Is there a military problem in Islamic world ?

[Guerrier_Franc]

Since approximetly 3 centuries islamic world suffered many humiliations and disasters
Collapse of Ottoman empire (1683 1918)
European Colonialism
Defeats against Israel
Since 1991 defeats against USA and its allies
Defeats of Pakistan against India
etc...

Why so many failures ?

[9mmRifle]

You could also include the Mongolian invasions after the 1200s but it hasn't always been a straight losing streak

Turks done well against the Greeks in the 1920s, it was a revolution, hitting back re-capturing lands. Although it is thought by some media that the Turkish forces may have gone beyond the rules of combat with their killing of Armenian minorities, killing Christians etc. Pakistan did ok in 65, Pakistan did much better in 65 than it did in 47 when India hit back with counterattack to Jhanger. In 1965 its losses were very comparable to India's. That outcome in 65 was more or less a stalemate, Pakistan lost ground but details were riddled with political biases on both sides.

There are many other examples where an Islamic force has not failed but there have been many failures in history

For a more detailed discussion see this thread
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=3856
Arabs at War

The Arabs however are not Pakistanis or Turks

[Thor]

If you turn it the other way around I see no reason why there would be any success...


But I guess there is already a thread covering this subject.

[gilgoul]

Since approximetly 3 centuries islamic world suffered many humiliations and disasters
Collapse of Ottoman empire (1683 1918)
European Colonialism
Defeats against Israel
Since 1991 defeats against USA and its allies
Defeats of Pakistan against India
etc...

Why so many failures ?



Well, I'm not touching this one with a 60 foot pole. p-)

[9mmRifle]

Many of them have little in common except their link to islam, other than the islam link they have no real connection are divided in traditions, have different political motivations and divided ethnically etc

This is one of the more insightful comments in the Arabs at war thread.




The varied opinions High Ranking officers have are due to the fact some Arab countires are like 3 countries put together

I.E The Iraqi Military Sunnis, Kurds ETC


Those high ranking officers could not work together in battle.

you lose when that happens.

[Guerrier_Franc]

Turks done well against the Greeks in the 1920s, it was a revolution, hitting back re-capturing lands.

Turks won few wars but suffered much more defeats since 1683 and against everybody

[Asheren]

Yup there is a lot of good points in that thread.
Religious
Islam teachings as a limiting factor.
Religious leaders in extremly influental postion.
Social
Lots of coutries with tribal, clan based society.
Technical
Very limited R&D i would put here aslo Religion as limiting factor in technological progress.

[Formby]

Since approximetly 3 centuries islamic world suffered many humiliations and disasters
Collapse of Ottoman empire (1683 1918)
European Colonialism
Defeats against Israel
Since 1991 defeats against USA and its allies
Defeats of Pakistan against India
etc...

Why so many failures ?

Islam originated in saudi arabia, and moved from there in around 622 and by 711 the new religion was ready to cross in spain (Al-Audalus).tarig ibn zaid lands in spain and by 714 most of spain is captured,Gibralta is known as Jebel al-tarig (a town in spain still bears his name).By the year 732 the islamic army is within 150 mile fo Paris but the Islamic tide was stopped by the frankish king "Martel".then enter Rodrigo Diaz vivar in 1190 he is supposed to of rid spain of the islamic army , but it was not untill 1492 that the Muslin army were removed from spain.
If it was not for the sacking of constantnoble (byzantium empire) by the then superpower vennice, the christian franks would have been able to hold out the turl seljuks, this allowed the turk to conquer the city in 1452.
let s not kid ourselves here the Islamic frighting man was and is a good a soldier as any western soldier,i beleive that they stayed embedded in the old ways/ tactic of warfair and lost out to model industrial fighting machines/soldiers

[MG 3]

Pakistan against India my ass. Our prevailing existance should be proof enough.

Now on to the topic.
Well it has everything to do with politics. The fall of Islam came not because of poor soldiers or armies it came because of poor leaders and rulers. Stagnation in society arose from this and the rest is history. In allmost every case it was not the opposing force alone that conspired against the muslims but their own greed that let to their demise. And yes our enemies had advanced and their time to shine had come which is the normal course of history.

