Hacker News Reader

Comment by slibhb | Hacker News Reader

If "US training" is such a big deal, what the hell happened in Afghanistan?

When it comes to problems in the developing world, I think we neglect to highlight Islam's role. Islam is an Arab religion that has spread across Africa and Asia. It supplants local cultures and religions and Muslim-dominated countries tend to be caught in a stalemate between popular Islamist regimes and military dictatorship. Egypt is a prime example. Pakistan is looking more and more like a failed state.

I don't think the problem is the Quran but I've come to have a more negative view of the influence of Islam over the years. I think the problem is cultural imperialism: marginalization of local cultures and the Arabization that follows.

View on HN

> Pakistan is looking more and more like a failed state.

When was the last time Pakistan had a popular Islamist regime? The answer is never. It was military strong man Zia Ul-Haq who set off on the Islamization project.

Unlike most nations that have an army, the Pakistani army has a nation. The conundrum that Pakistan finds itself in has more to do with this than any ideology. You can replace it with anything else and you'll still get the same result.

I don't know but if the military didn't dominate Pakistan, I wonder if there would be such a regime right now.

Even if Pakistan breaks the mold, there are lots of Muslim countries that don't. Even actual Arab countries (as in the Arabian peninsula) have dictatorships that are far more secular than the population and exert violence to control Islamist sentiment.

> I don't know but if the military didn't dominate Pakistan, I wonder if there would be such a regime right now.

Based on what, exactly?

Your thesis was:

> Muslim-dominated countries tend to be caught in a stalemate between popular Islamist regimes and military dictatorship.

And you cited Pakistan as an example. When it's pointed out that the situation in Pakistan is the opposite of your theory, your response is to double down on it?

> Even actual Arab countries (as in the Arabian peninsula) have dictatorships that are far more secular than the population and exert violence to control Islamist sentiment.

Like which ones? Most of them try to co-opt Islam as way to bolster their legitimacy. And they crackdown on any movement they see as a threat to their power, Islamic or otherwise.

I'm not an expert on Pakistan and I'm generalizing. Generalization is necessary to say anything including "the US shouldn't be training African armies" (something I agree with). As I said in my previous post, Pakistan may not fit the pattern but plenty of other Muslim countries do.

I recognize your claim that Zia, a military dictator, was the source of Pakistani Islamism. I would ask you (I don't know, I'm genuinely interested): in Pakistan, today, is the military more or less Islamist than the populace?

> Like which ones? Most of them try to co-opt Islam as way to bolster their legitimacy. And they crackdown on any movement they see as a threat to their power, Islamic or otherwise.

I agree with your description: these countries "co-opt Islam as way to bolster their legitimacy". My point is that they are less religious than the populace. They execute actual Islamists who are a threat to their power.

> All generalizations are false, including this one.

My problem is simplistic explanations tend to be very misleading. And I am very skeptical of cultural existentialism being a useful tool in understanding societies.

> pattern but plenty of other Muslim countries do.

I'm asking again, which ones?

> (I don't know, I'm genuinely interested): in Pakistan, today, is the military more or less Islamist

Pakistani society is probably the most Islamist in the world. The elite, both civilian and military are considerably less so.

> They execute actual Islamists who are a threat to their power.

They'll execute blasphemers, apostates, homosexuals and adulterers too. Along with liberals and communists.

> Pakistani society is probably the most Islamist in the world. The elite, both civilian and military are considerably less so.

Okay, so why is it such a stretch to say "if the military didn't dominate Pakistan, I wonder if there would be [an Islamist regime] right now"? Maybe that wouldn't be the case, maybe the elites who are also less Islamist would dominate, but it's not a crazy idea.

Having opinions about "Islam" or "governance" or "politics" is going to get you into a corner somewhere. But we have to have opinions about these things. What keeps us from paradox, as far as I'm concerned, is that some opinions are more right than others and actual events that occur out in the world confirm or refute certain opinions.

The entire foundation of that state is rooted in that religion even if the military has been the dominant institution. Without that religion in the mix that nation would not exist at all

Bangladesh says hi. It's almost as if founding myths are just that, myths

Please note that the US military is highly competent in the existing-regime-ousting-and-chaos-generation part of the regime-change thing, the problem is always with the new-regime-building-establishing-order-and-peace part.

More than Islam, Islamism (i.e. militants of a political islam, not to be confused with jihadism). I can't think of any muslim country where the islamists are not either one of the major political parties (if not in power), or were a major political force but have been banned, or are a major party to a civil war.

