7 ms·

Mostly because there is no Arab or Muslim empire left after Europeans killed off the Ottoman empire and it's easy to beat down tyrants with few allies. What's t

Mostly because there is no Arab or Muslim empire left after Europeans killed off the Ottoman empire and it's easy to beat down tyrants with few allies. What's the reasons for these tyrants, dictators, and terrorists. Insecurity. What's the reason for insecurity? Lack of empire... so you always end up becoming someone's bitch... which leads to feelings of insecurity and inferiority. The only way to deal with this is to become a vassal of an existing empire and good examples of this are Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc.

leroy_masochist 7y ago
If you were to actually read the article you might find it to be a thoughtful meditation on Arab military (and, more generally, male) culture by someone who has broad and deep firsthand knowledge of the topic. Having advised the Iraqi army, and having tried to prepare beforehand by reading Lawrence, Patai, Nydell, etc, I would say that this short essay was by far the best of the bunch. I think de Atkine also makes insightful points about how good people can create toxic organizations when they feel insecure about their status within the organization.
- devoply 7y ago
  Well to me it reeks of Orientalism in that most of these countries are run by tribal syndicates which are more or less a result of social engineering and destruction of Arab nationalism. So obviously there are no stable power structures which would lead to some sort of successful organization of a military. And that's all by design. After you have created a disaster you can go in there point your finger at their culture and say see, this is why the native is stupid. And all the bigots buy it... because that's the situation you have created.
  - leroy_masochist 7y ago
    This comment has nothing to do with de Atkine's essay, which I recommend you actually read.
    - devoply 7y ago
      > Along these lines, Kenneth Pollack concludes his exhaustive study of Arab military effectiveness by noting that "certain patterns of behavior fostered by the dominant Arab culture were the most important factors contributing to the limited military effectiveness of Arab armies and air forces from 1945 to 1991."16 These attributes included over-centralization, discouraging initiative, lack of flexibility, manipulation of information, and the discouragement of leadership at the junior officer level. > 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. > But how does one integrate the study of culture into military training? At present, it has hardly any role. Paul M. Belbutowski, a scholar and former member of the U.S. Delta Force, succinctly stated a deficiency in our own military education system: "Culture, comprised of all that is vague and intangible, is not generally integrated into strategic planning except at the most superficial level." You don't. You change the culture by socially engineering it. That's how the West has always done things. But we must understand the savage and his culture... and understand his brute nature so that we may deal with him.
  - ryacko 7y ago
    When corruption is the norm, how do you think it would be expressed in society? I have no doubt as to the value of the social engineering, knowledge of American values and norms are spread by American media, for the price of an armored division and hiring from the Arab emigre population in the United States, an Arabic movie and TV studio could be created. More people throughout the world are familiar with Miranda rights than with the US constitution, partially because the US constitution is dead words, while what Hollywood produces are reenactments. I mostly agree with your point of view.
  - woodandsteel 7y ago
    >it works better if you substitute 'arabic nations' with 'dictatorships'. But that begs the question of why the Middle East, which for thousands of years had ruled western eurasia, was conquered by the West. I say it was because the West developed a form of culture, politics and military that is simply more powerful. And the article is giving some of the particulars here. >Well to me it reeks of Orientalism So is it your view that the Middle East would be a wonderful, just, egalitarian, materially comfortable place if it weren't for the evil West?
markbnj 7y ago
> Mostly because there is no Arab or Muslim empire left after Europeans killed off the Ottoman empire Can you describe the Ottoman's as Arabs? Without resorting to sources I seem to recall their origins were in Scythia. In any case, I do think there is some value in looking back at the history, even though it is pretty orthogonal to the analysis in the post (there may be some cultural touch points). Also, isn't it more accurate to say that the Ottomans chose the wrong (German) side in a war, and that this is the cause of their final dissolution?
- jcranmer 7y ago
  The Ottomans start as one of the beyliks in the ruins of the Sultanate of Rum, which is Seljuk (Turkic) Anatolia wrested from the Byzantines. The Ottomans use the late Byzantine instability to expand Turkic control into Thrace, Macedonia, and the Balkans, as well as conquering the other remnant beyliks of Anatolia. Later, they expanded into other ruins of the Ilkhanate (modern-day Iraq, predominantly), and resoundingly defeated the Mamluk Sultanate, giving them control over Egypt, Palestine, and the Hejaz (including the holy cities). For much of its existence, the Ottoman Empire combined both Turkish and Arabian as prestige languages within its empire. It was only in the latter part of its existence, the last century or so, that the modernization effort focused on a narrow, Turkish identity that alienated the Arab populations within its borders. > Also, isn't it more accurate to say that the Ottomans chose the wrong (German) side in a war, and that this is the cause of their final dissolution? Ehh, picking the wrong side in WWI was only the coup de grace. It was the fourth war in 4 years that the Ottomans had fought--the Italian war for Libya, the First Balkan War (Serbia, Bulgaria, and Greece team up to wrest Macedonia), the Second Balkan War (Serbia, Romania, the Ottomans, and Greece team up to force Bulgaria to give up the land it just won), followed by WWI. The Ottoman Empire was deeply unstable from the Greek independence through its final collapse, and the very start of WWI has its roots in the instability of the Ottoman Empire and the Christian states attempting to peel Christian statedoms out of the Muslim Ottoman Empire.
- baud147258 7y ago
  I think the Ottoman empire was already failing at the time of WW1. Perhaps choosing the winning side would have allowed them to survive a little longer, but I think the empire was doomed at the time.

