Why Arabs Lose Wars

Discussion in 'Multinational HQ' started by Trip_Wire, Jan 26, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Trip_Wire

    Trip_Wire RIP

    An interesting article by an American Army COL.

    Why Arabs Lose Wars:

    ARABIC-SPEAKING ARMIES have been generally ineffective in the modern era. Egyptian regular forces did poorly against Yemeni irregulars in the 1960s. Syrians could only impose their will in Lebanon during the mid-1970s by the use of overwhelming weaponry and numbers. Iraqis showed ineptness against an Iranian military ripped apart by revolutionary turmoil in the 1980s and could not win a three-decades-long war against the Kurds.

    The Arab military performance on both sides of the 1990 Kuwait war was mediocre. And the Arabs have done poorly in nearly all the military confrontations with Israel. Why this unimpressive record? There are many factors — economic, ideological, technical — but perhaps the most important has to do with culture and certain societal attributes which inhibit Arabs from producing an effective military force.

    Link to full article:

    http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_17/articles/deatkine_arabs1.html
     
  2. Isn't his already being talked about in the Saudis tool up for war thread?
     
  3. Trip_Wire

    Trip_Wire RIP

    Yes, you're right a link to the same article from a different source is posted there.

    Rodney2q posted it.:

    Read this:

    www.meforum.org/article/441



    Rodney2q
     
  4. This from a guy that has a quote from TE Lawrence in his sig block? A slack handfull of "them darkies" have managed to bog down the world's only superpower for the last 5 years. In terms of personnel, money and resources, I'd say they were a damn sight more efficient than your mob.

    All this is, is another tw@t in the US military bemoaning the fact that other people don't gear up to fight the kind of battle the US would like to fight.
     
  5. Such as forming up in a straight line and walking very slowly towards the enemy?
     
  6. It is a really wierd thing that the US always seems to need to belittle their enemies even when (as is usually the case) the US Army is being thrashed. They did the same to the VietCong.
    And look where it got them. The rag heads are running rings round them in Irag and AfG.
     
  7. No more or less so than us! The Septic troops aren't as bad as you would all like to think. Their training is just different.
     
  8. chrisg46

    chrisg46 LE Book Reviewer

    Hang on, lets not jsut leap on the beat up TW bandwagon, fun though it can be. Iraq has lasted five years. yes, and? Its not a conventional war, its a COIN op at least. In those terms, how long did NI last, or Malaya? Oman, etc?
    The writer does havea point. At present, Arabs do make some of the worlds least effective "conventional" soldiers. Cant exactly argue with that can we?
     
  9. I don’t think that it is as clean cut as a case of "Arabs are poor at warfare"

    It is probably more a case of the afore mentioned nations probably not being equipped or trained to provide a substantial opposition to western manoeuvreist approach, by conventional means.

    However i would suggest that there is overwhelming evidence that certain Arab nations are on the ball when it comes to their asymmetric approach and are more than capable of stalling and even halting nations that are considered either superpowers or to be blunt "shit hot"

    Prime example of both is Israel who defeated or at least over ran three nations at once whilst using the manoeuvreist approach.

    But could not defeat one nation when faced with Hezbollah and their outstanding asymmetric approach.
     
  10. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    as usual from DD, utter cock. The US Army is recognised as having been the people giving the thrashings to the Viet Cong and Viet Minh, not the other way round. And anyone who thinks that "the rag heads are running rings round them in Irag and AfG" is even more stupid.

    Perhaps you should do a bit of research first - or possibly even work with the Americans? They do do things differently from us Brits, but we haven't exactly covered ourselves in glory recently. And as mentioned earlier, CoIn does tend to last a long time. Just because you don't like the Yanks, do not belittle their Soldiers - they are bloody good, professional, motivated, well equipped - and most of all, supported by their Country. Would that we could say the same for all five things for the British Armed Forces. We're lucky to get 3 /5.
     
  11. He spouts:


    and then he calls the Iraqis

    Back to Clown status, DuffGen. You may not be aware that the "rag heads " have killed a couple of British soldiers, plus RAF types. And even a " civvy, yeuch STAB".

    Just fuck off and suck another Werthers, you Frank Windsor cardie wearing fossil.
     
  12. Google "Tet offensive", "ARCLIGHT" , "ROLLING THUNDER"...
     
  13. The article starts off by stating that they are pretty good at the asymmetric warfare thing.
    It is primarily a critique of their conventional warfare abilities.
    What you seem to have done is written pretty much the same thing as a criticism of the article???
     
  14. Trip_Wire

    Trip_Wire RIP

    Yes I do quote TE Lawrence, who managed to conduct Guerrilla warfare, (Now Low intensity warfare) with Arab indigenous forces. I do respect his achievements in that endeavor. It wasn't easy for him either! :wink:

    Are you so focused on being so critical of my posts, that you missed that fact that this American COL was critical of Conventional Arab forces? He wasn't addressing COIN Ops. or especially other wars like Vietnam. I don't think we had any Arabs fighting on either side there. So, you are talking about Apples and oranges here!

    The article doesn't concern itself with currant COIN Ops., in either Iraq or Afghanistan, or for that matter conventional operations either, in those countries!.

    Except for the recent war between the Hezbollah and the Israelis, I think the COL is correct in his finding, on Arab conventional forces, keeping in mind that the Hezbollah are not a conventional Army and or a Nation's Army, etc.

    I happen to think that particular operation was a 'fluke' caused by PC crap within the Israeli politicians and Israeli media. If there is a next time and I think there will be, that Israelis will win it.

    BTW: I think you missed the most important facet of the COL's article, that is the failure of the conventional arab armies, to develope a strong senior NCO group within their conventional forces. Rather typical for a CRAB OFFICER! :wink:
     
  15. My understanding of the main reason the Egyptians always got spanking by the Israelis was that in addition to using Soviet military hardward, they also used the tactics suggested by the Soviet military advisors. After all, 'withdraw into the hinterland and wait for the winter snows' has always worked for the Russians, hasn't it?



    I'll get my coat.