategic concerns, they also have the right combination of institutions and strategic needs to overcome these issues if they can muster the political will and vision to do so.
Part of the impetus for creating a new political entity comprised of P.A.I.T. is that doing so will allow them to consolidate their borders and improve their geostrategic positions by creating advantages of strategic depth and improved internal lines of communication and supply to fortify their frontiers. A Pakistan that can rely on the meaningful support of Afghanistan, Turkey, and Iran in its confrontation with India will be much better equipped to handle such a confrontation and would have more options available to it. An Iran that can use free trade agreements with Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Turkey to mitigate the effects of US economic warfare and provide strategic depth for its military assets will be better able to resist the aggression of the US or Israel. By entering into free trade agreements with Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey, Afghanistan will finally be able to develop the economic strength needed to give its people the peace they have lacked for so long but in a way that does not put it under the undue influence of another power. It may also be the only way to legitimize and moderate the new Taliban government. And the inclusion of Turkey into this alliance will provide it with a well-developed economic base that can be used to facilitate economic development between all four nations while finally allowing Turkey to realize its pan-Islamic foreign policy goals. Essentially, by combining portions of the lands and resources of the old Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughal empires, Muslims can create a new entity that has the land and resources to ensure the great powers of the world can no longer dominate them. Eventually (meaning the distant future), such an entity could expand West and North to include many Arab states as well as the Muslim republics of Central Asia.
P.A.I.T. WILL NEED TO UNDERGO SERIOUS REFORMS
In order to come together to create such an entity, each must first undergo serious internal reforms to either create or strengthen their democratic political institutions. The creation of inclusive and genuine democratic institutions that respect the rule of law and rights of their citizens are absolutely vital for creating dynamic economic institutions[vi] and military capabilities. If Muslims ever hope to end the cycle of conquest and subjugation they have endured for the past several centuries, they must institute deep rooted political and socio-economic reforms because this is the only way that they will ever be able to develop the economic, technological, and military power required to protect themselves. They must also drastically improve their governing institutions by zealously fighting corruption and ensuring their institutions can provide the government services such an entity will need to thrive. They must work to integrate their infrastructures and create new institutions that can facilitate their integration by increasing trade between all four nations so that their elites can quickly see the benefits of having access to each other’s markets.
They will also need to work to overcome the ethnic and doctrinal rivalries that have consumed the Muslim world. The only way to bridge the divide between Sunnis and Shiites, or Turks and Persians, or Punjabis and Pashtuns, etc. is to create institutions that allow these different ethnic and doctrinal groups to fairly share power with each other. In the modern era, those societies that have been able to create institutions that are successful at fairly sharing resources and settling disputes among its citizens regardless of their ethnic or religious differences have achieved the greatest economic prosperity and sometimes even the greatest amount of military power[vii]. Democratic institutions allow for a greater diffusion of power which leads to a greater diffusion of wealth which empowers groups within a society to continue generating and developing more wealth, creating a reinforcing loop of wealth creation and power diffusion and this usually leads to greater overall wealth for everyone[viii]. Given the diversity of the Islamic world, the only way Muslims will ever come together is by creating such institutions to facilitate their integration.
There seems to be a direct correlation between inclusive, democratic institutions and military power. This is because societies that fairly share political power and economic resources and properly incentivize their members to increase their economic output are typically going to be wealthier. The increased wealth of these societies provides them with more resources to spend on developing their military capabilities and the inclusive political institutions used to facilitate this wealth creation also reduces friction between members of these societies because they do not feel unfairly marginalized or excluded from power. As such, the members of such societies benefit from having the resources and necessary group cohesion to obtain a decisive military edge. This also shows that arguments in favor of creating liberal, inclusive political institutions are not based solely on a sense of morality or fairness but that such institutions are the most effective at allowing a society to develop the military capabilities necessary to protect itself from conquest. Their primary advantage is of a practical nature and a recognition that such institutions are the most effective at allowing members of a society to work together for their own betterment and protection. Conversely, ideologies based on narrow concepts of ethnic, tribal, or national identity are typically not as good at developing the sort of inclusive political institutions that can lead to greater economic growth and military power. This is important because the only way an entity comprised of Pakistanis, Turks, Persians, and Afghans will thrive is if it creates institutions that can allow these different groups to work together and the only way to accomplish this is to create transparent and fair ways for them to share power with each other and work together.