I am sure I am missing some countries and many nuances but from a quick glance at the map and wikipedia:

Morocco: the previous prime minister was from an islamist party (Justice and Development Party)

Algeria: islamists (FIS) outlawed when about to win 1992 elections

Tunisia: islamists are the largest political party (Ennahda)

Libya: islamist a party to the civil war

Egypt: islamists won the elections (Morsi) before a coup

Mali: islamists are party to the current war

Saudi Arabia: political islam in power

Syria: islamists major party to civil war

Jordan: were major political party but have been banned

Iraq: islamists major party to civil war

Turkey: Erdogan is effectively a muslim brother

Iran: political islam in power

Afghanistan: talibans just took power

Pakistan: political islam in power

Indonesia: islamist parties being outlawed

Now there are all sort of other forces at play in political instability: ethnic hatred, various economic interests, etc. But the steady rise of islamism across the muslim world is real, and has probably a much bigger influence on the stability of africa than current or past western meddlings. In many ways it is the communism of the XXI century, i.e. an ideology which has gained widespread support, wants to take power one way or another, is an enemy of modern, secular, freedom loving liberalism, is full of internal divisions but have this common goal of imposing the Sharia as the rule of law. But its influence seems to have been completely ignored by the cookie cutter response that any problem of the world should be attributed to the West, one way or another.

Saudi Arabia: political islam in power => MBS somehow Tudoring it away at an unexpected pace

Turkey: Erdogan is effectively a muslim brother => On the decline, projected to be ousted next year

The Gulf states don't really have political parties as far as I understand. They are absolute monarchies.

> the steady rise of islamism across the muslim world is real

It waxes and wanes. May have peaked several places. Syria, Egypt and Iraq used to be quesi-socialist dictatorships for example.

Here is some black and white footage of Nasser from 1958 laughing at the ridiculousness of somebody from the Muslim Brotherhood complaining about hijabs not being enforced:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZIqdrFeFBk

Iran was a very different place before the revolution.

Turkey was originally pivoting towards secularism with Ataturk.

Morocco, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Jordan were/are primarily monarchies engaged in a game of thrones type battle royale etc.

> common goal of imposing the Sharia as the rule of law

Well, only kinda sorta. There's also the regional competition for supremacy between Shia and Sunni to consider. And all of this is overlaid untop of feudal tribal society dynamics.

> But its influence seems to have been completely ignored by the cookie cutter response that any problem of the world should be attributed to the West, one way or another.

Not only has it been ignored out of political correctness. In many cases the West for some reason likes to empower religious nutjobs whom they somehow find more palatable in the moment than whatever strongman is barely holding the place together - reliably causing untold amounts of misery, death, and destruction as some semblance of order is replaced with chaos for no coherent reason and with no plan for what comes next.

But yeah Islamism is one of several impossible problems that region is facing.

Well, my point isn't so much about who is in charge than the fact that there is a broad popular support for islamism in the muslim world, and that doesn't necessarily mean an absolute majority everywhere. Clearly the sharia is in force in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, and seemingly with a strong popular support.

And I agree that it will wane over time, or at least I hope it will, like communism. And I think, like communism, the most anti-islamist countries will be the countries that had to live under Islamism (I am looking at Iran with interest). But that may take decades.

Regarding Shia vs Sunni, that's right but I don't think it negates my point. There were many rivalries between Stalinism vs Maoism vs Trotksism, etc, but it is still right to refer to them as communist ideologies with a common goal.

> Clearly the sharia is in force in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, and seemingly with a strong popular support.

I think you might be very interested in this article: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/04/mohamme...

Take it with a giant grain of salt of course as it is an attempted puff piece. The Gulf states are not sharia. They want to be Vegas.

> And I agree that it will wane over time

And wax. All of this has happened before, and it will all happen again.

> Regarding Shia vs Sunni, that's right but I don't think it negates my point. There were many rivalries between Stalinism vs Maoism vs Trotksism, etc, but it is still right to refer them as communist ideologies with a common goal.

I don't think that is super accurate. One of them generally wants to be a state religion the other wants to take over the region and afterwards the world.

Islam is hugely important for explaining the failures of the US and Soviet Union in being able to exercise influence in the region. It provided ideological resistance to the spread of communism which largely explains communism's failure in the region[1]. It played a role in the overthrow of the US-friendly Shah in Iran, and that's in small part because it is a non-secular religion and so it can easily substitute for nationalism (although those two get intertwined) as a mobilizing political force. It's played a large role in the failure of US policy in Iraq post-Saddam, due to the sectarian conflict brewing between the now-dominant Shia and the Sunnis who feel displaced in society following the purging of anyone that was aligned with the Baathists. Although it's still an open question in my mind whether it's just a regular tribal marker (similar to national or ethnic identity) or if it is something beyond that.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/09/opinion/muslim-communism....

> If "US training" is such a big deal, what the hell happened in Afghanistan?

I think if anything Afghanistan shows the strengths of the US military in regime change. Where the US failed is where many empires fail, in long-term occupation. But the initial assault was a success, and I would imagine US military training is very effective when it comes to toppling governments.

Have you traveled at all in the Muslim world?

Culture are hardly supplanted--Muslims in Africa, Pakistan, and Indonesia are culturally miles apart.

