???
A bit of not-terribly-informative elaboration from the CIA World Factbook, because I found this assertion confusing at first:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ag.html
ETA: Of course, the more important distinction may be that Algeria was a guerilla war against an occupying power, and so many of the ills that hinder military effectiveness in established Arab states (such as a repressive government jealous of military power) didn’t exist in the same way at the time of the war.
I completely agree with that (actually, as guerilla fighters, the Arabs would have something of quite a long history). But, it’s mostly “does any 3rd world nation perform well in war?”. Apart from guerilla warfare against occupying power, it’s a definite no.
So, why single out the Arabs of all the other 3rd world nations?
But I think we’re getting seriously off subject here, sorry for that.
P.S: Really Not All That Bright, the only “true Arabs” are Peninsula Arabs, quite a minority. Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Lybia, the whole of Maghreb, Egypt wouldnt count as Arabs if we started to use that criterion. You’ll notice they far outweight any of the Peninsula Arabs.
But wasn’t that against the French?
That doesn’t count.
I think the thing to note is that the Arab nations’ military prowess (or lack thereof) in modern conventional wars has little to do with the ethnic identity of their citizens, and much to do with the relative corruption of their governments and backwardness of their societies. Of particular note is that the structure of a dictatorship in that part of the world positively discouraged initiative in the high command - successful generals could be rivals.
By all accounts some Arab soldiers are very effective indeed - for example, the Israelis had great respect for the fighting powers of the Jordanians. Perhaps having a tribal-based monarchy actually helped to increase efficiency, as successful soldiers would not be tempted into seizing power.
My question was “how’s that different from every other 3rd world nation?” I dont see a specific Arabness to those traits, though I’ll agree that they are present in Arab societies (to varying degrees).
You are quite correct in this, though the ME arises as a more common issue than elsewhere in terms of comparison because, in the history of modern warfare, it is the one place where one sees relatively common conventional military confrontations between first-world armies and third-world armies (the Arab/Israeli wars, the US in Iraq).
Other 3rd world nations would probably fare the same, but there simply hasn’t been as many examples.
When Osama bin Laden attacked the WTC, his aim – this is no secret, it’s well known from his published speeches and statements – was to provoke a world war between the Islamic world and the Western world. Bin Laden believes this would somehow cause the Islamic nations to unite under a new Caliphate – which, with God on its side, would kick the West’s ass and emerge as the world’s new superpower. I think this is a pipe dream – how could the Shi’ite Muslims recognize the same caliph as the Sunni? It would be like having a Pope of all Catholics and Protestants. And even within the Sunni nations there doesn’t seem to be any mass enthusiasm for the idea. As for the military prospects of such a union vs. the West, less said the better. But, that is what al-Qaeda is all about, and al-Qaeda is by no means gone from the scene.
Interestingly, the Arab force that’s acquitted itself the best against Israel, Hizbullah, does not exist in a one-party state headed by a president-for-life; and also is a reasonable demonstration-in-itself of why such leaders might avoid a strong military.
BTW: picking on the Arabs wasn’t my intention. Stranger On A Train pointed out in post #5 that contrary to the thesis of the OP, several major wars have been fought in the Middle East. Mr. Excellent responded in post #7 that that’s not the best example because the wars were assymetrical in that Israel’s armed forces seemed qualitatively superior to it’s neighbors. My post mentioned an analysis on why that might be so.
Regarding the example of WW1, the meme of the war being an unwanted result of diplomatic mistakes is belied in part that at least at the outbreak of the war there was a tremendous popular surge of patriotism and even enthusiasm for the war. Apparently everyone believed they were going to kick those mofo’s asses and show them who was boss.
It doesn’t seem at all implausible that a similar wave of patriotic fervor could sweep over, say, the US and China simultaneously at some point in the medium-distant future.
I think it could happen, it just won’t be waged in a manner we’re used to. I think cyber warfare will be a huge component of such a conflict.
I recently read about a computer virus that popped up in Iran that some suspect originated from the United States. The virus is meant to infect the computers that run and monitor industrial machinery, taking them over and causing the programs to adjust the machine settings in ways that cause damage (like turning off coolant systems, for example). You can see the potential in utilizing worms and viruses that can take industrial capacity and weapons systems offline, without having to target them directly with explosives. If you can undermine your enemy’s ability to utilize their weapons against you, or wreak havoc on their economy and infrastructure, you may not have to engage them in actual combat.
I don’t think it’s wholly unreasonable to assume that if you’re not actually invading the enemy’s territory, they’re probably not going to risk using nuclear weapons against you. If cyber war can force their military to sit at home, you’ve effectively won without firing a shot.