"Pentagon: The Iraqi Army Abandoned Tanks, Artillery..." Topic

stu can't help showing his somewhat Anti-US bias, it's part of who he is. And he is very pro-Arab, etc. and that is fine and his choice. We all favor certain peoples, places, etc. … But again, bottom line here, in my mind, the record and history is clear. The IDF defeated the Arab Forces in '48, '56, '67 and '73. Yes some of the Arabs fought better than others, yes they killed members of the IDF, yes, the Arabs won some battles. But again … bottom line … the Arabs lost. In WWII the UK, France, US, etc. lost some battles, but in the end … the allies won.

Legion4--

Every time we try to discuss the *actual* military performance of the Arabs, some knucklehead decides to prove his moral superiority by (metaphorically) screaming RAAACCIIIISSSTTT at anyone who simply acknowledges the facts. Ironically, by their own "logic", these knuckleheads are antisemitic, since they typically demonstrate considerable animus towards the Israelis. I guess in what passes for rational thought in their tiny little brains, accurately relating actual Arab performance = racism, while misrepresenting Israeli performance to make them look far worse = social justice and tolerance. Very intellectual.

And invariably, these sanctimonious poseurs know relatively little about the subjects that they confidently moralize about.

In any case, Arab military ineptitude is a well-known and deeply researched phenomenon. (See Pollack's "Arabs at War" for instance.) The reason for this ineptitude seems to be the attitudes ingrained by Arab tribal culture, which makes it nearly impossible for Arabs to create armies capable of matching Western militaries. The simple fact is that modern Arab military history is largely characterized by ineptitude. Even when they have moments of brilliance (the 1973 Suez crossing, for instance), any advantage gained is invariably squandered through ineptitude (the encirclement of the Egyptian Third Army).

By contrast -- and much to the knuckleheads' chagrin-- the IDF has performed superbly and has amassed a record of military excellence that any army would envy. Nor is there any real evidence that the IDF has somehow lost a step. (The social justice folks should be aware that wishful thinking is not evidence). Like any organization, it makes mistakes. But it usually aggressively acts to correct those mistakes (unlike Arab armies, which seem condemned to repeat the same mistakes over and over).

Them's the facts, and they ain't gonna change.

I agree totally … And yes, it has been well researched by many that prove the "facts". It's like sports teams … we know who the good teams and players are. And their records show that and make in clear.

Er… I'm discussing FACTS as well. And I fail how discussing the IDF remotely brings in an anti-US bias…

The fact is the Egyptians were, at the beginning of the Yom Kippur War, handing out a splendid beating to the Israelis and, ever since the Israelis have left the Egyptians alone.

Against ATGWs and SAMs the Israleis were shown to be tactically naive, their attitude towards the Egyptian military was arrogant and they suffered accordingly.

Now given someone ahs said Arabs are useless, have always been useless and will always been useless it's difficult to get away from the idea of racial stereotyping…

…especially as, as noted by the Iranians today, the Iraqis are showing considerably more fight than the Americans (or British) right now with respect to ISIS.

If you think the IDF hasn't lost a step, then you're is disagreement with th IDF itself which was less than impressed with its record in Lebanon in 2006.

And let's remember they did get thrown out of Lebanon in the 1980s…

Regarding how 'Arabs can't fight'…

Exactly how many Coalition servicemen did we lose in Iraq after a certain vainglorious genetleman declared 'Misison Accomplished?'.

Seems to me they can fight exceptionally well. That they're not stupid enough to fight on our terms doesn't alter the fact that both our nations ultimately achieved very little in Iraq due to the insurgency.

And who do you think ISIS are? The Grenadier Guards?

Second Lebanon War was regarded as a "missed opportunity" and that "Israel initiated a long war, which ended without a defined military victory". The report continued to state that "a semi-military organization of a few thousand men resisted, for a few weeks, the strongest army in the Middle East, which enjoyed full air superiority and size and technology advantages". Furthermore, Hezbollah's rocket attacks continued throughout the war and the IDF did not provide an effective response to it.

Winograd report.

Tell me again about the IDfs shining record? They don't think they won the war in 2006 even if you do.

They didn't stop the rocket attacks, which was the prime objective, and lost a lot of men achieving exactly nothing except killing a lot of Lebanese.

Exactly how many Coalition servicemen did we lose in Iraq after a certain vainglorious genetleman declared 'Misison Accomplished?'.

Too many … It's Memorial Day over here … we are reminded again … Between Iraq and A'stan the US lost @ 5500 … Again too many …

Seems to me they can fight exceptionally well.

Syrians were also brave on the Golan Heights in '73, it was their command which made the mistakes.

And let's not forget Lawrence…

Bill is right – what defeated the Syrians in 1973 was Soviet doctrine which stated gains should be consolidated.

This gave the Israelis time to counter-attack.

Had the Syrians kept going as a Western Army would have done, the IDF had nothing to stop them…

As I've mentioned on another thread, all armies run – and for a day or so in 1973, the IDF ran in some places.