One of the reasons Islam was popular when it initially spread was because it DIDN'T supplant local cultures! Initially, Islam didn't supplant religions either. Non-Muslims paid a "jizya" tax, which basically ensured protection under the local amir's banner.

Furthermore, if you look at the rise of the Ottoman empire, it was replete with Christians and Jews that not only worked in the administration of the Sultanate, but held top-level military, judicial, and political appointments.

I guess I'm confused on what they're gaining from general military training. I doubt they have a course on toppling foreign governments outright.

If there is anything to be gained, I feel like they're benefiting from advancements in tactics that defeat conventional and guerilla militaries. All that to say, if there is a connection I'm curious to see what it is.

It’s helpful from a Foreign Military Sales standpoint, that’s for sure.

Same here, recently watched a movie that released here(The Kashmir Files) which essentially showed how kashmiri muslims organised genocide against kashmiri hindus in their own country. Dont think the problem is the Quran as you said but islamic fundamentalism is a serious problem that needs to be tackled.

I wonder if reducing oil consumption might reduce the spread of Islam more than trying these militaries?

> reducing oil consumption

Without singling you out, why is the suggestion always to reduce consumption as opposed to producing energy in less hostile locales? Current geopolitical events (and associated suffering) are occurring precisely because efforts to produce fossil fuels in the West have been undermined by activists pushing anti-consumption ideology.

> why is the suggestion always to reduce consumption as opposed to producing energy in less hostile locales?

Maybe because reducing carbon emissions is something we already understand we desperately need to do?

> reducing carbon emissions is something we already understand we desperately need to do

The USA emits roughly the same amount of C02 as it did in the mid-1970s. On a per capita basis, the emissions are the lowest since at least the 1960s. This has been achieved largely due to the cost effective production of natural gas using fracking.

At the same time, US environmental regulations lead to lower emissions during production than in other nations. In other words, fossil fuels produced in the US produce less carbon than those produced in other nations.

Advocating against utilizing these energy resources has created massive geopolitical instability, harmed efforts to reduce carbon emissions globally, and inflated costs of all economic activity. Such policy is inconsistent with environmental concerns but is entirely consistent with anti-consumption ideologies.

[0] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/carb...

What is your practical proposal? What exactly should the United States do?

This is so much worse than even the most pro-russian comment I've seen here. But unsurprisingly the replies you are getting are pretty mild and open to the idea. This is just wild, and it just goes to show how the "this is whataboutism let's focus on russia" rhetoric is so weak. Whenever the actual discussion is about American/European imperialism, the crazy war justifications are dominant. The double standards aren't even subtle at this point

> If "US training" is such a big deal, what the hell happened in Afghanistan?

I’m not sure who is claiming that US training has substantial influence on e.g. the FAMa; the French are (correctly) viewed as the imperialist bogeyman. Hopefully illusions about the Russians will wear off shortly, although given how long it took for public sentiment against France to have any effect I am not optimistic.

> When it comes to problems in the developing world, I think we neglect to highlight Islam's role.

Some generalisation is inevitable but this is really so general as to be useless, and makes no attempt to engage with the situation in the states in question.

> It supplants local cultures and religions and Muslim-dominated countries tend to be caught in a stalemate between popular Islamist regimes and military dictatorship. Egypt is a prime example. Pakistan is looking more and more like a failed state.

It’s not like commentators ignore clearly identifiable problems relating to Islam in the region. One major commonality is the presence of Islamist insurgencies, and that’s hardly neglected by domain experts, local newspapers, or area studies journals. If you were to flesh out this claim more and provide more specifics, you will almost certainly find that commentators do not in fact neglect the factor you identify.

Moreover it’s not like there’s an enormous explanatory lacuna demanding Islam as the explicans. Is it surprising that countries with (several of) a long history of coups, poorly developed constitutional and institutional norms, extreme poverty, rampant violence, poorly developed civilian bureaucracies, and quiescent courts would experience coups? I hardly think so. Islam is not exactly a pre-requisite here.

The countries in question are often governed by régimes other than military dictatorships and populist Islamist régimes. Consider that Sankara was a Burkinabé—or, moving beyond those countries with recent military coups to Nigeria, Buhari or Jonathan. The previous governments in Mali, Gabon and Burkina Faso were not exactly particularly Islamist. They hardly distinguished themselves as particularly populist, and certainly weren’t ‘popular’.

I’m not sure who in Egyptian history you’d classify as a non-military populist Islamist dictatorship apart from Morsi who was in power for a very brief period. Egypt’s situation seems to require an analytic specificity beyond generalisations about the ‘developing world’.

As for Pakistan, it’s far from clear that it looks more like a failed state than previously. The economy is not in a particularly disastrous state (especially compared to e.g. Sri Lanka), Khan barely trampled on the constitution compared to Musharraf (since he didn’t have the chance), and the all-Pakistan services seem to function (insofar as that is the right word) in broadly the same fashion today as they did ten years ago.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com