Fun in the Ocean

  

Why the Arabs Lost

Reading through Six Days of War, you can't help but be struck by the monumental ineptitude, self-deception, and instability of the Arab states and armies. Nasser in Egypt postured and blustered. He kicked the UN troops out of Sinai, then closed the straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, then stood around trying to figure out what to do next. All the while, he made pronouncements that inflamed the Arab street and induced Jordan and others to step up their anti-Israeli rhetoric to match Nasser's, rather than risking a popular revolution.

Kinda like what's happening right now, eh?

So they paraded their tanks, divisions, and battalions, moved them into menacing positions, flew missions over Israel, and trusted Allah to guide them to victory against the infidel Jews. The infidel, democratic, modern Jews.

The Arabs had tremendous numerical superiority over the Israelis, and realistically, they had no chance.

The Israelis were well-trained and encouraged to take initiative. The Arab officers were chosen not by their merit, but on the basis of their family connections and their loyalty to the rulers. Israeli officers led with a cry of "follow me!" Arab officers met battle, as often as not by slinking back to Cairo or Damascus.

For the first couple of days of the war, the Egyptian and Arab press were trumpeting their tremendous victories, while the Israeli media was strangely silent. Neither Nasser nor his cronies had good information. Indeed, 90% of the Egyptian air force had been destroyed on the ground by the Israeli preemptive strike. This on a day when many knowledgeable folks fully expected war to break out. Worst of all for the Arabs, no one had enough guts to tell the truth to Nasser or 'Amer.

Schooled at distrust, croneyism, and back-biting, the Arabs built up crunchy outer shells, hiding soft creamy centers. Their politics and policies are lies built on lies.

I wanted to go into lots more detail here, but thanks to the power of weblogs, I find that others have done it for me. First, Charles Johnson points to this piece on why corruption can't be stopped in the Arab world.

Corruption Only Has Meaning in An Open and Transparent Regime

"When you hear – and these days you frequently do – that a senior Arab official is standing trial on charges of corruption - it is reasonable to assume that this wretched official was not corrupt enough. This is because charges of corruption have no meaning unless they take place in an open and transparent regime, with known and fixed rules and regulations, clear foundations for accountability, and independent and neutral apparatuses to deal with it."

"In contrast, in the Arab [world], where there are absolute autocratic regimes, the concept of corruption loses all meaning, as the law is the ruler's will; he decides what is permitted and what is forbidden, and his bonuses and gifts are a legitimate livelihood."

"If the ruler so decides, he will give his sons a monopoly on import or export; will permit them to purchase abroad at a tenth of [the merchandise's] value and be reimbursed for the full price by the state treasury; will allow his friends and cronies to use public property or state revenues, or will give them land. In these cases, we are talking of the embodiment of legitimate gain."

Corruption in the Arab World Means Disobeying the Ruler

"This means that the only 'corruption' is disobeying the ruler... In the pact between the ruler and the men of his court, his entourage, and his protegees, everyone gives up their humanity, abnegates their opinion and conscience, and competes in obeying the ruler. In exchange, the ruler rewards whomever he wishes."

Then Steven den Beste writes an eloquent and detailed explanation of why authoritarianism is a losing military strategy.

The best modern armies rely on the intelligence of their soldiers, and the battlefield results of such armies are the emergent result of individual decisions made by the men at every level of rank and hierarchy. It is truly a democratic army.

I haven't seen the new Star Wars movie, but I've read a horrible novelization of it, thanks to my son. One of the key points is that the soon-to-be bad guys have ordered up an army consisting of millions of clones. Yes, they're all the same person, one Jango Fett. Oh, but to make them more controllable, they've been genetically modified to be more obedient.

This explains why the stormtroopers in the first wave of movies were such patsies. They were all a little slow and all had exactly the same weaknesses. And by the time of that movie, they were getting to be middle-aged and creaky.