This essay was first published here, by the Friday Times on Jan. 23, 2024.
Israel’s rampage through Gaza has left an unprecedented swath of destruction in its wake. Its military has now murdered at least 24,762 Palestinians, including 9,600 children. 85% of Gaza’s people have been displaced while a third of its buildings have been destroyed, leaving roughly half a million Palestinians homeless. Due to this destruction and Israel’s continuing blockade, 576,000 Gazans face the very real prospect of starving to death this winter. In the words of one analyst, Israel is waging a war of “extermination” against the Palestinians, one its leaders have promised to continue without mercy or reprieve regardless of the international outcry.
It was obvious at the outset of this war that the Muslim world is too weak to help the Palestinians and would therefore be forced to impotently watch this massacre unfold. The recent hostilities between Pakistan and Iran show exactly why. In fact, it is hard to conceive of a better example to illustrate the dysfunction that has gripped Muslim societies for centuries. Instead of working together to stop Israel’s brutal assault, these two Muslim nations reacted to its outrages by attacking each other.
Iran’s decision to attack Pakistan had little to do with animosity towards its neighbor and everything to do with the war in Gaza and its long confrontation with America and the West. It has been locked in conflict with the Western alliance since its religious elite deposed the Shah and took power in 1979. Since that time, it has adopted an anti-imperial agenda predicated on challenging Western domination of the Muslim world. To that end, its leaders have invested in improving their technological abilities so they can design and build the weapons needed to protect themselves. They have also provided money, training, weapons and diplomatic support to the Palestinians as well as like-minded allies throughout the region. As a result, Iran is the only Muslim nation to openly defy the West.
For these crimes, it has been forced to endure brutal economic sanctions, its government officials are routinely assassinated, and even the ceremonies commemorating these fallen leaders are subject to attack. The Western bloc has also used its coercive powers to prevent other Muslim states from developing close relations with it, which is why it has been forced to develop alliances with mostly non-state actors.
Given these dynamics, Iran’s desire to defend itself is understandable. Its decision to target other Muslim nations is not. Iran’s volley was part of a three-pronged attack that also targeted Iraq and Syria. These targets and the means used to attack them were intended to deter Israel by showing off its robust missile capabilities. While its attacks certainly showed what its missiles are capable of, they are best viewed as an admission that, despite having ample justification, Iran does not possess the power to directly attack its enemies. Iran’s leaders were forced to vent their frustrations on their Muslim neighbors precisely because they knew an attack on Israeli or American targets would lead to a violent and unpredictable reprisal.
This episode also shows that talk of an axis of resistance is mostly bluster. Israel and America are happy to exaggerate the threat posed by Iran and its allies since it provides a convenient excuse for their aggressive policies. But despite their tough talk and impressive arsenal of rockets and missiles, they were powerless to stop the massacre in Gaza. Hezbollah and the Houthis have done their best to dissuade Israel from its current course, but their efforts have done little to lower the body count. Neither Iran nor its allies have been willing to fully commit to the fight because they do not have the means to protect themselves from the combined might of Israel and its Western backers. Thus, they have been unwilling to escalate their attacks beyond a limited threshold.
Iran’s leaders deserve praise for their willingness to stand up to the genocidal policies and racist hypocrisy of the West, but they also deserve a great deal of criticism. Their inability to effectively help the Palestinians is rooted in the authoritarian political system they have built to oppress their people. As explained previously, democratic systems are the best at allowing a nation to develop the technological and economic abilities needed to build powerful militaries in the modern age. By refusing to acknowledge this obvious truth, Iran has been fighting America and Israel with one hand tied behind its back. The ease with which Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency operates inside Iran and the massive protests that have rocked it since 2009 are the natural result of this oppression. One does not need to be Sun Tzu to realize that alienating your own people while locked in a confrontation with foes as powerful and ruthless as America and Israel is not a smart strategy. But that is the path its rulers have chosen.
Iran’s leaders have clearly made mistakes in their quest to help the Palestinians, but at least they are doing something. The same cannot be said for the rest of the Muslim world. The leaders of Pakistan and Turkey, for example, have repeatedly expressed their outrage at Israel’s atrocities but taken no actions to stop them. Despite possessing stronger militaries than Iran’s in many ways, both are fundamentally more constrained in their freedom of action because of their dependence on America for some of their most advanced weapons and their desire to remain part of an international trading system that runs on the US dollar. Neither can defy America’s wishes out of fear it may cut off their supply of weapons or torpedo their economies with the same sort of sanctions it has levied against Iran.
Based on these factors and their unwillingness to upset their Arab patrons, Pakistan’s leaders have refused to build closer relations with Iran. As usual, they are prioritizing short-term needs while ignoring the bigger picture. America’s history of violence in the Muslim world, its unequivocal support for apartheid Israel and its growing relationship with India’s extremist government show it is a threat to Muslims everywhere. This threat will only grow during the next few decades.
America’s political system is broken but its leaders are too busy printing money to pay for their massive military to notice. This has led to $34 trillion in sovereign debt. The interest payments required to service this debt are growing by the day. It spent $659 billion on interest payments this past year and this figure is expected to grow to $2 trillion by the end of the decade. When the financial house of cards America built to pay for its imperial ambitions finally implodes, the dollar will be worthless. Those nations that have tied their economies and currencies to it will find themselves impoverished and their central banks filled with piles of worthless green paper. The sooner Muslims build an economic system that is no longer ruled by the dollar, the better off they will be.
The simple truth is that Pakistan and Iran need each other. Both will need to protect themselves from the chaos that is sure to accompany America’s decline. Both have a moral obligation to help the Palestinians, and of course, there is the need to secure the sparsely populated and lawless border areas that sparked this controversy. These have often been used as a base for those opposed to being ruled by elites in Tehran or Islamabad. It is in the interest of both nations to secure this area. The most logical way to do that is to work together. Instead of using missiles or airstrikes, the camps that prompted these attacks should have been destroyed via a joint operation involving troops from both militaries. The fact that these neighbors have not developed the means to conduct such operations is an indictment of both their leaders. This entire fiasco could have served as the perfect springboard to further enhance Pakistan’s and Iran’s ability to cooperate with each other. Instead, it proved why Gaza has been forced to suffer on its own and why Muslims have been so weak for so long.
This essay was first published here, by the Friday Times on Dec. 30, 2023.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not terribly complicated. The difficulty in talking about this subject has nothing to do with its complexities and everything to do with the racism and gaslighting that dominates the conversation. Those who express pro-Palestinian sentiments are accused of being antisemitic, terrorist sympathizers, or Hamas apologists and face the very real prospect of losing their jobs or being expelled from their schools. Just last week, an Arab-American teacher in Florida was fired from her job while her son was expelled from school on the basis that her comments on social media highlighting the staggering number of women and children murdered by Israel’s military were “hateful and incendiary.” To be clear, she did not praise Hamas or try to rationalize its violence. Her only crime was speaking out against a massacre.
The vitriol directed towards those advocating on behalf of Palestinians is enough, by itself, to prevent reasoned debate or silence those who would speak for Gaza’s children. But when the blatant gaslighting that has always surrounded this topic is added to the mix, things that should be easy, like agreeing on basic facts become impossible. For example, despite an abundance of clear and overwhelming evidence, many Americans refuse to admit Israel is an apartheid state. Instead, they ignore or castigate the conclusions of human rights organizations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and B’tselem that have all described it as one. Even the former head of Israel’s Mossad intelligence service, Tamir Pardo, was vilified then ignored for finally admitting the truth.
Many Americans, like David Ignatius, seem incapable of even using the word apartheid. Mr. Ignatius recently wrote a lengthy article chronicling what he described as “a pattern of Israeli domination and occasional abuse that makes daily life a humiliation for many Palestinians.” He discussed a laundry list of systemic and institutionalized practices, like the different colored license plates issued to Jewish settlers in the West Bank that allow them to bypass the IDF’s numerous checkpoints and the impunity with which they can attack Palestinians or destroy their property. Curiously, he never once used the word apartheid to describe these policies. Like many American pundits, Mr. Ignatius knows admitting the obvious truth that Israel is an apartheid state would fundamentally change the nature of this debate by making their support for it morally indefensible. Thus, most refuse to do so even when the ugly reality is staring them in the face.
Unfortunately for its supporters, no amount of willful ignorance can obscure that Israel is, in fact, an apartheid state. The best way to show how is to start by defining the term. Apartheid was originally used to describe South Africa’s political system, which institutionalized the segregation of blacks and whites while violently discriminating against and marginalizing the black majority. It has since evolved into a shorthand way of describing any political system designed to disenfranchise or marginalize people based on their religion, race, or ethnicity. Based on this definition, America during the Jim Crow era was also an apartheid state. That segregation was officially limited to the south, affording African Americans in the north slightly more rights, does not change this fact. Similarly, the greater freedoms granted Arabs living in Israel Proper versus those in the West Bank does not absolve Israel of its guilt.
As Mr. Ignatius’ piece so poignantly illustrates, Israel is the governing authority in the West Bank in all but name. It has been since 1967. Its 56-year occupation and creeping colonization of this territory, and the different set of rules governing Jews and Arabs within it, has turned it into an apartheid state. Which means, by definition, Israel cannot be a democracy since it is impossible to be one while simultaneously maintaining a violent military occupation designed to subjugate and disenfranchise millions of people based on their ethnicity. It should be obvious that being a democracy and military occupier are mutually exclusive but the degree of gaslighting infused into this conversation prevents many Americans from admitting this self-evident truth. Instead, America’s leaders prefer to pretend the two-state solution is still viable and Israel has not already annexed the West Bank. This allows them to mask their guilt by talking about non-existent political processes rather than substantively addressing the oppression of the Palestinians.
When people will not even admit to basic facts, it becomes impossible to discuss more complicated issues, like whether Israel’s military is intentionally murdering civilians. Here, the fog of war makes knowing all the facts impossible. However, a pattern has begun to emerge that deserves greater scrutiny. Since the start of this war, Israel’s forces have murdered three hostages waving white flags as they tried to surrender who were clearly mis-identified as Palestinians, a good samaritan who intervened to stop a terrorist attack as he was kneeling and raising his hands who was also mistaken for an Arab, a mother and daughter sheltering in a church, a poet whose greatest offense appears to be sending insensitive tweets about the country bombing his home, 42 members of a single family as they huddled together in their home, an adorable three year old child named Reem, and an unprecedented number of journalists. In total, the IDF has slaughtered over 20,000 people. 70% of whom were women or children like Reem.
