Why Arabs lose wars

As explained by a retired US Army colonel with extensive middle east experience.

You really have to read the whole lot, but here’s a teaser.

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.

Here’s that link again.

Still, the question begs: so why the quagmire in Afghanistan? Regular forces vs guerillas? Geneva Convention and politicians forcing our troops to fight with one arm tied behind their backs? Available manpower? Available firepower?

Via JM Heinrichs

    • J.M. Heinrichs
    • February 8th, 2012

    “… politicians forcing our troops to fight with one arm tied behind their backs? ” True, as the Geneva Conventions have few restrictions on combat itself. Most of the GC restrictions mooted have been inventions by the lawyers and politicians whose commitment to winning the war has been sadly ephemeral.


    • The Wizard of WOZ
    • February 10th, 2012

    Outstanding. Even 13 years ago.

    I’d very much like to read a current interpretation from that man on this topic.

    • ;-/ Didn’t even notice it was 1999. Rings so true today. But then again, that’s one of the points of the piece. They are so steeped in archaism, what’s 13 years?

      In a sense, it’s one of the main points of the article.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Surely you're thinking something...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: