The Ironies of War--What we have witnessed is unprecedented in military history.

National Review ^ | 4-11-03 | Victor Davis Hanson

[SJackson]

If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.

[Bluntpoint]

At his daily press conference, Rumsfeld wore a t-shirt that said:

I AM STUPID, HACK SAID SO!!!

[Support Free Republic]

Yassir Arafat's Double Would Never Donate. Will You?
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[Gefreiter]

This is a good article. Starrts kinda shaky, but pulls it out and ends well.

The author forgets alot of history between Alexander and modern wars. The Arabs and Turks (Seljuk/Ottoman) did pretty well against the infidel West from the 8th century AD through around 1699, conquering Spain and, were it not for Charles Martel, France as well. And later, absorbing Constantinople (mid-15th century), through the Balkans, and laying seige to Vienna at least twice; the last time broken largely by legions of heavy Polish cavalry.

It was only after 1699 when the Ottoman Empire fell behind technologically, socially, and economically, becoming ultimately the "sick man of Europe" and dismembered in the 1920s.

The Arabs world was not always so grabastic and ineffective. My 2 cents.

[WhiskeyPapa]

It was only after 1699 when the Ottoman Empire fell behind technologically, socially, and economically, becoming ultimately the "sick man of Europe" and dismembered in the 1920s.

The Arabs world was not always so grabastic and ineffective. My 2 cents.

You make good points.

Western society and culture continued to grow. Arab culture did not.

Walt

[bra]

"Meanwhile, everyone seems either to have criticized or belatedly praised “the plan”; but so far no one seems to quite know how 250,000 brave American, British, and Australian young men and women in the field are actually pulling it off.

That part of the equation is something only a soldier that has been there and done that understands. It has always been typical of American soldiers. The "Plan" is a painful and scary thing during its development. The anxiety of execution is even more emotional.

The inovation, intelligence, excellent training, strength of character, and courage of the American soldier is what endures.

The ability to know, understand, and faithfully execute the commander's intent at the lowest level of command and control is what separates the American forces from the rest. Armies that are used to enforce tyranny can never give the soldier this kind of flexibility and responsibility. It only exists within Armies that defend Freedom and Liberty.

DE OPPRESSO LIBER

[samtheman]

Good points. There was a time when the Arabs were well organized. Now is not that time.

[samtheman]

What we did. What a triumph of skill and organization at every level.

[MattinNJ]

Ping

[BartMan1]

Victor Davis Hansen bump...;

[MattinNJ]

Good points all. In the 100 or so years after Mohammed the Muslims expanded their empire faster than anyone in history. Were it not for Charles the Hammer, all of Europe would have fell. The Muslims did very well for themselves in the crusades. It was not until @1500 that Ferdinand and Isabella were able to unify Spain and cast out the Moors. The Muslims last ditch effort to take Europe was dashed by the Polish Hero Jan Slobieski at the gates of Vienna.

The real turning point for the Muslims happened when they rejected enlightenment (I think the leading Cleric advocating enlightenment was Al Jazeera Sp?) and embraced fundamentalism. They rapidly proceeded to descend into the stone age.

[AMDG&BVMH]

"Targeting a quarter-million killers from a population of 26 million — while trying to avoid damage to innocents and enemy sanctuaries in mosques, schools, hotels, and hospitals — sounds nearly impossible. . . "

IMHO one of the keys to success is the strategic goal this time: regime change, not unilateral surrender/defeat of the nation. In addition, a LOT of planning and organization and intelligence preparation of the battlefield has gone on in the past few years; these elements would not have been in place at the end of Gulf War I.

Take the Battle of Berlin. The natives were not fighting for Hitler (who was already dead in his bunker) or the Nazi regime. They were fighting for their survival. The arriving Russians would and did rape, pillage and murder. In other words, if our strategy and leaders had been like the Russians in 1945, there would certainly have been more death and destruction in Baghdad, military and civilian.

