Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 12th, 2012, 12:28 AM   #21

arras's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: Slovakia
Posts: 12,352

I think reason is in motivation. When fighting under various kings, dictators and potentates, Arabs did not show much enthusiasm to get themselves killed.

On the other hand, when properly motivated by either religious or national cause, they were able to fight well: Hesbolah was able to beat Israeli army during last Israeli invasion of Lebanon. In Hesbolah you have authentic Arab grassroot movement and as a result their performance is much better.
arras is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 12th, 2012, 01:19 AM   #22

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 8,477
Blog Entries: 11

Quote:
Originally Posted by arras View Post
I think reason is in motivation. When fighting under various kings, dictators and potentates, Arabs did not show much enthusiasm to get themselves killed.

On the other hand, when properly motivated by either religious or national cause, they were able to fight well: Hesbolah was able to beat Israeli army during last Israeli invasion of Lebanon. In Hesbolah you have authentic Arab grassroot movement and as a result their performance is much better.
True, I would point out that Hezbollah has developed units and strategies suitable for that context.

There is still the point of the limitation of the usage of air force on "background targets" by IDF [due to international pressure]. Lebanon is a sensitive military scenario, no way. It's almost impossible to use the whole power of a modern army without causing too many "collateral damages".

Olmert learned something about.
AlpinLuke is offline  
Old November 12th, 2012, 01:28 AM   #23

Panthera tigris altaica's Avatar
In latrine Rex
 
Joined: Aug 2011
From: Texas
Posts: 5,447
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangas Coloradas View Post
The article makes some valid points, Arab armies have not functioned well in the past and his reasoning may have substantial merit. I do think that under the right conditions and with some alterations they would be a force to be reckoned with and their style of warfare is quite capable to this day on it's level. We have yet to fully conquer them.
Indeed. I take the view that crap roles down hill, pardon my figure of speech. They perform bad because their leadership is bad, oh and very corrupt form of leadership.

Though i do disagree with wanting to conquer them. If we wanted to conquer them, then why on earth are we spending billions to train their leadership and soldiers to a more exacting standard, rather than leaving them to rot and be easy prey in the future.

As it is, like most under supported, underfunded and neglected armies of the past, once they get some good quality attention from the top or from any ally, they can and often do perform superbly.
Panthera tigris altaica is online now  
Old November 12th, 2012, 01:39 AM   #24

arras's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: Slovakia
Posts: 12,352

Quote:
Originally Posted by Panthera tigris altaica View Post
Though i do disagree with wanting to conquer them. If we wanted to conquer them, then why on earth are we spending billions to train their leadership and soldiers to a more exacting standard, rather than leaving them to rot and be easy prey in the future.
Because like any other Empire, you wanted them to fight wars for you. Every single Empire in history did that.
arras is offline  
Old November 12th, 2012, 01:49 AM   #25

Gudenrath's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2012
From: Denmark
Posts: 2,435
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by arras View Post
I think reason is in motivation. When fighting under various kings, dictators and potentates, Arabs did not show much enthusiasm to get themselves killed.
False. Just because you personally could not imagine ever fighting for a king, dictator or potentate, there are actually many people out there who could.

It is more likely to come down to inefficient organisation, corrupt and nepotistic chain of command placing the wrong people in important positions, and other such things characteristic of authoritarian government.
Gudenrath is online now  
Old November 12th, 2012, 01:51 AM   #26

Mosquito's Avatar
bloody
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Sarmatia
Posts: 5,426

Because God is not on their side but supports their enemies. Maszallah!!
Mosquito is offline  
Old November 12th, 2012, 02:12 AM   #27

Panthera tigris altaica's Avatar
In latrine Rex
 
Joined: Aug 2011
From: Texas
Posts: 5,447
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by arras View Post
Because like any other Empire, you wanted them to fight wars for you. Every single Empire in history did that.
I think it is a matter of perception between us. Everything i read points to building them up to stand on their own, with a formalized alliance to back it up in case of a foreign attack. I can only guess that your seeing through the perspective of: Meet the new empire, same as the old empires. Might that be correct?

Personally, i don't know what to think. I don't see the US as a full fledged empire, but i also don't see the US as it once was prior to the second world war. I think it is some sort of (For me) uncomfortable hybridization that i have been trying to work out for while already.
Panthera tigris altaica is online now  
Old November 12th, 2012, 02:44 AM   #28

arras's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: Slovakia
Posts: 12,352

Quote:
Originally Posted by Panthera tigris altaica View Post
I think it is a matter of perception between us. Everything i read points to building them up to stand on their own, with a formalized alliance to back it up in case of a foreign attack.
Most of their militarises you train and equip serve one purpose: keep their own population from rebelling against corrupt kings, princes and dictators you support (or those of neighbouring country as in case of Bahrain). Non of those armies is ever going to fight Israel for example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Panthera tigris altaica View Post
Personally, i don't know what to think. I don't see the US as a full fledged empire, but i also don't see the US as it once was prior to the second world war. I think it is some sort of (For me) uncomfortable hybridization that i have been trying to work out for while already.
It is imperialism, just with modern instruments. Conquest is mostly done by indirect, economic and political means. You call it "soft power". So it is not as obvious as old fashioned military conquests of the past. Not that you do not resort to military conquests from time to time.
arras is offline  
Old November 12th, 2012, 02:50 AM   #29

arras's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: Slovakia
Posts: 12,352

Quote:
Originally Posted by Panthera tigris altaica View Post
Personally, i don't know what to think. I don't see the US as a full fledged empire, but i also don't see the US as it once was prior to the second world war.
Watch this:

Or watch him here in more lengthy document:
arras is offline  
Old November 12th, 2012, 03:27 AM   #30

Panthera tigris altaica's Avatar
In latrine Rex
 
Joined: Aug 2011
From: Texas
Posts: 5,447
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by arras View Post
Most of their militarises you train and equip serve one purpose: keep their own population from rebelling against corrupt kings, princes and dictators you support (or those of neighbouring country as in case of Bahrain).
Not quite. While i can't quite argue that they don't, say... serve a purpose in stabilizing their respective countries via internal security measures (And what countries doesn't have a plan to deal with unrest, i'd really like to know?), as we had more recently witnessed in Iraq and maybe(?) in Afghanistan (Though i doubt Afghanistan can come together as a nation like Iraq has and can be much more easily fractured due the more traditional tribal loyalties of the region). They are also equipped with enough weapons for defensive purposes.

What these governments do after US forces leave (And the USG loses it's biggest leverage, in which often leads to either two scenarios, dictatorship or a democratically formed representative republic) is up to them and not the US State department or the Pentagon. Advise is the best and sometimes ineffectual thing the USG can do and that is a mixed bag of idealism pushing for democratic reforms (As witnessed in Kuwait) that can break down quickly on the one hand and supporting a government that promotes stability and growth with the possibilities of the USG pushing reforms on the other, which can take, like for ever to do if they ever get around to it (Yes, i know the house of Saud is the prime example of a head scratchier. Why do we bother as most say; For the oil is said in unison! Just one piece of the puzzle to the much larger picture say I, But I'm digress from the OP). But seriously, what can we expect when the socioeconomic growth of individual countries have been extraordinary uneven for the past century with often ineffectual governing styles throughout!

Quote:
Non of those armies is ever going to fight Israel for example.
Nothing is ever certain.

Quote:
It is imperialism, just with modern instruments. Conquest is mostly done by indirect, economic and political means. You call it "soft power". So it is not as obvious as old fashioned military conquests of the past. Not that you do not resort to military conquests from time to time.
What color might the map be then. A solid blue or red or a multicolored one built up by alliances and shared security? Yes, it is a double edged sword. The US has grown in power and prestige over the last 150 years while at the same time acquiring suspicion and fear from it's friends and foes alike. And all the while Washington's farewell address continues unheeded or looked upon as archaic while i think it is as prescient today as the day he delivered the speech. Like i said, i think there is more to this than cut and dried Imperialism. I think it is a bit more complicated than that.
Panthera tigris altaica is online now  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
arabs, lose, wars


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Who are the Arabs? Rosi Middle Eastern and African History 52 October 30th, 2013 01:22 PM
The Byzantines defeat the arabs and turks( arabs and later turks) Feeeen Speculative History 14 June 13th, 2013 02:12 AM
Would Japan Lose? mingming Speculative History 1 May 6th, 2011 09:19 PM
Why did Germany lose two world wars? Belisarius War and Military History 50 July 19th, 2008 04:59 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.