Whereas I doubt it'll make much impression on certain people here who place more trust in academics than actual reality, the Iraqi Army, in association with the militias – who manage to be both effective AND Arab – have been defeating ISIS in Anbar.

BBC are reporting Western intelligence expects Anbar to have been cleared on ISIS by the end of the year.

From the news report it seems the militias are providing the infantry whilst the Iraqis Army provides the artillery and support services.

I'll be charitable and assume that hasn't made the US media.

I'll be charitable and assume that hasn't made the US media.

Have not heard anything in the US media about the Iraqis clearing anything …

"Er… I'm discussing FACTS as well. And I fail how discussing the IDF remotely brings in an anti-US bias…"

Actually, holding you to your own "reasoning", your obvious animus towards the IDF is strong evidence of antisemitism. After all, if discussing actual Arab ineptitude = racism, then surely mentioning imaginary Israeli ineptitude must mean antisemitism. Applying your reasoning that is.

I am curious, though. How is it that a superb army like the Egyptian army managed to get itself surrounded and cut off by a numerically inferior opponent that (you claim) was receiving a "splendid beating"?

And blaming Soviet tactics for the Syrian ineptitude demonstrates a staggering lack of knowledge of Soviet operational art *and* what actually happened in 1973. Here's a thought -- maybe, just maybe, the Syrians were inept and unable to translate Soviet doctrine into actual battlefield performance? Maybe, they are just like every other Arab army -- woefully ineffective against a modern opponent due to numerous cultural issues that interfere with creating a cohesive, Western style military?

Yes, I think I read that in a book somewhere…

As for the Iraqis, well, they are apparently continuing a long tradition of military ineptitude. As I noted in my first post in this thread, the QJM rated the Iraqis and Palestinians as the worst of the Arab militaries.

You might consider reading some of the works of military analysis who have studied Arab military ineffectiveness. Kenneth M. Pollack's "Arabs at War" is exhaustive and well researched. A much shorter work is Norvell de Atkine's "Why Arabs Lose Wars". de Atkine is a colonel with eight years residence in Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt, and a graduate degree in Arab studies from the American University of Beirut. He instructs US Army personnel assigned to Middle Eastern areas.

Pollack and de Atkine list several cultural factors that hinder the development of an effective military -- "These attributes included over-centralization, discouraging initiative, lack of flexibility, manipulation of information, and the discouragement of leadership at the junior officer level."

"Arab political culture is based on a high degree of social stratification, very much like that of the defunct Soviet Union and very much unlike the upwardly mobile, meritocratic, democratic United States. Arab officers do not see any value in sharing information among themselves, let alone with their men. In this they follow the example of their political leaders, who not only withhold information from their own allies, but routinely deceive them. Training in Arab armies reflects this: rather than prepare as much as possible for the multitude of improvised responsibilities that are thrown up in the chaos of battle, Arab soldiers, and their officers, are bound in the narrow functions assigned them by their hierarchy. That this renders them less effective on the battlefield, let alone places their lives at greater risk, is scarcely of concern, whereas, of course, these two issues are dominant in the American military culture, and are reflected in American military training."

I'd add that De Atkine wrote a follow up article in 2013, in which he concluded that little has changed with Arab militaries since he wrote "Why Arabs Lose Wars" in 1999. Here's a salient summary:

"As Churchill wrote, [of Egyptian soldiers under British command in the early 20th century] 'The recruits were treated with justice. Their rations were not stolen by officers. The men were given leave to visit their villages from time to time. When they were sick they were sent hospital instead of being flogged. In short, the European system was substituted for the Oriental.'

"Exactly 100 years later, I was observing the Egyptian army, and I realized, in reality, how little things had changed. The officers did not steal from their men, but they used them as indentured servants working on their farms and cared very little for their rations, which usually consisted of bread, some onions, a little dried fish, beans, tea, and sugar. Watching a truck roll into the unit area with the cargo bed piled high with bread being held down by soldiers standing or sitting on it, gives some idea on the care that went with their rationing. Moreover soldiers could buy supplemental food items from a sort of unit-level Post Exchange in which very often the unit officers would retain the profits. I did not see soldiers flogged, but I did witness soldiers being slapped and pushed around.

"The Egyptian officers were not barbarians or uncaring brutes. It was and is a way of life inculcated by centuries of living in a specific environment. The Egyptian soldier expected nothing more. I once asked an Egyptian officer why the officers got into their autos and drove off to Cairo on Thursday afternoons, leaving their soldiers stranded in the desert and having to hope they could hitch a ride to Cairo on a passing truck. His answer was that to give them a ride or in any way assist their way into Cairo would only perplex and confound them. The same concept that officers have privileges and are fools not to take advantage of them is pervasive throughout the Arab world. For example, in the U.S. Army and British Army, traditionally the officers eat after the last soldier has gone through the mess line. Not so in the Iraqi army nor among the Bedouin troops of the Israeli Defense Forces,and certainly not in the Egyptian army I served with."