AMERICA’S ROLE
As part of its withdrawal the US must help create a coalition of allies that can prevent another hostile great power from replacing it. As such, facilitating the creation of an alliance between P.A.I.T. is in America’s long-term interest as well. The current strategy of relying on unstable monarchial dictatorships or military strongmen will not work in the long run. Simply put, these regimes do not have the strength to stand on their own. Consequently, continuing to support such allies makes no sense. Instead, the US must seek new allies that can defend themselves without help. The biggest hurdle to this is America’s ongoing conflict with Iran. If the US is serious about withdrawing its troops from the Middle East, then this issue will need to be resolved amicably. Doing so within the framework of an alliance comprised of traditional US allies like Pakistan and Turkey may present the best opportunity to do so in a manner that protects the interests of both nations.
The US must fundamentally change its policies towards the governments of the Islamic world by using its diplomatic and economic power to encourage these governments to respect the human rights of their citizens and institute meaningful democratic reforms. The only path to doing this is by supporting the spread of genuine democracy within the Islamic world. It must also stop being so fearful of governments within the Muslim world that have an Islamist component or perspective. The US has allowed its fear of political Islam to justify supporting brutal dictators that have mired the region in war and conflict. Instead of fearing such governments, the US must learn to work with them. As the people of the Muslim world become accustomed to choosing their own leaders, they may choose leaders that will have an Islamic perspective. This may lead to disagreements but does not have to preclude the development of strong relationships with these nations in the same way that even serious disagreements with its allies in Europe or India have not been allowed to undermine the fundamentals of those relationships.
Such policies would allow for the development of stable and democratic governments that respect human rights and can lay the foundation for the development of strong economies. This will eventually allow Muslims to develop the military capabilities necessary to prevent their conquest by another great power on their own. Though it may sound oxymoronic, helping Muslims become self-sufficient is the best way to help them achieve true independence and this is the best way to ensure these countries are never conquered or dominated by another competing great power that would deny America access to the region or use its resources as part of a broader confrontation with the US[ix].
CONCLUSION
It is only a matter of time before the US withdraws its troops from the Muslim world. Muslim nations must therefore develop new ideas that can allow them to fill the security vacuum its departure will create. The leaders of the Muslim world must begin to implement the reforms suggested above if they ever hope to end the cycle of violence and weakness that has consumed their countries. It is up to the nations and people of the Muslim world to devise new strategies that can allow them to finally end their protracted weakness. The policies they have pursued thus far have clearly not worked. The Muslim world has been in a sustained state of weakness for many centuries, and it will take many years to reverse the effects of its long decline. As such, the ideas presented here will take many years to develop and implement and the entity proposed above may never even materialize. However, even small steps taken towards creating it will have a beneficial impact on the Muslim world by increasing trade and helping Muslims work together. Muslims must therefore begin the process of building such an entity as soon as possible if they ever hope to reverse their fortunes.
The Arab states of the Gulf appear to believe creating an alliance with Israel will shield them from Iran while Pakistan and Iran are developing bi-lateral relationships with China. Neither strategy will work. Israel’s military is powerful enough to protect Israeli interests but, considering their aversion to casualties, it is highly doubtful Israel’s leaders will risk IDF soldiers to protect allies in the Gulf or help them secure the Gulf’s shipping lanes. Muslims rejoicing at America’s departure and welcoming China should be wary as well. China’s ethnic cleansing of its Muslims should serve as a warning to those who believe it will be a kinder benefactor than America. The authoritarian structure of its political institutions and refusal to countenance even mild criticism or non-conformity indicate it will be the opposite. Instead of trying to replace the US with another outside power whose interests will then take precedence, Muslims must learn to look to each other for their security needs.
