Europe and the Rest of the World - A Military Analysis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

granted, but this is a representative democracy, just like the rest of western europe, so the political arena is ultimately the public arena.

nor would i buy the idea that people (individual) are bred for war, after all our military is tiny and largely invisible to society, and yet that society is composed of a people (collective) who have a cultural ambivalence to the use of military adventurism that obviously isn't considered tolerable on the continent.

---

Is that really so, we just don't talk about it on the mainland. France is much worse than the UK, is and will always remain the most brutal post WW2 Euro country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

I think you have Tony Blair to thank for that. From a liberal/lefty stand point anyway, his arguments for interceding in Bosnia, then Sierra Leone are what set the scene for Afghanistan and then...Iraq.

---

cart before horse, tony blair could get away with what he did BECAUSE british culture/society is as it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

Don't you right wingers all salivate explosively when it comes to the notion of waging anyway? :wink:

---

as long as Britain chooses to be a security council member it has an obligation to enforce UN resolutions as part of a wider obligation to collective security. there are even legal norms such as R2P that encourage such activity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Is that really so, we just don't talk about it on the mainland. France is much worse than the UK, is and will always remain the most brutal post WW2 Euro country.

---

our record is second to none:

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/main/index1.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

our record is second to none:

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/main/index1.html

---

In the military sense perhaps, the French military seems to accept atrocity much more willingly as a fact of life. They don't care all that much as it's simply war,

[SARCASM]American childern are hedonistic, narcassitic, and gluttonous

They are the fattest and stupidest in the south where the majority of Vuks Spartan/Ubermensch come from

I wish we had something as advanced as the meditrainian diet or the French love for high culture[/SARCASM]

I have read some ignorant and stupid things in my time but this may be the most ignorant and stupid of them all

Removed

i would argue that certain cultures are more apt to ways of war than others. and furthermore that certain individuals are superior for war. however, vuk is absolutely wrong to say that the western world (basically whose culture is the very essence of modern warfare) is incompetent in martial arts/

I think what Fragony means is that the French military (and the French prisons) has a certain reputation of ruthlessness.

I don't think it's ignorant, sense of duty can be both military and civilian no? Seems like a valid point to me on why a country can get the edge over another. Vuk does seem to forget the insanily bloody history of Europe which as others hinted at, is always just under the surface. A German will have zero problems here, a German trying to have a normal conversation on WW2 is bound to get into trouble though, we haven't healed yet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

i would argue that certain cultures are more apt to ways of war than others. and furthermore that certain individuals are superior for war. however, vuk is absolutely wrong to say that the western world (basically whose culture is the very essence of modern warfare) is incompetent in martial arts/

---

I feel like we have a bunch of samuel huntingtons in the room, the entire world now follows the Western doctrine of total war. There is no clash of civilzatons

On an individuals level? sure but that still means jack all without training or supplies. The Japaneses were pretty tough ol boys but it didn't matter in the end

As for Africa being on the same level of Transylvania. That's just flat out wrong

But I would expect nothing less

for an example arabian culture is not good at modern western style warfare. a war doctrine which is undoubtedly best. the point that individuals can be better designed for war than others has a hell of a lot of relevance.

you know what else is flat out wrong using the term jap. dont its insulting and i do not want to hear it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

for an example arabian culture is not good at modern western style warfare. a war doctrine which is undoubtedly best. the point that individuals can be better designed for war than others has a hell of a lot of relevance.

---

Meh, The Isrealis come from the same culture and they do ok, Turkey isn't a slouch. Those countries problems run so much deeper than instituting a doctirne though. The examples are bad

This whole thing reads like an 1890s pamphlet on the virtues of the white man

Quote:

---

you know what else is flat out wrong using the term jap. dont its insulting and i do not want to hear it.

---

Clearly you just aren't tough enough to be a citizen solider. Quit ROTC

And If I wanted to be insulting I wouldn't have captilized the J, For the sake of expidence nothing more.

i have lived i a military lifestyle for my entire life dont tell me what i can and cannot do. dont use that term its known to be demeaning and insulting and demonstrates your inability to understand you cannot state that i am a pro white power belief holder and use an antiquated term like that.

furthermore your lack of knowledge is shocking. Israelis are most certainly not arabian. If anything you can stretch and say they are aramaic but really most are east and western european really. And turks arent arabians either good god.

yeah i could walk around dropping terms like hajii or other disrespectful terms referring to middle eastern culture but i dont.

Quote:

---

you know what else is flat out wrong using the term jap. dont its insulting and i do not want to hear it.