G. W. Bush is an enlightened leader. He did not make the mistake of Roosevelt and Churchill, who demanded unconditional surrender and refused to work with resistance elements trying to implement a regime change in Germany -- the result was the type of modern, ultimate war the peacenicks thought Bush was bringing to Iraq. But they underestimated Bush, and they underestimated our military capabilities (because they are totally ignorant of the military arts and sciences). Because the underestimated both of these, they underestimated the will to victory, which is a crucial difference from the VN experience. IMHO.

[Gefreiter]

MattinNJ
I read a "counterfactual" history/sci fi story a few years ago....I don't remember the ins and outs. The short version is that, at the end of the story, Charles Martel announces that "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet." Creepy, huh?

The irony is that the current population of France is composed of (according to last week's "Economist") 6-7% muslims, largely of North African extraction.

Maybe we should all have a look at "The Song of Roland" to get our spirits up.

[SJackson]

for your list?

[Valin]

The Marines just rolled by the battlefield of Cunaxa, where in 401 B.C. 10,000 Greek mercenaries suffered one wounded in their collision with the imperial troops of Artaxerxes. On the northern front Americans passed near Gaugamela where Alexander the Great’s shock troops destroyed the enormous army of Darius III at a loss of a hundred or so dead before descending on Babylon.

Something I've noticed recently, the number of casualties We suffer has been dropping precipitously since wwII. 50,000+ in 3 years of Korea, 53,000 in 10 years of Viet-Nam, now we are looking at 100 or less. I'm not sure what it means but I approve!

[Valin]

Don’t expect that Walter Cronkite, Arthur Schlesinger, David Halberstam, Susan Sontag, and a host of others who predicted a nightmarish “hornet’s nest” and American diplomatic catastrophe in Iraq to admit their error.

Being leftist means never to have to say you're sorry...or wrong.

[MattinNJ]

Charles Martel announces that "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet." Creepy, huh?

Yikes, no Charlemagne, no Western Civ, Renaissance, Columbus, etc...

The battle of Tours (Poiters) truly is one of the most underrated turning points of history.

The irony is that the current population of France is composed of (according to last week's "Economist") 6-7% muslims

I read somewhere that Marseilles is 70% muslim and that in some parts of France gang raping of young french girls by muslims is commonplace. I believe they are referred to as "Tournettes".

I also read that a bunch of muslim teenagers beat the tar out of a french kid at school. His dad went down to have a word or two with them and he was STOMPED to death.

Another depressing story, the most popular boys name in Brussells is Mohammed.

[LS]

Ah, he does deal with that. There is a chapter in his book on "Potiers." Interestingly, the "Mahommetta" cannon that finally broke down the walls of Constantinople was NOT a Turkish or Muslim design, but a Hungarian one; and while the Muslims rolled over a defenseless north Africa, they were stopped, then expelled, by HIGHLY divided Spanish and French armies, which, had they ever united, would have overwhelmed the Muslims.

Well into the 1500s, Turkish/Muslim hardware was a joke. It was inevitably pilfered from western designs, but never improved upon. At Lepanto, a high percentage of the cannons did not work, and roughly four "galleasses" destroyed much of the entire Turkish fleet.

Moreover, Muslims were pretty well crushed when they met the Mongols, another "eastern" army.

You can (and Hanson does) always point to individual battles, or even short campaigns, where the "western way of war" is not dominant, but they are few and far between. What the West does, and the non-west does not, is use its free speech and free criticism to improve its militaries, restructure, and not lose again. You could see this after Cannae, Isandlwana, and Vietnam.

[LS]

Again, this notion that they "expanded faster than anyone in history" has to be put in context. They conquered plenty of uninhabited LAND in northern Africa; they were utterly halted when they met the Mongols; they were halted until 1453 at Byzantium, and only then conquered due to stolen cannon designs from HUNGARY; and they managed to come through Spain (which, by the way, Hannibal also did with his non-western army), but were defeated, despite a Europe that was highly fragmented.

If you look at Constantinople (700 A.D.), Potiers (932 A.D.), Lepanto (1571 A.D.), you get some STAGGERING western victories. The most remarkable, as you mention, was Vienna (1529) where a mere 16,000 Austrians defeated Suleiman's army twelve times its size.

Overall---and there are certainly exceptions---the Muslim military history of the world is more similar to what happened in Baghdad than in the Crusades.