An example among many would be of India where the mughal's hunger for wealth drove them to become slaves of the EITCo. Same was the case in the war of independence of 1857 when Muslim soldiers betrayed their fellows for land promised by the British. The arabs against the turks, the bangaldeshi rebelion, and countless others.

In my view the leaders took the society from the golden age to ill-litracy so that their rule could have been prolonged.

Guessing from your avatar you seem like a religious man so in the end I would like to add that the only thing keeping the muslims currently going is hope and belief in Jesus.

[Guerrier_Franc]

Pakistan against India my ass. Our prevailing existance should be proof enough.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971



" The Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 was a major conflict between India and Pakistan during the period between 3 december 1971 and 16 december 1971

The war ended in a defeat for the Pakistani military defeat in a fortnight.

Decisive Victory of the Indian armed forces and the Mukti Bahini guerrillas

Bangladesh becomes an independent state. "

[MPNFL]

Since approximetly 3 centuries islamic world suffered many humiliations and disasters
Collapse of Ottoman empire (1683 1918)
European Colonialism
Defeats against Israel
Since 1991 defeats against USA and its allies
Defeats of Pakistan against India
etc...

Why so many failures ?

that entire argument in itself is a failure.

you're trying to contextualize "3 centuries" of the "islamic world" into one big clump without taking into account any sort of ethnic, cultural, or political differences (not to mention even the religious differences within Islam).

I would hardly call European colonialism a religiously motivated agenda. if anything it was simply a want for more land and wealth.

"defeats" against Israel is mainly as a result of national movements, not within a religious context. it might be a result of ethnic-nationalism, but again, not primarily religious based.

[MG 3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971

" The Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 was a major conflict between India and Pakistan during the period between 3 december 1971 and 16 december 1971

The war ended in a defeat for the Pakistani military defeat in a fortnight.

Decisive Victory of the Indian armed forces and the Mukti Bahini guerrillas

Bangladesh becomes an independent state. "

Pakistan army was weakened by a bloody insurgency and there was concensus that BD would need to be let go so most of the equip was sent to the west months before the India attack. In the west where the real fight was put up we lost nothing.

BTW you never replied on the real topic at hand.

[Dodge]

You cannot possibly argue that the mongols defeated the islamic world when ultimately they converted to islam themselves.

[MG 3]

You cannot possibly argue that the mongols defeated the islamic world when ultimately they converted to islam themselves.

Thats one way to defeat the enemy.p-)

[Lazy Lob]

Thats one way to defeat the enemy.p-)

What, committing suicide....on both sides? ;-)

[-DarthMaul-]

I beleive The Muslim Empire in Egypt was the only part in the whole world that really repelled the Mongols away from them.

And Forby and MG 3 do a good job of explaining the bigger picture..also how about Moroccan and Algerian soldiers fighting for france in WWII?

Muslims arent bad fighters. But some muslim soldiers will be hampered by many varying factors depending on where they live.

For example Muslims fight in the US Armed Forces(I happen to know some) And they dont come off as bad fighters considering they FOGUHT in both Afghanistan and Iraq. And some of the ones I know are first generaltion immigrants.

[stuntman]

^good point about Muslim US soldiers^ So I guess it is about culture more then DNA or Race..

[Lion of War]

^good point about Muslim US soldiers^ So I guess it is about culture more then DNA or Race..

DNA or race.Muslims vary from the whitest of white to the darkest of black.

[stuntman]

DNA or race.Muslims vary from the whitest of white to the darkest of black.
Well Your right, just like Latinos and Asians.

[bersaglieri]

Well Your right, just like Latinos and Asians.

erm....no. I think you'll find that the point being made was that the reason Muslims vary from the whitest of the white to the blackest of the black is that being a Muslim is a matter of choice as it is a religion , not a genetic origin, and accordingly has nothing to do with what you look like.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Just remember that until the 19th century the "Islamic World" virtually controlled the med and lands around the med.

If anything I would argue that it's only been recently that the Islamic world has suffered militarily. After all. The Islamic world did take on the combined might of the western civilization.