From "Western Influence on Arab Militaries -- Pounding Square Pegs into Round Holes".

Why should anyone be shocked that these cultural norms tend to create armies that lack cohesiveness and that are ineffective against Western armies?

Here's a thought -- maybe, just maybe, the Syrians were inept and unable to translate Soviet doctrine into actual battlefield performance? Maybe, they are just like every other Arab army -- woefully ineffective against a modern opponent due to numerous cultural issues that interfere with creating a cohesive, Western style military?

Perhaps. Of course, substandard training plays a role. But you can't say they weren't individually brave.

True, Bill. But individual bravery doesn't make-up for tactical incompetence, the lack of a professional NCO corps, the lack of a professional officer corps, the inability to be flexible on the battlefield and the wholesale lack of decent training. All of which were on display by the Syrians of 1973.

I never said they weren't brave. I said that they were ineffective compared to Western armies. Of course, I don't see any particular evidence that the Syrians overall were more valorous than the Israelis. But then most of the first person accounts tend to be from the Israeli side. This is not from any sense of bias. Rather, the Arab world has an astonishingly small number of non-religious books published annually. (See the 2002 and later UN "Arab Human Development Reports" for details; the report states that the entire Arab World of 270 million people translate on.y 1/5 the number of books each year that Greece does.)

Er… I'm discussing FACTS as well. And I fail how discussing the IDF remotely brings in an anti-US bias…

The fact is the Egyptians were, at the beginning of the Yom Kippur War, handing out a splendid beating to the Israelis and, ever since the Israelis have left the Egyptians alone.

Stu, you still haven't explained the second act of the Sinai battles. You know, the part where Egypt abandoned their defensive strategy and went over to the offensive after being begged by Assad to take the pressure off the Golan (where Syria was getting pounded to a pulp)? That would end in an Egyptian army surrounded, the canal crossed by the Israelis, and Israeli armor columns rolling up the SAM belt with the next stop downtown Cairo (with no opposition in sight)? Would you please explain THAT to me, Stu?

As for the Israelis leaving the Egyptians alone: They signed a peace accord (it was in all the papers, you know) that basically ended in a 'win/win' for both sides. And considering the 'wonderful' help that Egypt's 'Arab brethren' gave her in 3 wars, I don't blame her for cutting a good deal and telling her supposed 'friends' to pound sand…

Coastal2 --

Good point about the Arab inability to create functional alliances and tendency to lie to their "allies". DeAtkine addresses this in his article:

"The same lack of trust operates at the interstate level, where Arab armies exhibit very little trust of each other, and with good reason. The blatant lie Gamal Abdel Nasser told King Husayn in June 1967 to get him into the war against Israel—that the Egyptian air force was over Tel Aviv (when most of its planes had been destroyed)—was a classic example of deceit. Sadat's disingenuous approach to the Syrians to entice them to enter the war in October 1973 was another (he told them that the Egyptians were planning total war, a deception which included using a second set of operational plans intended only for Syrian eyes). With this sort of history, it is no wonder that there is very little cross or joint training among Arab armies and very few command exercises. During the 1967 war, for example, not a single Jordanian liaison officer was stationed in Egypt, nor were the Jordanians forthcoming with the Egyptian command."

Stu also failed to explain how, in the process of administering a "splendid beating" to the IDF, the Egyptians lost from ~4 times as many men as the IDF -- 2800 vs 5-15,000 Egyptian KIA, with 3-3.5k Syrian KIA. And of course, the Egyptians lost 2.5 times as many tanks.

Finally, there were numerous accounts of Syrian and Egyptian atrocities committed against Israeli prisoners. (Many of these accounts came from the Syrians and Egyptians themselves. "Syrian Defense Minister Mustafa Tlass stated that he had awarded one soldier the Medal of the Republic for killing 28 Israeli prisoners with an axe, decapitating three of them and eating the flesh of one of his victims".)

Sadat's disingenuous approach to the Syrians to entice them to enter the war in October 1973 was another (he told them that the Egyptians were planning total war, a deception which included using a second set of operational plans intended only for Syrian eyes).

Wasn't aware of that. But it explain much. Admittedly, I haven't read DeAtkine's book (something i should probably do). Thanks, Ty.

Yes, apparently the Syrians might have declined if they'd known that the Egyptian was simply to cross the canal, then dig in and await a ceasefire. So Sadat lied to them.

De Atkine's article can be found here link

Pollack's book is available on Amazon and is available in ebook format as well as physical version here: link

Coastal, I never said the Egyptians were as good as the IDF in 1973. I merely point out that on occasion, they did beat the IDF which rather proves that a) The IDF aren't supermen and b) Arab armies can get their act together.

Wtaht they can't do is get their act together consistently and the IDF can – which is why the IDF usually won.

