Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 21

Thread: Arab Armies, why they lose

  1. #1
    Senior Member Mediocrates's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    N Carolina
    Posts
    30,616

    Arab Armies, why they lose

    http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htm.../20080518.aspx

    The Secrets of Arab Success

    May 18, 2008: Why do Arabs so often lose wars against non-Arabs? Why has so much of the terrorism activity for the last few decades been carried out by Arabs? Why are Arab societies so corrupt, so uneducated and lacking in economic or scientific progress? Even raising these issues is considered un-diplomatic, provocative, racist or worse. But there is something going on.

    Take, for example, a recent item going round the web. Seems that last November, seven staff of the Abu Dhabi Aircraft Technologies (ADAT) company were checking out a new Airbus 340-600. This is a four engine, $240 million aircraft. Think of it as "747 Lite." It was being checked out before acceptance, and delivery to Etihad Airways in Abu Dhabi. Through a horrendous series of errors by the people at the controls, the aircraft taxied at high speed and crashed into a barrier. The aircraft was totaled, and five people aboard were injured. There was never any official mention of the nationality of those responsible for the loss of the aircraft. Many people assume they were Arabs, although most technical jobs in the Persian Gulf are handled by non-Arab expatriates. This is still the case sixty years after the oil money began to flow. Surely that should have been sufficient time for a generation of Arab engineers, technicians and airline pilots to be trained. There have been some, but not nearly enough. Moreover, there are serious cultural problems with Arabs and technology. Many of the expatriates who have worked in the Middle East leave exasperated at the lackadaisical attitudes of the people they are trying to train, or supervise. American troops in Iraq have similar experiences when training, or just working with, Iraqis. The official PR stresses the positive experiences, but it's the negative ones that cause all the problems. If you want to get rid of all the problems over there, you have to understand what's going on or, more to the point, what isn't and why not.

    At lot has been written about why Arab armies so consistently lose wars with non-Arabs. These reasons also explain why Arab nations, and many other Third World nations as well, also have trouble establishing democratic governments or prosperous economies. A lot of it has to do with culture, especially culture influenced by Islam. Some of the reasons for these failures are;

    Most Arab countries are a patchwork of different tribes and groups, and Arab leaders survive by playing one group off against another. Loyalty is to one's group, not the nation. Most countries are dominated by a single group that is usually a minority (Bedouins in Jordan, Alawites in Syria, Sunnis in Iraq, Nejdis in Saudi Arabia). All of which means that officers are assigned not by merit but by loyalty and tribal affiliation.

    Islamic schools favor rote memorization, especially of scripture. Most Islamic scholars are hostile to the concept of interpreting the Koran (considered the word of God as given to His prophet Mohammed). This has resulted in looking down on Western troops that will look something up that they don't know. Arabs prefer to fake it, and pretend it's all in their head. Improvisation and innovation is generally discouraged. Arab armies go by the book, Western armies rewrite the book and thus usually win.

    There is no real NCO corps. Officers and enlisted troops are treated like two different social castes and there is no effort to bridge the gap using career NCOs. Enlisted personnel are treated harshly. Training accidents that would end the careers of US officers are commonplace in Arab armies, and nobody cares.

    Officers are despised by their troops, and this does not bother the officers much it all. Many Arab officers simply cannot understand how treating the troops decently will make them better soldiers.

    Paranoia prevents adequate training. Arab tyrants insist that their military units have little contact with each other, thus insuring that no general can became powerful enough to overthrow them. Units are purposely kept from working together or training on a large scale. Arab generals don't have as broad a knowledge of their armed forces as do their Western counterparts. Promotions are based more on political reliability than combat proficiency. Arab leaders prefer to be feared, rather than respected, by their soldiers. This approach leads to poorly trained armies and low morale. A few rousing speeches about "Moslem brotherhood" before a war starts does little to repair the damage.

    Arab officers often do not trust each other. While an American infantry officer can be reasonably confident that the artillery officers will conduct their bombardment on time and on target, Arab infantry officers seriously doubt that their artillery will do its job on time or on target. This is a fatal attitude in combat.

    Arab military leaders consider it acceptable to lie to subordinates and allies in order to further their personal agenda. This had catastrophic consequences during all of the Arab-Israeli wars and continues to make peace difficult between Israelis and Palestinians. When called out on this behavior, Arabs will assert that they were "misunderstood."