[stuntman]

erm....no. I think you'll find that the point being made was that the reason Muslims vary from the whitest of the white to the blackest of the black is that being a Muslim is a matter of choice as it is a religion , not a genetic origin, and accordingly has nothing to do with what you look like.

Yeah your so right I mistook Muslim for Arab. Sorry :cantbeli:

[Sith]

Not long ago I did some analysis of how the 1973 Arab-Israeli war impacted American doctrine and it got me to do a little thinking on this subject. Mind you these ideas are not fleshed out, I could be very wrong. So I would say they are more food for thought at this point.

I believe apples and oranges are being compared here.

There are two different institutions of thought at play here: European and Oriental. Both of them have their strengths and weaknesses.

One has to take into account the long histories of each here. For the vast majority of its history Europe has been a divided continent, tightly packed with different nations, all at constant war with each other. This resulted in total war concepts being integrated into their culture to a greater extent than any other in the world. This then created societal institutions which developed warfare into a science, which in turn focused most of its energies on conventional war. Hence, Western militaries train to a greater extent. The draw back to this is that when you train that much you can only concentrate on one subject: conventional or unconventional war. As stated Western countries have traditionally concentrated more on conventional war.

On the other hand the Orient has seen far less warfare than Europe. While there was war, for centuries the Persian Empire maintained the peace. This was followed by the Macedonians, then the Romans, then the Byzantines, then the came the golden age of Islam, and finally the Ottomans. This may seem like a lot but one has to remember that each period was very long and there was a single leadership. The area was not as divided with warring groups to the extent that Europe was. Hence, the institution that has grown is one that views war as more of an art than science. This has translated into the belief that (more recently) Muslim men are more naturally rugged than their adversaries. How many pictures have been posted on this forum of Muslim soldiers breaking bricks and jumping through fire? Hence, they do not train to the extent that Western nations do, resulting in soldiers who are more jacks of all trades and abstract thinkers. This is more conducive to unconventional war.

Notice, most of the examples given have been conventional conflicts against nations who have deeper European institutions. Islamic nations have done very well for themselves when fighting unconventionally. When fighting in the Middle East Western nations have had to reorient their institutions to concentrate on unconventional wars before they begin to do well. We (the U.S.) entered Iraq in 2003 with a conventional focus and it has taken us a while to switch modes of thought. Now that we have we are enjoying more success. For years Israel has been concentrating on unconventional war to fight the Palestinians. When they invaded Lebanon last summer they did it conventionally and some units had a difficult time adjusting to this at the tactical level.

Additionally, one has to think about the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. These two nations both fall within the Oriental sphere. Each of them did very well for themselves.

As I stated before this has not been thought through. I could be very wrong. However, in the end I do not believe that Islamic soldiers are any worse or better than any other. They have different institutions with different modes of thought. This results in different pros and cons which lead to success or failure depending on the type of conflict.

Food for thought, do as you please with it.

Thanks,
Sith

[MG 3]

What, committing suicide....on both sides? ;-)

The mongols commited suicide! In which alternate reality.

Good point about muslims in the US Army. We have one on this thread too. MPNFL.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Actually Macadonia, Rome(both incarnations), Crusader states, and crusades have always been at war in the region. The region has been one of the most hotly contested regions in the world.

Before oil, historically the region is where east meets west. It was on the trade routes to Asia long before Christ then it become the center of the clash between Islam and Christianity and now over a very valuable resource.

The Romans were at constant war with the Parthians who were at constant war with Asia. The Crusader states were at constant war with the Islamic Empire and with themselves. The Mongols were at war with everybody and themselves.

[MG 3]

And Forby and MG 3 do a good job of explaining the bigger picture..also how about Moroccan and Algerian soldiers fighting for france in WWII?

Hey! Frogot the Punjab and Royal Indian Armour regements serving Under Monty.

[Desk Jockey]

For example Muslims fight in the US Armed Forces(I happen to know some) And they dont come off as bad fighters considering they FOGUHT in both Afghanistan and Iraq. And some of the ones I know are first generaltion immigrants.