When they met up with an organisation that was also well disciplined and trained – Hezbollah – by their own admission things didn't go so well.

"knucklehead"

"knuckleheads"

"what passes for thought in their tiny little brains"

"these sanctimonious poseurs"

How are those not attacks?

Having met and trained with officers and men from both Israeli and Arab armed forces, I have to agree that there was, at that time, a massive qualitative gap between them, most of which was due to culture, leadership and structures. Generally, this still seems to be the case. However, when those issues are overcome, the Arabs tend to make excellent fighters and good soldiers. Glubb is a far better example of this than Lawrence.

The problem is that there seems to be little chance of the situation improving, as the issues are cultural. And culture changes (if at all ) at a truly glacial rate. I also note that, despite Glubb's purported accomplishments, the Jordanians were unable to outperform the Israelis in 1948 and 1967. That said, they were the best of the Arab forces arrayed against Israel.Though that's not saying very much.

The notion that Arabs are somehow getting better is unsupported by the evidence. As noted above, Dupuy's QJM indicated that the Israeli qualitative gap increased after the 1967 and 1973 wars. De Atkine says this about the Egyptians:

"Following the 1973 war, my observations were that the Egyptian army returned to a business as usual and standards declined. The Egyptian army and its commanders became enmeshed in the economy of Egypt, with defense industries making washing machines and other consumer goods. The army increasingly set itself apart from the people. The regime went to great lengths to ensure the loyalty of the junior officer corps, providing subsidized housing and automobiles. The old plagues of nepotism and wasta returned…"

I'd also note that it is not terribly useful to state that when cultural issues are overcome the Arab can make good fighters. It's the cultural issues that make them militarily ineffective and there is no evidence that these issues can be overcome. Despite 60 years of lavish military spending and fighting four major wars, the various Arab nations are still militarily incompetent.

So essentially, you're saying that "when the things that make them awful are overcome, they will cease to be awful." While logically correct, the statement doesn't really get us very far. It also seems predicated on wishful thinking, rather than any historical evidence that changes are possible.

tbeard,

The inability of the Jordanians to defeat the Israelis is not the point; the point is that Glubb managed to overcome many of the issues that tend to prevent Arab armies becoming competent fighting forces and turned the Arab Legion/Jordanian army into a force that outperformed any of its peers by a very large margin.

As to the cultural aspect, my point was that those who dismiss criticism of Arab armies as racism are incorrect, as the problems that those armies face are not to do with ethnicity but with culture, leadership and structures. An Arab is not inferior to any other "race", which is what a racist would believe.

Londongamer--

I agree with most of what you said. However, I do not thing that Glubb's achievements are anywhere near as impressive as some think, I also think that the evidence is overwhelming that any changes made by Westerners to overcome Arab culture are extremely temporary. Again, de Atkine says it better:

"Imparting Western values and soldierly ethos to the Arab armies has been, as someone once observed, like teaching dance steps without the music. They memorize the steps but never get the tempo or the rhythm of the Western military traditions. While there is some evidence that Arab soldiers historically performed better under European officers, there is no evidence that the tradition of command ethos outlived the departure of the officers."

While it is true that race is not the same as culture, I think the evidence indicates that culture is nearly as immutable as race (at least for those people who are part of the culture). In any case, I tire quickly of witless social justice types screaming RAAAAAACCCCIIIISSTTT every time the historical impact of culture is mentioned (with the notable and bizarre exception that it's is apparently not racist to condemn Western [or Israeli, in this context] culture).

*That* by the way is what I call a "knucklehead" (among other, more vivid terms). Not accusing you of that by the way, just clarifying.

tbeard – well the last time the Israelis fought any Arabs other than the Palestinians, by their own admission they didn't do that well.

Come to think of it, they lost (comparatively) a lot of people last time they went into Gaza also.

Whereas 1973 is a long time ago, it's worth noting the aftermath of that war was that Egypt attained its objectives – it regained Sinai and the Israelis abandoned their settlements.

That Israel abandoned land rather than do it all again might suggest they had a shrewd appreciation that the Arabs were improving…

Incidentally, isn't Kurdish culture practically the same as Arab?

Given the Kurds seem to be doing rather well, this would appear to ruin the hypothesis…

Assuming, of course, my original statement is correct.

The Kurds are somewhat diverse ethnically, but they are linguistically and culturally Persians. So no, they are not of the same culture as Arabs. That said, many non-Arab Muslim cultures share some common cultural traits due to the influence of Islam. In addition, many traits can commonly be found among most third world cultures Amoral familism -- the inability to establish trusting relationship with anyone outside one's clan -- is the most common trait of third world cultures that seriously hinders military effectiveness.

The interesting thing about the Arabs is that their particular cultural mix seems to turn out armies that are ineffective even by third world standards. The reason for this is unclear, but it seems to me that the Arabs have managed to have a perfect storm of cultural traits that hinder development of effective militaries.