There have also been numerous videos showing IDF troops acting abhorrently as they desecrate places of worship, loot shops, or wantonly destroy property. One even showed them attacking an unarmed man, who was not being violent in any way. The sheer number of egregious incidents point to a pattern of abuse that makes recent reports of Israeli forces summarily executing unarmed civilians depressingly credible. Taken together, these examples suggest Israel’s soldiers are acting with the blessings, either implicit or explicit, of their superiors as they maliciously and intentionally murder civilians. The only other plausible explanations are that the IDF is suffering from systemic and widespread discipline issues, or its troops are incompetent and, as a result, keep accidentally attacking and killing civilians. Given its widely acknowledged reputation as a well-trained force, these seem highly unlikely.
Rather than have a difficult conversation about these crimes and America’s role in enabling them, we are confronted with more gaslighting and racism. In America, people like Florida state rep. Michelle Salzman who suggested the IDF should kill “all” Palestinians or Congressman Brian Mast who refused to distinguish between Hamas and Palestinian civilians shield Israel from criticism by shaping the debate to blame and dehumanize the victims. Absurd comparisons to the Nazis are made, past atrocities like dropping atomic bombs on cities full of emaciated women and children are cited as justification, and no one bats an eye.
Many even argue Hamas is solely to blame for Gaza’s dead. Under this line of reasoning, the men pulling the triggers or dropping the bombs bear no responsibility whatsoever for their actions. Hamas, as the catalyst, must shoulder it all. An interesting argument that would probably appeal to Hamas’ leaders more than anyone else since they could easily point to the obscene number of Palestinian children Israel has murdered over the years as justification for their crimes. Of course, holding Hamas and Israel to the same standards would make me a “terrorist sympathizer,” so I’ll segue to the conclusion instead.
Having an honest and logical conversation about Israel and Palestine is nearly impossible in America. The discussion is usually driven by overt racism and hypocritical, nonsensical arguments. Which is why I hate broaching the subject. Given its own ugly history as an apartheid state, America’s current support for Israeli apartheid is that much more repugnant and inexcusable. The degree to which the white majority bullies, disparages, or ignores people of color when we speak out against these injustices shows America has yet to fully exorcise its racist demons. Nevertheless, I have no choice but to speak up when children are being murdered by the thousands. I can only hope that justice might some day prevail, that America might someday evolve. I will certainly do my best to help it along by challenging the bigoted and silly arguments that have always surrounded this topic.
In the interim, Muslims must consider America’s entrenched Islamophobia and its inability to have a rational discussion about its violent policies in reference to its massive $886 billion military budget, its sale of extremely powerful weapons to countries like Israel and India, and its habit of attacking or invading Muslim nations. Combined, these data points show America is a threat to not just the Palestinians, but the entire Muslim world.
The danger will remain until Muslims develop the strength to protect themselves by implementing deep rooted reforms to create democratic governments based on the rule of law that empower their people by educating them and guaranteeing freedom of expression, religion, and association. That is the only way to stimulate the sort of socio-economic and technological development that can lead to improved military capabilities. Until Muslims free themselves from the tyrants and clerics who have ruled them for centuries, they will continue to fall victim to massacres like the one happening in Gaza right now.
This essay was first published here, by the Friday Times on Nov. 29, 2023.
Some of the commentators who support Israel’s bombing and invasion of Gaza have been incredulously asking what those who have been calling for a cease-fire suggest Israel do instead of pursuing military action.
The first and most important thing Israel should do is put grownups in charge of its government. To that end, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu must step down immediately. In fact, Israel’s entire Kahanist led government is an affront to human decency and must go along with him. Men like Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who think Arabs deserve “differentiated rights” or his partner in crime Minister for National Security Itamar Ben Gvir, have no place in government. Not only did their incompetent clown show lead to Israel’s greatest security failure in fifty years but they are clearly not the sort of men who should be formulating its plans to stabilize Gaza after the fighting stops. If these men had any decency, they would have resigned within a week of Hamas’ attack, once the immediate emergency had passed.
Thankfully, recent polls suggest Netanyahu’s days are numbered. The question then becomes, who will take over? And what sort of policies will they implement? The problem is the Israeli electorate has shifted so far to the right; they are unlikely to choose leaders capable of addressing the root of Israel’s problems: the occupation of the West Bank. If Israel really wants to address the situation in Gaza, it needs to bring peace to the West Bank first.
The most logical way to do that is to incorporate it into Israel and finally do away with the fiction of the Green Line. The Green Line, the Palestinian Authority and the administrative absurdities built around them are all meant to obscure the fact that Israel is the controlling political and military authority over the West Bank. Admitting the two-state solution is dead and officially incorporating the West Bank into Israel so its citizens can enjoy equal rights and have a fair say in running the government that rules them represents Israel’s most logical path to peace.
Alternatively, forcing the roughly 450,000 Israeli settlers currently living there to relocate back across the Green Line or become citizens of a new Palestinian state would also work. In either case, it is time to dismantle Israel’s apartheid regime and give the Palestinians of the West Bank their freedom.
Sadly, none of this will happen anytime soon since most Israelis would strongly oppose such measures. In the absence of a long-term solution, the least Israel’s leaders can do is stop trying to set the West Bank on fire. Stop murdering the Palestinians who live there. Stop using flimsy legal excuses to seize their property. Stop arresting them arbitrarily and then torturing them or holding them without trial or due process. Protecting them from the settlers who have been attacking and killing them would be nice too. By just doing the basic things a government is supposed to do for the people it rules and treating them the same regardless of their religion or ethnicity, Israel would make significant progress towards peace.
Of course, the question was directed towards the current situation in Gaza, not long-term fixes. Even here, the solutions are not terribly complicated. For starters, Israel must stop killing women and children. It should also stop attacking hospitals, even if Hamas is using them to store weapons. Instead, its medical personnel should be working to keep Gaza’s hospitals operational so they can begin treating the staggering number of innocents wounded by its indiscriminate bombing and shelling. Israel’s military is now responsible for the well-being of the civilians who have been hurt or displaced due to its attacks and must therefore provide them with food, temporary shelter, and medical care. It will also need to start digging out the dead and giving them proper burials.
Once it stabilizes the humanitarian situation, it should start talking to Hamas’ leaders about a long-term peace deal. Many will find this sentiment revolting, but it is Israel’s least bad option. Those who refuse to contemplate such a course of action on the basis that Hamas’ leaders must be punished would do well to remember that life is rarely fair.
America massacred millions in Vietnam and none of the elected officials responsible went to jail. George Bush fabricated evidence to justify starting a war that killed or displaced millions and gets to spend his retirement finger painting. Dick Cheney got rich from that same war and gets to spend his retirement in luxury too. Dozens of women accused Deshaun Watson of sexual assault and he was rewarded with a $230 million payday. Sometimes, the bad guys get away with it. Despite the stench, negotiating with Hamas is Israel’s best option.
The alternative is re-occupying Gaza. As Israel’s experiences in Lebanon and America’s experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan show, military occupations do not always go according to plan. As explained here in more detail, a comparison of America’s successful occupations of Germany and Japan versus its unsuccessful ones in Iraq and Afghanistan shows troop levels play an important role in the outcome. America stationed 1 soldier in West Germany for every 31.8 civilians but only 1 for every 8,640 Afghans. Providing a force comparable to the one that secured West Germany for Gaza would take almost 72,000 troops. Israel simply does not have the manpower to occupy Gaza over the long run while it simultaneously occupies the West Bank and remains on heightened alert in the north. Doing so would strain its manpower reserves while breaking its economy in the process.
Much like their counterparts in America’s military, the IDF’s officers are too busy winning every battle and counting bodies to consider these long-term issues. From their perspective, the invasion has gone smoothly and there is no need to worry. But that is partially because Hamas has yet to fully engage its forces. Much like the Taliban in the face of America’s onslaught, its fighters have mostly melted away. Rather than take on Israel’s deadly Merkava battle tanks, Hamas has wisely decided to conserve its strength.
If this is the case, it is a shrewd tactical decision that indicates Hamas is playing the long game or possibly even baiting Israel into a trap. How long of a game will become more apparent once the IDF moves south and spreads itself thin securing all of Gaza. At that point, we could easily see an uptick in attacks. When the Taliban withdrew, it was a rushed decision made without the luxury of preparation, so it took them several years to rebuild. If this was part of Hamas’ plan from the beginning, then the timeframe will work differently and there will be an increased tempo in attacks sooner than later.
Even with its minimal resistance, Hamas has been killing an average of fifteen to twenty Israeli soldiers a week, putting it on pace to kill as many as 1,000 a year. That’s roughly the same number of dead Israel suffered during its entire eighteen-year occupation of Lebanon. This also suggests a military occupation of Gaza will not end well for Israel. Hamas will either continue to mimic the Taliban by returning to power stronger than ever or Israel will find itself fighting a mutated version of its old enemy in the same way Al Qaeda gave way to ISIS. In either case, these enemies will be deadlier and better armed. The only real questions are how long and how many will die in the process.
While the depressingly familiar story of Israel’s occupation is playing out, America will be burying itself in even more debt and suffering even more political and economic instability as a result. America’s days of riding to the rescue are slowly coming to an end. Which means Israel is currently at the zenith of its power and the time to come to terms with Hamas has never been better. That requires dialogue. If America had talked to the moderate elements within the Taliban or the Ba’ath party, things might have turned out very differently in Afghanistan and Iraq. So, as crazy as it sounds, Israel should try to talk to Hamas.
Instead of talking, the IDF has expressed a strong preference for killing Hamas’ current leadership. Much like killing the boss of a Mexican drug cartel, this strategy will only cause Hamas to fracture into smaller factions, not destroy it. Keeping its leaders alive is the only way to make sure there are people across the table with the authority to make and enforce a deal.
For such a dialogue to work, Hamas’ leaders will need to finally accept the reality of their situation. Their allies in Iran and Lebanon have abandoned them. They do not have the air defenses to protect themselves from the Israeli Air Force and therefore refused to join the fight. The larger war Hamas hoped to start has failed to materialize. No one is coming to save them.
The fact that Hamas’ leaders thought starting a larger war was feasible highlights the flawed logic that has always guided their thought process, casting doubt on whether negotiating with them is even worth the time. Despite these substantial hurdles, diplomacy must always be the first choice. One can only hope seeing so many of the women and children under their care torn to pieces or crushed under massive piles of rubble has finally brought home the senselessness of their struggle.
From a moral perspective, Hamas’ continued armed struggle against Israel was no longer justified once it withdrew from Gaza. The minute the IDF and the settlers left, its fighters should have thrown their rifles on the ground and worked towards building a real future for themselves on the little sliver of land they had left. They should have turned Gaza into the next Singapore. Instead, they chose violence. And they chose it in pursuit of a totally unrealistic goal.
Despite their many missteps and horrible choices, men clever enough to survive a foe as deadly as Israel for so many years cannot be so delusional as to think they can really take back the entirety of Palestine or inflict a lasting military defeat on Israel. As the author suggested several years ago, surrender has long been Hamas’ best course of action. For any peace deal to work, Hamas would need to give up its weapons and promise to stop attacking Israel. Making such an offer, in exchange for their lives, genuine independence, freedom of movement for Gazans and an end to the siege is their best option.
Their crucial mistake was thinking Israel’s political dysfunction was a weakness they could exploit. Its leaders failed to realize that attacking an enemy when it is suffering internal turmoil only breaks the will to fight if you manage to deliver a knockout blow. Anything short of that will only bring the enemy together. The anger and frustration that had previously been directed inwards now finds a more wrathful expression outwards, and Gaza’s poor neighborhoods are turned to dust as a result.
Though their blend of innovative tactics and savagery allowed them to launch a brutal attack on Oct. 7th, a knockout blow of the sort required was never a possibility given Hamas’ relatively weak arsenal of weapons. Launching their attack therefore represents not just a catastrophic moral failure but a strategic one as well. Which is not a coincidence. It is an often overlooked connection, but a truly effective strategy must always be grounded in good morals and decency. Not coincidentally, Israel has failed to subdue the Palestinians because its strategies have also failed to appreciate this connection.
The greater intensity of this latest cycle of violence and the massive number of casualties vividly illustrates the desperate need for peace. A continuation of the status quo is not sustainable. It will only result in death and despair for everyone. Which is why both Israel and Hamas should be talking, not fighting.
This article was first published here by the Friday Times on October 20, 2023.
As the next round in the war between Israel and Hamas unfolds, a story that began with such a shocking twist has taken a very familiar turn. Israel has spent the past week bombing Gaza and Palestinian casualties are mounting by the minute. Israeli infantry and armor are massing for what promises to be a devastating invasion. America has sent two aircraft carrier battle groups to join the fray and its aircraft have already delivered munitions that will surely be used to murder more innocent Palestinians. The West has rallied behind Israel while threatening any within the Muslim world who might dare to interfere.
Many have already noted the similarities between these events and 9/11, mostly to justify Israel’s pending assault. But few have considered all the implications of this comparison. The War on Terror was an unmitigated disaster for America and genocidally devastating for the Muslim world. 4.5 million dead, millions more displaced, entire nations plunged into chaos all to see the Taliban stronger than ever. America suffered thousands of dead, tens of thousands more maimed for the rest of their lives, trillions in debt, and Trump. Both are still dealing with the fallout.
Israel’s invasion and occupation of Lebanon is equally instructive. Thousands of women and children were murdered while its forces suffered significant casualties during the course of their 18-year quagmire. And just as the War on Terror led to the rise of ISIS and its many offshoots, all Israel gained was a new, more potent adversary called Hezbollah.
Despite having the benefit of these cautionary tales, Israel is about to follow a similar path while America gleefully cheers it on. Thousands of women and children are going to suffer violent deaths as they are ripped apart by American and Israeli artillery shells, missiles, and bullets over the next few weeks and months. Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank, and possibly even Iran will burn too. All in the name of fighting evil, or so they’ll claim.
Israel’s desire to hunt Hamas down is understandable, but the simple fact is the only way to do that is to murder thousands of women and children. As Jonah Goldberg argued when castigating those who tried to defend Hamas’ actions, “no amount of context justifies killing babies.” Unfortunately, Mr. Golberg does not appear to apply his own logic to Israel’s actions. Like most Western commentators, he seems to think dropping thousands of pounds of explosives on Gaza’s densely packed neighborhoods and the babies they hold is justified within the context of Hamas’ attack. Even America’s supposedly left-wing, liberal President is out for blood as his administration angrily labeled those few members of Congress who dared to speak for sanity “repugnant.” Netanyahu will use Biden’s greenlight and the Western world’s unequivocal backing to unleash hell. And no one within the Muslim world will be able to stop it from happening.
Except Hamas. By surrendering. We all know this is unlikely to happen, nevertheless, it is still worthwhile to make a short plea in favor of this course of action. Though it is too early to gauge the long-term consequences of its attack, at a minimum it shows Israel’s attempts to marginalize and ignore the Palestinians via the Abraham Accords will never lead to real peace. They also prove that locking people in ghettos and enforcing a military blockade against them for 16 years will have terrible consequences. Hamas has achieved all it could have hoped for on the battlefield by highlighting these simple truths. The next step is to turn these battlefield gains into political gains and the only way to do that is to surrender and recognize Israel’s right to exist as a prelude to peace. Most importantly, doing so is also the only way to prevent the slaughter Israel is preparing.
In fact, the author suggested years ago that all Palestinians “surrender” by laying down their arms and waving white flags as they adopt widespread acts of civil disobedience and non-violent protest to demand equal rights within an undivided Israel. Given what’s about to transpire, the need to do so has never been more urgent. It should be obvious by now that terrorism is not the weapon of the weak. Terrorism is the weapon of the stupid. Terrorism just gives the men with the tanks, howitzers, and strike fighters an excuse to open fire. Non-violence is the only effective weapon the weak have.
For those who might take issue with the term terrorism, Hamas’s attack, though partially directed towards military targets, was primarily geared towards attacking civilians. Since terrorism is best defined as using violence against civilians to achieve a political purpose, these attacks most certainly qualify and must be condemned as such. That such actions are met with joy in some corners of the Muslim world only reinforces the arguments made below regarding its weakness. That anyone would celebrate the murder of a child, even tangentially, is abhorrent. There is no doubt Israel is a brutal apartheid state, and that Palestinians are within their rights to fight for their freedom. But intentionally targeting women and children is disgusting and should never be cheered. The fact that Western nations frequently drop thousand-pound bombs on targets they know to be full of women and children while describing these fatalities as mere “collateral damage” does not excuse similar barbarism on the part of Muslims.
Part of the reason I developed such unabashedly pro-Palestinian sympathies was precisely because of my belief that the IDF attacked and murdered children. I will never forget the video of Mohammad Al-Durrah murdered while sheltering behind his father. My heart broke for Mohammad Dief when I read that the IDF murdered his infant son, three-year-old daughter and wife in 2014. I can only imagine how enduring that kind of pain might impact someone. To see Hamas gunmen do the same has been sickening. One would think they would know better after suffering similarly brutal treatment at the hands of Israel’s military over the years. That burying their own innocent loved ones would have made them cherish all innocents that much more. But the sad fact is those who are abused tend to become abusers. The Nazis brutalized Jews who used those experiences to justify brutalizing Palestinians who responded by brutalizing Jews, and the cycle continues as Israel bombs apartments in Gaza. The only way out of this morass is to break the cycle, not repeat it. Which is why surrender and non-violent resistance are the only real options.
Since my advice has gone unheeded thus far and will likely get ignored again, it will also be necessary to consider the wider ramifications of the situation in Palestine for the Muslim world.
What is happening in Palestine is a direct result of the same weakness that has consumed Muslim nations for centuries. This weakness was first made evident when Napoleon seized Egypt while the once mighty Ottoman Empire was forced to impotently look on in 1798. It was seen at work again when America conquered and occupied Iraq and Afghanistan at the beginning of this century. Once again, most of the Muslim world could do nothing but sit back and watch.
To understand the roots of this weakness, one must begin with the Muslim world’s governments. Centuries of rule by dictators has left most Muslim nations with repressive and non-responsive governments that stifle expression, innovation and growth. Most are run by people who secure their power through violence, not the consent of the governed. Their primary goal is to cling to power at all costs and enrich themselves, not help their societies prosper. This has made Muslim nations hopelessly weak and technologically backwards.
Due to these repressive political systems, they feature mostly unproductive economies, underdeveloped industrial bases, and awful schools. As a result, even “powerful” Muslim nations must import their most sophisticated arms. As Machiavelli noted centuries ago, dependence on outside powers for military support is a fatal weakness that hobbles rulers, rendering them more servant than ruler. But Muslim have been so bad at creating governments, schools, and private companies that can generate the capabilities required to field modern militaries, they have been forced to create such dependencies. The result: there are no Muslim nations that can protect the Palestinians, just like there were none who could lift Gaza’s siege these past 16 years. None of them have the strength to overtly defy the West. Or China, or even Russia. Muslims have yet to learn how to reconcile ancient beliefs with modern circumstances and the results speak for themselves in Gaza, Kashmir, Chechnya, the camps China has built for the Uighurs, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, and far too many other places.
Given the number of massacres the Muslim world has endured these past few centuries, the one that’s about to take place in Gaza will probably not spark any changes either. Muslim elites have accumulated too much power and refuse to share it. Which begs the question, what will it take? How many more atrocities must we watch before Muslims finally wake up? Sadly, no one has the answer to these questions.
Which is a pity because the solutions are obvious. Japan’s feudal elite figured it out with relative ease. South Korea took a more circuitous route but has also managed to modernize itself in record time. As these examples show, Muslim states must institute deep rooted reforms to create democratic governments based on the rule of law that invest in education and protect freedom of expression in all its forms so they can unleash the creative and economic potential of their people. They must also force their elites to play by the same set of rules as everyone else. Allowing the average citizen to thrive is the only way to generate the resources needed to build a military that is not dependent on an outside patron for support.
Aside from taking the steps needed to strengthen themselves individually, Muslim nations must also create organizations comparable to the EU and NATO that can bind them together for their mutual prosperity and protection. Doing so will require connecting to each other in as many ways as possible. Overlapping commercial, cultural, and political interests and linked infrastructure used to facilitate the large-scale movement of goods, people and ideas are the key to strong alliances.
The development of such an alliance, would not only stabilize and strengthen a large chunk of the Muslim world but also presents a path to achieving real peace with Israel. EU style integration predicated on justice for the Palestinians, not military competition, has always been the only logical path to regional stability and peace. Sadly, it will likely take a war on par with the devastation of WW2 before such ideas come to fruition.
Those Muslims who view events in Palestine as irrelevant to their lives or scoff at pan-Islamic sentiments should listen to some of Israel’s more ardent supporters. Presidential hopeful Niki Haley justified her support for Israel by arguing “God has blessed” it. Mike Pompeo, the former head of America’s CIA, argued Israel is not an “occupying nation” due to its “Biblical claim.” Make no mistake, there is a civilizational dynamic to this conflict. What’s happening in the Holy Land traces its roots to medieval disputes and religious affinity. It’s the latest round in the long running war between Islam and the West. One that has seen Western armies repeatedly invade and brutalize Muslim societies. Rather than skirt around this issue, Muslims need to start having honest conversations about the Western world’s pattern of attacking and trying to subjugate them and what they will need to do to protect themselves from further aggression.