---

This coming from the guy saying people are inferior/superior due to race/nationality...

culture is entirely separate from race and nationality. you want proof just google the concept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

i have lived i a military lifestyle for my entire life dont tell me what i can and cannot do. dont use that term its known to be demeaning and insulting and demonstrates your inability to understand you cannot state that i am a pro white power belief holder and use an antiquated term like that.

---

This is rich, you just spent an entire thread demeaning peoples based on some unsubstantiated, and antiquated method of quantifying military might and then you get all but hurt when I use a term which can be misconstrued (as it was here)

Once again you are clearly not an American Spartan citizen. AN AMERICAN SHOWS NO FEAR HE ONLY PULLS THE TRIGGER

Quote:

---

furthermore your lack of knowledge is shocking. Israelis are most certainly not arabian. If anything you can stretch and say they are aramaic but really most are east and western european really. And turks arent arabians either good god.

---

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictiona...Semitic+people

The Turks are majoirly msulim (duh). I think the fact these two states are secular and relativly democratic means so much more than this "culture" that is being refered to

Quote:

---

yeah i could walk around dropping terms like hajii or other disrespectful terms referring to middle eastern culture but i dont.

---

You just did....

Quote:

---

culture is entirely separate from race and nationality. you want proof just google the concept.

---

Ok then:
This coming from the guy saying people are inferior/superior due to culture...

at certain things...... why dont you actually do some research unless your an expert on arabian adaptation of modern warfare.

Culture is the new race, it's nothing more than a thin veil so people won't be ostracized for their antiqauted beliefs

Quote:

---

at certain things...... why dont you actually do some research unless your an expert on arabian adaptation of modern warfare

---

I don't need to when you make it this easy....I mean my God, people still think this way?

http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD...ne_arabs1.html

i mean my god people still dont know how to look at things before they disagree!

Quote:

---

Including culture in strategic assessments has a poor legacy, for it has often been spun from an ugly brew of ignorance, wishful thinking, and mythology. Thus, the U.S. Army in the 1930s evaluated the Japanese national character as lacking originality and drew the unwarranted conclusion that that country would be permanently disadvantaged in technology. Hitler dismissed the United States as a mongrel society and consequently underestimated the impact of America’s entry into the war. American strategists assumed that the pain threshold of the North Vietnamese approximated our own and that the air bombardment of the North would bring it to its knees. Three days of aerial attacks were thought to be all the Serbs could withstand; in fact, seventy-eight days were needed.

---

But this time we're right! I swear!

And then the 3 headings can be attributed to every other third world nation

/facepalm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Britain and Ireland are both island nations we have a fundamentally different way of viewing the world because every direction is "out there" never "over the border".

So we are not the same as mainland Europeans, no matter how many times you try to tell us we are.

---

Our national consciousness is different in many ways than the rest of Europe. For example, in the UK, The Second World War is a strangely positive memory, whereas on the continent the only connotation that that war has is sheer horror. But I still thing we're closer to the Europeans than Americans; in America, WWII is when the USA saved the world and rose to global pre-eminence, whereas we sacrificed our Empire to save Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

I did also think we had dealt with Vuk's fevered giberring musings on the decadence of Europe. To my mind, he basicaly thinks that only a staunchly militaristic society is strong enough to survive in the world as he sees it: i.e. one in which a perpetual state of "total war" exists, or where we are all two steps from tipping into one.

---

We have always been at war with Eastasia! War is peace! Peace is war!

Or, more poignantly:

"War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent."

Quote:

---

for an example arabian culture is not good at modern western style warfare. a war doctrine which is undoubtedly best. the point that individuals can be better designed for war than others has a hell of a lot of relevance.

---

Culture is borderline irrelevant. We could turn this discussion into a very long and extremely boring thread about how the Arab nations had such and such a model tank rather than this model tank and how their logistics were blah blah blah, but that would be pointless. Give a man a gun, give him a few weeks training and a lifetime of nationalist myths and hate and he'll fight as long and as hard as someone who has lived in the mountains all his life fending off rival tribes with a Victorian rifle and a knife as long as your arm.

Besides, those same Arabs who are supposedly not good at modern warfare managed to keep the United States bogged down in Iraq longer than it took to take down Nazi Germany...

patently false. certain third world countries are more than capable of fighting in modern war. arabs simply have trouble because of the society they find themselves in. They are good at the way they want to fight but not in the way the world chose to fight. That is a western style of warfare. Is it any surprise that Western nations are better at western warfare?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

patently false. certain third world countries are more than capable of fighting in modern war. arabs simply have trouble because of the society they find themselves in. They are good at the way they want to fight but not in the way the world chose to fight. That is a western style of warfare. Is it any surprise that Western nations are better at western warfare?