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/7206/ayamantahaip6.jpghttp://img144.imageshack.us/img144/438/tahaaymanvj9.jpg


Ayman Taha, a Berkeley graduate who was described as athletic, a speaker of many languages, and a friend to all who met him, had only to write his dissertation to earn his PhD, his father said.
But three years ago, Taha, a budding economist and the son of a Northern Virginia couple, Abdel-Rahman and Amal Taha, joined the Army to serve in the Special Forces. About a year ago, he was sent to Iraq.

On Friday, as Staff Sergeant Ayman Taha, 31, was preparing a cache of munitions for demolition in the town of Balad, the explosives detonated and he was killed, the Pentagon said yesterday.
It is "a very terrible thing," Abdel-Rahman Taha said. "He was a son, and a very special son."

The father added: "If you believe in God and you realize that this is God's will . . . it makes it a lot easier."
There is also consolation, the father said, in feeling that "this is something Ayman wanted to do."

A family friend, Nada Eissa, agreed. "No, he didn't have to do it," she said. "This is something he wanted to do."

Ayman Taha was born in Sudan, into an academically accomplished international family. Both parents hold doctorates. When his father worked for the World Bank, Ayman attended elementary school in McLean. He went to secondary school in England, then received a bachelor's degree from the University of California at Berkeley and a master's in economics from the University of Massachusetts, where he was working toward a PhD.

"He lived in many cultures," his father said, and spoke English, Arabic, Spanish and Portuguese. More important, his father said, were his personality and character.

"If he has a five-minute conversation with you, that would be the beginning of a lifetime relationship," the father said. "I never heard anybody who ever complained that Ayman did something wrong to him.

"He was just that type of character," the father said.
About three years ago, Ayman Taha told his father, "Dad, I have been going to school since I was 5 years old. I want to take a break."

The father said he suggested that his son "try something in the World Bank . . . or Merrill Lynch." But one day, "out of the blue," his son told him that he had signed the papers that would take him into the Special Forces. He said his son was "definitely" patriotic and believed "in the mission."

"He strongly agreed that what they were doing is good and that they were helping people in the Middle East to get out of the . . . historic bottleneck" that had confined them.

Since boyhood, those who knew him recalled, Ayman Taha had taken an interest in military matters, which showed itself in the books he read and the toys he played with.
Joining the Special Forces was "something he felt compelled to do," said a friend, Hisham Eissa, who lives in Los Angeles and is Nada Eissa's brother.

In economics, Taha's interest was in development. "He felt very strongly about making a difference," and "I think he felt that people like him" were needed for it, Eissa said.
"Everyone whose life he touched loved this guy," Hisham Eissa said. "There isn't a single person who knew him who isn't torn up about this."

The Pentagon said Taha was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 5th Special Forces Group, based at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. His wife, Geraldine, and child Sommer live near the base. One sister, Rabah, is a special education teacher in Fairfax County, and another, Lubna, attends Marymount University.

His father said Taha was a devout Muslim who believed that "the message of Islam is very simple . . . to believe in God and do good deeds." "He believed that what he was doing were the good deeds Islam is asking for."

[9mmRifle]

You cannot possibly argue that the mongols defeated the islamic world when ultimately they converted to islam themselves.

No they were defeated and you have confused military superiority with cultural superiority. This conquest culture or cultural crystallization often happens not through military it happens through things like the media, religion, propaganda and mass immigration. At the end of the Spanish Empire their armadas and military were defeated many times by foreign forces, however the Spanish culture prevailed and the culture conquered most of the Caribbean, South America etc where they still speak Spanish and take part in Spanish traditions.

[tinker1]

Pakistan against India my ass. Our prevailing existance should be proof enough.

Now on to the topic.
Well it has everything to do with politics. The fall of Islam came not because of poor soldiers or armies it came because of poor leaders and rulers. Stagnation in society arose from this and the rest is history. In allmost every case it was not the opposing force alone that conspired against the muslims but their own greed that let to their demise. And yes our enemies had advanced and their time to shine had come which is the normal course of history.

An example among many would be of India where the mughal's hunger for wealth drove them to become slaves of the EITCo. Same was the case in the war of independence of 1857 when Muslim soldiers betrayed their fellows for land promised by the British. The arabs against the turks, the bangaldeshi rebelion, and countless others.