The complete lack of empathy displayed by most Westerners for the plight of the Palestinians and their refusal to acknowledge Israel was created through violent conquest and ethnic cleansing show how little regard they have for the violence they have inflicted over the centuries. Which, as the coming weeks will show, means they are perfectly capable of committing such violence again. Aside from a few protests and penning impassioned essays highlighting the hypocrisy of those who grieve for dead children by murdering even more children, Muslims are still too weak to do anything but passively watch these horrors unfold, showing how little has changed over the centuries. Without serious, deep-rooted reforms, this will not be the last massacre we are forced to watch.
This article was first published here by the Friday Times on August 16, 2023.
There have been whispers lately that the Biden Administration is trying to broker a deal to normalize relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel. In exchange for abandoning the Palestinians, America’s “values-based” President is rumored to be offering his military’s most advanced weapons while the Saudis are reputed to be angling for help building a “civilian” nuclear program and a defense pact. President Biden will surely claim this program is not intended to build nuclear weapons, but it is hard to conceive of any other reason a nation endowed with Saudi Arabia’s oil reserves would covet such technology. These developments provide yet another glimpse into the hypocritical and destructive role America has played in the region while proving its leaders have learned nothing after decades of committing similar blunders.
By trying to expand the Abraham Accords to Saudi Arabia, America is trying to foster a peace between dictators that ignores the underlying cause of conflict between Israel and the Muslim world, namely, the violent oppression of the Palestinians. The simple fact is these deals will never bring real peace to the region for the same reason Israel’s treaties with Egypt and Jordan failed to do so. Without a political agreement that protects the rights of the Palestinians, most Muslims will justifiably remain hostile towards Israel, preventing the establishment of the sort of deep-rooted ties that can lead to genuine peace. Despite the rhetoric about adequate compensation, there can be no doubt: this deal is meant to further marginalize and isolate the Palestinians, not help them.
At best, these accords may sweep the region’s problems under the rug for a time. But the most likely scenario is they will only make its problems worse by exacerbating its underlying issues. The primary significance of these accords is not that they will achieve a sustainable peace but how they prove once more that America has never been an honest broker between the Israelis and Palestinians. In their desperation to help Israel consolidate its de facto annexation of the West Bank, America’s leaders are willing to arm the Arab world’s despots with their most sophisticated weapons.
Saudi Arabia, for example, is governed by a violent monarchical dictatorship. Its war in Yemen has already killed 377,000 people. The Saudi royal family has built a repressive police state to enforce its rule and frequently murders or imprisons those who do nothing more than criticize it. It is not the sort of country America should be selling weapons to, particularly if those weapons create mushroom clouds. Despite these red flags, America has been Saudi Arabia’s primary arms dealer for decades. This deal, however, would take their relationship to a level reserved only for NATO allies. Strengthening Saudi Arabia’s dictatorship to such a degree not only betrays American values but will have a destabilizing and destructive impact on the region in many ways. It is an excellent example of the short-sighted and hypocritical thinking that has always characterized its approach to the region.
But nothing epitomizes American hypocrisy like its support for Israel. Despite the overwhelming evidence that Israel is an apartheid state, the majority of America’s political establishment refuses to admit it. Instead, they prefer to ignore the conclusions of venerable organizations like Humans Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and B’Tselem that have all condemned Israel as a state in which the political and legal system is explicitly designed to empower Jews while violently disenfranchising and marginalizing Palestinians. Though the exact mechanisms may differ from the South African version, Israel’s political economy is designed with the same ends in mind. It is an apartheid state in every meaningful way, just like America was during the Jim Crow era. One that has established violent military control over millions of Palestinians while dispossessing them of their land and rights.
America has been its unabashed supporter and enabler since nearly the beginning. Its leaders laud Israeli “democracy” and send it almost 4 billion dollars a year to ensure its military superiority while ignoring the fact that being a healthy democracy and violent military occupier are mutually exclusive. Sort of like being progressive and supporting apartheid. These glaring inconsistencies aside, American politicians overwhelmingly declare their affection for Israel while vehemently denying its racist nature.
There will always be people who are incapable of admitting the truth about Israel just like there are still people in America who think it is appropriate to teach children slavery provided valuable job skills for black people. But the truth is obvious to anyone capable of putting their tribal instincts aside. What should be equally obvious is that apartheid in all its manifestations and variations is evil. America’s support for Israeli apartheid is especially repugnant given its own ugly history. One would think both Americans and Israelis would have learned by now that political systems designed to empower one group over another based purely on race, religion, or ethnicity are inherently immoral. Sadly, one would be mistaken.
President Biden may pretend to be an ally, but he is an apartheid denier who sees no contradiction between his claims to support equality in America and his willingness to ignore Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians. To his credit, he is not the worst of the bunch. Politicians like Richie Torres, Ron DeSantis and Niki Haley are not just apartheid deniers, but enthusiastic apartheid lovers who seem to take a perverse joy in the repression meted out to the Palestinians.
America’s support for Israeli apartheid and Arab autocracy vividly highlight why it has been such a destructive force in the region. Instead of supporting democracy and defending human rights, America’s policies strengthen the foundational causes of the region’s instability by supporting its authoritarian rulers. Its attempts to bring Israel and Saudi Arabia together are the culmination of a decades-long effort to “stabilize” the region by trampling on the values it claims to stand for.
The best thing America can do for the Middle East is leave it alone. Its sanctions against Iraq killed 576,000 children. According to Brown University, the War on Terror that followed claimed approximately 4.5 million more innocent souls. America has done enough. But despite its genocidal record, its leaders and people still implicitly believe America is exceptional and justified in its hegemonic pursuits. That George Bush is a war criminal is beyond their ability to comprehend.
Conversely, the best thing Saudi Arabia can do is end its neo-colonial relationship with America and learn to stand on its own. The Sauds are desperate for America’s help because, despite turning their nation into the world’s fifth biggest military spender, their armed forces are incompetent. Without the American mercenaries and arms dealers who run its day-to-day operations and supply its weapons, Saudi Arabia’s military would cease to function. This incompetence is a direct result of its repressive political and social systems. The refusal of Saudi leaders to meaningfully empower their people has prevented them from building a military capable of protecting their nation without the help of a foreign patron.
As Machiavelli noted centuries ago, this is the path to servitude, not power. In their desperation to hold on to power at all costs, Saudi leaders ignore the lessons of history and common sense. But this is a depressingly familiar story in the Muslim world, one that epitomizes the dysfunction that has gripped nearly all of it for too long. Despite centuries of conquest and instability, the Muslim world’s rulers refuse to change their ways or admit the obvious truth that creating democratic political systems is the first step to developing adequate military and technological capabilities in the modern age. As a result, they must sell themselves to the West (or Russia, or China or a combination thereof) to maintain their power.
Nowhere is this more evident than the degree to which Muslim nations have abandoned the Palestinians in exchange for American support for their dictatorships. Collectively using the carrot of normalization could have convinced Israel to make peace with the Palestinians. But the region’s dictators have opted to negotiate individual deals, wasting the only leverage they have left while showing, yet again, how inept they are at doing anything other than cling to power.
Which means the Palestinians will need to stand up for themselves. The best way to do that is to learn from people who have been in similar predicaments. Gandhi, Mandela, and King taught the world how to fight injustice using non-violent, mass civil disobedience. Given their inability to secure their freedom through force of arms, the Palestinians would do well to remember this history. Armed struggle plays directly into the hands of the considerably more powerful IDF whereas adopting non-violent methods of civil disobedience on a massive scale would constitute the sort of indirect approach that would make Liddell Hart proud.
Between Gaza, Israel proper, and the West Bank, the Palestinians constitute a majority of the population between the river and the sea. A one state solution in which they are treated as equals has long been their surest path to freedom. If Israel truly is the democracy its supporters claim it is, they should have no problem fairly sharing power with the Palestinians according to transparent and equitable democratic principles. Of course, these demographic realities are exactly the reason most Israelis refuse to do so, even though their sprawling settlements have made a two-state solution impossible. Instead of creating a truly democratic society, they argue Israel must remain Jewish. In doing so, they are choosing apartheid without having the courage to admit it while simultaneously denying the realities that come with their choice to build their nation in the heart of the Arab world. Nevertheless, as the author already suggested years ago, peacefully forcing Israelis to decide if they would rather live in a Jewish state or a democratic one represents the Palestinians’ last, best option considering the lengths America is willing to go to convince the world to forget about them.
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.
Between all the propaganda and gaslighting, wars inevitably reveal the ugly truth about a society. The war in Gaza has been no different. We are now five weeks into Israel’s counterattack on Hamas. The IDF (Israel Defense Forces) has responded to the murder of over 1,400 Israelis by killing 11,078 Palestinians, 4,506 of whom were children. Israel’s military spokesman, Brig. Gen. Daniel Hagari, all but admitted these killings were intentional when he stated the IDF’s focus is on inflicting “damage and not on accuracy.” When confronted about the IDF’s habit of dropping bombs on targets it knows are full of civilians in relation to a strike that murdered an estimated 50 innocent people, his fellow IDF spokesperson, Lt. Col. Richard Hecht, unapologetically shrugged these deaths off as “the tragedy of war.” These statements are merely confirmation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s promise that he would respond to Oct. 7th in a way that reverberates “for generations.” A promise made good when 42 members of the Saqallah family were killed by an Israeli airstrike. Three generations, ranging in age from 3 months to 77 years old, were murdered as they were taking shelter in their home.
Given these statements of intent and the indiscriminate devastation being visited upon Gaza, it is painfully obvious Israel is following the Dahiya Doctrine first articulated by former IDF chief of staff Gadi Eisenkot during Israel’s 2006 war with Hezbollah by intentionally murdering Palestinian civilians. At the least, it is guilty of acting with reckless disregard to the fact that its missile and artillery strikes are killing thousands of women and children. In either case, the IDF is committing a massacre.
One can only wonder where those who were so horrified by Hamas’ killing of women and children are now. After all, as Jonah Goldberg pointed out to those who tried to justify Hamas’ brutality by framing it as legitimate resistance to Israel’s 17-year siege of Gaza, “no amount of context justifies killing babies.” Inexplicably, Mr. Goldberg was too busy dissecting the history and significance of the term “settler colonial” with mind numbing detail to offer any outrage over Gaza’s dead babies.
