Tag: pan-islamic

21st century lessons for Pakistan’s military 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lesson 2: the need to operate in dispersed formations

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

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

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

3. the need for secure communications   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lesson 6: the need for strategic depth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lesson 7: the price of failure

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

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

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

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

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

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

What should Israel do?

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorizedLeave a Comment on What should Israel do?

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.

Tagged : / / / / / / / / /

While Gaza burns, the Muslim world can only watch

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorized1 Comment on While Gaza burns, the Muslim world can only watch

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.

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

America is at it again

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorized1 Comment on America is at it again

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.

Tagged : / / / / / / /

How a more powerful US-backed India spells trouble for Pakistan

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorized3 Comments on How a more powerful US-backed India spells trouble for Pakistan

This article was first published here by the Friday Times on July 3, 2023.

Understanding the world and where it’s heading requires understanding how seemingly unrelated pieces of information fit together. For example, at first glance a tourism summit, an agreement to build jet engines, and a map in a new parliament building may not seem connected. But these three data points highlight trends that should worry those charged with leading and protecting Pakistan.

India’s G20 tourism summit in Kashmir last month was meant to show the world that the disputed territory was peaceful and prosperous. Despite the heavy presence of Indian soldiers and drastic security measures that strongly suggested otherwise, most of the world seemed to accept India’s Orwellian narrative. Aside from a few of Pakistan’s close allies, the G20’s members were happy to help India whitewash its brutal military occupation of the Himalayan state. One that has claimed the lives of roughly 100,000 Kashmiris who desired nothing more than the right to govern themselves as free people instead of living as second class subjects under a hostile regime.

Next, we have the various military and technological cooperation agreements signed between India and America during Prime Minister Modi’s visit to celebrate the growing strategic partnership between both nations. The deal to build jet engines was one of many designed to drastically improve India’s military capabilities while connecting it to America’s defense industry.

Finally, we have India’s new parliament building which prominently displays a map of an “undivided India” depicting Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Nepal and Pakistan as part of a unified India. When its neighbors voiced their concerns, India’s leaders insisted the map was only meant as an homage to an ancient Indian empire. But India’s Minister of Parliamentary Affairs, Pralhad Joshi, did not partake in such gaslighting. Via twitter, he succinctly explained the map shows India’s resolve to pursue an extremist right-wing agenda predicated on uniting the Subcontinent into a single nation, presumably one governed from New Delhi called “Akhand Bharat.”

In their own way, each of these data points reinforces one unmistakable truth. Pakistan is in trouble. The tourism summit proves the world will turn a blind eye to India’s horrific human rights abuses in Kashmir as well as its increasingly heavy-handed approach to the region. While the military agreements highlight America’s intent to actively help India commit new abuses by turning it into a formidable military power. The map is a frightening indication of how India intends to use its new power. It is a stark reminder of the right-wing lunacy that has fueled the BJP’s rise to power and how these developments might destabilize the entire region.

To understand how, one need only look to the Middle East. Just as its unequivocal support empowered Israel to attack and subjugate the Arabs, America’s support for India could have the same impact on the Subcontinent. Its blind insistence that Israel is a healthy democracy even though it is clearly a violent apartheid state shows it will employ the same gaslighting to shield India if it pursues similar policies.

These are not the only data points that should worry Pakistan. The summit and military agreements are merely a reflection of India’s growing clout on the world stage since it implemented a series of economic reforms in the 90’s. Due to these reforms, India will soon have the world’s third biggest economy. Its increased wealth has translated to more power and significantly larger military budgets.

Similarly, the map of an “undivided India” is not the only example of India’s rightward lurch. The BJP’s attacks on free speech and the marginalization of India’s minorities, particularly its Muslims have already been well documented. Perhaps the biggest indication of India’s growing fanaticism is the fact that the guy pegged to replace Modi, Yogi Adityanath, is a right-wing thug masquerading as a Hindu priest.

Unfortunately, there is so much data pointing to danger for Pakistan that it is difficult to sift through it all or even know which data set to prioritize. Whether from the growing power of its neighbor to the east, its stagnant and inefficient economy, dysfunctional political system, deteriorating internal security situation, exploding population, or climate change, Pakistan faces a myriad of threats that are only getting more challenging by the day. Each is potentially existential in nature.

Thankfully, the solution to all these problems is the same. Pakistan’s government must finally start providing the public services needed to nurture the economic and technological development that can allow it to prosper and protect itself in an increasingly unhinged world. The future belongs to those nations capable of building advanced semiconductors, quantum computers, A.I. powered software, and similar goods. Building a scientific and industrial base that can lead to these abilities will require deep rooted reforms designed to empower and educate its people, improve its finances, and establish the rule of law.

Instead of implementing these desperately needed reforms, its leaders have opted to use China as a crutch. However, creating a neo-colonial dependency on China will only provide the illusion of modernization without any of the substance. As India’s example so poignantly illustrates, Pakistan will never prosper until it creates a democratic political system that can unleash the energy of its people. Until that happens, the threats to its freedom and prosperity will only grow.

Tagged : / / / / / / /

America’s decline will bring chaos the Muslim world is unprepared for

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorized1 Comment on America’s decline will bring chaos the Muslim world is unprepared for

This article was first published here by the Friday Times on June 15, 2023


Several years ago, when its national debt was just $20 trillion, I wrote an essay arguing America’s weak finances would lead it to withdraw its military from the Muslim world, creating a vacuum China would fill. The underlying premise of my argument was that America’s growing debt would force its leaders to trim military spending and the Muslim world, not being vital to its core interests, would be the first to witness the beginning of the end of the Pax Americana. A retrenchment necessitated by being in a nearly continuous state of either hot, cold, or asymmetrical war for most of the past 80 years.

