"Why Arabs Lose Wars" Topic

Why Arabs Lose Wars
by Norvell B. De Atkine
Middle East Quarterly
December 1999

"Norvell De Atkine, a U.S. Army retired colonel with eight years residence in Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt, and a graduate degree in Arab studies from the American University of Beirut, is currently instructing U.S. Army personnel assigned to Middle Eastern areas. The opinions expressed here are strictly his own.

Arabic-speaking armies have been generally ineffective in the modern era. Egyptian regular forces did poorly against Yemeni irregulars in the 1960s.1 Syrians could only impose their will in Lebanon during the mid-1970s by the use of overwhelming weaponry and numbers.2 Iraqis showed ineptness against an Iranian military ripped apart by revolutionary turmoil in the 1980s and could not win a three-decades-long war against the Kurds.3 The Arab military performance on both sides of the 1990 Kuwait war was mediocre.4 And the Arabs have done poorly in nearly all the military confrontations with Israel. Why this unimpressive record? There are many factors—economic, ideological, technical—but perhaps the most important has to do with culture and certain societal attributes which inhibit Arabs from producing an effective military force.

It is a truism of military life that an army fights as it trains, and so I draw on my many years of firsthand observation of Arabs in training to draw conclusions about the ways in which they go into combat. The following impressions derive from personal experience with Arab military establishments in the capacity of U.S. military attaché and security assistance officer, observer officer with the British-officer Trucial Oman Scouts (the security force in the emirates prior to the establishment of the United Arab Emirates), as well as some thirty year's study of the Middle East."
link

interesting. thanks for that.

Lot of generalisations and assumptions; no explanation of why Jordan doesnt fit his premise for example.
"Theyre not like us" seems to be the gist of it.

Actually be thankful that they are the way they are would be my conclusion.

Same author, expands his central thesis, but looks at the problems of grafting Western military culture onto a disparate culture.

link

Have read/heard discussions touching on this subject but this is a good overview of many of them.

Now thats interesting.

Doc here: check the story of the Egyptian tank battalion. The CO was Fort Knox trained. The US advisor, the author, managed to get the manual for the US tanks the bn was equipped with translated, and proudly distributed them to all the crews. The Egyptian cmdr immediately went along behind and took up the manuals. He DID NOT WANT his troops to know what he knew, because that made them his equals and diminished his status.

I work with someone from that area (but he's been in the US for more than 30 years now) and I can see how certain things he's done fit in with the approaches and concepts mentioned in the article. Hmm--maybe I should use this knowledge…

Rob

true story. I taught a number of Arab students (high school) and once said something, inadvertently, that hurt one's feelings. Of course when I found out -- from ANOTHER student, an American -- I apologized, and then urged the Arab to tell me next time, immediately, if I said something that was distressful, as I would not mean it and wanted to know better.
Tthere was a long pause, and then the Arab said, quiety: In my culture, we do not show it when someone says something that hurts us; it gives them power over you.

Victor Davis Hanson says it's because they don't take war as seriously as we do.

Funny thing is that 90% of that would fit with Soviet army of the 70's and 80's. I am sure that even today there are some of the same elements exist in Russian army.

There have been a number of books on the subject. Like much of their culture, they are a bit behind the times and sometimes motivated by emotions. A good example is the Arab Irregular Cav, Lawrence lead in WWI against the Turks. They were good at raiding, came and went as they pleased. And were prone to tribal affilations as opposed to the big picture … among other faults …

I was trained as a Civil Affairs officer and went to Iraq in 2006. During the training, our primary adviser for cultural matters said, "Remember, at the core the Iraqis are Bedouins" (he was Arab, but not Iraqi). At the time, it reminded me of the resistance during the WWI Arab revolt to set aside tribal differences and coalesce as a people with shared goals. Once in Iraq, I began to understand that Iraq more resembled the antebellum US with lots of factions that were more interested in their tribe, town, or sect than a European federalist view of nationhood. I don't know that one is better than the other, but it is fundamentally different than most Americans or European citizens view their countries. More than once, the Iraqis acted against their self-interest as a Nation including loading up their cars (or camels) and getting out of dodge. I gather that this world-view is not limited to Iraq and it definitely speaks to challenges in successfully executing a prolonged military campaign when faced with a determined and focused enemy.