But Mr. Goldberg is hardly the only American who does not care when Palestinian babies are murdered. When asked about the rising death toll in Gaza, President Biden dismissed them out of hand, preferring to question the accuracy of the figures instead of addressing the underlying issue. His apathy, like Mr. Goldberg’s, is yet more proof that most Americans simply do not care when Palestinian children are murdered.
To their credit, at least Messrs. Goldberg and Biden are not blood thirsty sociopaths like Senator Lindsey Graham, Congressman Brian Mast, or Florida state representative Michelle Salzman. Graham does not believe there should be any limits on the number of women and children Israel should be allowed to murder in its quest to rid the world of Hamas’ evil, child killing members. Mast argued there are “no innocent Palestinian civilians.” While Salzman believes Israel should murder “all” Palestinians.
Of course, none of this is surprising. Anyone who has not been in a coma these past thirty years already knows about America’s pattern of killing Arabs and Muslims and the mix of ambivalence and racist demonization that accompanies it. Its sanctions against Iraq killed an estimated 576,000 children. The War on Terror killed another 4.5 million people. Its direct support for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen added 377,000 more. The great majority of Americans did not care then, and they do not care now. To expect them to suddenly show interest in dead Palestinian, Arab, or Muslim babies at this point would be insane.
The Western world’s blatant and overwhelming hypocrisy is certainly condemnable but adequately addressing this topic would take volumes while accomplishing very little. Instead of raging against these glaring double standards, I will simply point out that evil always leads to more evil. Even if it’s a delayed harvest, you reap what you sow, and America has sown death and despair throughout the globe.
As I explain here in more detail, these chickens are already coming home to roost. There is a direct correlation between the genocidal violence America has unleashed or enabled around the world and the mass shootings that are now a depressingly routine part of American life. These are a biproduct of being in a nearly continuous state of conflict for most of the past eighty years. They will continue to haunt Americans in their schools, restaurants, shopping centers, movie theaters, etc. until their country ends its militaristic policies and dismantles the weapons factories built to further them.
Aside from enabling one lone wolf shooter after another, America’s hegemonic pursuits are also slowly draining a foundational part of its power – its wealth. No empire in history has been able to maintain an aggressive military posture for an extended period of time without eventually imploding. Much of America’s nearly 34 trillion dollar debt can be attributed to its military spending. The interest payments on this debt now stand at 659 billion a year and could climb to two trillion by the end of the decade. Eventually, the financial house of cards built to pay for its imperial ambitions will collapse, impoverishing millions in the process.
America’s obsession with global dominance is slowly destroying and bankrupting it. But since most Americans simply do not want to have this conversation, I’m not going to waste more time on the matter. I have already done my best to warn America that it is on the path to self-destruction several times.
Instead of wasting time trying to dissuade America from its genocidal policies, I prefer to focus on the party that bears the most responsibility for the slaughter in Gaza – the Muslim world. Societies are never conquered by outsiders until they have sufficiently rotted from within. Those who cheered the massacre of women and children on Oct. 7th and those who have been tearing down posters of these innocents are all a reflection of this rot. Much like the subject of Western hypocrisy, adequately addressing the roots of the dysfunction that has gripped Muslim societies these past many centuries would take volumes, and then some. The Muslim world is a mess, and it has been a mess for a long time.
Gaza’s woes are just an extreme example of the weakness and instability that is typical of most Muslim societies. Nearly the entire Muslim world features authoritarian and absolutist governments that preside over unproductive economies and stagnant intellectual climates. This has made it incredibly weak and prone to conquest. The massacre happening in Gaza right now is but the latest in a long line dating back to Napoleon, the Czars, and even the Reconquista.
Despite this history of conquest and instability, Muslim leaders refuse to implement the sort of reforms that could help them to finally modernize and stabilize their nations. Instead, they furiously cling to power, refusing to change. In the same way America’s leaders can only offer thoughts and prayers or make impotent demands for legislation they know will never pass after massacres like the one in Maine, the Muslim world’s leaders can only hold meetings and issue scathing press releases as they watch Gaza’s children die. They may pretend to care about the Palestinians, but their refusal to change their ways, the repression they inflict on their own people and their refusal to speak against China’s crimes against its Muslim populations suggests their concern is mostly for show or politics. Due to their inaction and hypocrisy, Muslims are too weak to challenge America’s fleet as it stands watch over another slaughter.
Both the need for reform and the solutions have been obvious for a long time. As explained here, secular democracy has always been the ideal form of Islamic government. Adopting inclusive, democratic forms of government based on the rule of law would significantly improve the Muslim world’s military abilities while paving the way for the sort of regional integration and mutual security arrangements that could finally stabilize it. But aside from a few flawed experiments like those in Turkey and Indonesia, most of the Muslim world’s nations refuse to adopt this model.
As the slaughter happening right now shows, they should have listened. As such, I must renew my call for Hamas and the Palestinians to surrender. Given the IDF’s refusal to distinguish between Hamas and the women and children who live among them, it would be prudent for all Palestinians to wave white flags of surrender. Palestinians in the West Bank and Israel would do well to follow suite in solidarity with their brothers and sisters in Gaza. Peaceful, non-violent resistance is the only sane path left for them.
Unfortunately, my advice and warnings have gone unheeded so far. Which is a pity, because fires of the sort burning in Gaza tend to spread. Israel’s invasion of Gaza, even if it removes Hamas from power, will not lead to peace or even calm without a just political agreement with the Palestinians and dismantling the apartheid apparatus that has been built to subjugate them. Since Israel’s government is run by men incapable of making such an agreement, a repetition and expansion of the cycle of violence is almost certain. The Muslim world’s rulers would do well to prepare for the chaos that is coming.
Having done my best to highlight the rank hypocrisy of both the Western and Muslim worlds, I must now express my profound shame as I watch my country enable yet another massacre of defenseless women and children while the Muslim world impotently looks on. I am ashamed to be an American. But I am even more ashamed of myself and my fellow Muslims. There are nearly 1.9 billion Muslims in the world and not one of us has the power to stop this evil. Our leaders and governments may bear most of the fault, but even if it’s a distorted view, they are still a reflection of the people and societies they rule over. Every single one of us bears responsibility for what is happening to Gaza. One can only wonder how many more massacres we will watch before we make the desperately needed changes to our societies that can finally give us the strength to stop them.
What America and Israel are doing is evil. Murdering more children will never lead to peace. There is no justification for what is being done to the people of Gaza. America is not the arsenal of democracy, as some like to pretend. It is the arsenal of dictators and apartheid and the world’s preeminent merchant of death. That much is obvious. But none of this would be happening if Muslims were not so unbelievably weak.
Since our governments do not have the strength to take action, every one of us must speak out to stop this madness. The IDF beat back Hamas’ attack and captured many of its fighters while the rest retreated. The battle Hamas started on Oct. 7th is over. Israel’s military has re-established control of Gaza’s border, removing the threat of more attacks. What is happening now is not self-defense but revenge and collective punishment. Completely destroying Hamas, if it is even possible, would require destroying the entire Gaza strip and murdering tens or possibly even hundreds of thousands of women and children.
Those who remain silent are just as complicit as those depraved souls who rationalize these crimes by conflating Hamas with the Palestinian people or making disingenuous and grossly inaccurate comparisons with the Nazis. Unless Hamas has 100 panzer divisions along with a fleet of powerful aircraft and ships in its tunnels, the comparison is misguided, at best. Its primary purpose is to help Israel’s leaders deflect calls to pursue a diplomatic solution. Israelis may find the idea of negotiating with Hamas repugnant and, given the thousands of children murdered these past few weeks, Hamas’ leaders probably feel the same way. Regardless, the only way to salvage anything worthwhile from this war is to use it as a path to real peace but that requires dialogue, not dropping thousands of pounds of explosives on residential areas. Otherwise, the cycle will only repeat itself with greater intensity.
Sadly, we live in a world where even our “liberal” leaders prefer war over peace. President Biden could have tried for a Camp David moment. Instead, he responded to a massacre by green lighting another massacre. Yet one more horrible decision from a man who chose Clarence Thomas over Anita Hill, supported the Iraq War, denied Israel was an apartheid state and considered giving Saudi Arabia nuclear technology in a misguided attempt to seek peace by marginalizing the Palestinians. Hopefully, the President’s actions will cost him the swing states of Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania during the next election, sparing the world from more of his awful decisions.
As a brown man in America, I have learned to be very careful when I share my thoughts. Particularly since there are people who think speaking up for children makes me a terrorist sympathizer or that calling Israel what it is – an apartheid state – makes me an antisemite. Despite these risks, I have no choice but to say something when children are murdered by American made bombs funded by my taxes.
I realize most Americans will never read these thoughts and those few who do will either vilify me or follow President Biden’s lead and dismiss them out of hand. Nevertheless, I will continue to remind everyone that men who hurt children are evil. Children are off-limits. Whether their parents are terrorists or settler colonialists is irrelevant. The ease with which so many rationalize or ignore the slaughter of children is disgusting and shameful. It may seem pointless but the only thing we can do is continue to speak for peace and sanity and answer hate with love. Be the change, as a wise person once advised. Violence is never the answer.
These events have also forced Muslims in the West to confront our place here yet again. There are millions of us who have grown up here, across multiple generations. We have in many ways become embedded into Western society and culture. But our increased numbers and influence did not matter. The leaders we voted for betrayed us and the alternative is even scarier. What are we to do?
I can only speak for myself, and I have decided to vote with my feet and leave. I do not counsel this lightly, particularly since the Muslim world is not a very attractive place either. In an ideal world, we could take the skills and capital we have acquired during our stay in the West and return to our homelands to stimulate a much needed renaissance. But the Muslim world is a repressive place and many of us would quickly run afoul of its stifling rules. The same blasphemy laws, political repression, and corrupt, backwards economies that make it so weak would make for a tough transition and risky investment.
But at some point, we may not have a choice. There are 20 million AR15 style assault rifles floating around America. When it finally collapses under the weight of its massive spending and debts, things are going to get ugly. If another war in the Middle East hastens these trends, Muslims will suffer for it. There is a dark side to Western civilization that is often ignored. Westerners have a history of committing brutal violence against those they consider inferior or find suspicious and those suspicions are often rooted in racial and religious bigotry. The Inquisition, the era of violent colonial conquests, the Holocaust, the reign of the KKK in the American south and South Africa’s and Israel’s embrace of apartheid are just a few examples of this history. To expect that Muslims will continue to prosper and remain safe given this pattern and America’s current trajectory is simply not realistic. As much as we have all grown to love our homes in the West, we must face the fact that we are not wanted and may not always be safe here. There will always be elements who view us as outsiders and these same elements own a lot of those AR 15s. Escape, especially when it is properly planned for, may be the best option. The real dilemma is figuring out the destination.