Regarding the IDF, recall that I am speaking of conventional military effectiveness. Effectiveness in insurgencies is notoriously hard to define and highly subjective. Indeed, such analyses are often so subjective and distorted by bias as to be useless.

For some people, the IDF has never done well in any war or insurgency. The almost complete lack of objective criteria in such statements makes it impossible to evaluate them.
At the very least, anyone criticizing the IDF performance in (say) 2006 should state *specifically* what the IDF would have had to do for the speaker to agree that the IDF performed well. This would allow a meaningful debate, rather than the emotional condemnations that so often pass for "critiques" of the IDF.

When I pose this question, I rarely get a specific answer.

And competent militaries *always* subject themselves to post-hoc analysis. They frankly admit their failings and make whatever changes they think necessary to avoid the same mistakes in the future. I believe that such candor, particularly when delivered openly, is indicative of a superlative organization (assuming, of course, that they attempt to make the changes required).

By contrast, Arab culture places a premium on blame-shifting, a trait reflected in Arab militaries. No one would expect an organization (or a people) that is incapable of accepting responsibility to improve. Unsurprisingly, objective evidence of such improvement in Arab militaries is minimal. Again, de Atkine says it better than I can:

"Taking responsibility for a policy, operation, status, or training program rarely occurs [in Arab armies]. U.S. trainers … repeatedly encounter Arab officers placing blame for unsuccessful operations or programs on the U.S. equipment or some other outside source. … (It should be added, and is important to do so, that this criticism was never caustic or personal and was often so indirect and politely delivered that it wasn't until after a meeting that oblique references were understood.) This imperative works even at the most exalted levels. During the Kuwait war, Iraqi forces took over the town of Khafji … after the Saudis had evacuated the place. General Khalid bin Sultan, the Saudi ground forces commander, requested a letter from General Norman Schwarzkopf, stating it was the U.S. general who ordered an evacuation from the Saudi town. And in his account of the Khafji battle, General Bin Sultan predictably blames the Americans for the Iraqi occupation of the town. In reality the problem was that the light Saudi forces in the area left the battlefield. The Saudis were in fact outgunned and outnumbered by the Iraqi unit approaching Khafji but Saudi pride required that foreigners be blamed."

Bangorstu,

The Kurds that I met and worked with during Safe Haven were very different culturally from the Arabs.

tbeard – well, regarding the IDF, I'll simply quote what their own report said.

They went into Lebanon to stop the missile attacks. After several weeks, with totral air superiority and a massive advantage in technology and resources, they failed to do so.

They didn't achieve what they se tout to do. I call that a Fail.

Candour is obviously a good thing. Except some people won't take that candour as an answer…

Let me comment on tbeards "responsibility" statements. I knew a Navy pilot that was an instructor at flight school for Iranian pilots (Shah period). These were the best and brightest the Iranians could send over. When going over the engine restart procedure for a flamed out engine one student raised his hand and questioned "Well if the engine quit doesn't that mean it's Allah's Will that the plane crashes and you should not try to restart it?"

Many Muslems are very fatalistic about things going bad. Some nationalities worse than others. It's no ones fault, Allah wills it. Nothing you can do about it. I've know many Westerners that worked with Saudi nationals in Arabia that came back with the same observation. They think differently than Westerners. Corruption and graft are a normal way of business and they do not negotiate with good faith as negotiating is simply another strategy to screw your enemy. Playing fair is seen as stupid so naive American politicians with the agenda to look good back home look good there and are ridiculed and screwed over by their enemy. Western politicians need to worry about getting re-elected, dictators and religious leaders don't.

It seems to me America does not fight wars anymore to win. They could turn any country into a nuclear wasteland. They fight to maintain viable overseas trading partners because that's what their economic system is based on and their national security is based on having these stable trading partners. Stability and a somewhat capitalistic type economy are key. Saudi Arabia gets a pass because they are the ones propping up the dollar as the reserve currency and buy lots of goods from the defense establishment. Without them the entire system unravels. They have paid millions of dollars to the most influential politicians, lobbyists and legal firms (not just the Clintons) in DC and "K" Street to make their influence felt. Of course it helps when the rest of the world economy is sucking wind and other currencies are not challenging the US dollar for dominance.

The West is engaged in an ideological and economic struggle (not just a military war) and the Will of the people to fight and continue that struggle will determine who gains the advantage. There will be no clear winner or loser.

Westerners are weak willed (for the most part) and many western countries are more concerned about satisfying the desires of their sodomites and how and when they can best kill their pre-born children while trying to import more people that are favorable to the Jihadists and not freedom and democracy. Put yourself in a Jihadist position with all of this happening and you may get the idea that you've already won the battle as the West is killing themselves with a thousand small cuts until they bleed to death or fail to reproduce because of declining birth rates.