The best way to start is by allowing the people of the Muslim world to re-create the cultural, social, and commercial links that once bound them. Muslim governments and people both need to begin promoting the free exchange of goods, people, and ideas between each other. Islamic societies were once integrated through interconnected layers of political alliances, trade and religious networks. These connections and the infrastructure that supported them helped to create what was essentially a free trade zone that allowed for the movement of goods, people, and ideas throughout the Islamic world in a manner that helped it to develop a common culture and an integrated economy. If Muslims are ever going to take control of their security needs, they must rebuild these links so that the interests of the Muslim world’s different nations and people begin to align in a manner that leads to further economic, political, and military cooperation. Ultimately, the nations of the Muslim world have no choice but to adapt to their changing security environment by learning to rely on themselves and each other. Arguing for an alliance between P.A.I.T. may seem like a desperate plan but after centuries of conquest and subjugation, desperate is a fitting description for the Muslim world. The absolute military, political, and economic weakness of the Muslim world will only be corrected through bold measures.
These ideas are also consistent with the theories developed by Professor Huntington in his important work “The Clash of Civilizations.” The past few decades have illustrated the prescience of his model for understanding international relations and conflict. As he predicted, the world is moving towards a multi-polar international system largely centered around its major civilizational blocks. Before this system can realize its potential, the Islamic world will need to stabilize itself. Until this happens it will continue to destabilize surrounding regions and it will continue to present a security vacuum that outside powers will try to fill. As Prof. Huntington’s model implies, it will fall upon the people and nations of the Muslim world to help themselves since nations from other civilizational blocks will be both unwilling and unable to do so[x].
[i] A “critical juncture” is when a “confluence of factors disrupts the existing balance of political or economic power.” See Acemoglu, Daron and Robinson, James, Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty, (New York: Crown Business, 2012) at 106.
[ii] The UAE, a.k.a. “little Sparta” is the only Arab nation that has managed to develop adequate military capabilities.
[iv] For a more detailed discussion regarding the impact of such institutions, see Acemoglu, Daron and Robinson, James, Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty, (New York: Crown Business, 2012) at 79-83; 216; 271.
[v] Both Indonesia and Nigeria are too geographically remote, and Nigeria does not face a strategic environment that would cause its elites to support the reforms that would be necessary to join such an entity.
[vi] Again, for a more in-depth discussion of these ideas see Acemoglu, Daron and Robinson, James, Why Nations Fail, (New York: Crown Business 2012) at 79-83; 216; 271.
[vii] Though he does not explain why in great detail, Prof. Bernard Lewis appears to agree with this conclusion in his article “Why Turkey is the only Muslim Democracy,” Middle East Quarterly, March 1994, pp. 41-49.
[viii] Acemoglu, Daron and Robinson, James, Why Nations Fail, (New York: Crown Business 2012) at 306-17.
[ix] The author is obviously thinking about China’s growing influence in the region.
[x] Huntington, Samuel, The Clash of Civilizations: Remaking of World Order, (New York: Touchstone, 1996) pp. 21-29.
It has recently come to light that Iran and China are negotiating a sweeping new agreement to integrate their economies. Though details are scarce, the agreement will likely be similar to the CPEC agreement between China and Pakistan in that it will fund infrastructure meant to integrate Iran into China’s economic orbit. Entering into such an agreement will alleviate Iran’s short-term economic issues but at a serious cost to its long-term strength and independence. Iran is making the same mistake as every other Muslim nation that enters into unequal bi-lateral arrangements with more powerful nations. The power disparity inherent in these relationships creates unequal alliances that puts the weaker party at a significant disadvantage. This results in economic development that decidedly favors the stronger party such as deals to extract oil on terms that are extremely favorable to it. The elites of the Muslim world are happy to enter such arrangements because they benefit from the corruption and bribes used to cement these deals.
If the conservative faction currently running Iran’s government gives in to the temptation to enter into such an agreement, they will be confirming themselves in the same sort of dictatorship that has governed the Muslim world for far too long. Instead of compromising with the progressive elements within their society in order to develop political and economic institutions that can allow Iran to develop its economic resources in a manner that prioritizes the needs of its people, its leaders will skew its development by prioritizing China’s needs. And they will do so in the sort of corrupt manner that will incentivize them to continue using violence and repression to maintain their control of Iran’s government.