In my view the leaders took the society from the golden age to ill-litracy so that their rule could have been prolonged.

Guessing from your avatar you seem like a religious man so in the end I would like to add that the only thing keeping the muslims currently going is hope and belief in Jesus.


Hello..how bout 91000 soldiers surrendering meekly? p-) thats quite a big set of arses!!
Mugals hunger for wealth? excuse me the hunger exsisted only to forcibly convert as many as possible..destroy as many temples as possible and impose tax burdens on non muslims..and before any one of you complains..pls google and check out how the mugal kings themselves have had their biographies written proudly stating how many thousands temples they destroyed till date..(and why hes eligible to get those 72 houries p-))
Fact of the matter is India is the only nation where invading muslims could not completely subdue the local culture / religion (yes we did lose out on afganisatan and did give 1/3rd of the nation for helping create pakistan and bangladesh)..
....still no hard feelings ..its the 21st century..you live and let live..you follow what you want..just let others follow what they wish in return..:) ( oops ..did i say too much..hope no whabbi has an access to the site..wouldnt want a fatwa on my head..how dare i say live and let live!! thats against .... )

[Nansouty]

I'm somewxhat surprised you forgot that bit of our country's history. The Marocan Tabors were pivotal in the Allied breakthrough at Cassino in 1943, and did a heck of a job in our First Army's Liberation crusade. Recently recognized, and made the subject of a popular movie here, Indigènes.

http://tadrart.com/tessalit/indigenes/home_gb.html

[MG 3]

Hello..how bout 91000 soldiers surrendering meekly? p-) thats quite a big set of arses!!

Mugals hunger for wealth? excuse me the hunger exsisted only to forcibly convert as many as possible..destroy as many temples as possible and impose tax burdens on non muslims..and before any one of you complains..pls google and check out how the mugal kings themselves have had their biographies written proudly stating how many thousands temples they destroyed till date..(and why hes eligible to get those 72 houries p-))
Fact of the matter is India is the only nation where invading muslims could not completely subdue the local culture / religion (yes we did lose out on afganisatan and did give 1/3rd of the nation for helping create pakistan and bangladesh)..
....still no hard feelings ..its the 21st century..you live and let live..you follow what you want..just let others follow what they wish in return..:) ( oops ..did i say too much..hope no whabbi has an access to the site..wouldnt want a fatwa on my head..how dare i say live and let live!! thats against .... )

With that attitude you'll never get past post number 30.

Out of these 91,000 only 20 something thousand were West Pakistani. The rest were Bengali who took the opportunity to change sides. Were we supposed to defend an invasion & fight a counter insurgency with only 20,000 ill equiped troops in Vietnam like conditions.

Now on to the forcible conversions which never happened and even if they did occour in some parallel universe then I dont think it is any different from what your Ashoka did or Ranjit singh. As for the temples destroyed then it is an act not commendable in Islam and those that were destroyed were in Muslim areas. e.g. tell me the logic of having 100+ temples in Lahore when only 2-3000 hindus live there out of a total of 8million.

We are not the ones who destroyed the Babri Mosque or brought hell to the Golden temple or killed thousands on the streets Hutu style and then shut down TV channels for showing the truth.

Next post should be on topic or bye.

[-DarthMaul-]

The Truth about the Spread of Islam (http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1135167134062)

Pretty good article IMO about the forced coversions.

[Formby]

here is just a little on one of the many Islamic rulers, who were very good military leaders
Let look at the sultan Mehmet third son of the sultan murad, he was made sultan in the year 1451 at the ripe old age of 18.He was most concerned with the destruction of the Byzantium empire in the Constantinople area and the sea access to the black sea. Constantinople was a well-fortified city at the time so in order to destroy its wall he had a massive cannon constructed it was said to be 27 feet long and with a barrel of 2and half feet in diameter, a ball weighting 1,340poundsand could travel over 1 mile.
He then went about building the great castle at Rumeli Hisar , which was constructed in 19 weeks, and is still there to day. He places his new cannon in the castle and warned all shipping that use the bosphorus to stop. He had cut off the supply to Constantinople, the city was doomed.
He had some 100,000 troops with him 80, 000 of them regulars and some 20,000 Bashi-bazuuks (expendable men) and of course the Janissaries (recruited as children from Christian families forcibly, converted to Islam).
Here is a great Military leader, at the age of 21 he had destroyed the Byzantium empire and Istanbul was born the crescent moon had triumphed over the

[Lokos]

No offense to Ottoman military virtue - which was undeniable, especially in the 13th-17th centuries - but the Byzantine Empire was Constantinople, at that point.

