Europe and the Rest of the World - A Military Analysis

[Centurion1]

Why? That was a modern conventional war.

modern conventional warfare in iraq took a couple weeks.

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.

[Strike For The South]

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?

[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.

[Strike For The South]

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

[Vuk]

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.

[Fragony]

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?

[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…

“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…

[Vuk]

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?

I really hope that I am wrong Frags (for the sake of both the US and Europe), but I am not so sure. What if Europe would be suddenly attacked on the weekend without warning? How long would it take their military to mobilize and meet the threat? Against a determined attack (and esp if several large cities have been nuked), how long before their resolve breaks. If you hate war and think of it as the most horrible thing in the world that must be avoided at all costs (instead of as one of the most horrible things that some times is necessary and that you need to be ready for...a much wiser approach imho), will you try to avoid it at ALL costs? Will you give up your freedom or settle into a disadvantageous peace that will make your citizens the slaves of another?
You don't understand Americans. When we were attacked on our own soil we were shocked because that is not supposed to happen in America, and instead of abhorring war, everyone in America was making ready for it. You punch us and you may take us by surprise, but we will see red and we will tear off your head. You cannot abhor war the way that Western Europeans do and still have an effective military. Yes, you have to know that war sucks, but you have to ready, able, and WILLING at any moment to go to war. If your country is attacked, you cannot have questions about right and wrong (is it right to go to war or not? Maybe we can appease them), you have to have worked that out in advance, you have to stand for yourself, and you have to counterattack fervently.
Look how the European's love of appeasement and avoidance of war messed things up with WWII. Making big webs of alliances and prizing peace over freedom has never stopped wars. It has only postponed them, and made it that when war does come, it will be much bigger than before.
If more countries had the attitude of sitting on their porch with a shotty (yes, a creative hyperbole), and were more willing to use military force against someone who transgressed against them, you would not have wars.
WWI happened because people thought that their ridiculous webs of alliances would keep them safe and they let their guard down. WWII happened because the Europeans would do anything to avoid another World War...and because of that they caused one. You cannot control the bad guy and what he does, you can only control yourself and what you do.


EDIT:


Take this Canadian's attitude as an example of the right attitude. No one is afraid of a military or a country that is timid about going to war. People are only afraid of a military or country that knows that some times it is the right thing, knows that there is such a thing as 'evil', and is ready to combat 'evil' when it sees it. (and by evil I do not mean in the military sense, but people or a nation or a leader with no regard for humanity and that poses a direct threat to the citizens of your or and ally's country. Take Hitler as an example of that)

[Centurion1]

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.

persian culture is not arabian culture turkish culture is not arabian culture. they share a religion, past that they are drastically different. turkey especially is far distant from arabian culture and the persians have had their own culture for millennia.

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)

i hope your kidding....... it was addressed to gaelic cowboy good job trying to latch onto everything i say and try to embarrass me though.

[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.

[Subotan]

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.

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.

[Centurion1]

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.......

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.....