"Why Arabs Lose Wars" Topic

For the record I am a Christian… but we now enter the realms of why blowing kids apart using a drone isn't terrorism and yet doing so with a car bomb is.

Using your definition of fighting a war, the British apparently haven't gained any useful experience in Iraq or Afghanistan, and the Americans don't count in Afghanistan either as I think they're now outnumbered by the ANA.

As it is, Americans are remarkably unproductive from a scientific point of view – especially when compared to the British. Compare the relative tally of Nobels.

And then look up how many Nobels have been won by people born in the USA as opposed to enticed in by Harvard etc.

I wasn't only thinking of stem cell research, but there's the abortion debate also. And, a sit happens, the Iranians are IIRC quite good at stem cell research.

As it is, Americans are remarkably unproductive from a scientific point of view – especially when compared to the British. Compare the relative tally of Nobels.

And then look up how many Nobels have been won by people born in the USA as opposed to enticed in by Harvard etc.

Yes, the Americans have won three times as many as the British. There's a sign of lack of productivity for you!

On your last comment, you sorely misunderstand what it means to be American. A for effort though (and also A for hypocrisy, as many, many UK Nobel laureates were born elsewhere as well).

The British ego is a fragile thing (I should know, I have one).

Well like I said, "seems" like … since Turks have not been involved in any terrorists acts against the West, as far as I know, they seemed to have many less islamic fanatics if any, than many of the other muslim/islamic countries/regions … And stu, the drones strikes are not targeting non-combatants, but as long as the Taliban/AQ are hiding among civilians, it happens. When it come to guerilla warfare, the guerillas hiding among the masses is a standard tactic. IIRC, even Che' mentioned it somewhere in his methods. By the the govenmental forces killing both the guerilla and civilian in an attack like an airstrike or indirect fire, it just generates more support for the insurgents. But collatral damage is a factor in warfare. It is estimated that the allies killed over 60,000 French civilians in the liberation of France. So the allies were not targetting French civilians any more than Drones in Afghanistan. And targetting non-combatants is not a US/NATO tactic … it is a Taliban/AQ method … like executing Western doctors and aid workers … My point about the Albanians is they don't have the size or capabilities to fight a war on their own like the US, UK, France, etc. … Like the French on the ground in Mali … Don't think the Albanians could that … And NOW the ANA out numbers US forces on the ground … The ANA still needs to prove itself effective, IMO. No matter how much training they have recieved from the US/NATO … But as usual, I say it's "blue" you say it's "green", because our outlooks and life experiences are very different … I don't know what your point about "whose smarter" … and Americas are remarkably unproductive ? 43% of all new technology comes from the US … That figure sounds pretty good to me … BTW … (?!!!!) does this have to do why Arabs Lose Wars ??!?!?!

Yes, the Americans have won three times as many as the British.

From six times the population, making the British twice as productive.

Legion – I agree collateral damage is inevitable, just pointing out the Americans have admitted they haven't always been careful about targeting strikes.

Which is w Petraeus found it necessary to tighten ROEs, albeit for manned planes.

As it happens, the Albanians did briefly fight the Serbs in the Kosovo conflict – but only to discourage cross-border incursions.

But you're right, Albania can't do force projection. Few can. Which isn't to say they can't fight in wars.

As for the ANA, reports state they are getting pretty good. Or at least reasonable. Not NATO standards, but good enough to fight the Talibs.

My other points were merely pointing out a lot of lazy thinking and stereotyping about Arabs in particular and Muslims in general.

No the US was not always as careful as many would think, but bad things happen in combat zones … And throughout history, Commanders had to modify or change tactics and techinques, as Gen. Petraeus did … When the shooting starts thing can change, and usually do. Never said the Albanians couldn't fight in wars, and yes, they briefly fought the Serbs during the Kosovo conflict. More of a border dispute, but yes, they were at war … But that was over a decade or so. And yes, very few can do force projection the US being one of the few … I know the ANA is not up to NATO standards, probably never will be … however, I hope once more US and NATO troops are out of country, the ANA can effectively contain and attrite the Taliban and AQ types … so I'll wait and see … And I would like to think I was not stereotyping Arabs or muslims, but I base my comments on history both recent and in the past … To paraphase Sun Tzu, " Know Your Enemy … "

What's lazy is attacking any post that does not conform to your stereotypes of Arabs. The attempt to remove or absolve the culpability of Islam, for the Arab's poor performance in modern war is… amusing. As though this inconvenient fact can be simply be avoided or obscured, by widening the argument to include non-Arab nations. Though, using Muslim and Arab as interchangeable terms is common on both sides of the argument and not helpful

The bottom line, IMHO, is that the conduct of modern war poses serious problems for tribal and theocratic societies. To successfully prosecute them (border skirmishes and COIN do not count, nether does being a hanger on to a much larger Western operation) requires these nations to change just about every facet of their current societies. I very much doubt that that is in the offing, and the current regional situation reinforces this pessimism. It is also why I think spending money and treasure to kick start these societies, only to leave prematurely, is more likely to set the reformers back decades.

Stu, I know too many UK experts who think the ANA will fold/ be over-whelmed/defect in 6-12 months, some even trained them!