leroy_masochist 7y ago

If you were to actually read the article you might find it to be a thoughtful meditation on Arab military (and, more generally, male) culture by someone who has broad and deep firsthand knowledge of the topic. Having advised the Iraqi army, and having tried to prepare beforehand by reading Lawrence, Patai, Nydell, etc, I would say that this short essay was by far the best of the bunch. I think de Atkine also makes insightful points about how good people can create toxic organizations when they feel insecure about their status within the organization.

devoply 7y ago
Well to me it reeks of Orientalism in that most of these countries are run by tribal syndicates which are more or less a result of social engineering and destruction of Arab nationalism. So obviously there are no stable power structures which would lead to some sort of successful organization of a military. And that's all by design. After you have created a disaster you can go in there point your finger at their culture and say see, this is why the native is stupid. And all the bigots buy it... because that's the situation you have created.
- leroy_masochist 7y ago
  This comment has nothing to do with de Atkine's essay, which I recommend you actually read.
  - devoply 7y ago
    > Along these lines, Kenneth Pollack concludes his exhaustive study of Arab military effectiveness by noting that "certain patterns of behavior fostered by the dominant Arab culture were the most important factors contributing to the limited military effectiveness of Arab armies and air forces from 1945 to 1991."16 These attributes included over-centralization, discouraging initiative, lack of flexibility, manipulation of information, and the discouragement of leadership at the junior officer level. > 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. > But how does one integrate the study of culture into military training? At present, it has hardly any role. Paul M. Belbutowski, a scholar and former member of the U.S. Delta Force, succinctly stated a deficiency in our own military education system: "Culture, comprised of all that is vague and intangible, is not generally integrated into strategic planning except at the most superficial level." You don't. You change the culture by socially engineering it. That's how the West has always done things. But we must understand the savage and his culture... and understand his brute nature so that we may deal with him.
- ryacko 7y ago
  When corruption is the norm, how do you think it would be expressed in society? I have no doubt as to the value of the social engineering, knowledge of American values and norms are spread by American media, for the price of an armored division and hiring from the Arab emigre population in the United States, an Arabic movie and TV studio could be created. More people throughout the world are familiar with Miranda rights than with the US constitution, partially because the US constitution is dead words, while what Hollywood produces are reenactments. I mostly agree with your point of view.
- woodandsteel 7y ago
  >it works better if you substitute 'arabic nations' with 'dictatorships'. But that begs the question of why the Middle East, which for thousands of years had ruled western eurasia, was conquered by the West. I say it was because the West developed a form of culture, politics and military that is simply more powerful. And the article is giving some of the particulars here. >Well to me it reeks of Orientalism So is it your view that the Middle East would be a wonderful, just, egalitarian, materially comfortable place if it weren't for the evil West?

markbnj 7y ago

> Mostly because there is no Arab or Muslim empire left after Europeans killed off the Ottoman empire Can you describe the Ottoman's as Arabs? Without resorting to sources I seem to recall their origins were in Scythia. In any case, I do think there is some value in looking back at the history, even though it is pretty orthogonal to the analysis in the post (there may be some cultural touch points). Also, isn't it more accurate to say that the Ottomans chose the wrong (German) side in a war, and that this is the cause of their final dissolution?

jcranmer 7y ago
The Ottomans start as one of the beyliks in the ruins of the Sultanate of Rum, which is Seljuk (Turkic) Anatolia wrested from the Byzantines. The Ottomans use the late Byzantine instability to expand Turkic control into Thrace, Macedonia, and the Balkans, as well as conquering the other remnant beyliks of Anatolia. Later, they expanded into other ruins of the Ilkhanate (modern-day Iraq, predominantly), and resoundingly defeated the Mamluk Sultanate, giving them control over Egypt, Palestine, and the Hejaz (including the holy cities). For much of its existence, the Ottoman Empire combined both Turkish and Arabian as prestige languages within its empire. It was only in the latter part of its existence, the last century or so, that the modernization effort focused on a narrow, Turkish identity that alienated the Arab populations within its borders. > Also, isn't it more accurate to say that the Ottomans chose the wrong (German) side in a war, and that this is the cause of their final dissolution? Ehh, picking the wrong side in WWI was only the coup de grace. It was the fourth war in 4 years that the Ottomans had fought--the Italian war for Libya, the First Balkan War (Serbia, Bulgaria, and Greece team up to wrest Macedonia), the Second Balkan War (Serbia, Romania, the Ottomans, and Greece team up to force Bulgaria to give up the land it just won), followed by WWI. The Ottoman Empire was deeply unstable from the Greek independence through its final collapse, and the very start of WWI has its roots in the instability of the Ottoman Empire and the Christian states attempting to peel Christian statedoms out of the Muslim Ottoman Empire.
baud147258 7y ago
I think the Ottoman empire was already failing at the time of WW1. Perhaps choosing the winning side would have allowed them to survive a little longer, but I think the empire was doomed at the time.