| Submit your comments on this article |
| Arabia |
| Strategy Page: The Feared Arab Soldier |
| 2006-11-06 |
| IEDs were used in Vietnam, but caused (with mines, and booby traps in general) only 13 percent of the casualties, compared to over 60 percent in Iraq. The reason for this, is one that few journalists want to discuss openly. But historians can tell you; Arabs are lousy fighters. Hasn't always been this way, but for the last century or so, it has. This has more to do with poor leadership, and a culture that simply does not encourage those traits that are needed to produce a superior soldier. In a word, the North Vietnamese soldiers and Viet Cong guerillas were better, and more deadly, fighters. Contributing factors in Iraqi include better training and equipment for American and Coalition troops. But most of the reason for the historically low casualty rates in Iraq have to do with Iraqis who don't know how to fight effectively. |
| Posted by:Nimble Spemble |
| #13 I think all of you overlook one fundamental feature that most Arab governments share in common, namely, tyranny. This sort of top heavy leadership is especially sensitive to an overly strong military. Since it does not depend on charismatic leadership or earned loyalty and instead is driven by the corruption and opportunities for graft that rank and position have to offer, there is little motivation to respect authority. Instead allegience is sold to the highest bidder. No one involved in such a kleptocracy wants to deal with a highly efficient military machine capable of ousting them at a moment's notice. As it always has, corruption cripples all possibility of progress in the MME (Muslim Middle East). Tansparency works well in low context cultures such as the West. Unspoken agreements, cronyism, preferential treatment and favoritism are all extremely dependent upon a high context culture's emphasis upon position, wealth, status, seniority and connections. Witness Pakistan's Musharraf and his current difficulties in holding onto the reins of power. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-11-06 20:10 |
| #12 Back in the mid-1980's Mr. Wife described the sandles, and weapon, of an Egyptian soldier he saw standing guard as being held together by duct tape and baling wire. "No wonder they lost the Yom Kippur War," was his comment. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-11-06 18:56 |
| #11 While that may apply to the Arabs, the Turks gave the Aussies and Brits more than they could handle at Gallipoli. Again, not Arabs. The Egyptians technically aren't arabs, either, although they still have a hard time fighting. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2006-11-06 16:49 |
| #10 Simple: If they fought well, they might not die, and they couldn't go get their 72 raisins. If you have a culture that fundamentally prefers life over death, and manages to avoid wussifying their kids, you get good fighters. |
| Posted by: gorb 2006-11-06 15:47 |
| #9 Maybe this guy? Even tho he was a turk. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suleiman_I ? |
| Posted by: Anon4021 2006-11-06 15:46 |
| #8 #4. I was thinking maybe Tariq ibn Ziyad, but a quick check on Google revealed he was a Berber and led a Moorish army to defeat Roderick in Spain in 711 AD. Maybe we should start a list of great Arabic Generals; something in the "world's shortest books" category. |
| Posted by: GK 2006-11-06 15:14 |
| #7 Stopping to pray 5 times a day may contribute to their lack of soldiering skills. But I think, like many cultures, ego is their main obstacle. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-11-06 15:12 |
| #6 @ Steve White : yup, those were diagnosticated before 9/11 (and I think .com has already quoted this article, which was in SDB's library, not sure). de Atkine Why Arabs Lose Wars or Here. |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2006-11-06 14:19 |
| #5 The Israelis will tell you that the Egyptians have some competent junior officers and non-coms -- not brilliant but good. Problem is, the higher ups are completely corrupted -- they have to be to survive in that political atmosphere. This means that the intel is always bad (made up), the logistics are always bad (stolen), training is sub-standard, and the troops are treated poorly. That doesn't equate to success against a Western army. To change this you'd need a generation of democracy and re-education, and I don't see that happening now, not even in Iraq :-( |
| Posted by: Steve White 2006-11-06 14:15 |
| #4 The last great Islamic general was Timur a 14th century warrior of Turco-Mongolian decent. Before that you have Saladin, a Kurd. I can't come up with an actual Arab general worth his salt. They tended to raid like bandits, a form of warfare that doesn't produce honor or great tactics. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-11-06 13:14 |
| #3 Even in WW1, it wa British Officers and Sgts that led the effective ones (c.f TE Lawrence). |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2006-11-06 12:58 |
| #2 Nothing new, the Arabs haven't known how to fight since WWI, and even then it was hit and miss for unit effectiveness. Point is, since the European takeover, the Arabs haven't had to fight. Since the Europeans left, the Arabs haven't relearned how. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2006-11-06 12:33 |
| #1 A long time ago I read a book called 72 hours on the Golan Heights. Just before the Syrians attacked Israel, one of the officers asked their Vietmanese advisor, "How do the Americans fight in the jungle?" The Viet. Officer replied, "The Americans don't fight in the jungle, they mow it down." |
| Posted by: Silentbrick 2006-11-06 11:36 |