---

lolololol name them

You mean the richest countires with the best technology tend to have better armies? This would be shocking if it wasnt't true for the enitrety of human history

I guess you're tryingfor a more schorlary approach? That's good

That reminds me of European knights complaining that the Mongols were being unchivalrous and cowardly by slaughtering them using a technique which the Europeans refused to use.

Quote:

---

Culture is borderline irrelevant. We could turn this discussion into a very long and extremely boring thread about how the Arab nations had such and such a model tank rather than this model tank and how their logistics were blah blah blah, but that would be pointless. Give a man a gun, give him a few weeks training and a lifetime of nationalist myths and hate and he'll fight as long and as hard as someone who has lived in the mountains all his life fending off rival tribes with a Victorian rifle and a knife as long as your arm.

Besides, those same Arabs who are supposedly not good at modern warfare managed to keep the United States bogged down in Iraq longer than it took to take down Nazi Germany...

---

okay the Germany reference is worthless as you well know. and they are not fighting a modern conventional war. they are using terror and guerrilla tactics. giving a man a gun and a lifetime of etc. will make him not a good soldier....... but lets presume it does. the problem with Arabian armies is their poor leadership and lack of an NCO corp. their fine soldiers individually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

okay the Germany reference is worthless as you well know. and they are not fighting a modern conventional war. they are using terror and guerrilla tactics. giving a man a gun and a lifetime of etc. will make him not a good soldier....... but lets presume it does. the problem with Arabian armies is their poor leadership and lack of an NCO corp. their fine soldiers individually.

---

Backpedaling

Chest thumping to scrambiling in about 15 posts

Im getting rusty

i would be quite worried for soldiers lives if we fought say vietnam or n. korea. or many eastern european or latin american countries. obviously we would win quite easily because of superior tech and numbers but they could very well inflict more damage than say husseins conventional forces did.....

Quote:

---

Backpedaling

Chest thumping to scrambiling in about 15 posts

Im getting rust

---

how so? the problems with the arabian war machine in contemporary times lies not with the average joes but with the leadership. and no its not isolated problems like a bad general here or there. its a widespread issue within their forces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

i would be quite worried for soldiers lives if we fought say vietnam or n. korea. or many eastern european or latin american countries. obviously we would win quite easily because of superior tech and numbers but they could very well inflict more damage than say husseins conventional forces did.....

---

There is no basis in fact for any of this you are simply using your world veiw, racisim (or culture if that makes it an eaiser pill), and anecdotes


how so? the problems with the arabian war machine in contemporary times lies not with the average joes but with the leadership. and no its not isolated problems like a bad general here or there. its a widespread issue within their forces.

Same with every other 3rd world country, Have you seen African civil wars? It's a clown car of lulz

read that essay? thats pretty verifiable information that you hear quite alot about from returning trainers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

read that essay? thats pretty verifiable information that you hear quite alot about from returning trainers.

---

Meh, half of it is explaining how they've been wrong and the other half is wide generalazations that once again can be applied to any 3rd world country

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

okay the Germany reference is worthless as you well know.

---

Why? That was a modern conventional war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

and they are not fighting a modern conventional war. they are using terror and guerrilla tactics.

---

Ah. Well therein lies the rub, doesn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

giving a man a gun and a lifetime of etc. will make him not a good soldier.......

---

Mhm, it well. Might not make a very effective armed forces, but then, quantity has a quality all of its own.

But you said "for an example arabian culture is not good at modern western style warfare. a war doctrine which is undoubtedly best. the point that individuals can be better designed for war than others has a hell of a lot of relevance." So they're fine soldiers, and still not designed for war?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Backpedaling

Chest thumping to scrambiling in about 15 posts

Im getting rusty

---

Remind me never to play poker with you.

Quote:

---

Why? That was a modern conventional war.

---

modern conventional warfare in iraq took a couple weeks.

Quote:

---

Mhm, it well. Might not make a very effective armed forces, but then, quantity has a quality all of its own.

But you said "for an example arabian culture is not good at modern western style warfare. a war doctrine which is undoubtedly best. the point that individuals can be better designed for war than others has a hell of a lot of relevance." So they're fine soldiers, and still not designed for war?

---

yeah i believe that on an individual basis no soldier is really bad and that with sufficient training and good tech they will be more than capable of taking the fight to the enemy. however, the problem lies with the leadership and how they interact with their subordinates.

Which raises an interesting point

If "modern" warfare only took a couple of weeks and more and more wars are being fought gurreila style, maybe the US lacks the SPARTAN CITIZENS to compete in this new paradigm

Perish the thought

Does this airtight theory still hold up as "modern" is on its way out?

do you see me saying that america's citizens are awesome military machines....... no but i will say our military is an awesome military machine.

Just seen this thread, got to say it is amusing.

