Printable View
i have been the entire thread why dont you read posts? oh and it isnt really racist.Quote:
Well at least you have distanced yourself from the racisim and stupidity that is the OP
read the essay subotan.......
already posted it. i guess no one wanted to read it.....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
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? IQuote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
those arabian countries have plenty of decent tech......
Israelis are Semite same as Arabs therefore same people just different culture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
we are disagreeing about culture arent we.......
And this has what to do with anything in the article?Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
Tech isn't mentioned
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 spotQuote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
their problems are not the same.
African armies lack all those things....Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
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.
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 Ja'chyra
1st Indochina War? I'm pretty sure they were pretty decisively defeated at Dien Bien Phu.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noncommunist
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…
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 PanzerJaeger
And indeed the most notorious troops of the Spanish Francist forces were the Morocans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by alh_p
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.
that those cultures are equally defficient at mastering modern warfare.............?Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
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.
Exactly! I've been saying this for years, just like the Polish cavalry charge against tanks in World War II! Because that totally happened.Quote:
arab armies are still fighting like its 1300.
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.
I'm not sure that dictatorship or oppressive government can be correlated with poor military performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
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?