America’s military presence in the region is still going strong today. It maintains a permanent naval presence in the Gulf and has troops scattered throughout the region. However, its attempts to build an anti-Iranian military coalition between Israel and the Arab world as an eventual substitute for its own forces and the recent rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia brokered by China suggests I was on the right track. Both developments support the argument that its role in the region is diminishing and portend trends that will only accelerate with time. As such, I am still confident in my thesis. But I was wrong about one crucial assumption.

I implicitly believed America’s leaders would react rationally. That they would see the massive pile of debt their wasteful spending and imperial wars of conquest have led to and develop a rational plan to fix the situation. I was wrong.

As evidence, I offer the recent deal reached between the Biden Administration and the Republican led Congress to raise America’s debt ceiling to accommodate a sum that has now grown to $31.4 trillion. There are two aspects of this deal that vividly highlight just how irrational and detached from reality America’s policy elite have become. The first, it cut funding for America’s tax collection and enforcement agency, the IRS. Second, it did not cut military spending. Instead, it increased military outlays by 1%.

Of the government agencies and departments most vital to a nation’s prosperity and security, none is more important than those that collect tax revenue. Not even the military. As Pakistan’s dysfunctional government and economy shows, without a well-funded and efficient tax collection and enforcement agency nothing else works. Paying for the public services like roads, competent law enforcement and regulatory agencies, or schools that glue a nation together and nurture economic activity becomes impossible. Also, as a matter of common sense, when the government has accrued $31.4 trillion in debt, it should be trying to increase revenue and collections.

But America’s conservative faction fought hard to claw back some of the funding that President Biden wisely allocated to the IRS. In doing so they did not just contradict their stated desire to improve America’s finances, they helped illustrate just how irrational its leaders have become.

By itself, the attack on the IRS staged by America’s right was unsettling enough. But what was far more upsetting was how little discussion there was about the root cause of America’s debt by either of its political factions.

Over the past 20 years, America has spent $16 trillion on its military and that is a conservative estimate that does not account for certain intelligence activities like those provided by the CIA or the cost of its nuclear arsenal, parts of which gets budgeted under the Department of Energy for accounting purposes. It also excludes the cost of caring for its veterans and the national security functions performed by the Department of Homeland Security. For those keeping track, the conservative estimate is over half its debt.

Due to this spending, America is the most dominant military power in the world by a wide margin. It fields a massive arsenal of the most advanced tanks, fighters, drones, submarines, and aircraft carriers. Despite having already spent trillions to build this impressive force and having important geographic advantages that protect it from invasion, there was no meaningful discussion about cutting military spending. Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that so many of the professionals paid to discuss these issues work for defense contractors? One can only guess. Thankfully, understanding why is not important. What is important is recognizing the fact that military spending is America’s holy grail. One that neither party will ever meaningfully threaten, no matter how bleak its finances.

Some may argue that events in Ukraine and the Pacific justify America’s refusal to scale back its military. But these arguments do not fare well under closer scrutiny. Aside from the fact that Europe should be defending itself, the bear we were all raised to fear has proven less ferocious than previously imagined. Russia and Western Europe will never be friends and Europe’s nations will always need to prepare accordingly, but the idea that Russia presents a threat to America is ludicrous.

America’s fixation with containing China is equally illogical. Again, as a preliminary matter, protecting Asia is not America’s responsibility. That burden must ultimately fall to Asia’s nations. China’s behavior, particularly its treatment of the poor Uighurs, has been abhorrent, there is no denying that. But it has never threatened America’s commercial or national security interests. America’s obsession with countering China has more to do with its own hegemonic ambitions than anything else and reinforces the argument that its leaders are no longer acting rationally.

The key takeaway: America’s finances will only worsen as it continues to fund a military designed to dominate the world rather than protect the homeland. Instead of taking the steps necessary to reign in spending, America’s leaders seem determined to do the same thing they did in Afghanistan; pretend like nothing is wrong until everything implodes in the blink of an eye.

The only real question is when, but no one can truly answer that. America is a large, wealthy country, making it hard to predict how far down this path it can go before reality rears its ugly head. If I were a betting man, I would wager the inflection point will correlate to the interest payments on its debt. Once this number reaches a certain level, America will be printing money to pay the interest on the money it has already borrowed and printed. It’s hard to predict the exact fallout but debasing a nation’s currency to pay its debts has never ended well for the many governments throughout history that have followed this path.

The rest of the world needs to prepare accordingly. Even in a weakened financial position, America’s massive military industrial infrastructure will still allow it to wreak havoc in many ways. Much like the demise of the Soviet Union flooded the world with its weapons, America’s decline will incentivize it to expand its role as the world’s merchant of death. Many of its weapons will end up in Israel, India, and Greece.

The leaders of Iran, Pakistan, and Turkey should take note. As I argued in a companion piece to the essay about America’s looming military withdrawal, these nations must come together to create new political, economic and military organizations for their mutual defense and prosperity. The key to doing so: creating institutional mechanisms to support trade and joint infrastructure development within the framework of a free trade zone like the one Europe built in the aftermath of WW2. Projects like the long-delayed Peace Pipeline between Iran and Pakistan would serve as the perfect building blocks to increase trade and connectivity.

Unfortunately, the Muslim world’s leaders are even more irrational and illogical than America’s. Despite centuries of conquest and instability, Muslim elites refuse to make the sort of changes that would allow them to prosper either individually or collectively. Pakistan, for example, seems intent on creating the same toxic and ineffective neo-colonial dynamic with China that has repeatedly failed Muslim societies since the Ottomans first tried the same tactic with Germany. Iran’s leaders are still obsessing over how Iranian women dress. One could write volumes about the irrational policies favored by Afghanistan’s rulers.

