Saleha Mohsin's Paper Soldiers: How the Weaponization of the Dollar Changed the World Order promises a deep dive into the US's strategic use of its financial power. However, this book falls far short of its ambitious subtitle, offering instead a superficial and uncritical account that reads more like routine beat reporting than insightful investigative journalism. While the book touches upon the weaponization of the dollar, this theme remains underdeveloped, overshadowed by a series of hagiographic profiles of US Treasury Secretaries, recounted with a disturbing lack of skepticism.
The Limitations of Beat Reporting as Book-Length Journalism
Mohsin, a Bloomberg News reporter covering the US Department of the Treasury, presents the book as a collection of anecdotes gathered from interviews with current and former Treasury officials. This approach, perfectly acceptable for short news articles, fails to deliver the depth and critical analysis expected of a book-length work. The reliance on "on-background" interviews, lacking attribution, raises serious concerns about the validity and completeness of the information presented. The narrative is further hampered by a breathless, dramatized prose style typical of routine news reporting, hindering a thorough examination of the complex issues at hand.
This book represents a significant missed opportunity. The strength of in-depth journalism lies in its ability to move beyond surface-level reporting. It should delve into the background of events, question the motivations and potential biases of interviewees, actively seek out contradictory evidence, and present a well-supported argument rather than simply transcribing interviews. International political economics is a field rife with competing theories and interpretations. A book on this topic should grapple with these complexities, offering the reader a nuanced understanding and a defensible perspective, rather than presenting a simplistic, unchallenged narrative.
The Unsubstantiated Assertions of Economic Power
The book frequently presents assertions about US economic power without offering sufficient evidence or acknowledging counterarguments. For example, it describes a virtuous cycle where trust in the dollar fuels cheap debt financing, driving innovation and military strength, further strengthening the dollar's dominance. While some elements of this assertion may hold some truth, the book presents it as self-evident, failing to engage with potential challenges or competing perspectives. The inclusion of seemingly random examples, such as airplanes and iPhones, to illustrate this point further weakens the argument's credibility.
The Myth of the Reserve Currency's Unchallenged Benefits
The book also inadequately addresses the complexities surrounding the US dollar's status as the world's reserve currency. While acknowledging the conventional wisdom that this status benefits the US economy, it fails to critically examine this assumption. The book asserts this conventional wisdom without acknowledging or engaging with the substantive critiques and questions surrounding it.
A critical analysis of this topic would require comparing the US's economic performance with that of countries whose currencies are not reserve currencies. While the book briefly mentions Japan and the UK, it fails to draw meaningful conclusions. The comparison of debt-to-GDP ratios and interest rates, for instance, reveals a far more complex picture than the book suggests. While the US debt-to-GDP ratio is high (around 125%), compared to Japan's much higher ratio (around 260%), Japan's interest rates on 10-year bonds remain significantly lower (around 1.2%) than the US (around 4.2%), and even lower than the UK's (around 4.5%). This highlights the inadequacy of a simplistic analysis that solely attributes low borrowing costs to reserve currency status. The book misses the opportunity to explore the numerous other factors influencing interest rates and government borrowing capacity, demonstrating a lack of rigorous analysis.
This lack of critical engagement extends beyond the economic aspects. The book also fails to adequately address the political implications of the dollar's dominance. While briefly mentioning the role of the dollar in facilitating US sanctions, it misses the opportunity to delve deeper into this critical aspect of the topic.
Glaring Errors and Lack of Fact-Checking
The book's credibility is further undermined by factual inaccuracies, such as its incorrect explanation of the Plaza Accord. The book claims that the concerted action of central banks purchasing dollars weakened the currency. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of basic supply and demand principles. Purchasing dollars on the open market would increase, not decrease, the dollar's value. This elementary mistake casts doubt on the accuracy of other claims made throughout the book, particularly those less easily verifiable.
The Weaponization of the Dollar: A Missed Opportunity
The book's most credible argument centers on the use of the dollar as a tool for international sanctions. The widespread use of the dollar allows the US government to exert significant influence and pressure on other countries by denying them access to the international financial system. This concentration of power raises crucial questions about its moral, practical, and diplomatic implications. This aspect of the dollar's role represents a far more compelling and significant narrative than the simplistic arguments concerning borrowing costs presented earlier in the book.
However, even this potentially rich area remains underdeveloped. The book fails to provide a deep analysis of the mechanics of sanctions and their consequences. It lacks a serious exploration of the ethical and geopolitical implications of using the dollar as a tool for coercive diplomacy. The opportunity to examine the global implications of this concentration of power and its potential for abuse is squandered, leaving the reader with a sense of incompleteness and frustration.
The Absence of Skepticism and Critical Inquiry
The book's most significant flaw is the author's lack of skepticism and critical engagement. The narrative relies heavily on the accounts of powerful individuals, accepting their accounts without adequate scrutiny. This approach is antithetical to sound journalistic practice. A good journalist should approach powerful figures and their statements with healthy skepticism, recognizing the possibility of bias or intentional misrepresentation. The failure to question assumptions and seek out alternative perspectives leaves the reader with a superficial and potentially misleading account.
The Degradation of Journalism: A Call for Greater Scrutiny
This book underscores a worrying trend in contemporary journalism: a tendency towards uncritical acceptance of narratives presented by powerful actors. The book is not an isolated example; this lack of skepticism and critical analysis has become increasingly prevalent in various media outlets. While not a new phenomenon, this trend is alarming. The responsibility of a journalist is not merely to report the statements of powerful individuals but to critically evaluate them, seeking alternative perspectives and verifying information. This book's failure to meet this standard highlights the need for greater scrutiny and a return to the core principles of investigative journalism. Readers must hold journalists accountable for delivering accurate, well-researched, and critically engaged content, rather than simply reproducing narratives provided by powerful sources. This requires active engagement with multiple perspectives and a robust commitment to questioning the information presented. The ultimate goal of journalistic writing should be to enhance the reader's understanding, not simply reinforce existing biases. This book sadly fails to meet this crucial benchmark, leaving the reader feeling disappointed and uninformed.