The Jihadists will to fight has been bolstered by their victories and the inability of America to stay and fight. European countries with few exceptions will not engage militarily. When a country has weapons they won't use (nuclear weapons) the Jihadist enemy views them as weak. Whenever the enemy leaves their territory they see it as a victory they earned as they scared the enemy away even if they lost every military engagement. Even if only 10% of the Muslim world supports the Jihadists that's over 100 million supporters and as they gain momentum that number will grow.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag, hope your incendiary last paragraph does'nt put you in the DH.

I see your point. Americans (as in the "average citizen") are more interested in Kim Kardassian on TMZ than world news and the Islam-Christian divide. Will that be the end of Western Civilization as we know it? Only time will tell I suppose.

Bangorstu--

I've said it before, but maybe you missed it -- I am talking about military effectiveness in a conventional war. Dupuy's QJM is designed to predict performance in conventional conflicts, not insurgencies. I see no evidence to assume the IDF has somehow lost a step in its conventional effectiveness. An inability to quickly deal with a small (by 1973 or 1967 standards) insurgency isn't relevant to that, in my opinion.

And I am uninterested in debating IDF (or US) performance in anti-insurgency operations. Mainly because many critics take it as axiomatic that insurgencies cannot be defeated by Western powers (or at least by Israel and the US), so they twist every bit of evidence to support this belief. History contradicts this axiom, but many folks are so emotionally invested in this belief that no amount of contrary evidence will persuade them to change their minds. I prefer not to waste time with people like that.

If the IDF was dissatisfied with its performance in 2006, so be it. The IDF has a strong record for being flexible and able to (quickly) change. As noted above, I do not think that an unsatisfactory performance in a short 2006 insurgency sheds any light at all on the IDF's effectiveness in a conventional war.

Out of curiousity, in your opinion, what anti-insurgent operations has the IDF ever succeeded in?

Wolfhag, don't give up the ship just yet. For most of its history, the US has been criticized for being soft, unwilling to fight, unable to give up material comforts, unwilling to suffer casualties, etc.

Yet every time that is tested, the consequences are typically grievous for our enemies. The Germans, Italians and Japanese found this out the hard way. We killed so many Chinese in Korea that *China* tired of the carnage. In Vietnam, the war we "lost", our enemy admits to losing TWENTY men for each of our men lost. Even higher ratios are found in Mogadishu, Iraq and Afghanistan.

So if you're gonna tangle with the US, you'd better bring lots of guys…

tbeard,
You don't have to tell me, I'm a Vietnam Era Marine Grunt and my son is with the 1st Marine Division right now. Yes, our enemies have underestimated us many times in the past. I'm talking about the enemy within. We have met the enemy and he is us. We can win militarily but can we win ideologically and have the will to fight the long fight? I'm confident but it won't be pretty.

Before my son enlisted I had him read Smedley Butlers book, "War is a Racket" but also explained to him that the economic system we have is not perfect but the best to bring freedom to other countries which fosters peace and increases our national security. Capitalism in the last 50 years has brought hundreds of millions of people in countries like China, India and Africa out of extreme poverty while the opposite Communism/Socialism system has enslaved and killed millions. Of course not without it's causalities and hopefully in the future we can fine tune the economic system to rely less on conflict but for the near future it's worth fighting for.

A few years ago we hosted a Vietnamese exchange student. She told me how the south of Vietnam is very much capitalistic (less communist anyhow) and how they still call Ho Chi Minh City Saigon. Her dad has his own HVAC servicing company. By the way, she said if she does not get a 4.0 average both of her parents will physically beat her when she gets home. They are spending their life savings on her education. She said the people appreciate what the Americans did as it left behind a spirit of freedom that I feel someday will catch throughout the entire country. We didn't "lose" as the struggle for freedom continues and will eventually win thanks to the blood we shed over there. It's not over and as the world economy moves from China to other countries like Vietnam it will move them further from socialism and more towards freedom.

When you hear Jihadists claim they are fighting against "democracy" you may think they are against freedom and individual rights. Wrong. They recruit people from 3rd world country villages by telling them that if democracy comes to their village their father will want a sex change operation, their mother will become a prostitute and abort all of her babies, their brother a homosexual and they'll become addicted to drugs. Then to prove their point they show them western magazines depicting very graphically what they should be afraid of. It's not just the 72 virgins. Sure, call them hypocrites and claim the moral high ground but it will do you no good.

Fanatik, what's the DH? Is that the Politically Incorrect Gulag? It wasn't meant to be incendiary, just calling them like I see them.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag, let me extend a belated Happy Memoral Day to you and yours.

In general, I agree with the points you've made. For what it's worth, I'm an optimist when it comes to the U.S. version of Western Civilization*. I think that historically, Americans tend to not pay much attention to the outside world. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is debatable, but the tendency runs deep in our national DNA. Many people choose to interpret this as fecklessness and go on to infer that we are weak, cowardly, etc. In my opinion, nothing could be more wrong. Disinterest in the outside world is exactly that -- disinterest. It has *nothing* to do with moral courage, willingness to fight and take casualties, etc. At the end of the day, the American people will, I believe, support the obliteration of anything they deem a serious threat. We just don't yet see radical Islam as an existential threat. I believe that we will eventually and when we do, a lot of very foolish Muslims will die (along with a much smaller number of Americans). History shows that Western democracies, when morally outraged and in existential fights, are pitiless foes.