    While American officers and NCOs are only too happy to impart their wisdom and skill to others (teaching is the ultimate expression of prestige), Arab officers try to keep any technical information and manuals secret. To Arabs, the value and prestige of an individual is based not on what he can teach, but on what he knows that no one else knows.

    While American officers thrive on competition among themselves, Arab officers avoid this as the loser would be humiliated. Better for everyone to fail together than for competition to be allowed, even if it eventually benefits everyone.

    Americans are taught leadership and technology; Arab officers are taught only technology. Leadership is given little attention as officers are assumed to know this by virtue of their social status as officers.

    Initiative is considered a dangerous trait. So subordinates prefer to fail rather than make an independent decision. Battles are micromanaged by senior generals, who prefer to suffer defeat rather than lose control of their subordinates. Even worse, an Arab officer will not tell a US ally why he cannot make the decision (or even that he cannot make it), leaving US officers angry and frustrated because the Arabs won't make a decision. The Arab officers simply will not admit that they do not have that authority.

    Lack of initiative makes it difficult for Arab armies to maintain modern weapons. Complex modern weapons require on the spot maintenance, and that means delegating authority, information, and tools. Arab armies avoid doing this and prefer to use easier to control central repair shops. This makes the timely maintenance of weapons difficult.

    Security is maniacal. Everything even vaguely military is top secret. While US Army promotion lists are routinely published, this rarely happens in Arab armies. Officers are suddenly transferred without warning to keep them from forging alliances or networks. Any team spirit among officers is discouraged.

    All these traits were reinforced, from the 1950s to the 1990s, by Soviet advisors. To the Russians, anything military was secret, enlisted personnel were scum, there was no functional NCO system, and everyone was paranoid about everyone else. These were not "communist" traits, but Russian customs that had existed for centuries and were adopted by the communists to make their dictatorship more secure from rebellion. Arab dictators avidly accepted this kind of advice, but are still concerned about how rapidly the communist dictatorships all came tumbling down between 1989-91.

    Such a system can produce fearsome looking armies, but not a force that can survive an encounter with well trained and led soldiers. The same techniques are applied to government and the economy, producing tyranny and backwardness that appalls Westerners, and angers the citizens of these unfortunate states. That anger has produced many reform efforts. Including such unholy horrors as al Qaeda.

    Arab leaders, especially in the Persian Gulf, are generally pretty smart, and aware of what they are working with. So they hire lots of foreigners for key technical jobs. But you still have a lot of suspicious, paranoid, poorly educated and insecure people in charge. Changing all this is, understandably, difficult.

    So now you know.

  2. #2
    farmall
    Guest
    That's a rehash of the well-known Norville de Atkine piece which makes more interesting reading.

    http://www.meforum.org/article/441

    The de Atkine article also supports the idea that Arab cultural traits rather than Soviet influence drive their frequent failure at Western-style conventional war.

    "Examining Arab warfare in this century leads to the conclusion that Arabs remain more successful in insurgent, or political warfare13—what T. E. Lawrence termed "winning wars without battles."14 Even the much-lauded Egyptian crossing of the Suez in 1973 at its core entailed a masterful deception plan. It may well be that these seemingly permanent attributes result from a culture that engenders subtlety, indirection, and dissimulation in personal relationships.15"

    "The barrage of criticism leveled at Samuel Huntington's notion of a "clash of civilizations"17 in no way lessens the vital point he made—that however much the grouping of peoples by religion and culture rather than political or economic divisions offends academics who propound a world defined by class, race, and gender, it is a reality, one not diminished by modern communications."

  3. #3
    Senior Member Mil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    6,242
    Kenneth Pollack has a book on the "Arabs at War."
    Mil - stands for the countless MILlions of reasons not to work.

  4. #4
    andak01
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by farmall View Post
    It may well be that these seemingly permanent attributes result from a culture that engenders subtlety, indirection, and dissimulation in personal relationships.15"
    Being as all military strategists through history agree that deception and indirection is a part of success in defeating the enemy, if they were good at this, they should also be successful. After all, the Greeks brought the Trojan Horse, the allies deceived the Germans at D-Day and Napoleon and Hannibal crossed the alps.