Like most of the Muslim world, all three suffer under the weight of authoritarian and non-responsive political and social systems that stifle change or serious attempts at reform. Consequently, they are highly unlikely to take the steps necessary to protect themselves from the chaos and upheaval that always accompanies major shifts in the world’s geopolitical sands. That is a pity, because America’s loosening grip on the region also means the time to do so has never been better.

Tagged : / / / / /

Why do some nations conquer, while others get conquered?

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorizedLeave a Comment on Why do some nations conquer, while others get conquered?

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.

Tagged : / / / / / / / / /

When it comes to the Iraq War, neither America nor the Muslim world learned a thing

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorized3 Comments on When it comes to the Iraq War, neither America nor the Muslim world learned a thing

This article was first published here by the Friday Times on March 21, 2023

The twentieth anniversary of America’s invasion of Iraq led to many pieces discussing the legacy of the war and the lessons it offers. Writing for the Intercept, Peter Maass was one of the few commentators to discuss the horrendous cost to Iraq’s people and the indifference of most Americans to the suffering inflicted by their military as he noted how so few of these commentaries even bothered to mention the death toll from the war. The Los Angeles Times, New York Times, and Washington Post all ran human interest pieces that focused on the devastation unleashed against Iraq’s people.

But most chose to ignore this aspect of the war. Though they readily admitted it was “disastrous” or a “tragedy,” they seemed to view it as such primarily because of the negative impact on America. Writing for Foreign Affairs Magazine, Hal Brands described the war as an “American tragedy” that was “born of honorable motives and genuine concerns” while he lamented that “critiques of the war have become so hyperbolic that it can be difficult to keep the damage in perspective.” The President of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haas, echoed these sentiments as he spent most of his time rationalizing America’s decision to launch what he euphemistically refers to as a “war of choice.”

Let’s get one thing straight about this war. There was no legitimate reason to invade Iraq. War is only ever justified as a means of self-defense or coming to the defense of innocents in extreme situations. Despite having plenty of justification, Iraq never attacked America and it had nothing to do with 9/11. As Mr. Haas so helpfully points out, Ukraine’s war against Russia is a war of necessity born of the need to protect itself from a violent invader. While Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is another “war of choice.” Despite his attempts to deflect, Mr. Haas’s use of the same phrase to describe both wars is apt because both were illegal and unjust wars of aggression.

As Mr. Brands points out, “no one knows for sure” how many Iraqis were killed as a result of America’s choices, though he estimates between “100,000 and 400,000” died. Mr. Maass, adds that, “millions” were “injured, forced out of their homes, and traumatized for the rest of their lives.” Some estimates place the death toll as high as 2.4 million. Whatever the number, it is too high, and it is abhorrent that anyone would try to whitewash or rationalize the mass murder of anywhere from 100,000 – 2.4 million men, women, and children.

Even the argument that Iraq was believed to possess WMDs fails miserably. America has no right to attack a country for trying to develop the same exact weapons it possesses. Particularly when it is the biggest proliferator of weapons, both conventional and unconventional, in the world. America helped Apartheid South Africa build nuclear weapons. It has turned a blind eye to Apartheid Israel’s nuclear weapons and sells weapons to dictators all over the world. Arguing that Saddam Hussein’s brutality went beyond the pale while ignoring Ariel Sharon’s war crimes, or helping Saudi Arabia commit its own in Yemen shows how hypocritical and non-sensical these arguments have always been. But discussing these obvious truths is a waste of time. As the pieces referenced above indicate, most American’s simply do not care about the double standards and hypocrisy of their actions.

Mr. Haas even tried to exonerate those responsible for unleashing this mayhem by arguing they had no ill intent. Another weak argument that ignores the fact that there are some instances where intent is irrelevant. Culpability must sometimes be based purely on the consequences of one’s actions. Most would probably agree that mass murder falls into this category. Whether George Bush and his cohorts intended to deceive is of no consequence. What does matter is that their decisions led to the murder of a lot of innocent civilians. By any sane legal standard, their actions were criminal, and they must all be held legally accountable. Aside from Mr. Maass, not one of the commentators reflecting on this war was willing to suggest as much. Which further proves that America learned absolutely nothing from this war. As Stephen Wertheim eloquently puts it, “the flawed logic that produced the war is alive and well.”

Since America failed to absorb the correct lessons, the victims of this war, and by extension, those who may find themselves in America’s crosshairs next must work that much harder to learn their own lessons.

Doing so requires examining more than just the war in Iraq, which is not the only part of the world that has been subject to such violence. In fact, the 55th anniversary of the My Lai massacre in Vietnam passed just three days before the anniversary that prompted this piece and the 56th anniversary of Israel’s conquest and continuing occupation of the West Bank is just around the corner.

In addition to contemplating the import of all these anniversaries as well as countless others that we simply do not have the space or time to reference, the victims of America’s various attempts to spread freedom and democracy must also weigh the ramifications of its contradictory actions in support of Ukraine and Israel. And they must do so while they consider the refusal of its leaders to spend less than $800 billion on its military or limit its arms shipments to violent regimes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc.

Thankfully, the lessons gleaned from the cumulative weight of these data points are relatively simple.  First, Iraq will not be the last unprovoked war America or one of its allies starts. That is because we do not live in a “rules based” international system. We live in a world where might equals right and powerful nations can commit mass murder with impunity (unless America decides they should be held accountable). Those nations that do not wish to suffer like Iraq (or Palestine, or Vietnam, etc.) must therefore give serious thought to creating the sort of political, social, and economic institutions that can lead to developing the industrial, technological, and military capabilities needed to protect themselves.