*I'm far less certain about Europe. They (or at least their political leaders) seem absurdly willing to allow key elements of Western Civilization (free speech for instance) to be eroded by hostile immigrant populations. But since I don't live there, I really can't say for sure that this is the case. All I can say is that I am troubled by incidents like in Rotham, UK where political correctness led the authorities to systematically ignore rampant sexual abuse by Muslim men (euphemistically called "Asians") against non-Muslim women, typically underage.

BTW, stu, the US media repeatedly reported today and yesterday. About the Iraqis, militias, and IIRC the Persians are surrounding on 3 sides Ramadi in Anbar. IIRC this has been going on for sometime. And the Iraqis asked for more weapons and ammo from the US. Maybe they should take back all that they dropped when they ran away ? Maybe the US should tell the Iraqis, until they can prove they won't break and run and leave their weapons and ammo. For whatever reasons. The Kurds should get a lot more support from the US than they are. Regardless of the Shia dominated Iraqi Gov't and Sec Forces being afraid of the Kurds going independent. And telling the Shia of Iraq and Iran to pound sand …

tbeard,
I agree. It's like Churchill said, "You can depend on the Americans to the right thing, eventually".

A few years ago the local mosque set up in the non-profit area of our local shopping mall passing out info. My son engaged one of them in conversation. He asked what they are allowed to do to infidels. After trying to evade the question my son said, "You cut their heads off right". The muslim sheepishly nodded his head yes making no excuses or apologies. All he can say now is payback is a bitch.

The Europeans have a history of finally confronting invaders at the Gates of Vienna, Lepanto and the Spanish Reconquista among others. However, they did not have to fight their own countrymen or the insanity of Political Correctness at the same time. They had something that united them that is now under attack and disappearing. Another morale boost for the Jihadists to urge them on to final victory.

Our countrymen that have become "Useful Idiots" will not put up much of a fight against us or stand in our way if it ever comes to that – and I hope it does not. They are really cowards so I'm not really concerned about them in the long run other than them supporting politicians that are dragging us down and keeping us divided.

When General Mattis was CENTCOM Commander I attended a talk he gave. He said that Iran was the biggest problem in the mid east and the Revolutionary Guard is exporting their influence around the world. Now our chief negotiator with them is John Kerry. The same John Kerry that met with the Vietnamese Communist Delegations in Paris, supposedly while still in the inactive Naval Reserve, and returned to the US to deliver the "Terms of Peace" (or surrender, whatever you want to call it) to Congress advising we accept all of their points. Don't think this stunt is lost to the Iranian negotiators. They must be busting a gut laughing at this pathetic attempt to get them to stop producing nuclear material. We might as well have sent Pewee Herman to negotiate.

We'll be fine it's just that it will get worse before it gets better.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag –

I have personal friends in the UK, Denmark and Germany who have been to Iraq or Afghanistan and have been shot at, plenty, some injured.

They'd be quite surprised to hear that "European countries with few exceptions will not engage militarily".

link
This is the list of countries that were involved in Iraq.

* * * * *

Tbeard –
"They (or at least their political leaders) seem absurdly willing to allow key elements of Western Civilization (free speech for instance) to be eroded by hostile immigrant populations. But since I don't live there, I really can't say for sure that this is the case"

It's the case in the same way that the United States is run by reptilian infiltrators.
That is to say, not in the slightest.

I mean, there's Europeans on this site. Right here. You could ask one of us.
It'd take like…3 minutes.

Anyone who says the Europeans won't fight is presumably incapable of watching the news.

Can't think of many European nations who haven't engaged in military action this century.

Of course many Europeans need more persuading than many Americans that engaging in military action is a good thing.

I regard this as a Good Thing given how effective any of the wars we've fought recently have actually been.

America could, of course, turn any nation into a nuclear wasteland. But only at the cost of its own survival – because a rogue nuclear state dies….

Actions have consequences.

It's ing Rotherham.

Ive sometimes heards it called that ;)

On Dupuy and the QJM model – what account does it take of experience?
Western armies have spent the last, what, 150 years in colonial wars, post colonial wars, World Wars and preparing to fight armageddon. Most of the rest of the world and the arabs in particular have had nothing nearly comparable with that. Does dupuy acknowledge the backstory?

Just read higher up the page – is that a take? Frothers agent having a laugh, must be, good one guys!

Oh and successful IDF anti insurgency ops – well colonisation and annexation of the west bank would count I suppose. Hardly heroic though.

Trevor Nevitt Dupuy, isn't he the Karl Marx of military history?