The author is a US Navy veteran and lawyer who usually writes about ways to modernize the Muslim world on his blog, www.mirrorsfortheprince.com
Here’s a statement most Americans will probably disagree with: America is the wealthiest and most powerful empire the world has ever known. Acknowledging that our wealth and power are without rival is easy, we just have a hard time with the empire part. Especially since we are ruled by an elected president and legislative body instead of a monarch. According to the Oxford Dictionary, that means we cannot be an empire.
No disrespect to the folks at Oxford, but their definition seems limited. Yuval Harari’s definition of empire in his book, Sapien, as “a political order” that rules “a significant number of distinct peoples, each possessing a different cultural identity and a separate territory” is a better one. Based on Harari’s description, a polity that includes territories as varied as Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, Diego Garcia, Southern California, Louisiana, and Massachusetts certainly qualifies as an empire.
Our refusal to self-identify as one is primarily rooted in our democratic ethos and the fact that we once had to fight to break free from the British empire. It also detracts from the idea of American exceptionalism since it forces us to admit our similarity to empires of the past. Despite our historical and philosophical aversion to being described as such, it seems clear that America has evolved into an empire. Without an honest assessment of ourselves, accurately diagnosing what ails us becomes impossible. And the reality is that our empire is in trouble.
We are following a pattern many others have followed. We have expanded over vast territories and built a very expensive military to protect this territory. Doing so required creating a central government with the power to tax and marshal resources on a scale that was far beyond anything envisioned by the creators of our federal system of governance. This also led to the development of interest groups with the means and incentives to push for a massive amount of continuous military spending. Just as the Romans, Ottomans, and British before us, we are slowly collapsing under the weight of maintaining our military. In fact, much of our $30 trillion debt can be traced to this spending. As this number grows, it will continue to weaken the economic foundations that are the true source of American power.
The curious part to all of this is that, unlike the British, Ottomans, or Romans, most of our empire is easily defended. The Pacific and Atlantic oceans and the Canadian shield have always been our best military assets. Yet, our military leaders have developed a force posture and military doctrine that requires twenty aircraft carriers, over a million personnel, thousands of fighter jets and bombers, and around 4,000 nuclear warheads at a cost of $700-800 billion a year.
The size of our military traces its roots to WW2 which saw America ally itself with the Russian, French and British empires to prevent Germany, Italy, and Japan from creating empires for themselves. We did so by building a massive military capable of simultaneously fighting its way onto continental Europe and controlling the Pacific. Part of that process entailed establishing a network of forward bases throughout Europe and Asia. Once the war ended, America did not completely stand down. Instead, it found itself fighting the Cold War against its former allies in the Soviet Union. This conflict led to the entrenchment and expansion of the military infrastructure created to fight the Axis powers.
The Cold War ended over thirty years ago, but America still refused to shrink its military. Instead, shortly after the Soviet Union’s collapse we invaded the Muslim world and began building a network of bases to secure its energy supplies. As a result, our empire has been in a nearly continuous state of war for most of the past 80 years. Our war against the Muslim world is finally wrapping up but instead of talking about a peace dividend, our leaders seem intent on using China to justify maintaining our aggressive military posture.
Our military is no longer designed to defend us but to project American power throughout the world in pursuit of vaguely defined “interests.” As our mounting debt shows, the cost of maintaining our military dominance over the rest of the world is starting to add up. Instead of dealing with the reality of our worsening finances by admitting that it is time for America to finally stand down, our leaders passionately argue against such measures. Their refusal to do so will likely doom us to the same fate suffered by every other empire that has come before us, whether we are willing to admit it or not.
The author is a US Navy veteran. He usually provides improbable and implausible musings about the Muslim world and international affairs on his blog, www.mirrorsfortheprince.com.
Author’s note: I wrote most of this article over a year ago but have been unable to publish it until now. Instead of updating it, I decided to publish it as is because developments over the past year merely support my conclusions. For example, as discussed below, a year ago America’s debt was $20 trillion. It has now climbed to $28 trillion. Similarly, America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan and its refusal to get involved in the latest round of fighting between Israelis and Palestinians both support my central argument: America’s military withdrawal from the Muslim world is inevitable. If I were a betting man, I would wager that America’s military presence throughout the Middle East and North Africa will be a shell of what it is today 15-30 years from now:
INTRODUCTION
Due to a combination of political and economic factors as well as its shifting national security priorities, the US will eventually withdraw its military from the Muslim world. It is not a question of whether America will withdraw its forces, but of when and how. Economically, the financial shocks of the COVID-19 Pandemic combined with the high levels of debt held by the US government and America’s diminished manufacturing capacity will necessitate a sharp reduction in US government spending. Politically, America’s right wing wishes to withdraw from the Muslim world due to its isolationist and nationalist views while its left wing favors a withdrawal due to its anti-imperialist views. They may disagree on why and how, but neither end of America’s political spectrum wants to keep troops in the Muslim world. Finally, America’s military deployments to the Muslim world are no longer supported by pressing national security interests. The combined effect of these factors will inevitably lead to a withdrawal of American troops from this part of the world.
The United States has become the dominant military power in the Middle East and throughout much of the Islamic world. It currently has troops stationed in several Muslim countries such as Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Oman, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. Its naval forces control the Persian Gulf and its allies in Israel and NATO control the Mediterranean. It is the main arms supplier to many Muslim nations such as Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, and the UAE which gives the US significant leverage over these militaries while its allies in Europe supply weapons to many other Muslim states such as Morocco and Algeria. It also regularly conducts military operations and drone strikes throughout Africa as well as Yemen. Iran is the only Muslim country that actively refuses to accept this situation and, as a result, is subject to brutal economic sanctions and clandestine military operations. In other words, the United States and its allies have effective military control over a substantial portion of the Muslim world. The problem is that America’s robust military presence comes with a steep price tag that is becoming increasingly unaffordable[i].
In addition to the $6 trillion cost of America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the constant deployment of troops to the Muslim world has forced its military planners to fund and arm a military that is much larger than would otherwise be needed. These extra funding requirements have been a feature of US defense budgets for decades. Even the official budgets for America’s military underestimate the true cost of its military spending because they do not include all the funds spent on nuclear weapons or intelligence activities[ii]. Although it is difficult to gauge how much of America’s military spending is tied directly to the Muslim world, given its extensive military infrastructure in this part of the world, the long duration of its presence, and large number of troops involved, it is reasonable to assume the true amount significantly exceeds the $6 trillion spent in Iraq and Afghanistan the past two decades.
WHY AMERICA HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO WITHDRAW FROM THE MUSLIM WORLD
ECONOMIC FACTORS:
America’s withdrawal will primarily be driven by its finances. The COVID-19 Pandemic has brought the unhealthy debt levels of the US government into focus once again; however, America’s debt has loomed over it for years. Rather than making the tough compromises necessary to devise balanced budgets, America’s leaders have resolved the age-old debate of guns versus butter by liberally borrowing money to ensure they lacked neither. At the same time, America’s business and political leaders have entered into trade agreements that resulted in severe reductions to its manufacturing capacity. The result has been skyrocketing levels of debt and unsustainable trade imbalances. The staggering amount of resources America pours into its military combined with the significant reductions to its manufacturing base[iii] have drained its economy and, together, pose one of the biggest threats to its continuing prosperity.[iv] At its height, American power was largely derived from its economic, political, and cultural dominance as well as its ability to apply overwhelming military force, as it did in WWI and WWII. Since the end of the Cold War, the US has reacted to its greater freedom of action as the sole remaining superpower by increasingly relying on military power to achieve foreign policy goals. This sustained dependence on military power combined with the gradual dismantling of America’s manufacturing base has diminished its older and more important power centers of their vitality, decreasing the real basis of American power. Over the long run, the continued reliance on military power that is no longer supported by a strong manufacturing base has placed a heavy burden on resources. It has also led to a disconnect between perceptions of American power by its policymaking elites versus the realities and limits of this power.
As a result of America’s weakened financial position, its policymakers must re-prioritize how its military resources are used. Calling for deep cuts to spending may strike some as overly alarmist given the economic growth the US experienced prior to the COVID-19 outbreak. But America’s strong economic growth since the end of the Great Recession has diverted attention from the fact that its massive military spending, particularly since 9/11, has seriously undermined its fiscal position since this spending was only made possible through deficit financing. As the debt burden from this spending grows, it will limit the ability of the US government to meet its spending obligations. As a result, US policymakers must confront serious decisions regarding how to use America’s resources before their policy options become substantially more constrained. American policymakers face two choices. They can proactively adjust their foreign policy goals and military commitments to manage the changes its weak finances require, or they can wait until its debt is so burdensome that they will have no choice but to drastically cut military spending. The former option provides some ability to manage this transition, the latter does not.
POLITICAL FACTORS
In addition to its financial concerns, political trends within the US will also compel a withdrawal from the Muslim world. The increasing prevalence of arguments that favor withdrawing troops from the Muslim world, regardless of the potential impact on the region, show that many segments of American society have no desire to maintain its presence in the region. For example, when discussing the Middle East, Doug Bandow suggests “Washington should accept instability in the region[v]” as part of its efforts to reduce troop levels. These sentiments illustrate that Americans are tired of their military involvement in the Muslim world. America’s right wing sees its involvement as an unnecessary waste of resources that would be better spent in the US. America’s left sees its involvement as immoral and a continuation of ineffective neo-colonial policies. As such, both left and right favor withdrawing American forces from the Muslim world. In fact, this may be one of the few topics that America’s divided political factions agree on. These political trends are a result of growing dissatisfaction with America’s policies and will add pressure to withdraw troops from the region.
THE MUSLIM WORLD IS NO LONGER A NATIONAL SECURITY PRIORITY
Troop levels in the Muslim world are no longer supported by pressing national security interests. US policies in the Middle East have largely been shaped by the confluence of interests of the defense industry, energy industry, Israel, and the dictators that rule much of the region. Together, these groups have prevented the rise of a Muslim hegemon capable of taking over America’s security responsibilities. Instead, they have pushed the US to become the primary hegemonic power in the region by arguing that 1) increased military spending and arms sales to foreign countries are healthy for the US economy 2) American military forces were necessary to ensure the US had access to energy supplies 3) American troops were necessary to protect Israel and 4) American troops were necessary to provide stability by providing security guarantees to many of the governments of the region. These reasons do not make sense. Because of policies meant to appease these interest groups, the US has spent trillions of dollars and much political and moral capital in pursuit of policies that are too expensive and counter to its long-term interests. The influence of these groups has led to policies that have allowed them to make hundreds of billions of dollars but at a cost of trillions of dollars to American taxpayers. Since each of the interest groups primarily responsible for the development of US policy acts according to its own logic, it will be necessary to analyze them individually.