    A military operation involves deception. Even though you are competent, appear to be incompetent. Though effective, appear to be ineffective.
    -- Sun Tzu, The Art of War

    http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/wright/wf05.pdf

    http://www.jonlatimer.com/deceptioninwar.html

    So it's interesting that when Sun Tzu or Machiavelli or General Patton speaks of deception in war, they are brilliant, but when a Muslim uses the exact same terminology, it's taqqiya. It looks like the Chinese and the Romans and the Greeks and the Americans understand the same concept, they just aren't smeared because of it.

  5. #5
    farmall
    Guest
    "So it's interesting that when Sun Tzu or Machiavelli or General Patton speaks of deception in war, they are brilliant, but when a Muslim uses the exact same terminology, it's taqqiya."

    Taqqiya IS brilliant! It is wise to point it out because it is a useful enemy tactic.
    Islam is superbly configured to fight other systems.

  6. #6
    Sayed Zakerya
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by farmall View Post
    That's a rehash of the well-known Norville de Atkine piece which makes more interesting reading.

    http://www.meforum.org/article/441

    The de Atkine article also supports the idea that Arab cultural traits rather than Soviet influence drive their frequent failure at Western-style conventional war.

    "Examining Arab warfare in this century leads to the conclusion that Arabs remain more successful in insurgent, or political warfare13—what T. E. Lawrence termed "winning wars without battles."14 Even the much-lauded Egyptian crossing of the Suez in 1973 at its core entailed a masterful deception plan. It may well be that these seemingly permanent attributes result from a culture that engenders subtlety, indirection, and dissimulation in personal relationships.15"

    "The barrage of criticism leveled at Samuel Huntington's notion of a "clash of civilizations"17 in no way lessens the vital point he made—that however much the grouping of peoples by religion and culture rather than political or economic divisions offends academics who propound a world defined by class, race, and gender, it is a reality, one not diminished by modern communications."
    1973 war does not match the ongoing analysis. Check the battles of Gebel El sheikh, Missori, Suez City & the total war outcome especially on the Egyptian front.

  7. #7
    farmall
    Guest
    Egypt certainly did a fair job in 1973 (initial surprise especially, and the water jets used were a nice touch!), and Israel was unprepared to counter it more effectively with combined arms. Infantry must protect tanks and AFVs from ATGM threats while the armor provides supporting firepower. If the infantry aren't available or are buttoned up in APCs the armored forces will take heavier losses. (Then as now ATGMs and RPGs don't make tanks obsolete, but the idea of no/low loss tank battles as the norm is a mistake.) For Egypt, not getting erased was a morale boost even though Israel was able to push back across Suez, and Egypt realized that the best it would ever likely do against Israel was a limited tactical victory.

    Israeli experience against the SAM threat resulted in doctrine and equipment changes (note how battlefield air support was used by the US in the Gulf War). Standoff weapons and guidance systems that allow "tank plinking" with dumb bombs from a smart airframe make killing enemy vehicles much easier.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Mil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    6,242
    Actually in 73 Egyptians performed quite horribly even provided the many advantages.
    Mil - stands for the countless MILlions of reasons not to work.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Mediocrates's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    N Carolina
    Posts
    30,616
    The points quite tactical and organizational in nature. Arab armies fail because they reflect cultural norms that don't prefer modern armies.

    Moreover, and this point wasn't made in the top piece, Arab (and Persian) armies suffer from a key problem. And that problem is that the most highly trained, funded, armed and supported groups have their guns essentially pointed inward at the populace, not out. The Republican Guards in Iraq was a force designed around keeping Saddam in power from within. Similarly the IRGC is a multirole force who's key charter is political not military. They are the tool of foreign policy of Iran. But in terms of fighting a modern war they're almost useless. I doubt they could fight Pakistan to more than a draw.

  10. #10
    farmall
    Guest
    "Actually in 73 Egyptians performed quite horribly even provided the many advantages."

    They got surprisingly far before they were beaten back. Fortunately they are unlikely to repeat the performance.

    "Moreover, and this point wasn't made in the top piece, Arab (and Persian) armies suffer from a key problem. And that problem is that the most highly trained, funded, armed and supported groups have their guns essentially pointed inward at the populace, not out."