You know the intelligent guy whith a profound grasp of history that applies hard science to his favourite subject, finds the magic equation that explains history and predicts the future, has an Institute named after him, is blessed by a number of zealous supporters quite a few of whom reduce his arguments to a formulaic mantra…

Weasel --

Bald denials are hardly worth the time to read. And I seriously doubt that anyone would openly admit "yes, we're allowing hostile immigrant populations to seriously erode key elements of Western civilization." This is why I didn't bother to ask. In any case, I'm not really interested in a debate on this point. My musings were simply included to explain why I qualified that my confidence in Western Civilization is mostly in the American version. Besides, if Europe wants to commit cultural suicide, there's nothing anyone can do to stop it.

Tango India Mike -- you caught a typo…congratulations. Anything else? (Actually, given the difficulties of using an iDevice to make postings, it's remarkable that such posts are even legible).

Bangorstu -- still waiting for you to describe an nations urgency operation you believe the IDF was successful at. It's a matter of logic, really, You allege that the IDF's performance in 2006 shows it is losing its competence. Logically, the IDF must have been far more capable in previous insurgencies to have "declined" in performance in 2006. So…in what other insurgencies was the IDF successful?

I have just two questions for all the heroic patriots and wise men who are posting here about "Arab cowardness":

1) If the "Arabs" are so cowardly and inept, who killed and wounded my friends in Iraq? U.S. Marines with poor fire discipline? French mercenaries…?

2) If the "Arabs" are so relatively cowardly and inept, how come they are still fighting after having the stuffing kicked out of them for 20 years now in Iraq? If we are so brave and competent by comparison, how come ISIS is winning?

I am just a simple grunt who plays with toy soldiers, so maybe a couple of you strategic whizzes can explain this to me, in terms a simple grunt can understand.

Latto6plus2 --

The QJM simply assesses military effectiveness. It does not attempt to explain why such gaps in effectiveness exist, as that is irrelevant to its main purpose.

Arab armies in the modern era have proven to be strikingly ineffective, even in comparison to other third world militaries. I have provided numerous examples from de Akine and Pollack of the Arab cultural traits that obstruct the formation of competent militaries. Your speculations seem far less persuasive than their explanations, candidly. Pollack, de Atkine, et. al. seem intent on explaining why Arab armies are ineffective; you seem intent on trying to deflect attention from the obvious culprit -- numerous toxic elements in Arab culture.

In any case, the FACTS speak for themselves -- Arab armies seem largely incapable of competing on the battlefield against Western (or even non-Arab third world) armies. The few times Arab armies performed well (the Egyptians in the Canal crossing in 1973) were subsequently followed by spectacular incompetence (allowing Third Army to be cut off and surrounded by smaller Israeli forces who had to cross the Suez Canal to do so).

Given their experience training Arab armies, evidence produced and detailed reasoning, I think I'll accept de Atkine and Pollack's explanations for now. I'd add that their analyses are hardly novel. Numerous military historians and analysts have evaluated Arab military ineffectiveness and have come to similar conclusions.

I understand that identifying toxic elements of Arab culture may be emotionally disturbing to those committed to political correctness. However, I couldn't care less. As I said to Bangorsru, facts are stubborn things and they do not change due to our emoting and angst.

Risaldar Sing --

No he isn't. Unlike Marx, who created a predictive mechanism that fails to accurately predict, Dupuy created the QJM which has proven to be very accurate when projecting future conflicts. Not perfect, of course, But very good. And better, according to my readings, than classified military simulations.

Abrams Driver --

Most of the discussion here is about Arab military ineffectiveness, which is *not* the same as cowardice. Please try to keep up. Responses to your questions:

1. It seems obvious that merely causing enemy casualties does not make anyone brave or militarily effective. But since you brought it up, I'd note that the ~6700 U.S./Allied casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, while tragic, are extremely low by historical standards. Compare with US KIA in Vietnam -- 58,000 for the entire war (and 39k in 1967-69). In Korea, I believe the number was around 40,000. So at the very least, we can agree that the Iraqis have not been able to cause casualties anything like the NVA/VC or North Koreans/Chinese were.

2. "We" are not really fighting ISIS. There are no U.S. ground troops committed to the fight and airstrikes cannot win wars.

tbeard – it's not me saying the IDf did badly in 2006.

It's the IDF.

You've consistently failed to address the issue that your opinion of the IDF isn't shared by the IDF itself.

Oddly, I think they know more on this subject than you do.

I'll repeat – despite having total air superiority and a huge superiority in technology and materiel, the IDF failed in its objective to defend Israel against missile attack.

How about you address the issue?

Tbeard –

Bald denials are hardly worth the time to read. And I seriously doubt that anyone would openly admit "yes, we're allowing hostile immigrant populations to seriously erode key elements of Western civilization."

You've admitted that you don't really know and now you are stating that you wouldn't trust if someone tells you something to the contrary of what you have selected to believe.

You don't find that problematic in a conversation where you are trying to assert your authority on a variety of topics?