Lost Pict

Thanks for the link.

One reason Iraqis may not strongly identify with their nation is because it was created by Britain and France after WWI. Most of these countries were drawn up by Allied diplomats with the idea of divide and conquer.

This does not explain Egypt, which has a long history as a nation.

One explanation I've seen for the comparative skill of the Jordanians is that is was based on the Arab Legion, trained by British officers. I wonder if they still have that edge all these years later or are they resting on their laurels?

There was shook called "Arabs at War" and as I recall, a lot of blame was placed on the training of NCOs. Incidentally, I took some interview/interrogation training years back where they taught us how other cultures though (linear, non-linear, inter/external, etc.), what Doc MB and David previously stated is similar to what we were taught. Feelings could be easily hurt if you tried to be responsible and instruct why someone erred because this could be interpreted as condescending. Just goes to show that we all think and react to stimuli differently.

Robert thanks for posting the link to the article. I've read it before (and it's been kicking around online for years) but the link I had for it was dead. It's a very good article but it just scratches the surface. If you want more of an indepth view you should really read Pollack's book. link
That book should be required reading for all the internet tough guys who like to cheer for the other side. We all know that they won't read it because cockroaches (and certain under bridge dwellers) are allegic to sunlight.

cheers

There are more ways to fight a war than head-to-head 'my tank battalion can beat up your tank battalion'. That just happens to be the way we wargamers like to play at war.

That may be true zippy, I can't remember a Tank Bn vs. Tank Bn in that region (or any other for that matter) for quite some time …

What all of the above amounts to is that societies that are low trust have a hard time competing at any given level of technology with high trust societies. And if two societies are sufficiently far apart in war making ability, so that no "fair fight" is possible, then the only way the inferior society can win is through surprise -- I.e. Through treachery. Which of course is the norm for a low trust culture. there are all sorts of implications from this, none of them politically correct.

This can change over time, of course; time was when the Arabs swept over the known world, and then later when the Ottomans were the most advanced military in the world. Not so much in recent centuries.

one can see the same thing in starker terms with the European invasion of the New World; the Indians were thousands of years behind and could only win by surprise attacks, so wars were alternating massacres.

Wars between very unequal powers are always especially vicious and bloody.

I'm afraid you are all totally missing the point!.

It is all really quite simple. The Arabs were supported by the Soviet Bloc which provided arms, tanks and planes: so far, so good.

HOWEVER, the Russians also supplied tactical advisers and that's where it all started going wrong. After all, we all know that the main Russian tactic is "retreat into your own country and wait for the snow to fall".

Simple.

Alan

They will not be able to compete unless they have a similar revolution that the Enlightenment brought Europe. Their society is culturally, economically and technologically unable to move forward, unless they do. Liberal Islamic scholars have had recent debates about this and are despairing of the wave of fundamentalism, which entrenches this disparity between the Arab countries and the West.

It was why the Arab countries could defeat the West, when both had similar social structures, but were on the back foot when the West made her huge philosophical leap forward.

Thank you Milites, you have stated the issue clearly. In many ways Arab and Persian culture (the two are distinct just ask an Iranian) are locked socially in Medieval times. The general thinking in the Middle East and for that matter Africa and is geared more toward protecting the tribe than thinking of terms of a nation. Federalism is a better system than Confederalism. In essence the Arab nations are still a confederation based upon ethnic and religious agendas. We here in the West mainly think of the Suni/Shia(sp?) conflict but there are as many if not more denominations of Islam as there is among Christianity. Oh and there are other secs that are not Islamic that figure into this stew pot.

My view is a little bit different. Christianity has made it to the other side of modernism, bloodied but unbowed. And is exploding in Africa and Asia. It will be interesting to see towhat extent majority Christian societies in the global south can transcend the destructive aspects of modernism while benefitting from its useful parts. I think we are beyond Christendom -- rule by the church directly -- and those traditional societies, becoming Christian, seem to me to be likely to gain in level of trust, losing some if not all of their tribalism. But we could see the southern equivalent of Europe in the 16th to 18th centuries, with states of developing power that share Christianity but compete in terms of worldly power.

Not really certain how much of the warfighting capability has to do with religion so much as it has to do with the culture of the region (i.e tribalism, etc.).

KW, Didn't Pollack lose a lot of credibility when he wrote what turned out to be a very wrong book about the situation in Iraq in 2002 that made the case for war in Iraq? Not that I'm cheering for the other side, but I do think there's been a huge amount of lives lost pointlessly.
--
Tim

Lose credibility with whom? The people who waited until several years after the invasion to develop 20/20 hindsight? That book was written BEFORE the invasion. It made a case as to why Iraq should be invaded. It was not a blueprint on how to eff up an occupation. I suspect that Pollack gets a lot of grief from both extreme ends of the political spectrum – too gung ho for the whinging lefties and not gung ho enough for the killem all and let God sortem out crowd. In any case, whether you agree or disagree with his opinions on Iraq/OIF, it does not invalidate his other works – in particular the book I linked to.

cheers

I still see a lot of people are confused on which countries are Arab, Turkish or Persian in the area. I also don't think Berbers or Malays like to be lumped in as Arab either.

Still think the US should have created an independent Kurdistan just to everyone off. The funny thing is now the Turks have all but accepted one in Northern Iraq to get the oil and part of Syria is now controlled by Kurds. Iran has a large number of Kurds also. It would have been a thorn in Iran's side and perfect place to infiltrate people through.

Doug: I am with you on the Independent Kurdistan. Been too long, plus I think they would provide some good counterbalance to the region.

Warfighting and religion are directly linked, in that religion determines the course a society takes. This vital. contribution is often missed by some peoples headlong rush to remove its impact on history, of focus on its obvious failings. Christianity, as it has developed, is a religion of self-improvement, self-determination and a relentless search for understanding. It's why the Chinese, although officially persecuting its exponents, are trying to let some of this doctrine leak into its Confucian inheritance of familial conservatism, by a controlled process of theological osmosis.

Islamic societies are still controlled by their earlier, undeveloped, religious inheritance, that stresses ideas of divine will, unquestioning obedience to holy scripture, even to the detriment of societal development. This then locks in conservative attitudes, which directly feed into every aspect, including military capability. These theocracies survive under despotic rule, which subdues the tribal instinct, using iron will, a reflection of Islam's early genesis, and similar to older societies in the West.

Judeo-Christian religions are far more pragmatic and will readily adapt to the changing circumstances, often brought about by its proponents following its central doctrine of self-determination and creation of a unified society, 'heaven on earth'. Much to the dismay of the those who sought and still seek to gain power for their supporters alone. This unifying strain allowed stable societies that recovered remarkably quickly, from conflict and division, allowing the insatiable desire to 'know stuff' to continue. Knowing stuff allows technological leaps, unthinkable in present day Muslim societies, locked in religious aspic.

The danger is, that as Islamic societies are left behind, their immature theology will react aggressively, unable to countenance the reality of their inferiority, as that reality challenges the very thing that allows them to form semi-unified societies. Trouble is, the Judeo-Christian based societies, who they have been historically in conflict with since Islam's inception, will accelerate so rapidly that in 10-20 years time they will de-facto face virtual extinction, as semi-unified societies. If you think any of this is hyperbolic, perhaps, but 600 leading Imams recently met in Indonesia to ask, 'will Islam just become the religion of stagnant, backward nations?'

HOWEVER, the Russians also supplied tactical advisers and that's where it all started going wrong. After all, we all know that the main Russian tactic is "retreat into your own country and wait for the snow to fall".

That joke's wearing a bit thin now!

Appears to me the verdict is already in on that Milites.

HOWEVER, the Russians also supplied tactical advisers and that's where it all started going wrong. After all, we all know that the main Russian tactic is "retreat into your own country and wait for the snow to fall".

Simple.

Alan
------------------
though surprising how its caught out a number of supposedly (in their minds) more sophisticated Western European countries!

My father back in the 80s went over to Saudi Arabia to teach them how to use and maintain their Cadillac Gage V-100 Commandos for The Vinnell Corporation. He said that they really love running them all over the terrain ala "Rat Patrol" LOL. Robert

Mako, don't think we are quite there, but the growing energy revolution in the West will kill or cure any hopes of an Arab society, based on a nominal Western model. Forget nuclear weapons, (the Iranian attempt to build a bomb is a pathetic reminder how far behind Muslim countries have fallen behind) energy is the key. Which is why Israel has massively expanded her search and made impressive finds of natural resources.

The Arab desert states have crudely (pun intended) resisted the inevitable movement of history, by exploiting the West's need for cheap energy, remove that need and desertification is going to be the result. Once the Saudi money dries up, and their economy is rapidly degenerating (income per capita has fallen drastically) the latest surge of fundamentalism will wither and retreat, to wait for more fertile times.

For wargaming, you could have a scenario with various tribal factions fighting over a dying country, perhaps with a small SF team tasked with securing and escorting out some Western tourists. The tribes would have access to second generation Western/Eastern kit, but it would be in various states of disrepair as the supplies run out. Perhaps fighting in the dilapidated, once-glorious, Western built city-scapes.

"Thank you Milites, you have stated the issue clearly. In many ways Arab and Persian culture (the two are distinct just ask an Iranian) are locked socially in Medieval times. "

Hahahahaha – absurd like the majority of the posts.

"The danger is, that as Islamic societies are left behind, their immature theology will react aggressively…"

Ask secular Israelis about their orthodox "immature theologies"….and some of the IDF troops who fought in 2006. Or some of our guys for example during Anaconda…Hmm wasn't Marcus Luttrelll saved by those darn Muslims?

Quoting Pollock – sure thing if you think Israel should run the USA via AIPAC and its propaganda machine. And who operates the largest intel gathering ops in the USA? The so-called "Arabs?" No.

But then again let's spent trlllions on the Department of War while our country disintegrates as a society and its infrastructure. That's a good thing because then we create a lot of stupid people and the cycle continues…

Bill – you need to clean up your act and nuke racist threads like these – it has given TMP a bad reputation.

OUT

Too much reliance in Allah?

Ray! You're back! I noticed that you waited until after sunset to post. Has the sunlight been bothering you?

Let me introduce myself.

Allah Snackbar buddy!

Talking of reacting aggressively! When you post, try to refute points using facts, not recycled leftist talking points (Department of War, AIPAC etc) Playing the race card when the facts are hard to refute is not the sign of any confidence in your 'argument', if it could charitably be called one.

Your desire to repress any debate about its serious failings, mirrors Islam's reticence which ironically just accentuates the decline in the Muslim world.

Finally, with trillions of dollars of oil revenue, why is the Arab world not a scientific and technological powerhouse? Israel, if given a fraction of such revenue would have transformed the entire region.

WOW – did that awkward backwards individual just graphically demonstrate the exact point under discussion?

Hello all. I just want to say I appreciate the views and points you have posted. I in no way trying to denigrate any Arabs. Makes for a good discussion. For some others who posted. Well……Hmmmmm..…Ummmm…Wow.Though not really surprising.

'For wargaming, you could have a scenario with various tribal factions fighting over a dying country, perhaps with a small SF team tasked with securing and escorting out some Western tourists. The tribes would have access to second generation Western/Eastern kit, but it would be in various states of disrepair as the supplies run out. Perhaps fighting in the dilapidated, once-glorious, Western built city-scapes."

Sounds like a good game scenario Milites.What rules would be the best to represent this? Robert

This is a good article on the subject covering all the points raised plus several more. The content is covered in some of the other links but its in point form so quicker to read:

link

Robert, I was thinking of any rule system, but after all the shiny Western and slightly scuffed Eastern kit has been bought (the quality of cleanliness is not a racial slur but analogous to their relative effectiveness) the fun would begin.

Either randomly, by roll or by umpire, the weapon systems are degraded, so you might have bought three M1a1's/T-90's but…

Tank 1 can only move half speed has no TI and a dodgy crew (fanatical to Sheik Ullamabaludah III, but tactically lame).

Tank 2 is veteran but has a 10% chance of main gun failure, poorly maintained suspension and only single axis stabilisation for its main gun.

Tank 3? Oh, tank three has a 20% chance (rising by 5% each turn) of arriving, when it does it has a 10% chance of breaking down, if it moves more than half-speed.