    That is of course good news for us, but complacency is never a good idea. Our edge is based on preparing to fight competent enemies. Imagined competence beyond their actual abilities is a characteristic of the enemy we should encourage since they cannot resist it. If they feel competent engaging in all-out conventional war and give that a try that's a gift to us.

  11. #11
    Senior Member Mil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    6,242
    Posted by farmall:

    They got surprisingly far before they were beaten back. Fortunately they are unlikely to repeat the performance.

    They didn't get far at all. Just a few miles beyond the canal which was quite sad provided the resources, fire-power, and the numbers available. Preparing for the THREE YEARS to just storm the canal all defended by a few hundred people?! The Egyptians simply got slaughtered.
    Mil - stands for the countless MILlions of reasons not to work.

  12. #12
    Sayed Zakerya
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Mil View Post
    Posted by farmall:

    They got surprisingly far before they were beaten back. Fortunately they are unlikely to repeat the performance.

    They didn't get far at all. Just a few miles beyond the canal which was quite sad provided the resources, fire-power, and the numbers available. Preparing for the THREE YEARS to just storm the canal all defended by a few hundred people?! The Egyptians simply got slaughtered.
    Not realy. Here is an independent source regarding Missori Battles events:-
    ( historynet.com under the title Yom Kippur War: Embattled Israeli Bridgehead at Chinese Farm) describing the battle for Missori:-

    ''At 4 p.m. on the 15th, Sharon sent an armored brigade under Colonel Tuvia Raviv to make a diversionary feint toward the Egyptians, while the divisional reconnaissance unit and an armored brigade under Colonel Amnon Reshef swept to the southwest, toward the gap in the Egyptian line.
    The Israeli forces remained undetected as they made the 19-mile trek. After reaching the Lexicon road, which ran north–south one kilometer east of the canal, the reconnaissance unit continued on to capture the strongpoint at Matzmed. Reshef’s brigade divided into battalions before trying to accomplish its three main objectives: the capture of the marshaling yard, the opening of the Akavish road and the occupation of Chinese Farm and Missouri.
    The Israeli 18th Battalion was the first to come under fire as it traveled northward along the right of the Lexicon road on its way to Missouri. Egyptian infantrymen, who had occupied the Tirtur-Lexicon crossroads, knocked out 11 tanks with their deadly Saggers.
    The 18th pushed on toward Missouri instead of attacking the crossroads. That responsibility had been assigned to a company of the 40th Armored Battalion, whose deputy commander, a Major Butel, did not know that the administrative centers of the Egyptian Second Army’s 21st Armored and 16th Infantry divisions were located in the nearby Chinese Farm.
    Butel and his men charged toward the crossroads and soon were surrounded by hundreds of tanks, guns and missiles and thousands of troops. To compound the problem, the Egyptians had prepared positions in the farm’s irrigation ditches. Butel was wounded, and his battalion’s attack soon dissolved under withering fire.
    The 2nd company of the Israeli 40th Armored Battalion had a much easier time clearing the Akavish road. At the same time, the divisional reconnaissance unit secured Matzmed and the marshaling yard. The Israelis immediately sent bridging equipment down the Akavish road, but since they were unable to use the Tirtur road as a secondary route, a massive traffic jam developed.
    It took two hours for Matt’s paratrooper brigade, stuck at the rear of this jam, to go less than three miles on the road, and by the time they made it to the bank of the canal, they were hopelessly behind schedule. Sharon, who had been an ardent supporter of a Suez crossing from the beginning, ordered the paratroopers to cross the canal while the battle for Chinese Farm was growing in intensity.
    Meanwhile, the 7th and 18th Armored battalions continued to advance north. The 18th soon ran into Egyptian tanks and was drawn into another costly skirmish. By 10 p.m. the Egyptians made their full presence known around Missouri and began making local thrusts. Sporadic fights whittled the 7th Battalion down to one-third of its original strength. As the Egyptians began to display the first real signs of an organized counterattack, Reshef called for a tactical retreat. The 7th and 18th battalions withdrew and formed a line half a mile north of Chinese Farm. Attacks by the Egyptian 14th Armored Brigade would keep those two battalions fighting throughout the night.
    After Major Butel’s men were repulsed, the 40th Infantry Battalion and Force Shmulick–a mixed unit of paratroopers with armor support, named after a hero of the recent fighting in the Golan Heights–resumed the fight for Chinese Farm. Again, Egyptian resistance was ferocious. According to one Lieutenant Neria, Although it was night, after 15 minutes you could see everything like daylight. The Israeli troops suffered heavy casualties as a result of interlocking fire from meticulously prepared defensive positions. Part of the attacking force became trapped and was overrun by the Egyptians. The battalion commander, all of his tanks and a large number of his men were lost during the costly fight. By the morning of October 16, Reshef’s brigade had lost 60 tanks and more than 120 men.
    At 4 the next morning, Reshef tried to attack the Lexicon-Tirtur crossroads and Chinese Farm once more, this time maneuvering his forces to strike at the Egyptians from the rear.
    That strike failed as well, but Reshef scheduled another push to begin shortly after dawn. Instead of charging the fortifications head-on, this time he ordered his tanks to keep their distance but also to continue laying a barrage. By keeping his armor on the move and having it fire from a distance, Reshef was finally able to wear down the Egyptians. He captured the Tirtur-Lexicon crossroads but was unable to clear Chinese Farm. Sharon’s division, with Reshef’s brigade bearing the brunt of the fighting, had now lost about 300 men killed and 70 tanks destroyed or disabled. Reshef left a battalion to hold the line west of Chinese Farm and withdrew his brigade south to the shores of the Great Bitter Lake.''
    I think your slautering statement is not well supported.