The idea that the countries who birthed globe spanning empires and birthed countries like the US are, all of a sudden, incapable of fielding a force to defend themselves is laughable.

The simple fact is that we do not need to, neither does the US, I think you'll find that if kith and kin were threatened then the UK could and would field millions, and western Europe 10's of millions. I think you'll also find this also holds true for most countires, best to let sleeping dragons lie and not start WW3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Meh, The Isrealis come from the same culture and they do ok, Turkey isn't a slouch. Those countries problems run so much deeper than instituting a doctirne though. The examples are bad

This whole thing reads like an 1890s pamphlet on the virtues of the white man

---

there was a report by a US Army Colonel on the 'problems' with Arab culture and how it translates to military effectiveness in modern warfare:

http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

do you see me saying that america's citizens are awesome military machines....... no but i will say our military is an awesome military machine.

---

Well at least you have distanced yourself from the racisim and stupidity that is the OP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

modern conventional warfare in iraq took a couple weeks.

---

Sure, but that's beside the point. You say, not that we're the best at modern conventional war, but that the doctrine of modern "conventional" war is the best. And yet the fact that the Iraqi resistance persisted about 7 years after conventional resistance stopped suggests otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

yeah i believe that on an individual basis no soldier is really bad and that with sufficient training and good tech they will be more than capable of taking the fight to the enemy. however, the problem lies with the leadership and how they interact with their subordinates.

---

That's not a culture thing though. That's to do with the training of the NCOs and how well the Generals i.e. a completely material issue.

Quote:

---

Well at least you have distanced yourself from the racisim and stupidity that is the OP

---

i have been the entire thread why dont you read posts? oh and it isnt really racist.

read the essay subotan.......

Quote:

---

there was a report by a US Army Colonel on the 'problems' with Arab culture and how it translates to military effectiveness in modern warfare:

http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars

---

already posted it. i guess no one wanted to read it.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

there was a report by a US Army Colonel on the 'problems' with Arab culture and how it translates to military effectiveness in modern warfare:

http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars

---

Yes but these same problems are applicable to sub-saharan Africa, a place with a much different culture than the Arabs. What is the response then? I

those arabian countries have plenty of decent tech......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

furthermore your lack of knowledge is shocking. Israelis are most certainly not arabian. If anything you can stretch and say they are aramaic but really most are east and western european really. And turks arent arabians either good god.

yeah i could walk around dropping terms like hajii or other disrespectful terms referring to middle eastern culture but i dont.

---

Israelis are Semite same as Arabs therefore same people just different culture.

we are disagreeing about culture arent we.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

those arabian countries have plenty of decent tech......

---

And this has what to do with anything in the article?

Tech isn't mentioned

this has to do with your comparison to sub shahran africa. these militaries should be effective but they still arent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

this has to do with your comparison to sub shahran africa. these militaries should be effective but they still arent.

---

But the same problems plauge both places, If the Africans had the Tech they would be in the same spot

their problems are not the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

their problems are not the same.

---

African armies lack all those things....

Or are we going to start refering to the brain sizes of the Nubian compared to the Arab, I've got some great late 19th century reading

I seem to remember someone started a thread like this lately about how the Evil Russians would steam roll europe soon.

It was silly then and it is still a silly idea now

Can dismiss Centurion but did any post ww2 western army ever really lost a war, or even a battle, beyond parlement of course

That's a more interesting question. Few if any non western armies will have killed more of their enemy than western armies have, but China/Nkorea certainly fought the US/UN to a standstill in Korea. Anyway, nowadays wars are not just about the armies but the (untermensch, slim wristed, unable to carry and ammo container) civies back home - not least those actually in the combat area and acting as part time militia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ja'chyra

Just seen this thread, got to say it is amusing.

The idea that the countries who birthed globe spanning empires and birthed countries like the US are, all of a sudden, incapable of fielding a force to defend themselves is laughable.

The simple fact is that we do not need to, neither does the US, I think you'll find that if kith and kin were threatened then the UK could and would field millions, and western Europe 10's of millions. I think you'll also find this also holds true for most countires, best to let sleeping dragons lie and not start WW3.