Both China and Japan learned these lessons after their violent interactions with the West. The Muslim world has struggled to do so. Just like America, it has refused to learn the correct lessons from Iraq or the countless other conquests and slaughters that have marred its history over the past several centuries. Pakistan’s Dawn newspaper discussed the impact and aftermath of the war as did Al Jazeera. But neither thought to question the systemic issues that made Iraq, a microcosm of the Muslim world, so vulnerable to conquest or consider ways to prevent such violence from ever happening again.

Muslims refuse to admit that the violence perpetrated against them is a direct result of their own weakness. Societies are never conquered by outsiders until they have sufficiently rotted from within. The authoritarian political and social institutions that have strangled Muslim societies for centuries have stunted its technological and economic development, making it impossible to develop adequate military abilities. Until they wholeheartedly implement serious political, legal, educational, and economic reforms to free themselves from the shackles of dictatorship, Muslim nations will continue to suffer from the same pattern of conquest and violence.

Muslim states must also look to each other for their security needs since none of them can compete with the Great Powers on their own. The only way out of this morass is to embrace the type of unity and collective security architecture built by Europe in the aftermath of WW2. Europe’s unity is, in turn, laid upon a foundation of free trade, which means Muslims must begin the process of learning to work together by linking themselves through trade and infrastructure. These ideas may sound outlandish. Some have even compared them to the quest for nuclear fusion. But the most fundamental lesson of the Iraq war is that without serious changes that address the roots of its weakness, the Muslim world will continue to suffer similar tragedies.  

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

The war in Gaza has put Western and Muslim hypocrisy on full display

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorizedLeave a Comment on The war in Gaza has put Western and Muslim hypocrisy on full display

Between all the propaganda and gaslighting, wars inevitably reveal the ugly truth about a society. The war in Gaza has been no different. We are now five weeks into Israel’s counterattack on Hamas. The IDF (Israel Defense Forces) has responded to the murder of over 1,400 Israelis by killing 11,078 Palestinians, 4,506 of whom were children. Israel’s military spokesman, Brig. Gen. Daniel Hagari, all but admitted these killings were intentional when he stated the IDF’s focus is on inflicting “damage and not on accuracy.” When confronted about the IDF’s habit of dropping bombs on targets it knows are full of civilians in relation to a strike that murdered an estimated 50 innocent people, his fellow IDF spokesperson, Lt. Col. Richard Hecht, unapologetically shrugged these deaths off as “the tragedy of war.” These statements are merely confirmation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s promise that he would respond to Oct. 7th in a way that reverberates “for generations.” A promise made good when 42 members of the Saqallah family were killed by an Israeli airstrike. Three generations, ranging in age from 3 months to 77 years old, were murdered as they were taking shelter in their home.

Given these statements of intent and the indiscriminate devastation being visited upon Gaza, it is painfully obvious Israel is following the Dahiya Doctrine first articulated by former IDF chief of staff Gadi Eisenkot during Israel’s 2006 war with Hezbollah by intentionally murdering Palestinian civilians. At the least, it is guilty of acting with reckless disregard to the fact that its missile and artillery strikes are killing thousands of women and children. In either case, the IDF is committing a massacre.

One can only wonder where those who were so horrified by Hamas’ killing of women and children are now. After all, as Jonah Goldberg pointed out to those who tried to justify Hamas’ brutality by framing it as legitimate resistance to Israel’s 17-year siege of Gaza, “no amount of context justifies killing babies.” Inexplicably, Mr. Goldberg was too busy dissecting the history and significance of the term “settler colonial” with mind numbing detail to offer any outrage over Gaza’s dead babies.

But Mr. Goldberg is hardly the only American who does not care when Palestinian babies are murdered. When asked about the rising death toll in Gaza, President Biden dismissed them out of hand, preferring to question the accuracy of the figures instead of addressing the underlying issue.  His apathy, like Mr. Goldberg’s, is yet more proof that most Americans simply do not care when Palestinian children are murdered.

To their credit, at least Messrs. Goldberg and Biden are not blood thirsty sociopaths like Senator Lindsey Graham, Congressman Brian Mast, or Florida state representative Michelle Salzman. Graham does not believe there should be any limits on the number of women and children Israel should be allowed to murder in its quest to rid the world of Hamas’ evil, child killing members. Mast argued there are “no innocent Palestinian civilians.” While Salzman believes Israel should murder “all” Palestinians. 

Of course, none of this is surprising. Anyone who has not been in a coma these past thirty years already knows about America’s pattern of killing Arabs and Muslims and the mix of ambivalence and racist demonization that accompanies it. Its sanctions against Iraq killed an estimated 576,000 children. The War on Terror killed another 4.5 million people. Its direct support for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen added 377,000 more. The great majority of Americans did not care then, and they do not care now. To expect them to suddenly show interest in dead Palestinian, Arab, or Muslim babies at this point would be insane. 

The Western world’s blatant and overwhelming hypocrisy is certainly condemnable but adequately addressing this topic would take volumes while accomplishing very little. Instead of raging against these glaring double standards, I will simply point out that evil always leads to more evil. Even if it’s a delayed harvest, you reap what you sow, and America has sown death and despair throughout the globe.

As I explain here in more detail, these chickens are already coming home to roost. There is a direct correlation between the genocidal violence America has unleashed or enabled around the world and the mass shootings that are now a depressingly routine part of American life. These are a biproduct of being in a nearly continuous state of conflict for most of the past eighty years. They will continue to haunt Americans in their schools, restaurants, shopping centers, movie theaters, etc. until their country ends its militaristic policies and dismantles the weapons factories built to further them. 