  13. #13
    Senior Member Mil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    6,242
    I've read enough about Yom Kippur war and other wars in general. The Egyptians performed quite poorly and their success in a few defensive, if very rigid, battles does not mean a thing. As soon as the Israelis found a place to poke and penetrate they did with the known results. With the arms balance and the firepower available to the Egyptians, in combination with Syrians, they should have been in Tel Aviv within a week maximum. In fact according to force ratios estimates, the favorite pass-time by Trevor Dupuy, the Israelis performed way better in 73 then they did in 67. In fact the same is confirmed by Van Crevald.

    There was nothing too spectacular in the Egyptian and especially the Syrian effort in 73. On the Golan an under-strength tank platoon destroyed an entire tank brigade!!!! That's just wayyyyyyyyy beyond sad.

    I recommend you get Dupuy's Elusive Victory: The Arab-Israeli Wars, 1947-1974
    Last edited by Mil; 06-02-2008 at 02:01 PM.
    Mil - stands for the countless MILlions of reasons not to work.

  14. #14
    Zohar Yeshayahu
    Guest
    This is why Arabs perform awfully against non-arab nations in combat(even while having a tremendous numerical advantage): They are lazy, unwilling to do all the necessary, and have a tendency to 'rush' things. That being said, we cant really complain about Arabs not having a competent military. It guarantees peace in the long run(knowing that you can beat your enemies virtually 100% of the time is great).

  15. #15
    Sayed Zakerya
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Zohar Yeshayahu View Post
    This is why Arabs perform awfully against non-arab nations in combat(even while having a tremendous numerical advantage): They are lazy, unwilling to do all the necessary, and have a tendency to 'rush' things. That being said, we cant really complain about Arabs not having a competent military. It guarantees peace in the long run(knowing that you can beat your enemies virtually 100% of the time is great).
    Are you serious? is this some type of joke. This lazy Egyptian army smashed IDF in 1973 war. You should estimate what would be the result if these Egyptians got rid of their Laziness & ........
    What a poor analysis you are offering.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Arab Summit that Wasn't
    By Mediocrates in forum In The News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-28-2008, 01:14 PM
  2. "The Arab Body is Disintegrating From Within"
    By Mediocrates in forum Israeli-Arab Conflict
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-18-2007, 10:05 AM
  3. Tragedy Of The Arabs
    By abu afak in forum Religion/Culture
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 02-25-2004, 12:08 PM
  4. What do they have to lose?
    By humus_sapiens in forum Israeli-Arab Conflict
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-14-2003, 06:57 PM
  5. Libya says it's quitting Arab League
    By Teacake in forum In The News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-25-2002, 07:48 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •