Arab Military & Culture

[Ryder]

Arabs are good foot soldiers, maybe one of the bravest and best in the worl, were problem begins is trasnforming that bravery into effective and profesional military force, there comes into the influence rotten social structure with the filling ranks.

Arabs outsourced their fighting to non arabs.

By then their glory was already over which is a shame to be honest.

As a Turk it makes me sad to see the Arabs also the Italians fall off so bad.

 

[mulj]

Arabs outsourced their fighting to non arabs.

By then their glory was already over which is a shame to be honest.

As a Turk it makes me sad to see the Arabs also the Italians fall off so bad.

Under proper leadership Arabs are very capable soldiers, anticollonial strugle in Nort Africa is good example of it, i think that there is distinction between middle east arabs and north african in that terms.

 

[Ryder]

Under proper leadership Arabs are very capable soldiers, anticollonial strugle in Nort Africa is good example of it, i think that there is distinction between middle east arabs and north african in that terms.

Arabs are too busy fighting each other. So many civil wars among them.

Not to say us Turks did not fight each other but we knew how to come back so many times.

 

[mulj]

Arabs are too busy fighting each other. So many civil wars among them.

Not to say us Turks did not fight each other but we knew how to come back so many times.

That and particulary speaking overfragmentation of the middle east. Saudi, kuwait, uea, qatar and yemen should be one state naturaly, who knows what value i it would produce in military terms to. Probably reason why is region set up lile that is magnitute of influence from that one hypothetical state.

 

[Ryder]

That and particulary speaking overfragmentation of the middle east. Saudi, kuwait, uea, qatar and yemen should be one state naturaly, who knows what value i it would produce in military terms to. Probably reason why is region set up lile that is magnitute of influence from that one hypothetical state.

Arabs are all diverse from each other. Gulf, Magreb, Egypt and the Levant are different from each other.

 

[Bosanski Vojnik]

With respect I disagree. Iraqi's performance was well below par. The Iranian revolution wiped out most of the monarchists and pro Shah officer cadre of the Iranian Army who tended to be secular, educated and often of Azerbaijani extraction. The purge and the collapse of the Imperial Iranian Army had left it rudderless with most of it's officer corp wiped out. The new revolutionery government looked at the Iranian Army as a bulwark of the Imperial Shah order.

In addition 99% of the Iranian military equipment was of US origin who promptly blocked all spares and support leading to most of Iran's defence platforms to come to quick idle including fighters. This desperate shortage of spares led to the infamous Iran-Contra affair.

In this crippled Iran going through throes instability Saddam decided to try his luck. Despite all the advantages the Iranians managed to stop the Iraqi advance which was reminscent of the Turks halting the Greek advance on the Sakarya using desperate tactics. The Iranians literally flung waves of human cannon fodder to bring the Iraqi armoured attacks to a halt. The price Iran paid was millions of dead. But they halted and then pushed Iraq back.

You speak as though Iraq had none of the similar problems that Iran did at the time:

1979–1980 Shia uprising in Iraq - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Iraqi–Kurdish conflict - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Operation Opera - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Iraqis faced 2 major uprisings throughout the duration of the Iran-Iraq war. From Shia's in the south and Kurd in the North. Both were backed by Iran and Israel. Covert Support to Iran itself was provided by Israel + The USA

Iran–Contra affair - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Remember if you read my initial post the Iraqis did not maintain a heavy advantage in 1980. Iran in fact had a much more technologically superior force - especially when it came to Air Power. The Iranian Air force did not Halt after the revolution as they had spare parts to maintain fleets lasting until 1982 at very least. The F-4 phantoms and F-14 flew throughout the duration of the conflict. Yes in lesser numbers but both were potent planes at the time. The Iraqis only really gained technological superiority around 1986 but they still faced the problem of being heavily outnumbered, facing a foe backed by US + Israel and Syria giving Iran intelligence and providing overflights for their air force.

Iraq was attacked from both sides, faced a Hostile internal SHIA and Kurdish population which outnumbered the loyal Sunnis and had a massive population disadvantage. Given the circumstances they performed quiet well as Iran should have been able to at least capture Basra given their manpower advantage and put Baghdad under legitimate Risk of falling. None of which happened.