THE NEED TO SUPPORT THE DEFENSE INDUSTRY
After entering WWII, the United States converted its massive civilian manufacturing base into one that could supply its military with the weapons and supplies needed to defeat the Axis powers anywhere in the world. The ability to harness its extraordinary industrial capabilities for military use propelled it towards victory but also laid the seeds for many of the problems confronting it today. The creation of an industrial complex geared exclusively towards military production created companies with a vested interest in continued military spending and the political and financial means to influence US government policy to ensure high levels of military spending. The defense industry has therefore benefited from US policies in the Muslim world by filling the larger orders for weapons and supplies that were necessary to maintain America’s presence in the region and by supplying weapons to the governments of the Muslim world allied to it.
High levels of military spending have typically been justified on the basis that this spending, even if high in absolute terms, is relatively small as a proportion of US GDP and that such spending boosts both manufacturing and scientific research within the US. Though there is merit to these arguments, these policy justifications are no longer sufficient to support high levels of military spending due to the large debt the US has accrued. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the US government’s debt will reach $20.3 trillion by the end of 2020[vi]. These figures will increase as further stimulus packages to fight the COVID-19 Pandemic are approved and tax revenue shrinks due to reduced economic activity. In light of the rapidly increasing debt held by the US, arguments that justify high levels of military spending or debt by highlighting their relationship to overall GDP levels are no longer persuasive because they ignore the reality of America’s worsening finances. Instead of relying on distorted statistics that argue high levels of debt and military spending are acceptable, as a matter of common sense, it should be obvious that continuing to add to an already bloated deficit will only make repairing America’s financial strength more difficult. As such, even if military spending continues to hover around 3% of GDP (a level some argue is affordable), this spending must be considered too high if it is paid for by more deficit financing when the debt will soon pass $20 trillion! Even if the US has the capacity to borrow more, doing so must be tied to pressing economic needs such as dealing with the COVID-19 Pandemic, not unnecessary military spending.
Again, it is difficult to gauge the percentage of US military spending directly attributable to the Muslim world, but it is much easier to track weapons sales by US companies to foreign nations. The US has consistently been the biggest exporter of weapons to the world and many of its sales have been directed towards governments in the Muslim world. Saudi Arabia is one of the biggest consumers of US weapons, accounting for a fifth of total US weapons sales for the five-year period ending in 2017. Half of America’s weapons sales during this period went to customers in the Middle East or North Africa[vii]. Weapons sales to Islamic nations are justified on the basis that they are necessary to support America’s allies and contribute to economic development.
The problem with this reasoning is that the allies in question are exceptionally incompetent when it comes to engaging in modern warfare[viii]. As a result, selling weapons to these nations does not make them more secure or better able to resist attack from another nation. As the Arab Spring showed, these weapons are primarily meant for use against the people that have been forced to obey the region’s many dictators. Weapons sales to these dictators adds to the instability of the Muslim world by providing its despots with the means to intimidate and murder their people. Supporting these dictators contributes to instability in the region by propping up rulers who cannot adequately protect their nations, reside over extremely weak political and economic institutions, and can only govern based on fear and violence. Though these sales may subsidize the costs of America’s military infrastructure, the long-term moral and political cost is too high to justify the economic gains. Instead of selling weapons to the dictators of the Muslim world, the US must develop policies that can allow it to disentangle itself from the region by focusing on trade that does not involve weapons used by rulers to murder their own people. Aside from the fact that profiting from the pain and suffering of others is morally and ethically disgusting, it also creates a reinforcing loop that forces the US to maintain its military presence in the region. Despite their massive weapons purchases, the region’s dictators are not strong enough to retain power without American support. America’s military presence and weapons sales to the region only reinforces its instability by supporting the dictators that are the primary cause of this instability.
ACCESS TO ENERGY SUPPLIES
The primary justification behind US policies towards the Islamic world has always been the need to secure access to energy supplies. This justification is not valid for two reasons.
The first is that the Muslim world is incentivized to sell its mineral resources to the West because of the laws of supply and demand. Most energy exporting Muslim countries have been unable to diversify their economies away from their dependence on selling oil and gas. As such, they rely on this revenue to pay for the government services they provide, and do not have the domestic demand necessary to consume their own supplies. As a result, Muslims are just as eager to sell oil to the US as the US is to buy it. The Arabs have only used their oil as a weapon once and the effect of their boycott was just as traumatic to their economies as it was to Western economies. Consequently, they have never used oil as a weapon again. Withdrawing American troops would not affect the ability of the US to import as much oil has it needs for its own consumption. Arguments that rationalize the use of military assets to secure access to these resources or that justify support for dictators on the basis that they can guarantee timely oil deliveries are not persuasive because they ignore the basic laws of economics that should govern such transactions. They also ignore the simple fact that a weak, authoritarian government will be just as incentivized to sell oil as a strong, democratic one.
The second reason the US does not need to maintain its military presence is that it is no longer as dependent on Middle Eastern energy supplies. The US has developed its own domestic energy production capabilities and diversified its oil suppliers away from Muslim producers to such a degree that in 2019 only 11% of its crude oil imports came from the Persian Gulf[ix]. In fact, over half of US crude oil imports now come from Canada and Mexico. The increased ability of the US to satisfy its energy needs through domestic production and diversified suppliers means that it no longer needs to waste military resources securing these energy supplies.
THE NEED TO PROTECT ISRAEL
Part of the reason the US has sought to prevent the rise of an Islamic hegemon is to ensure no power can threaten Israel. The logic underlying this policy does not hold up to scrutiny for two reasons. The first is that Israel has developed a sophisticated nuclear triad that would deter even a powerful Muslim nation. It is Israel’s nuclear capabilities, not American support, that act as the ultimate guarantor of its survival and independence. As such, US efforts to ensure no Islamic nation or political entity can develop enough power to threaten Israel are an unnecessary waste of resources. The second is that the lack of a Muslim hegemonic power has removed any pressure on Israel to compromise with the Palestinians under its control. Israel’s right wing may see this as a victory, but it will eventually turn into a pyrrhic one because it will either lead to the inclusion of millions of Palestinians into Israel as equal citizens (a result many Israelis do not want) or it will lead to the creation of a new Apartheid regime in the Middle East. Israel’s right seem intent on creating the latter scenario even though doing so will turn it and its supporters in the US into international pariahs and ensure that it remains involved in low level conflict in perpetuity.
Israel has overwhelmingly won its conflict with the Palestinians and its Arab neighbors. There is almost no prospect for the creation of a viable Palestinian state because Israel has resoundingly defeated the Palestinians politically and militarily. The last vestige of meaningful Palestinian resistance offered by Hamas cannot match Israel’s military capabilities. Its policy of continued resistance plays directly into the hands of right-wing Israelis who seem intent on creating small cantons of weak and divided Palestinians like the homelands created by the Apartheid regime in South Africa. Israelis have managed to create a state that has allowed its Jewish citizens to prosper while maintaining military control over millions of Palestinians who have been denied their basic rights while having to endure decades of military occupation. Despite their long running conflict, the Palestinians are still fragmented and weak and have been unable to develop military capabilities that could force Israel to change its policies. The political and diplomatic influence of the United States has neutralized attempts to gain international support and the political dynamics within the Middle East have deprived them of support from the surrounding Arab states. The result has been Israel’s complete subjugation and/or neutralization of the Palestinians living under its control or in surrounding territories. This victory may turn to defeat in the long run because it is so complete that it has incentivized Israel’s right-wing government to pursue policies that will allow this conflict to fester with no end in sight. Without a meaningful political solution that addresses the legitimate concerns of the Palestinians, Israel will be involved in low level conflict against an opponent that cannot defeat it but will have no incentive to stop fighting it either.
As explained above, a Muslim hegemonic power would not threaten the existence of Israel due to its formidable nuclear arsenal. It would; however, limit the ability of Israelis to attack, either overtly or clandestinely, its neighbors and it would force Israel to treat its Arab citizens with dignity and justice. Aside from not being contrary to American interests, such an outcome would greatly help them by finally creating the conditions that could lead to sustainable peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Israel has taken advantage of the lack of a Muslim hegemonic power to grind Palestinian opposition into the dirt and, in doing so, has ensured the region will suffer from low level violence and instability for the foreseeable future. Its complete and total military victory has empowered it to refuse even the smallest compromises with the Palestinians and has created a situation with no end in sight that necessitates continued American involvement in the region.
INFLUENCE OF RULERS WITHIN THE MUSLIM WORLD
Many of the Muslim world’s governments expend a tremendous amount of resources in order to secure American support for their rule. For example, Saudi Arabia is estimated to have spent $60 million since 2016 to retain lobbyists, public relations firms, and fund think tanks[x] to maintain American support. This influence has ensured that criticism of Saudi Arabia’s brutal war in Yemen, abysmal human rights record, and financial support for extremist Muslims does not lead to a withdrawal of US support. In fact, the US has actively helped Saudi Arabia prosecute its war in Yemen despite the catastrophic effects on Yemen’s civilian population[xi]. Though considered the most proficient, the Saudi government is not the only authoritarian Muslim government to take advantage of America’s lobbying and PR firms. Nations such as Egypt,[xii] the UAE, and Qatar[xiii] also spend millions of dollars to make sure that America supports their interests.
This is problematic because the interests of these governments are often counter to the interests of the US. While arms sales to these nations may support economic activity within the US, their destabilizing effect also forces the US to maintain its costly military presence in the region. The Islamic world’s dictators and despots are the primary cause of its instability and weakness because of the inherently weak and violent nature of authoritarian and autocratic political institutions. These institutions have concentrated political and economic power in the hands of small groups of elites throughout the Muslim world that do not respect human rights, the rule of law, or freedom of expression. They use the machinery of the state to maintain their control and inflict violence on any citizens who oppose their rule even if that opposition is peaceful in nature. The rule of these elites has prevented Muslim nations from providing the government services necessary to support dynamic economies. It has also fueled the growth of extremist non-state actors that have reacted to the oppression and blatant theft of their governments by articulating violent ideologies that have plunged many Muslim nations into a state of chaos and anarchy which has, in turn, driven millions of Muslim refugees out of their homelands. American support for these rulers helps to keep the political institutions responsible for the Muslim world’s weakness in place and this weakness has directly led to the US military presence in the region. As such, it is in the long-term interests of the US to support the creation of democratic institutions in the Muslim world that can finally stabilize the region.