Not only would such actions entrench Iran’s dictatorship, they would also prove that Iran’s rulers have no interest in preserving Islamic values or leadership. The Chinese government is actively murdering its Muslim Uighur population in a genocidal campaign designed to facilitate the colonization of Western China by Han Chinese. They have created camps full of innocent Muslim women and children and are in the process of slowly murdering and sterilizing them. Humanity has stood by and done nothing so perhaps it is unfair to blame Muslims for not caring either, but one would think that a country that claims to care so deeply about the Muslims of Palestine would be just as concerned for the well-being of China’s Muslims. The fact that Iran’s conservative faction is likely pushing for the deal is even more galling since they claim to care the most about Muslims and use these claims to justify their usurpation of power. No Muslim should be doing business with China until it has freed every single Uighur from these camps. But those Muslim countries that claim to care about the plight of oppressed Muslims as part of their official government policies should be particularly ashamed.
Muslims do not criticize China out of fear. This fear is rooted in our weakness and this weakness is primarily rooted in our divisions and dysfunctional political institutions. China can easily deal with just one Muslim nation speaking out and since Muslim governments do not work together, they only ever speak as individual nations. Organizations like the Arab League that claim to represent Islamic unity are just vehicles used to create the illusion of unity without any of the substance. But if Muslims finally stood together China would have to take notice. It is only when Muslims learn to stand together that we will be able to stop such atrocities and our strength would be such that we would not even have to resort to violence. If Muslims were united, a conversation would suffice. Instead of turning to a nation that is engaged in the ethnic cleansing of other Muslims to protect itself from the US and Israel, Iran should look to its brothers in Pakistan, Turkey, and Afghanistan for help. And its brothers in Pakistan, Turkey, and Afghanistan should be ashamed that they have not more vehemently offered their help. If these four countries were united as brothers, a conversation would have also put the troubles between Israel and Iran to bed. Instead of working together, Muslim leaders continue to allow themselves to be divided and conquered. The only way to rebuild the bonds of brotherhood that once kept Muslims united is to rebuild the networks of trade, social, and cultural exchange that once turned the Muslim world into a common cultural and economic zone. Rather than negotiating a massive investment deal with China, Iran should be discussing a similar agreement with Turkey, Pakistan, and Afghanistan to link their infrastructures and develop the ties that can bind these nations together.
The most efficient way to accomplish this would be by strengthening the rule of law in each country by zealously fighting corruption. This would allow the political institutions of these nations to work together in a transparent manner to help each other prosper through trade. The creation of inclusive political institutions like those that led to the development of the EU would be vital to efforts to integrate Muslim nations as well. Sadly, most Muslim nations are run by governments that will not allow such links or reforms to develop. They prevent these reforms because they are governed by dictators who only care about preserving their power so they can steal as much money as possible. Their greed and shortsighted obsession with control has blinded them to what real power is. The rulers of the Muslim world import luxury cars from Europe and parade around pretending to be royal when they are just thieves. The only difference between a common thief and these rulers is that they have stolen so much money that they were able to buy themselves titles. Instead of working for the betterment of their people and faith, these rulers resort to violence and oppression to maintain their power. The great powers of the world help them stay in power out of a combination of greed and fear of what Muslims would do if they were ever freed from the shackles of dictatorship. Policies rooted in fear and greed can only ever lead to chaos and destruction and that is exactly what has consumed the Muslim world.
If Muslims ever hope to revitalize ourselves, we will need to begin looking inward by examining the cultural and social factors that have led to the current state of affairs. Ultimately, the oppressive governments of the Muslim world are a reflection of its people. In order to correct the issues of governance that have plagued the Muslim world, its people must engage in an intellectually honest debate regarding how best to correct the deep-rooted issues in Islamic societies that have prevented the development of vibrant and effective political and economic institutions. The current authoritarian governments in the Muslim world have prevented this much needed debate from happening and must be significantly reformed before an intellectually honest environment can be created. Until that happens, we will continue to see leaders like those in Iran who sell their souls for power and money. Although the need for reform has been clear for centuries, the absence of an intellectual environment conducive to honest and unfiltered debate has prevented Muslims from correctly analyzing the root causes of our weakness. Out of pride, we refuse to admit that we are a conquered people. We have been so thoroughly thrashed by the West in the ancient conflict between our two civilizations that we do not even think about picking ourselves up from off the floor to rebuild our societies. Since most Muslims cannot even admit defeat, it has been impossible to convince them of the need to implement reforms meant to reverse this defeat. Without serious reforms, our subjugation will never end, and we will continue to see atrocities such as those being perpetrated against China’s Muslim population.