---

But for any other conflict, Europe(And the US in many cases) refuse to fix the problem. Like in Rwanda where the Belgians pulled out all their peacekeepers after 10 or so died and then let nearly a million people die as the Hutu Interahamwe slaughtered them. Fortunately, the RPF was able to drive out the Interahamwe. However, so much death could have been avoided had the West decided to intervene. And of course, there are other situations where if European nations were more martial, a lot of terrible things wouldn't have happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Can dismiss Centurion but did any post ww2 western army ever really lost a war, or even a battle, beyond parlement of course

---

1st Indochina War? I'm pretty sure they were pretty decisively defeated at Dien Bien Phu.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noncommunist

But for any other conflict, Europe(And the US in many cases) refuse to fix the problem. Like in Rwanda where the Belgians pulled out all their peacekeepers after 10 or so died and then let nearly a million people die as the Hutu Interahamwe slaughtered them. Fortunately, the RPF was able to drive out the Interahamwe. However, so much death could have been avoided had the West decided to intervene. And of course, there are other situations where if European nations were more martial, a lot of terrible things wouldn't have happened.

---

You're approaching this the wrong way, if we weren't as badass, capitalistic, nationalistic and self-centered as we actually are, we wouldn't mind sending our soldiers to help others, but as it is, we rather watch others die if there is no money or glory to gain for us in helping them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noncommunist

And of course, there are other situations where if European nations were more martial, a lot of terrible things wouldn't have happened.

---

Really? TBH I imagine more horrible things would have happened if Europe was more martial. Millitarism is not the answer, that is the key lesson from WW1 and WW2. It's a dead end for hummanity of en escalating horror and sacrifice.

Rwanda and other forgein "police-like" (peace-keeping) interventions are more complex than you seem to grasp -and deserving of a much more nuanced examination than you've given them there.

Furthermore, I cannot see how a millitaristic society would improve peacekeeping in any way, beyond the most excellent* recourse of "everyone against the wall".

*To be clear, that is a deeply sarcastic comment.

Don't let them harry you Centurion. Culture can have a major impact on military effectiveness, especially in regards to how power is attained, how it is delegated, and how individual troops respond to it. Individual initiative, a proclivity to teamwork, and morale can all have a cultural dimension if it is allowed to permeate the armed forces. There is nothing racist about noting that either.

The Italian army in World War II is a great example of certain cultural characteristics being allowed to infect both leadership at high levels and individual unit cohesion. A cultural more of advancement based on family name and connections was mirrored in the military with predicable results. When Italians fought under merit-based German leadership, they performed well.

The best militaries create their own cultures. As Strike noted and contrary to Vuk's opinion, the US is not exactly fertile breeding grounds for disciplined, fit young men. However, the makeup of the US Military is completely removed from the general makeup of the US population. This is intentional and done by means of an intense, long, and costly effort at indoctrination, where recruits are instilled with completely different customs, mores, and values than the ones they walked in the door with.

I don't think it is too radical a notion to speculate that the Syrians and Egyptians did not make enough of an effort to train out some of their own cultural failings (when applied to military effectiveness), and that failing contributed to some degree to their losses against Israel.

“1st Indochina War? I'm pretty sure they were pretty decisively defeated at Dien Bien Phu.”: What: 12,000 men lost for the French…: Few battalions of Paratroopers, Foreign Legion and Colonials?
The Vietminh lost between 20,000 and 30,000 men, their elite divisions (308 and 312) decimated. But the French saw the danger and didn’t go for “a last push and” so decided not to sent reinforcement but to negotiate. And they did it in telling Ho Chi Minh that a prolongation of the war would see the draftees, so will raise the number of French Soldiers around 2,000,000.
It was decisive just because the French Government was decided to go.
If you want to compare with the lost in the Ardennes in 1944…

The decisive defeat for the French is the battle of Cao Bang, That Khe, Dong Khe, Lang Son and the lost of the RC4 that will give to the Vietminh a direct access to China just fallen in Mao’s hands.
Dien Bien Phu was just a good pretext for the new French Government to cut and run.

Now, about some comments I read: When, long time ago, I was a professional soldier, my comrades in arm and I were laughing at the US Army, enable to go on the field without their coca, having their shower heliported every evening and refusing to walk more than 500 metres…

I remember some training; it was unbelievable to see a US soldier just putting the barrel of his gun in the ground, helmet on the top and starting a nap… The look of my soldiers (draftees) was something to see…

The US army probably rectified this, but really…

About Africans, the best troops in the French Colonial were African. The big surprise at Dien Bien Phu was the collapse of the Moroccans of the 4th RTM, veterans of the Campaign of Italy…
The Colonial Powers used a lot of their Colonials to fight as they were highly regarded for their military capacities…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I don't think it is too radical a notion to speculate that the Syrians and Egyptians did not make enough of an effort to train out some of their own cultural failings (when applied to military effectiveness), and that failing contributed to some degree to their losses against Israel.