Aside from enabling one lone wolf shooter after another, America’s hegemonic pursuits are also slowly draining a foundational part of its power – its wealth. No empire in history has been able to maintain an aggressive military posture for an extended period of time without eventually imploding. Much of America’s nearly 34 trillion dollar debt can be attributed to its military spending. The interest payments on this debt now stand at 659 billion a year and could climb to two trillion by the end of the decade. Eventually, the financial house of cards built to pay for its imperial ambitions will collapse, impoverishing millions in the process.

America’s obsession with global dominance is slowly destroying and bankrupting it. But since most Americans simply do not want to have this conversation, I’m not going to waste more time on the matter. I have already done my best to warn America that it is on the path to self-destruction several times.

Instead of wasting time trying to dissuade America from its genocidal policies, I prefer to focus on the party that bears the most responsibility for the slaughter in Gaza – the Muslim world. Societies are never conquered by outsiders until they have sufficiently rotted from within. Those who cheered the massacre of women and children on Oct. 7th and those who have been tearing down posters of these innocents are all a reflection of this rot. Much like the subject of Western hypocrisy, adequately addressing the roots of the dysfunction that has gripped Muslim societies these past many centuries would take volumes, and then some. The Muslim world is a mess, and it has been a mess for a long time.

Gaza’s woes are just an extreme example of the weakness and instability that is typical of most Muslim societies. Nearly the entire Muslim world features authoritarian and absolutist governments that preside over unproductive economies and stagnant intellectual climates. This has made it incredibly weak and prone to conquest. The massacre happening in Gaza right now is but the latest in a long line dating back to Napoleon, the Czars, and even the Reconquista.

Despite this history of conquest and instability, Muslim leaders refuse to implement the sort of reforms that could help them to finally modernize and stabilize their nations. Instead, they furiously cling to power, refusing to change. In the same way America’s leaders can only offer thoughts and prayers or make impotent demands for legislation they know will never pass after massacres like the one in Maine, the Muslim world’s leaders can only hold meetings and issue scathing press releases as they watch Gaza’s children die. They may pretend to care about the Palestinians, but their refusal to change their ways, the repression they inflict on their own people and their refusal to speak against China’s crimes against its Muslim populations suggests their concern is mostly for show or politics. Due to their inaction and hypocrisy, Muslims are too weak to challenge America’s fleet as it stands watch over another slaughter.

Both the need for reform and the solutions have been obvious for a long time. As explained here, secular democracy has always been the ideal form of Islamic government. Adopting inclusive, democratic forms of government based on the rule of law would significantly improve the Muslim world’s military abilities while paving the way for the sort of regional integration and mutual security arrangements that could finally stabilize it. But aside from a few flawed experiments like those in Turkey and Indonesia, most of the Muslim world’s nations refuse to adopt this model.

I have repeatedly tried to warn the Muslim world’s rulers they are on a dangerous path. I warned that “Israelis just elected a government that will murder thousands of Palestinians” when they first voted Netanyahu and his Kahanists allies to power. I even begged the Palestinians to surrender years ago because it was obvious they had lost the armed struggle for their own state.

As the slaughter happening right now shows, they should have listened. As such, I must renew my call for Hamas and the Palestinians to surrender. Given the IDF’s refusal to distinguish between Hamas and the women and children who live among them, it would be prudent for all Palestinians to wave white flags of surrender. Palestinians in the West Bank and Israel would do well to follow suite in solidarity with their brothers and sisters in Gaza. Peaceful, non-violent resistance is the only sane path left for them.

Unfortunately, my advice and warnings have gone unheeded so far. Which is a pity, because fires of the sort burning in Gaza tend to spread. Israel’s invasion of Gaza, even if it removes Hamas from power, will not lead to peace or even calm without a just political agreement with the Palestinians and dismantling the apartheid apparatus that has been built to subjugate them. Since Israel’s government is run by men incapable of making such an agreement, a repetition and expansion of the cycle of violence is almost certain.  The Muslim world’s rulers would do well to prepare for the chaos that is coming.

Having done my best to highlight the rank hypocrisy of both the Western and Muslim worlds, I must now express my profound shame as I watch my country enable yet another massacre of defenseless women and children while the Muslim world impotently looks on. I am ashamed to be an American. But I am even more ashamed of myself and my fellow Muslims. There are nearly 1.9 billion Muslims in the world and not one of us has the power to stop this evil. Our leaders and governments may bear most of the fault, but even if it’s a distorted view, they are still a reflection of the people and societies they rule over. Every single one of us bears responsibility for what is happening to Gaza. One can only wonder how many more massacres we will watch before we make the desperately needed changes to our societies that can finally give us the strength to stop them.

What America and Israel are doing is evil. Murdering more children will never lead to peace. There is no justification for what is being done to the people of Gaza. America is not the arsenal of democracy, as some like to pretend. It is the arsenal of dictators and apartheid and the world’s preeminent merchant of death. That much is obvious. But none of this would be happening if Muslims were not so unbelievably weak.  

Since our governments do not have the strength to take action, every one of us must speak out to stop this madness. The IDF beat back Hamas’ attack and captured many of its fighters while the rest retreated. The battle Hamas started on Oct. 7th is over. Israel’s military has re-established control of Gaza’s border, removing the threat of more attacks. What is happening now is not self-defense but revenge and collective punishment. Completely destroying Hamas, if it is even possible, would require destroying the entire Gaza strip and murdering tens or possibly even hundreds of thousands of women and children.

Those who remain silent are just as complicit as those depraved souls who rationalize these crimes by conflating Hamas with the Palestinian people or making disingenuous and grossly inaccurate comparisons with the Nazis. Unless Hamas has 100 panzer divisions along with a fleet of powerful aircraft and ships in its tunnels, the comparison is misguided, at best.  Its primary purpose is to help Israel’s leaders deflect calls to pursue a diplomatic solution. Israelis may find the idea of negotiating with Hamas repugnant and, given the thousands of children murdered these past few weeks, Hamas’ leaders probably feel the same way. Regardless, the only way to salvage anything worthwhile from this war is to use it as a path to real peace but that requires dialogue, not dropping thousands of pounds of explosives on residential areas. Otherwise, the cycle will only repeat itself with greater intensity.

Sadly, we live in a world where even our “liberal” leaders prefer war over peace. President Biden could have tried for a Camp David moment. Instead, he responded to a massacre by green lighting another massacre. Yet one more horrible decision from a man who chose Clarence Thomas over Anita Hill, supported the Iraq War, denied Israel was an apartheid state and considered giving Saudi Arabia nuclear technology in a misguided attempt to seek peace by marginalizing the Palestinians. Hopefully, the President’s actions will cost him the swing states of Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania during the next election, sparing the world from more of his awful decisions.

As a brown man in America, I have learned to be very careful when I share my thoughts. Particularly since there are people who think speaking up for children makes me a terrorist sympathizer or that calling Israel what it is – an apartheid state – makes me an antisemite. Despite these risks, I have no choice but to say something when children are murdered by American made bombs funded by my taxes.

I realize most Americans will never read these thoughts and those few who do will either vilify me or follow President Biden’s lead and dismiss them out of hand. Nevertheless, I will continue to remind everyone that men who hurt children are evil. Children are off-limits. Whether their parents are terrorists or settler colonialists is irrelevant. The ease with which so many rationalize or ignore the slaughter of children is disgusting and shameful. It may seem pointless but the only thing we can do is continue to speak for peace and sanity and answer hate with love. Be the change, as a wise person once advised. Violence is never the answer.

These events have also forced Muslims in the West to confront our place here yet again. There are millions of us who have grown up here, across multiple generations. We have in many ways become embedded into Western society and culture. But our increased numbers and influence did not matter. The leaders we voted for betrayed us and the alternative is even scarier. What are we to do?

I can only speak for myself, and I have decided to vote with my feet and leave. I do not counsel this lightly, particularly since the Muslim world is not a very attractive place either. In an ideal world, we could take the skills and capital we have acquired during our stay in the West and return to our homelands to stimulate a much needed renaissance. But the Muslim world is a repressive place and many of us would quickly run afoul of its stifling rules. The same blasphemy laws, political repression, and corrupt, backwards economies that make it so weak would make for a tough transition and risky investment.

But at some point, we may not have a choice. There are 20 million AR15 style assault rifles floating around America. When it finally collapses under the weight of its massive spending and debts, things are going to get ugly. If another war in the Middle East hastens these trends, Muslims will suffer for it. There is a dark side to Western civilization that is often ignored. Westerners have a history of committing brutal violence against those they consider inferior or find suspicious and those suspicions are often rooted in racial and religious bigotry. The Inquisition, the era of violent colonial conquests, the Holocaust, the reign of the KKK in the American south and South Africa’s and Israel’s embrace of apartheid are just a few examples of this history. To expect that Muslims will continue to prosper and remain safe given this pattern and America’s current trajectory is simply not realistic. As much as we have all grown to love our homes in the West, we must face the fact that we are not wanted and may not always be safe here. There will always be elements who view us as outsiders and these same elements own a lot of those AR 15s. Escape, especially when it is properly planned for, may be the best option. The real dilemma is figuring out the destination.

The author is a US Navy veteran and lawyer who usually writes about ways to modernize the Muslim world on his blog, www.mirrorsfortheprince.com

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

Applying Ibn Khaldun’s ideas to China and Saudi Arabia

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorized4 Comments on Applying Ibn Khaldun’s ideas to China and Saudi Arabia

The last few years have seen two similar, but independent developments occur in Saudi Arabia and China. Both nations have witnessed the rise of leaders who have upended long standing traditions and norms as they accumulated an unprecedented amount of power for themselves.  

Though unrelated, these simultaneous power grabs provide an opportunity to revisit the ideas first discussed by Ibn Khaldun many centuries ago. It may seem odd to rely on a 14th century North African historian to explain why these developments will cause serious long-term issues in both nations, or even to discuss them together, but that is exactly what this essay shall endeavor.

Ibn Khaldun’s Muqadeema has been described as one of the greatest history books ever written. Though well deserved, this lofty praise hardly does justice to the scope and breath of his work. The Muqadeema is more than just a history book. It provides an analytical framework that explains the ebb and flow of history itself.

Khaldun developed a generational decay model that explains the lifecycle of dynasties as they are founded, grow powerful, and inevitably fall into decay and ruin. He did so after examining the Umayyads, Abbasids, and various North African and Iberian Muslim dynasties. Despite focusing on the evolution of Muslim dynasties, his ideas are based on universal themes regarding the differences between absolutists and pluralistic political institutions and how success often carries the seeds of its own doom with it. As a result, they are still useful when examining modern political systems.

According to Khaldun, all dynasties follow a natural pattern. They are founded by powerful groups who take political control of their societies based on their group cohesion and toughness, and the way in which these characteristics lead to martial abilities. He calls this “group feeling[1],” which is his shorthand way of describing the bonds that allow people to work together to attain what he calls “royal authority[2]” or political control over their societies. In Khaldun’s day, these bonds were mostly familial or tribal, but he also understood that they can be based on additional factors like religion or shared experiences[3].

Saudi Arabia is but the latest in a long line of Arab hereditary dictatorships dating back to the Umayyad era and, as a result, fits exceptionally well within Khaldun’s model. The more interesting exercise is thinking about how the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) functions much like the tribes and familial groups of Khaldun’s day. The founders of modern China may not have possessed the Bedouin toughness of the Arab tribes Khaldun studied. But just as his theories proved equally applicable to the Turkish tribes that founded the Ottoman Empire and how their lives on the Steppe shaped them and allowed them to supplant the Arabs, they can be seen at work among those who survived the ordeals of the Long March to found China’s modern state.

