Europe and the Rest of the World - A Military Analysis

[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.....

[Strike For The South]

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

[Centurion1]

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

[gaelic cowboy]

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.

[Centurion1]

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

[Strike For The South]

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

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

Tech isn't mentioned

[Centurion1]

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

[Strike For The South]

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

[Centurion1]

their problems are not the same.

[Strike For The South]

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

[gaelic cowboy]

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

[Fragony]

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

[al Roumi]

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.

[Noncommunist]

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.

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.

[Husar]

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.

[al Roumi]

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.

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

[Brenus]

“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…

[al Roumi]

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.

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.

[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.

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.

[Furunculus]

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.............?

[Furunculus]

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.

[gaelic cowboy]

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??

[Centurion1]

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

[gaelic cowboy]

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

[Centurion1]

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.

[Hax]

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.

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

[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?