---

For what it's worth, the Egyptian army at least gained a bit more martial glory in their reconquest of the Sinai peninsula in the Yom Kippur war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

About Africans, the best troops in the French Colonial were African. The big surprise at Dien Bien Phu was the collapse of the Moroccans of the 4th RTM, veterans of the Campaign of Italy…
The Colonial Powers used a lot of their Colonials to fight as they were highly regarded for their military capacities…

---

And indeed the most notorious troops of the Spanish Francist forces were the Morocans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

Really? TBH I imagine more horrible things would have happened if Europe was more martial. Millitarism is not the answer, that is the key lesson from WW1 and WW2. It's a dead end for hummanity of en escalating horror and sacrifice.

Rwanda and other forgein "police-like" (peace-keeping) interventions are more complex than you seem to grasp -and deserving of a much more nuanced examination than you've given them there.

Furthermore, I cannot see how a millitaristic society would improve peacekeeping in any way, beyond the most excellent* recourse of "everyone against the wall".

*To be clear, that is a deeply sarcastic comment.

---

Certainly, fighting wars sucks and it would be great if no one did. But when wars or massacres are already ongoing, wouldn't it be better to have powerful nations on the side of good intervene?

Everyone against a wall is better than someone losing a head to a neighbor with a machete. Of course, it's going to be more complicated than that but certainly some western intervention can help when hundreds of thousands of people are going to die otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Yes but these same problems are applicable to sub-saharan Africa, a place with a much different culture than the Arabs. What is the response then? I

---

that those cultures are equally defficient at mastering modern warfare.............?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

About Africans, the best troops in the French Colonial were African. The big surprise at Dien Bien Phu was the collapse of the Moroccans of the 4th RTM, veterans of the Campaign of Italy…
The Colonial Powers used a lot of their Colonials to fight as they were highly regarded for their military capacities…

---

no kidding, we did the same thing in the 19th century by using the british officer corps as a spine to much larger colonial militias. d00d, its a revelation!

seriously, this does not change the problems that some non western cultures, such as found in africa and the ME from nurturing a military doctrine that is effective, as evidenced by the article that both centurion and myself have linked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

seriously, this does not change the problems that some non western cultures, such as found in africa and the ME from nurturing a military doctrine that is effective, as evidenced by the article that both centurion and myself have linked.

---

Hold on a second something does not smell right here Furunculus, is this the same Arab culture that was at the gates of Christendom pretty much straight after Muhammad died.

Are you sure it is not just to do with corruption and in some cases lack of technology or poor logistical systems and proceses??

gaelic completely different style of warfare. not comparable. their culture can suffice in such a style of warfare.

But the leadership was not stratified or calcified yet by corrupt leaders, so if the people actually did get some freedom then I suspect this "Report" will be show to be the rubbish I believe it to be

Arab armies used to be meritocratic and now they are not, they defeated far superior cultures and they didnt just do it with some kind of "Me Conan me smash" style war either, now they seem to be merely symbols of oppression.

Exit the dictators and we will see if they are incapable of running a modern army

their armies most certainly are meritocratic. and it didnt matter in that time period the individual soldier had no need of initiative. arab armies are still fighting like its 1300.

Quote:

---

arab armies are still fighting like its 1300.

---

Exactly! I've been saying this for years, just like the Polish cavalry charge against tanks in World War II! Because that totally happened.

You want to see a modern army? The Revolutionary Guard of Iran. Strictly not Arab, but Arabicised.
You want to see the fourth largest navy in the world? Turkey. Strictly not Arab, but Arabicised.

So what constitutes Arab culture? I think it's not too far from the truth to say that Morocco, Yemen, and Syria basically share the same basic Arab cultural fundaments, but how about Iran? Or Turkey? Or say Afghanistan? As for your point on Iraq, I don't think it was just superior technology and discipline of the Coalition that led to success in a relatively short time, but also the fact that Iraq had been bombed to hell about ten years earlier.

Try the same thing in Iran, see how that works.


And for me, speaking as a European, and staunchly pro-European, I think the fact that we've learned a very hard lesson sixty years ago, by basically experiencing on our own the pure horror war brings. Strife is natural, personal combat is natural. War not so much. War completely manipulates some basic human emotions and gets people so far as to kill another person outside of self-defence. The fact that we have learned the hard way about what what war means for husbands, fathers and sons, wives, mothers, and daughters, and brothers and sisters is what would make Europe as an entity superior. The fact that we treat war as a very last resort is what's so important. In this day and age we cannot afford to glorify war anymore. It's too risky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Exit the dictators and we will see if they are incapable of running a modern army

---

I'm not sure that dictatorship or oppressive government can be correlated with poor military performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Well at least you have distanced yourself from the racisim and stupidity that is the OP

---

I have to get to bed now, and unfortunately have no time to respond to any of the discussion (I have in school all day), but I must respond to this, as it is the fourth accusation of racism that you have made against me in this thread. (as well as the nth accusation of stupidity) I never mentioned or implied race. My argument was completely about culture and society, and not race at all. I cited many countries (all the ones in East Asia for instance) that are predominately non-white, as well as societies that are majority white (the US for instance) as examples of countries with a citizenry more suitable to war, and Europe (predominately white) as the example of those unsuited for war. Race could not possible factor into my argument if I wanted it to! In fact, my argument completely blows away the concept of race as a meaningful one!
If you cannot participate in a civil and intelligent conversation, maybe you should leave your barroom trash-talk for the type of society you normally associate with.

You don't understand Europeans all that much Vuk, I'm a total noob of course but in the European mind it's not rock&roll but c-minor. But if you think we lack the fortitude, look at the effects of 9/11 on America, isn't the biggest trauma that you can be attacked on own soil, what would an invasion do?

“no kidding, we did the same thing in the 19th century by using the british officer corps as a spine to much larger colonial militias. d00d, its a revelation!”
Well, apparently it is…
And by the way, the English never had Colonial Officers, the French did, and Civil administrators. The English Colonialism was more “racist” than the French so they hardly trained locals above the ranks of NCO. The French did.
So to point out the “colonials” troops were good only under “white” officers is the same things than to block people from school and then saying there are uneducated and even don’t know to read… …d00d…

“I'm not sure that dictatorship or oppressive government can be correlated with poor military performance.” Agree. If the dictator is an able General (Franco) that won’t be a problem or if the dictator doesn’t intervene in the Army running, it will not affect the final result.

However, I was watching a documentary on History Channel and they said this: The French Revolutionaries Skirmishers were better because ideologically fighting from freedom. Whereas the Monarchies troops couldn’t be left without officers, the French were looking for the fight, the others were looking for a place to sleep and hind… Roughly…
So, if you are fighting for A cause (and it could be for dictatorship, SS and Red Guards), you are motivated and mostly successful.

And the attack in 1974 by the Egyptians against the Israelis was efficient, and failed only when for political reason Anouar El-Sadat decided to go forwards to help the Syrian and didn’t stick to the plan…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Hold on a second something does not smell right here Furunculus, is this the same Arab culture that was at the gates of Christendom pretty much straight after Muhammad died.

Are you sure it is not just to do with corruption and in some cases lack of technology or poor logistical systems and proceses??

---

originally i said; "there was a report by a US Army Colonel on the 'problems' with Arab culture and how it translates to military effectiveness in modern warfare" apologies for the lack of clarity arising from the missing word second time around.

i have evidenced my claim, and while i don't want to present it as a definitive argument if we are going to get anywhere here you could at least point out where you believe this army training officer with thirty years experience is spouting nonsense........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

gaelic completely different style of warfare. not comparable. their culture can suffice in such a style of warfare.

---

...

There isn't any "Gaelic" styly of warfare anymore, outside of the Black Watch (and even then they were formed by the pro-Unionist highland aristocracy as a dumping ground for cleared highlanders)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

And for me, speaking as a European, and staunchly pro-European, I think the fact that we've learned a very hard lesson sixty years ago, by basically experiencing on our own the pure horror war brings. Strife is natural, personal combat is natural. War not so much. War completely manipulates some basic human emotions and gets people so far as to kill another person outside of self-defence. The fact that we have learned the hard way about what what war means for husbands, fathers and sons, wives, mothers, and daughters, and brothers and sisters is what would make Europe as an entity superior. The fact that we treat war as a very last resort is what's so important. In this day and age we cannot afford to glorify war anymore. It's too risky.

---

APPLAUSE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“no kidding, we did the same thing in the 19th century by using the british officer corps as a spine to much larger colonial militias. d00d, its a revelation!”
Well, apparently it is…
And by the way, the English never had Colonial Officers, the French did, and Civil administrators. The English Colonialism was more “racist” than the French so they hardly trained locals above the ranks of NCO. The French did.
So to point out the “colonials” troops were good only under “white” officers is the same things than to block people from school and then saying there are uneducated and even don’t know to read… …d00d…

---

sorry for the lack of precision, i was referring to the notion of colonial levies where british officers officered colonial levies, and a very effective system it was too.

that said, the british army did promote locals to officer rank, i have a family picture of my great-grandad and his future son-in-law which demonstrates exactly this point:

https://i.imgur.com/cVzkZ.jpg

Wow, I wish I was luckey enough to have such great surviving family heirlooms. The best I got was a picture of my great great grandfather in WW1 dress uniform.