All tanks have limited sophisticated ammo, or use second rate home made steel sabot.

They could battle equally dilapidated forces, where treachery and tribal affiliation rule. Think Twilight 2000, set in the crumbling infrastructure of once-decadent Sheiks. Troop quality could be a vast range, with loyalty trumping effectiveness, though morale would be high. You could have all manner of custom made kit as well, as seen in the many conflicts between the Ummah.

FOF, and AK-47 come to mind, but CW commander, with platoon effectiveness reduced. FOF could have a whole new set of Fog of War cards created, representing the failure of weapon systems, or treachery even!

As for denigrating Arabs, no one is, just the facts Madaam, just the facts.

As for Ray, YouTube link

LOL that someone talking about playing the race card, then goes down the ZOG route.

When in doubt call racism ? No doubt on occasion forces of the ME/SWA have given the West and the IDF a run for their money … but overall, like with sports teams, we tend to look at each team/force/army by it's over all record … When was the last time the Cleveland Indians won the World Series ? Oh, I forgot teams with names like the Indians, Redskins, etc. some consider racist !? Hell, my University's team was The Fighting Penguins ! I'm surprised PETA has not said anything !

Ah, Legion, there is one area they excel in, their education system. Such dedicated brainwashing and militarisation of children cannot be equalled in the West, hats off to Hamas!

link

I would have thought first aid and fire fighting would be essential skills if youre unlucky enough to live next to israel.

"Arabic-speaking armies have been generally ineffective in the modern era."

I recall that a few years ago while I was in Baghdad, the mighty army of the world's only superpower (mine) couldn't keep a 12km road from Baghdad airport to the city consistently open and cleared. And we call Arabic speaking armies ineffective?!

I shake my head again, when my SF friends in Afghanistan tell me how they are conducting training to develop the Afghan tribesmen into "proper soldiers". These are people who defeated the British Empire a century and a half ago (and very few opponents did that), defeated the Soviet Army (yep, the same people who defeated the Nazis), and have been fighting, and defeating, the mighty U.S. and our coalition for the past decade we've been in Afghanistan. And we presume to tell them how to fight?!

The error we are making in assuming that our (the West's) way of warfare is superior, because we beat the Nazis and the Japanese. Yet somehow we forget that warfare isn't always lining up armored divisions and sending in airstrikes. Warfare is a full spectrum experience, something the Vietnamese knew when they beat us, something that the Palestinians knew when they've been engaging (not winning against, but still fighting) the Israelis despite Israeli superiority on almost every level, and something the Iraqis demonstrated when we pulled out of their country of an unsuccessful decade spent attempting to pacify them.

Just because other peoples' methods of warfare are unconventional and different from ours, doesn't mean those methods are inferior. When will we ever learn that?

Yes they are, period. We have hamstrung our forces, so that instead of employing overwhelming force brutally and ending a conflict quickly, we drag it out for a decade to appease humanitarian sentiment.

You cannot keep a 12km piece of road clear because you did not level the surrounding buildings and declare a free fire zone. The Romans did so, we could, we choose not to, and our opponents have NO rules period. They can shoot our medics, ours waste resources caring for the enemy. They can disguise themselves as women, kill dozens of their children, just to attack a convoy. We have dozens of lawyers deciding what is and is not a suitable target. If you doubt me, look at Chechnya, brutal, immoral and unsophisticated conduct but effective. the Chechens have been reduced to rent-a-fundi status, and instances that do occur in their homeland are swiftly put down.

The Afghans did not defeat the Soviet Union, Western technical assistance did that, similarly it was Western technical expertise that greatly helped the Soviets in WWII.
The irony of all this is, is that this restraint is the by product of the ability, of a liberal-democracy to surpass any other society in the technology and conduct of war. If you have not done so, read the 'Utility of Force'.

As for Vietnam it was winnable, we just did not want to pay the price, rightly or wrongly, of driving home countless advantages offered to us, during the conflict.

We choose to restrain our potential power, against those who strain every sinew to fight to theirs, now tell me again who is superior?

Latto, absolutely, especially when terrorists stockpile missiles secretly in flats, in the same apartment you live in. Or take over greenhouses and turn them into launch sites for crude rockets that occasionally hit your neighbourhood.