
Why Arabs Lose Wars - georgecmu
http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_17/articles/deatkine_arabs1.html
======
georgecmu
This describes a protypical dysfunctional organization:

 _In every society information is a means of making a living or wielding
power, but Arabs husband information and hold it especially tightly. U.S.
trainers have often been surprised over the years by the fact that information
provided to key personnel does not get much further than them. Having learned
to perform some complicated procedure, an Arab technician knows that he is
invaluable so long as he is the only one in a unit to have that knowledge;
once he dispenses it to others he no longer is the only font of knowledge and
his power dissipates. This explains the commonplace hoarding of manuals,
books, training pamphlets, and other training or logistics literature._

------
michaelpinto
The problem with this essay is that it's describing war in the conventional
sense — I'd argue that war in the 21st century is asymmetrical in nature and
maybe not even be fought by nation state vs nation state. So if you look at
Hamas in Lebanon or al-Qaeda you get a very different picture. Also with the
exception of the first Gulf War you don't often see Arab nations going to war
against other Arab nations.

~~~
ilyay
I wouldn't say that it's a problem, it's just outside of the scope of this
essay, which focuses on Arab armies:

"Examining Arab warfare in this century leads to the conclusion that the Arabs
remain more successful in insurgent, or political, warfare — what T. E.
Lawrence termed 'winning wars without battles.'"

------
pm90
No meritocracy and no trust. Bane of every civilization, army and society

------
OGinparadise
Another reason: They are largely tribal and loyalties are to the tribe (and
maybe Islam,) not exactly to the state or to the ruler. The same group of
people that will die to the last man if their cousins are attacked, might seek
shelter when fighting against an enemy in war he is sent to fight.

Another controversial possible reason, since we're stereotyping: They tend to
marry cousins and have done that for generations. That isn't without
consequences
[http://www.as.wvu.edu/~kgarbutt/QuantGen/Gen535Papers2/Inbre...](http://www.as.wvu.edu/~kgarbutt/QuantGen/Gen535Papers2/Inbreeding.htm)

~~~
cup
I think all the arguments need to be viewed in a modern (within the last 300
years) light. I mean the Arab world had a fairly phenomenal military force up
until the mongols really obliterated the region.

More so than anything, I think Arab military faliures may have more do with
socioeconomical conditions than genetics or tribal construct. Why are Arabs
failing now when a few hundred years ago they were far more organised and
structured. Can we blame colonialism? Are petrochemical dollars reducing the
incentive to develop socially and intellectually?

~~~
astine
These cultural traits are older than colonialism. Christian crusaders
commented on them in the middle ages and they're the reason that Arabs have a
reputation for dishonesty in the West. They're not incompatible with building
a large empire if you're enemies are similarly disfunctional.

~~~
cup
>Arabs have a reputation for dishonesty...

Thats a fairly significant comment to make. Considering the historic record
generally portrays the Arabs more positively than the Crusaders I'm not sur
ewhat point you're trying to make. People are making a lot of statements and
arguments but there is little actual substance that can be debated, more
conjecture.