 

[Kaptaan]

You speak as though Iraq had none of the similar problems that Iran did at the time:

1979–1980 Shia uprising in Iraq - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Iraqi–Kurdish conflict - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Operation Opera - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Iraqis faced 2 major uprisings throughout the duration of the Iran-Iraq war. From Shia's in the south and Kurd in the North. Both were backed by Iran and Israel. Covert Support to Iran itself was provided by Israel + The USA

Iran–Contra affair - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Remember if you read my initial post the Iraqis did not maintain a heavy advantage in 1980. Iran in fact had a much more technologically superior force - especially when it came to Air Power. The Iranian Air force did not Halt after the revolution as they had spare parts to maintain fleets lasting until 1982 at very least. The F-4 phantoms and F-14 flew throughout the duration of the conflict. Yes in lesser numbers but both were potent planes at the time. The Iraqis only really gained technological superiority around 1986 but they still faced the problem of being heavily outnumbered, facing a foe backed by US + Israel and Syria giving Iran intelligence and providing overflights for their air force.

Iraq was attacked from both sides, faced a Hostile internal SHIA and Kurdish population which outnumbered the loyal Sunnis and had a massive population disadvantage. Given the circumstances they performed quiet well as Iran should have been able to at least capture Basra given their manpower advantage and put Baghdad under legitimate Risk of falling. None of which happened.

I have no particular beef in this as I am neither a Iraqi or Iranian but yes, Iraq had issues but relative to Iran they were not as debilitating. I did mention the Iran-Contra affair. USA sided with Iraq in this war and Iran-Contra affair was a aberration which as you know led to a scandal that almost brought down trhe Reagan administration.

But in conclusion. Nobody forced Iraq to attack Iran. Saddam choose to do so. Clearly he felt he had a possibility to grab the oil producing regions around Shat Al Arab. Iraq attacked. And failed to achieve anything other than set off nearly decade war with millions lost on both sides to end with exactly where things were before the war.

 

[GoatsMilk]

I cannot say anything about the Egyptian army. But I can cite an American observation for the remaining Arab armies.

The Americans say that an Arab officer who has experience in combat or attends military courses does not share this knowledge with other officers. He keeps what he knows to himself. He thinks that this will make him indispensable in the army.

Also, tribalism is very common in Arab armies. As a result of these bad habits, shameful defeats are inevitable for the Arab armies.

The Americans were very surprised that tank officers in the Iraqi army did not know anything about Fieldmarshal Rommel.

Its also worth pointing out the lackey mindset among arab countries, they will celebrate and cherish a russian, english, french, american army occupying their lands, but if a Turkish army comes they are screaming about it to all the western powers as if a great injustice has taken place.

Just look online as another example, arabs are quick to denounce the Turks and everything they do, while celebrating Russia or America or which ever western power they look up to.

 

[GoatsMilk]

I cannot say anything about the Egyptian army. But I can cite an American observation for the remaining Arab armies.

The Americans say that an Arab officer who has experience in combat or attends military courses does not share this knowledge with other officers. He keeps what he knows to himself. He thinks that this will make him indispensable in the army.

Also, tribalism is very common in Arab armies. As a result of these bad habits, shameful defeats are inevitable for the Arab armies.

The Americans were very surprised that tank officers in the Iraqi army did not know anything about Fieldmarshal Rommel.

In egypt today Isis still occupies a part of it. That says it all.

 

[Ryder]

I cannot say anything about the Egyptian army. But I can cite an American observation for the remaining Arab armies.

The Americans say that an Arab officer who has experience in combat or attends military courses does not share this knowledge with other officers. He keeps what he knows to himself. He thinks that this will make him indispensable in the army.

Also, tribalism is very common in Arab armies. As a result of these bad habits, shameful defeats are inevitable for the Arab armies.

The Americans were very surprised that tank officers in the Iraqi army did not know anything about Fieldmarshal Rommel.

Arab armies especially within all compete with each other. Dictators keep them at each other throats so they dont take them out of power.

The same story in a lot of African armies. Same case for Thailand and Burma.

 

[BordoEnes]

Arab armies especially within all compete with each other. Dictators keep them at each other throats so they dont take them out of power.

The same story in a lot of African armies. Same case for Thailand and Burma.

That usually the go-to answer when people talk about Arab armies but imo its not as simple as that. Truth is that they simply don't have any military tradition and culture where their roots can be based on. They are simply incapable of improving and adapting to the ever changing nature of warfare as a whole, still clinging to old conventional style of warfare that is increasingly fading away. Nobody fights conventional wars anymore. Its say a lot how Saudi-Arabia, who has arguably the most sophisticated weapon systems and biggest budget among Muslim countries, was completely incapable of defeating a bunch of ragtag poorly armed Houthi militia on its border. They do everything "by the books", not realizing its from a by-gone era. Ultimately the UAE and many other Arab country suffer from the same core problems that cant be solved by throwing money at it.

 

[GoatsMilk]

Its Barbarossa that complained.

Barbarossa also complained about French soldiers getting drunk but he also said they can fight.

If you can find those letters to post here it would be good. I can't remember where to find them.

 

[Ryder]

That usually the go-to answer when people talk about Arab armies but imo its not as simple as that. Truth is that they simply don't have any military tradition and culture where their roots can be based on. They are simply incapable of improving and adapting to the ever changing nature of warfare as a whole, still clinging to old conventional style of warfare that is increasingly fading away. Nobody fights conventional wars anymore. Its say a lot how Saudi-Arabia, who has arguably the most sophisticated weapon systems and biggest budget among Muslim countries, was completely incapable of defeating a bunch of ragtag poorly armed Houthi militia on its border. They do everything "by the books", not realizing its from a by-gone era. Ultimately the UAE and many other Arab country suffer from the same core problems that cant be solved by throwing money at it.

Every culture has a military tradition this includes the Arabs.

They still fail hard. Look at Italy their ancestors were the Romans and look at ww2.

Even with a tradition it means nothing.

Industrial revolution is the key to this as it basically made old style warfare itself obsolete and started a new form of warfare.

Look at this when the British colonised parts of Africa they faced Africans tribesman with spears and bows along with Muslim Africans wearing chainmail and holding swords and shields.

Arabs for centuries were no longer relevant on the world stage hemce why no reforms to adapt to any kind of changing warfare because they themselves came most under foreign rule.

Buying up technology is nothing more than assure the Arabs we have shortcomings in fighting a modern war so technology gives some sort of comfort that they can fight which is wrong big time.

To become a fighting force you need to do reforms even if it comes with pain.

Feudal armies easily got wiped out by machines guns. Feudal armies can can no longer match armies with better tech, logistics and numbers

 

[Ryder]

Interesting how the Rashidun and the Abbassid Caliphates were more open to Non Arabs to be part of the Empire while the Ummayads were more Arab supremacist in their empire.

They still charged Jizya to the people who converted even tried to stop non Arabs from becoming Muslim.

Ummayads and their racism basically led to their downfall. You cant keep an Empire like this intact when most your subjects are Non Arab.

Ummayads were successful in laying the foundations to the Arabisation of the Middle East and North Africa. Due to this legacy that Arabic has like 300 to 400 million Arabic speakers worldwide. Ummayads made Arabic the official language of their Caliphate.

 

[dani92]

Interesting how the Rashidun and the Abbassid Caliphates were more open to Non Arabs to be part of the Empire while the Ummayads were more Arab supremacist in their empire.

They still charged Jizya to the people who converted even tried to stop non Arabs from becoming Muslim.

Ummayads and their racism basically led to their downfall. You cant keep an Empire like this intact when most your subjects are Non Arab.

Ummayads were successful in laying the foundations to the Arabisation of the Middle East and North Africa. Due to this legacy that Arabic has like 300 to 400 million Arabic speakers worldwide. Ummayads made Arabic the official language of their Caliphate.

They were right I wish they kept Islam as the national religion of Arabs abd stayed in power.

 

[You]

..something is wrong
Israel was outnumbered in all categories
''surrounded'' with a narrow front
yet Israel beat the Arabs
..a ''lot'' of Arab leaders came to power with coups/bloody coups -so you have unstable politics/etc there.....

 

[Domobran7]

I think this is the best article on the topic I've ever read:

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.1 Syrians could only impose their will in Lebanon during the mid-1970s by the use of overwhelming

www.meforum.org

 

[Ryder]

As the Syrian civil war still continues.

Here is a Syrian War tune