Some have looked at the actions of the US and seen a conspiracy to keep Muslims weak. The most likely explanation for America’s actions is much more mundane. The sad truth is that America’s politicians are for sale due to its corrupt (though technically legal) political system that incentivizes short term thinking focused on election cycles and obtaining the funds necessary to effectively contest these elections. The interest groups discussed above have manipulated America’s legislative process by exploiting these weaknesses to their own advantage. America’s policies towards the Muslim world are therefore best explained as resulting from the undue legislative influence of groups that have prioritized their own narrow self-interests over the long-term strategic interests of the US or the human suffering their actions cause. These groups have used their control of the legislative process to secure access to resources in a way that has subverted many of America’s basic ideals and principles and resulted in policies that are counterproductive and unsustainable. However, the arguments of those advocating for a continued American presence in the region can no longer outweigh the urgent need to fix America’s finances, the fact that so many Americans simply do not want to maintain its presence in the region, or the fact that most of the arguments used to rationalize current troop levels are not tied to national security needs.
Given these economic, political, and national security dynamics, the only real question is how and when America will withdraw its troops. Despite agreeing on the need to withdraw, the differing perspectives of its political factions will likely lead to conflict regarding the manner of America’s withdrawal. As such, while America’s withdrawal may be inevitable, the nature and timing of this withdrawal is uncertain. If the US does not adequately plan for and manage its withdrawal from the Islamic world, the results could be dire. Instead of following the same path they followed in Afghanistan, US policymakers must make an objective and realistic assessment of their policy options given the looming reduction in financial resources. They must stop engaging in the same arrogant behavior that prevented them from acknowledging the reality of their position in Afghanistan for so long. Turkey, Iran and Pakistan have already reacted to America’s inconsistent policies and hostility by developing close relationships with China. This is a foreshadow of what will happen if the US abandons the region without a plan in place.
CONCLUSION
The US must realize that due to its weakened finances and increasingly isolationist political trends, it can no longer continue as the dominant military power in the Muslim world. As such, it needs to develop and implement policies that will incentivize the creation of inclusive and pluralistic political and economic institutions and it needs to develop meaningful alliance relationships with these countries based on mutual respect rather than the traditional neo-colonial dynamic. The fundamentally imperial perspective of US policy makers must change; instead, they must treat the governments of the Islamic world as equal partners rather than clients to be bullied or cajoled. This will only be possible once these governments are run by competent officials that have been placed in power through the result of free, fair, and transparent democratic processes.
America’s reluctance to protect Saudi oil facilities from Iran as well as its desire to withdraw from Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan indicates its withdrawal is already under way. To better manage these changes, policies need to be clearly explained and agreed upon. Currently, America’s policies are a mix of hawkish rhetoric and haphazard military deployments that are not part of a clear strategy. America’s military leaders have explained their reduced commitment to the Middle East by referencing the need to focus on China but have yet to develop a new strategy that accounts for its lower importance and the smaller budgets likely to characterize military spending in the future. Instead, America’s military elite and their political and business allies have historically fought against serious cuts to military spending even as its debt was growing exponentially[xiv]. Given America’s high debt levels, massive military spending, the political infeasibility of raising taxes, and the refusal of its military and industrial elites to drastically reduce military spending, its long-term economic outlook was extremely precarious before the COVID-19 outbreak and is now particularly bleak. This is compounded by the fact that the aforementioned economic recovery was largely based on monetary manipulation (printing money, a.k.a., quantitative easing, borrowing money, and artificially keeping interest rates low to incentivize more borrowing) rather than strengthening America’s manufacturing base and overall fiscal position.
These pressing economic concerns combined with the growing belief among Americans across the political spectrum that American troops have no business in the Muslim world and its changing national security priorities will force it to withdraw from the Muslim world. The need to re-allocate resources to the Pacific, America’s energy independence, Israel’s dominant military capabilities, and the seemingly permanent instability of its Arab allies will outweigh the arguments traditionally used to justify its presence in the Islamic world. Having discussed the many factors that will lead to an American withdrawal from the Muslim world, the next step is to discuss the potential impact on the Muslim world and how Muslim nations should react to the coming changes. This discussion is available here.
[iv] This sentiment is partially shared by former Secretary of Defense James Mattis and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen who also see America’s debt as a threat to its national security. See: Kazda, Adam, “Military Spending: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly,” Pursuit, June 19, 2018, https://www.ourpursuit.com/military-spending-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/.
[viii] For a more detailed discussion of the performance of various Arab militaries since WWII see: Pollack, Kenneth, Armies of Sand, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019).
Reports coming out of Afghanistan regarding the Taliban’s celebrations are extremely confusing. The end of any war is always cause for joy because it brings hope for peace. But anyone who thinks the Taliban’s “victory” is worth celebrating as a triumph of Muslim military prowess is a fool with extremely low standards. Glorifying events in Afghanistan is an implicit acceptance of the Muslim world’s unbelievably weak military abilities.
America conquered Afghanistan with such ease that one could almost forgive its leaders for underestimating the Taliban’s ability to re-group. It only needed a few special forces troops and air power to conquer a nation that is over 650,000 square kilometers in the span of a few weeks. The Taliban were completely outmatched and ran away almost immediately. Its conquest was so easy that it never even bothered to station more than 20,300 troops there during the first five years of its occupation.
America withdrew from Afghanistan because, as explained here, it shot itself in the foot in a variety of ways, leading to the Taliban’s resurgence. It then realized it did not care enough to stay and clean up its mess. So, it left. It decided long ago that Afghanistan was not worth the effort but only stayed for so long due to its stubborn pride and corporate interests. And yet it still took the Taliban twenty years, an estimated 50,000 dead soldiers, and 40,000 dead civilians to convince them to leave. That is not a victory worth celebrating.
Afghanistan was easily conquered and occupied by both Russia and America because it has never been able to build an industrial base capable of generating the military capacity to deter these invasions. It has been unable to do so because a significant number of Afghans are philosophically opposed to the type of reforms needed to modernize. The Taliban’s views are not an aberration within Afghan society or the Muslim world either. They are just an extreme manifestation of the authoritarian tendencies that have prevented Muslims from instituting the changes necessary to thrive in the modern world. As such, the debacle in Afghanistan is an indictment of Afghan society and a reflection of the weakness that has consumed the entire Muslim world.
While it was occupying Afghanistan, the US decided to invade Iraq too. Using fabricated evidence, it concocted a tale to justify an invasion that led to the slaughter of between 200,000 – 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis. No one is sure how many Iraqis died because no one bothered to count all the bodies. It was able to violently maintain control over both nations simultaneously for many years, and only left after it grew tired of wasting resources on countries that were not part of its core national security interests.
America’s embarrassingly easy conquests and overlapping occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq and the inability of the entire Muslim world to prevent these attacks are just one piece of the puzzle. The tiny nation of Israel has established complete military control over the Eastern Mediterranean and bombs its Arab neighbors with impunity when it is so inclined. It also launches clandestine and aerial attacks against Iran, which can only respond with threats and impotent, asymmetric gestures. Pakistan has tried and failed to take Kashmir from India three times. The string of military defeats suffered by Muslims is too long to list in its entirety. But they are all related to the same root causes.
The simple fact is that Muslim societies would not be so prone to conquest if their institutions had not already rotted from within.
There are still too many Muslim nations living under the tyranny of dictatorship. The violent authoritarian control exercised by the region’s military and/or religious elite[1] has crippled the ability of Muslims to build effective governments and social institutions capable of nurturing the economic and technological development necessary to end their appallingly weak military abilities. Until Muslim societies wholeheartedly implement serious reforms to their political, legal, educational, social, and economic systems to free themselves from the shackles of dictatorship, they will continue to be subject to the same pattern of conquest they have endured these past five centuries. Instead of blaming outsiders, Muslims must accept responsibility for their failures. The simple fact is that Muslim societies would not be so prone to conquest if their institutions had not already rotted from within, making them such inviting targets.
The military incompetence of Muslim nations represents an existential threat that can no longer be ignored.
America’s occupations were but the latest in a long line that all prove a simple point. It is time for change. The military incompetence of Muslim nations represents an existential threat that can no longer be ignored. Imagine what would have happened if Afghanistan and Iraq were actually important to the US. It has already proven it will do anything to win a fight, even if that means dropping atomic bombs on an island full of emaciated women and children. America may not care about the Muslim world today, but the world is volatile, and things change. If it decided to come back, no one could stop it.
America is not the only country Muslims should worry about either. Any Muslim welcoming China, given its treatment of the Uighurs, is a hypocrite and an even bigger fool. In some respects, Russia has been an even more brutal conqueror of Muslims than the West. The Czars conquered vast Muslim populations who have repeatedly tried and failed to throw off the yoke of Russian occupation. These examples highlight a glaring pattern of weakness prevalent across nearly the entirety of the Muslim world. The Taliban and those with similar views may see events in Afghanistan as a vindication of their beliefs, but that only proves how foolish they truly are.
Afghanistan’s new rulers appear to have learned how to deal with Western media. One can only hope they have also studied the deeper causes of the Western world’s military dominance, which is the result of its democratic forms of government, inclusive political and social institutions, secure property rights, and free speech protections. These have allowed the West to create governments, schools, and private companies capable of stimulating the economic and technological development necessary to develop advanced military capabilities. Until the Muslim world implements reforms that can lead to similar capabilities, it will continue to be a victim of conquest.
Instead of celebrating, the Taliban should ask themselves why their nation was so easily conquered and why it took so long to evict Russia and America. Doing so requires deciphering why it has been unable to modernize or develop a system of government that allows its diverse people to work together. Until they solve these riddles, they will be unable to develop policies that can ensure they are never conquered again. By extension, the rest of the Muslim world should be asking, to varying degrees, why it has been so weak for so long. If Afghanistan was a victory for Muslim arms, I shudder to think about what a defeat would look like.
Having discussed the problem of the Muslim world’s military incompetence, here are some ideas to correct these issues.
The author is a US Navy veteran and creator of the blog www.mirrorsfortheprince.com where he examines the causes of the Muslim world’s sustained weakness and suggests reforms that can help it modernize.
[1] Kuru Ahmet, “Islam, Authoritarianism, and Underdevelopment,” (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2019), 3-6, 9-12, 93-101, 225.