Good thread to read through and some interesting points however, in my opinion, the idea that some cultures produce inherently better armed forces has no merit whatsoever - although culture does have a role to play and I'll explain why. The effectiveness of armed forces comes from 3 inputs:

1) Men - this encompasses training, military leadership (which is itself derived from training) and practice (an often ignored factor).
2) Material - the technological advantage as well as numbers.
3) Political Leadership - the political will to fight.

Looking at the 2 main examples that have come up, it seems clear to me where the deficiencies occur. In terms of Western Europe, it is clearly in the 'Political Leadership' - there just isn't a desire to fight in most cases due to past experiences. If that Political Leadership returns, then I have no doubt the Western European countries would perform just fine, although in some cases there is a shortfall in 'Men' as the standard of training does vary between countries.

The 2nd example of Arab militaries comes down to the 'Men' input - however this doesn't relate to individuals or Arabic culture in any way. Arab armies exhibit a clear lack of training, especially at fighting in an organised, combined manner as espoused by other parts of the world (and not just Western Europe and the US). The article linked earlier regarding Arabs not performing due to their culture is absolute rubbish - all the problems described in article relate to poor training, military leadership (caused by poor training of the Officers) and structural problems in their armed forces - not Arabic culture. If you look at any effective military force (throughout history), they have succeeded because they have instilled their own culture into their troops either through training or the harsh experience of war (or both!).

So yes, culture has a role to play, but only the culture of the armed forces derived through training and experience not that of where the individuals originate.

Oh and before people ask, yes I do have personal experience of this to back up my opinions - on a day-to-day basis in fact, particularly of the training of Arabic Officers receive. It actually leads to a vicious circle where the young officers don't receive the correct standard of training and have the wrong traits instilled in them, which then leads to the exact say thing happening to the next generation.

interesting answer.

although i'm not so convinced that europes situation can be pinned down entirely to political leadership, for the people themselves are far less tolerant of 'justifications' for warmaking, which has an impact on the policy options available to our political masters.

likewise, the meforum author notes many of the flaws you point out and still manages to conclude that culture can be deemed at least partly responsible for poor performance in modern warmaking. i.e. those training deficiencies result from, or are exacerbated by, those cultural traits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I'm not sure that dictatorship or oppressive government can be correlated with poor military performance.

---

Not all dictators just mainly these ones in particular they seem to be completely venal and clientelist, true it is a trait all dictators have but it's rampant in the ME and it shows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

originally i said; "there was a report by a US Army Colonel on the 'problems' with Arab culture and how it translates to military effectiveness in modern warfare" apologies for the lack of clarity arising from the missing word second time around.

i have evidenced my claim, and while i don't want to present it as a definitive argument if we are going to get anywhere here you could at least point out where you believe this army training officer with thirty years experience is spouting nonsense........

---

Reading the report I was struck how most if not all of the supposed "Culture Problems" could merely be put down to the fact that chances for advancement are restricted so you must protect your advantge. (hence the keeping of the manuals by people from others)

This is quite a common thing in the world you often see it in business, religion, politics and now the army, I do not see an inherently Arab aspect to it.

Also the uselessness of the army could be put down to the fact that having a large but not necessarily well trained army is more the priority to ensure public order. I dont think it says it but much of the General staff prob treat the army as there personal enrichment source, and the report does state that the average recruit has a miserable time of it, no doubt this ATM stlye generalship affects the morale.

ah I see Boohugh basically answered it for me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

interesting answer.

although i'm not so convinced that europes situation can be pinned down entirely to political leadership, for the people themselves are far less tolerant of 'justifications' for warmaking, which has an impact on the policy options available to our political masters.

---

Absolutely right. I should have clarified that the Political Leadership aspect doesn't just relate to the political class, so in a democracy the Political Leadership is also influenced by the will of the people purely due to the nature of the system. There is a general malaise towards war in Western Europe and this feeds into the Political Leadership aspect, but it doesn't (as some seem to have suggested) feed into the 'Men' aspect. There is little difference in the quality of recruits at the start due to that general malaise, it is how the training system indoctrinates them that determines the end product.

Quote:

---

likewise, the meforum author notes many of the flaws you point out and still manages to conclude that culture can be deemed at least partly responsible for poor performance in modern warmaking. i.e. those training deficiencies result from, or are exacerbated by, those cultural traits.

---

Effective military training is designed to break recruits so it can mould them from scratch, therefore by definition it shouldn't matter what background or culture those recruits come from. If you don't train them correctly in the first place, then unwanted traits will undoubtedly get into the system. I don't think it's fair to say one culture is less suited than others though. You could pick out all sorts of traits in Western European culture that make people unsuitable to be in the armed forces, many of which would be exactly the same as those mentioned in the article and probably many others too. The only difference being there is a generally higher standard of training in Western Europe so those traits are generally eliminated and replaced with traits desired for an effective military.