Lokos

[Mastermind]

To try comparisons between fighting men separated by a thousand years and a plethora of leadership types is rather an exercise in futility.

I suggest that a consideration of Muslim fighting prowess in the last century may be more fruitful. first, in my research, I have not found anything to suggest the Muslim soldiers have lacked fighting ability or spirit. Soldiers are soldiers no matter who they are fighting or being led by. Their group success is at question and as armies go, we have seen some fairly pitiful examples out of the ME in the last 150 years or so. The fighting between Israel and the various Muslim forces plied against them since the IDF was first organized has given the Muslim forces a rather anemic reputation. The reputation almost certainly is against the Muslim leadership and not the fighting ability or spirit of the soldiers. Also, the war between Iraq and Iran demonstrated tremendous soldier courage and atrocious military leadership.

I hesitate to include the Turks as "Muslim fighting group" examples, since they have pretty much been sectarian in modern history. But, truly there should be some mention of a quasi-Muslim fighting force in the First WW...they gave an excellent accounting of themselves for the most part. However, the political and economic circumstances of the times led to ultimate failure.

Present fighting demonstrations of more radical and fundamentalist Muslims in guerrilla warfare in both Afghanistan’s (US and Russian) and Iraq have shown the small unit Muslim forces do a much better job...they are courageous, stealthy, skilled fighters with an easy ability to use just about any battlefield technology. They are clever and innovative, adapting rapidly to changing war technology and tactics. Their continued resistance in the face of overwhelming military superiority shows they have tremendous capacity for maintaining their morale. Their leadership entities have shows to be quite skilled and just as resourceful as any modern small unit commander in any army.

However, it seems on the larger military scale, the Muslim forces are not so well endowed. I blame the basic Muslim social structure for these shortcomings. Although we see several Islamic nations on the map, we do not seem to witness the kind of large unity within the national social structure that allows the stability required for development of a successful military industrial complex. The Muslim society seems to have great difficulty focusing on large set goals. Their constant "Warlord" type mechanizations keep them fractured and incapable (apparently by proof of history) of cohesive and focused large scale effort.

In short; Muslim military leadership sucks...But, the Muslim fighting man certainly has my respect. They should never be taken lightly.

[MG 3]

However, it seems on the larger military scale, the Muslim forces are not so well endowed. I blame the basic Muslim social structure for these shortcomings. Although we see several Islamic nations on the map, we do not seem to witness the kind of large unity within the national social structure that allows the stability required for development of a successful military industrial complex. The Muslim society seems to have great difficulty focusing on large set goals. Their constant "Warlord" type mechanizations keep them fractured and incapable (apparently by proof of history) of cohesive and focused large scale effort.

Mastermind you just the nail on the nail.

*hope its the correct analogy.

[Nano]

I sort of agree with all Mastermind said, but it is much more a cultural phenomena than anything. Tribal dynamics is much the culprit for what he paints as "Warlord" mechanizations. It certainly takes a whole different level of leadership than that required in the West to bring a country's military organization to that on par with a western one, because of this tribal dynamic.

[MG 3]

I sort of agree with all Mastermind said, but it is much more a cultural phenomena than anything. Tribal dynamics is much the culprit for what he paints as "Warlord" mechanizations. It certainly takes a whole different level of leadership than that required in the West to bring a country's military organization to that on par with a western one, because of this tribal dynamic.

Every time the muslims have won it was because they were united or a strong man united them. United muslims have rarely ever lost but then after the 16th century when have they been shoulder to shoulder.