Khaldun explains that as a new dynasty is formed, the strong group feeling of its members allows them to create power structures that are more pluralistic and implement policies conducive to growth and prosperity since their frugality and simple lifestyles leads to relatively benign, laissez faire governance. But over time, as the dynasty ages, two related but independent factors lead to its demise.

The first is that once the group takes power, its members begin to live luxurious lifestyles, which corrupts their character[4] and leads to weakened finances[5]. As this is happening, a ruler emerges who concentrates the lion’s share of power in his hands or those of his close supporters. In Khaldun’s opinion, it is the excessive consumption of luxury and concentration of power in the hands of an all-powerful ruler that ultimately dooms dynasties.

Once the ruler accumulates most of the power for himself and his close supporters, the exercise of political power is no longer restrained by institutional mechanisms or consensus building arrangements. It therefore becomes more dependent on the personalities and capabilities of those individuals wielding it. At the beginning of the dynasty the ruler still has the “desert toughness[6]” (or something comparable) that allows for good leadership. Having learned directly from their fathers, the second generation will typically be effective rulers too. But as dynasties age, they grow soft and spoiled. Each successive generation of rulers becomes weaker the further removed they are from the strength and vitality present at the founding of the dynasty.

The process does not happen overnight. Khaldun states it typically takes between three to six generations[7], because as each successive generation grows up in more and more luxury, they lose their “manliness[8]” because of the way that “luxury corrupts character[9].” While Khaldun’s choice of words may be somewhat outdated for our time, the point he is trying to make is that inheriting power and growing up in wealth and luxury makes for weak rulers.

The key trigger is the accumulation of power by the ruler since Khaldun’s model does not begin to take effect until the ruler “claims all the glory for himself[10].” As dynasties age, they become more absolutist, concentrating power in the hands of people who are unfit to rule. Once this happens, rulers begin to fall for the trappings of power and pursue luxury and comfort above all else. This leads to wasteful spending as rulers must pay for increasingly lavish lifestyles and higher state expenditures. This inevitably leads to higher taxes and insecure property rights as rulers seize the property of their subjects to pay for their expenses[11].

This simultaneously depresses economic activity, undermining the fiscal position of the government, and reduces social cohesion by eroding trust between ruler and subjects. This process weakens all societies, but those governed by dictatorships decay the fastest because of the way in which they concentrate power at the top. Once this happens dynasties reach their “senility[12],” the final stage in their lifecycle. Democratic political systems are better at delaying the effects of Khaldun’s model because of the way in which they diffuse power.

By now, the relevance to both China and Saudi Arabia should be obvious. China’s premier Xi Jinping used the Chinese Communist Party’s recent 20th party Congress to give himself an unprecedented third term in office. But the events of the 20th Congress were years in the making. Over the past ten years, Xi has gradually eroded the norms that have maintained balance between the various factions of China’s communist party elite to make sure no one could oppose his desire for an extended stay in office.

In a recent article for Foreign Affairs, Jude Blanchette described the process in detail as he explained how Xi “moved rapidly to consolidate his political authority” by marginalizing “his enemies,” and taming “China’s once highflying technology and financial conglomerates” to “crush internal dissent.” He also led a “campaign to eliminate political pluralism and liberal ideologies from public discourse, announced new guidelines restricting the growth of the party’s membership, and added new ideological requirements for would-be party members.” As a result of these efforts, he installed allies and loyalists in key positions thus guaranteeing his ability to retain power beyond two terms. In the process he has turned himself into China’s most powerful leader since Deng Xiaoping.

Saudi Arabia has gone through a similar process as the young Mohammad Bin Salman (MBS) has undertaken a similar power grab by upending long standing family traditions and re-balancing its power structures in his favor. In his work on the Crown Prince, Ben Hubbard detailed how he used an anti-corruption drive featuring the use of the Ritz Carlton as a make-shift prison to end “the days when the kingdom had relatively independent power centers with lucrative and rich tycoons linked to them. Now they all answered to MBS[13]” who “now ruled the Saudi economy[14].” According to Hubbard, “the royal family no longer functioned as it once had. Gone were the days when seniority reigned, elder princes divided portfolios among themselves, and made decisions through consensus. MBS has destroyed that system, extending control over the military, the oil industry, the intelligence services, the police, and the National Guard replacing senior princes with younger ones who answered to him[15].”

The developments described by Blanchette and Hubbard are consistent with the same process Khaldun described in which pluralistic power structures give way to more absolutist arrangements.

As an established hereditary dictatorship, the steps taken by MBS in Saudi Arabia will undoubtedly lead to instability and chaos sooner rather than later. But as the Ottomans showed, Khaldun’s model predicts general patterns, not specific timelines. Customs and institutions created at the founding of a dynasty can either delay or accelerate the process. The Ottomans delayed the effects of Khaldun’s model for so long because their tradition of awarding leadership to the most militarily capable claimant to the throne led to a succession of strong rulers who were able to build strong institutions. These institutions were able to maintain the decadent lifestyles of their descendants for much longer than even Ibn Khaldun would have guessed. Kennedy states that “after 1566 there reigned thirteen incompetent sultans in succession[16]” which caused the Ottoman Empire to “increasingly suffer from some of the defects of being centralized, despotic, and severely orthodox in its attitude toward initiative, dissent, and commerce. An idiot sultan could paralyze the Ottoman Empire.[17]” Kennedy is describing how the Ottomans succumbed to the same process Khaldun described. Successive generations of Sultans became weaker and weaker and were no longer able to hold their empire together or govern effectively.