Tusaloosa "These are people who defeated the British Empire a century and a half ago (and very few opponents did that),"

A bit late in response, but the Afghans, apart from not being Arabs didn't defeat the British Empire, ever. Having captured Afghanistan for their ally/puppet Shah Shuja (a victory) the Brits left Afghanistan, except for a brigade in Afghanistan. That brigade was destroyed, having been given safe conduct to leave by Dost Mohammed. The Brits sent two columns back into Afghanistan as "The Army of Retribution", which defeated every Afghan force sent against it, captured Kabul, again, let everybody know that Dost Mohammed was defeated, liberated the prisoners taken earlier and left. Shah Shuja was already dead, having been assassinated, so with no ally/puppet, the Brits had no need to remain. In any case the perceived Russian threat had diminished, so occupation, which had never been an option or a policy, was even less likely. Was this a defeat of the British Empire? Questionable. But in military terms, that the Afghans could not prevent the capture of Kabul, although they tried, suggests that this wasn't a British defeat.
A brigade was defeated in 1880, at Maiwand, but the Afghans were thoroughly defeated subsequently, such that the Afghans accepted British terms at the Treaty of Kandahar. A defeat of the British Empire? No.
In 1919 the Afghhans invaded British India, but were again defeated.
In popular mythology the Afghans defeated the Brits, but the reality is different.

It's easy to dismiss the Arab world as primitive socially, and tribal, but the Arab "countries", as indicated earlier in this thread are nearly all western constructs. The French and the Brits, pretty much between them, and the Italians, divided the Ottoman Empire up into protectorates and Mandated Territories and administered them, with greater or lesser levels of limited self rule. Thus entirely artificial states were created with very limited cohesion and almost no sense of nationhood. That Arabs should value tribal loyalties over "national" loyalties is natural, not an aberration. Some Arab countries are less prone to tribal domination, like Jordan, some tribal structures are, or have been, controlled by hegemonic domination by one tribe, like Saudi Arabia, or Syria until recently.

Just for balance I will say that the USA were never as bad in Afghanistan as the Soviets were… and of course they do have a free media which ensures I know enough to complain.

Milites – the reason why I don't think Islam has much to do with why Arabs lose wars is that all of the poorly performing nations – Iraq, Syria, Egypt were avowedly secular nations with Soviet style command and control plus of course Soviet style corruption.

Arabs have won wars since WW2, just not against military super-powers like Israel, the USA and UK. Which is hardly surprising. The Algerians for example gave the French a splendid kicking and then fought and won a rather brutal COIN war against AQ-type guerrillas.

But since that didn't make Fox News I guess it didn't happen…

Oh – and how does Islam affect the Lebanese Army which has a poor performance against Israel?

Given much of it isn't actually Muslim but (and this will confuse a lot of people) still Arabic.

Very true Chouan, with much of the ME being divided into "artificial" states/regions, long standing tribal loyalties (and hatreds) would be a stronger bond generally than nationalism in many cases … Same could be said about Afghanistan. Thanks stu, for the compliment, yes, the US(NATO) never were as draconian as the (former)USSR … Free press is just one factor, though. And yes the Algerians did give the French run for the money in that conflict. But in the end, France after spending a lot of blood and treasure, gave the Algerians independence, somewhat after a number of problems/upsets … link … And maybe some others depend on FOX news for their information, but I prefer the net, books, etc. To paraphrase Mark Twain, "If you don't read the [news]paper you are uninformed and if you do read the paper you are misinformed." I'd say that generally cover much of the media, even today … And yes, I and many others know Lebanon has many Christians. {Today, it is estimated that the Christian population makes up about 41% of the total population.
The Maronites are the largest of the Christian groups about 21% of the population.} link I trained with a couple of Lebanese officers when I was an LT … Stu you really should be less condescending … Others here read and study history, current events, etc. Just because our/their opinions differ from your's does not mean its necessarily wrong … As I said before, I could agree with you … but then we'd both be wrong …

Much of the Lebanese army that isn't muslim aren't arabs either, but Maronites, and some of the Muslim Lebanese are Druze, so aren't arabs either.

I believe the "Arabs" or countries in the middle east(?) lost to Israel due to inferior training and tactics and especially poor morale. The Soviet Union supported anti-colonial and national liberation movements throughout the world. But lending those soldiers Soviet weapons and a crash course in tactics did not make up for the lack of discipline. And of course it did not help that Israel receives replacements for their losses in battle FAST…

I didn't read all the comments here, but wasn't there another war very recently? Israel sent forces into Lebanon and they were defeated? I read a little on this but not much. One difference I remember from this recent conflict is that the "Arabs" were not a "Soviet-style" deployment but their own concoction.

And also for the discussion on Turkey: First of all, Turks are Turkish right? Not Arab? Second, I am pretty sure that Turkey like Greece has been a series of US-backed military dictatorships for most of the 20th century. The "democracy" is a recent event, no?

And lastly to add more confusion to this topic. A lot of blame is probably put on Soviet weaponry. However, wasn't Jordan mostly US-supplied? It appears that above all, Israeli soldiers have more commitment and better tactics. Or they used to have more commitment… anyways this is my entry to this discussion

Jordan is mostly US and British equipped and its officer class British trained.

As such they were always rated highly by the IDF.

In 1973 they gave the Syrians a decent if perfuntory slapping.

Yes, some US units, like the Rangers have trained in Jordan with their military, in the past. The Jordanian forces gave the IDF a run for the money in '48 and '67 … In 1970 the Syrians sent an Armored Div into Jordan to support the Palestinians … And in '73 Hussien of Jordan warned the Israelis about the invasion. But I don't of any combat between Syria and Jordan in '73 … link The Syrians were too busy with the IDF … AFAIK …

Apologies – I meant 1970….

Syrians invaded with a armoured division and eventually defeate the armoured brigade opposing them, only to withdraw once the Jordanian Air Force started bombing them.

That's what I thought … thought I missed something …