Rather than enter into an agreement with China that will likely use Chinese firms and technical expertise to build its infrastructure, Iran should enter into agreements with its Muslim neighbors designed to improve their technical abilities and economic foundations. Using Iranian, Pakistani, Turkish, and Afghan companies to plan, design, and build the infrastructure that will be necessary to integrate their economies will allow these nations to truly modernize. Instead of importing the machinery needed to exploit its mineral resources from China, Iran should work with Muslim allies to create a free trade zone with each other in which local firms are incentivized to build the equipment and infrastructure needed to modernize. Utilizing local companies would allow investments in infrastructure to benefit the local economy while simultaneously improving the technical skills of their people. Until Muslim nations develop the capacity to build high quality machine tools, construction and mining equipment, fiber optic relays, automobiles, electronics and computer hardware and software, etc., they will always be impoverished. Rather than allow China to import its unprocessed natural resources for its own industrial needs, Iran should build an industrial infrastructure that can turn its natural resources into finished goods, and it should work with Turkey, Pakistan, and Afghanistan to accomplish this goal. Though this path is considerably more difficult, it would lead to real and sustained economic and technological development for all four nations. Iran’s potential deal with China is unlikely to lead to the development of these capabilities. Instead, it will probably follow the same path as Pakistan which has used Chinese loans to hire Chinese firms and buy Chinese equipment to build infrastructure China needs without improving its indigenous capabilities.
The economic policies suggested above will not work until Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, and Afghanistan build the political and educational institutions to implement and support them and this process will also be extremely difficult. Since the time of the Ottoman Empire, Muslims have consistently relied on foreign capital and technical expertise to build modern infrastructure in their quest to develop industrial economies. In every instance this has led to economic dependence and conquest. While building modern roads and infrastructure are vital for economic development, they are not the most important aspects of modernization. True modernization cannot happen without political and socio-economic reforms meant to empower and educate the masses. The reason most Muslim governments have been so bad at modernizing themselves is because they refuse to share political power with their people. Most of their reforms have only addressed the superficial symbols of modernity while ignoring the foundations upon which such reforms should be based. They have done this because their primary focus is retaining power. Only those reforms that do not threaten their power have been allowed and these have not been enough. Also, using foreign capital removes the need to improve their governing institutions and capacity to generate the tax revenue necessary to finance economic development locally. Again, they have chosen this path because, as counterintuitive as it may seem, improving their governing institutions such as their law enforcement agencies, tax collection agencies, or courts would threaten their power which is based on subverting these institutions in order to maintain their rule. Muslim rulers do not want functioning courts or administrative agencies because they are afraid these bodies may serve as a check on their power. Without the important government services these agencies are supposed to provide, the economic growth the Muslim world so desperately needs will never happen and its people will remain trapped in the same cycle of poverty and disenfranchisement that has ensnared them for centuries.
If Muslim rulers continue on their current trajectories, they will doom their people to slavery, and they will doom themselves to rebellion and weakness. Instead of suffering the fate of the Romanov or Pahlavi dynasties, Muslim rulers must embrace the path of Japan’s feudal rulers who prioritized the well-being of their people and power of their civilization by giving up much of their own power to oversee Japan’s transition to modernity. Muslims must create the democratic political institutions necessary to oversee such change and invest in educational, economic and scientific development if they ever hope to end their subservience to outsiders. As an astute, though cynical, man once noted, rulers that come to power by betraying their fellow citizens through treachery and murder may achieve power, but they will never achieve glory[1]. It is time for the rulers of the Muslim world to start thinking about the glory of their people and civilization rather than just chasing power.
[1] Machiavelli, Niccolo, The Prince, trans. by George Bull. London: Penguin Books, 1961 at pg. 27.