China has been ruled by a single party dictatorship since the end of WWII with different premiers passing power in 5-10 year increments based on a consensus reached by various factions within the party. The institutional mechanisms in place these past many decades have prevented it from developing into the sort of hereditary dictatorships that reign in the Muslim world.

Nevertheless, it is now following the same pattern predicted by Khaldun. Those who endured the Long March to found the communist state and implement the reforms that led to its current economic growth have been replaced by a younger generation of leaders that covets luxury and the sort of ostentatious displays of wealth that their predecessors would likely have found obnoxious. The success of its economy has undermined the character of its ruling class and their increased greed, inefficient resource allocation, nepotism, and corruption will continue to undermine its economic growth in a manner that creates significant instability. These issues will only grow as its political system becomes more absolutist.  

The impact of Xi’s power grab can already be seen at work. Blanchette highlights the “flagging productivity” of its economy and how “for many companies, success depends on favors granted by the party.” Similarly, the less “nuanced diplomacy” practiced by Xi when compared to Mao and Deng is also consistent with Khaldun’s generational decay process. If his model is accurate, one can expect Xi’s concentration of power to lead to “senility[18]” though it may take several decades to manifest.

It is possible, but unlikely, that the CCP returns to more pluralistic power structures the same way it did after Mao’s disastrous reign. However, consistent with Khaldun’s ideas, the group feeling and pragmatism of those who took over after Mao has dissipated over the years. Those who succeed Xi are therefore more likely to continue his absolutists trajectory[19]. The degree to which Xi’s policies impact China’s long-term development will correlate to the length of time he stays in power and whether he passes power to a family member, though there are no indications of this yet.

Many in America view China’s growing power as an existential threat. The trends discussed above would indicate otherwise. An unstable China presents problems, but mostly to its immediate neighbors and its own people (like the unfortunate Uyghurs). It is unlikely to pose a serious long-term challenge to America so long as it remains a healthy democracy. America’s surest path to maintaining its dominant position vis-à-vis China is to ensure its political system remains inclusive, pluralistic, and democratic. America’s obsession with countering China, much like its obsession with countering the spread of communism, will ultimately prove unnecessary.

By inference, the ideas discussed above also show why communism, as an ideology and political force, has been such a spectacular failure. China may still use the vocabulary and rhetoric of its communist roots but ceased functioning like a classical communist state decades ago. In fact, aside from Cuba, no government based on communist ideology has been able to survive. Even North Korea is better classified as totalitarian dictatorship than a communist state. However, this discussion still provides a good opportunity to briefly explain why communist polities are inherently unstable, if it is not already apparent.

Communist systems suffer from two fatal flaws. The first is that they concentrate power within centralized governments in a way that naturally lends itself to the development of authoritarian dictatorships. We have seen the inevitable result of concentrating power in political systems.

By allowing politicians to centralize control of economic resources, communist systems concentrate power in the hands of the few or as Lenin called them the “vanguard.” Concentrated power always leads to abuse as the people wielding it are tempted to use it for their personal benefit. As such, the inherently unstable and violent nature of communist systems also stems from the fact that communist ideas lend themselves to the development of absolutist and authoritarian institutions. That is why these ideas have never led to the creation of a prosperous or stable political entity underpinned by the strength of its ideas as opposed to the strength of its armed enforcers.   

The second flaw is that, as an ideology, communism is not based on a realistic assessment of how humans are motivated by incentives. It is an inherently illogical system that seeks to achieve the impossible. Hierarchy and social strata are intrinsic to human societies. Trying to change this fact through public policy, even if well-intentioned, is a fool’s errand. As a result, communist ideas can never form the basis for a stable political system. The better path is to ensure social mobility between classes by providing resources such as public education to all citizens so that those with the talent and desire to do so can change their station in life. But attempting to create economic equality for all only leads to dictatorship and poverty.

This is also consistent with Khaldun’s ideas regarding the purpose of government.  For Khaldun, political authority is meant to act as a restraining influence[20] on people to prevent lawlessness and strife. The laws and customs that govern must be “rational[21]” and the ruler fulfills his purpose best when he allows “people to act in their own best interests[22].” He also explains that “attacks on people’s property remove the incentive to acquire and gain property[23]” which leads to ruin because “civilization and its well-being as well as business prosperity depend on productivity and people’s efforts in all directions in their own interest and profit. When people no longer do business in order to make a living, and when they cease all gainful activity, the business of civilization slumps, and everything decays[24].” Communist systems, to the extent that they destroy the incentive to acquire property/capital, will always lead to instability and collapse because they are irrational and unjust and “injustice ruins civilization[25].”

The ideas discussed above are self-evident and based on common sense and logic; however, the degree to which rulers like those in China and Saudi Arabia habitually ignore them motivated this essay.

[1] Khaldun, Ibn, The Muaqddimah An Introduction to History, trans. Rosenthal, Franz (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005), 111)

[2] Id. at 111-113.

[3] Id. at 124-26; 292.

[4] Id. at 135.

[5] Id. at 231-34.

[6] Id. at 137.

[7] Id. at 136-42.

[8] Id. at 150.

[9] Id. at 135.

[10] Id. at 134.

[11] Id. at 231-32.

[12] Id. at 142.

[13] Hubbard, Ben, MBS (New York: Crown), 202.

[14] Id. at 202.

[15] Id. at 267.

[16] Kennedy, Paul, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, (New York: Vintage Books), 11.

[17] Id. at 11-12.

[18] Khaldun at 142.

[19] Which would also be consistent with the Iron Law of Oligarchy described in Why Nations Fail.

[20] Id. at 152.

[21] Id. at 153.

[22] Id. at 189.

[23] Id. at 238.

[24] Id. at 238.

[25] Id. at 239.

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