Victor Davis Hanson?

[bishop1]

Hey, Ive ordered "The Soul of Battle" and "Why the West Has Won" from amazon. Anyone here read these? And for other V.D.H. scholars, what do you think of him?
I love how he analyzes military history, the birth of it, how it evolved, and how it is now from its roots back then. Even the comparison of Western Military doctrine born is Greece(Sparta), how it influenced "civilized" armies, Alexander, Rome, Byzantine Empire, The Spanish, French, British etc.. Empires to now. Even now the contrast between western civilized warfare and eastern terrorsim low unconventional type conflict shows its roots back to the ancient days.
Very intetersting stuff IMO.

[Lokos]

Even now the contrast between western civilized warfare and eastern terrorsim low unconventional type conflict shows its roots back to the ancient days.

?

Do you speak of the ancient days when China's (Far East) warring kingdoms were organizing, supplying and employing armies upwards of 500,000 strong? Or when the 'Eastern' Mongols swept through most of the Eurasian landmass, and utterly devastated every army before them utilising their superior organization and mobility?

What was 'unconventional' or 'low' about the above? And, the Mongols aside, what made European armies less 'terrorist' than 'Eastern' armies?

I am disturbed by the vaguely racist overtones of your commentary. Not only are they morally troubling, but all historical evidence points to conclusions quite removed from the ones you've seemingly reached.

Lokos

[bishop1]

Racist? Geez. I should have been more specific and said the middle east. What I was trying to say, is that the idea of Western Military doctrin, the grouping, organizing, training, equiping and fighting all done uniformally. If you notice, and can have an open mind about it, the "Western" world has employed its armies and its battles to be decisive. The armies of Alexander, the Romans, France, Briritan, Germany, America have never wanted to fight an unconventional war. If you dont understand what an unconventional war is we're in trouble, because I wont describe it. Other than our Revolution, how often have you seen Americans wantning to rage a war with little numbers? Do we send in just Speical Ops to fight a big multinational war for years? Do we want to prolong enganments for years and years, because we dont have the numbers, or training or equipment to fight a 1 on 1 battle? No, the west has always wanted a quick decesive end to things. Not having to spend years hunting people down and have brief engagments that prolong themselves over and over. The ancients middle east never had that. Besides the Turks and Muslims of the Crusades, who did rage open war succefully, the middle East never did anything, but beat its kind. Every invasion of Greece failed. Every battle up to the Crusades pretty much the west had won, even if in the West. But what Im desrbing is too narrow, too specific. But its the best I can come up with right now.
You can look at OIf and OEF though. Did the Taliban, AlQeada, and Sadaams army stand up to fight us openly, were their men trained fighters who could effectivlly fight a manuver war against us? No.
They were brave, courages, had spirit yes. But once a real battle started, they did not have the heart or will to stay, especially after we started to put the hurt on them. Op. Anaconda was different though. They were quite effective, and gave us a large scale battle which was extremely advantagous to them and they won.

Do you see what Im trying to say?

[Lokos]

I should have been more specific and said the middle east.

Your statement - even given the new and more limited definition of 'Eastern' - is still a simple fallacy, given historical evidence to the contrary.

The armies of Alexander, the Romans, France, Briritan, Germany, America have never wanted to fight an unconventional war.

Neither did the armies of the Persians, the Parthians, the Moors etc. (Alexander fought the Persians, the Romans could never subdue the Parthians, the Franks finally defeated the 'Moors'/Arabs at Tours in the 8th century during a pitched battle).

If you dont understand what an unconventional war is we're in trouble, because I wont describe it.

If you don't actually know any Middle Eastern military history prior to the 20th century, then we ARE in trouble. Heck, even in the 20th century what you're saying can be shown to be an utter fallacy. Numerous organised, high intensity, 'Western style' wars have been fought in the M.E. during the last hundred years or so. The Arab-Israeli Wars, the Iran-Iraq War etc.

Other than our Revolution, how often have you seen Americans wantning to rage a war with little numbers?

In 1989, at the end of the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq had 1.3 million men under arms out of a population of 14 million. This mobilization, proportionally, dwarfs any the US has ever attempted.

No, the west has always wanted a quick decesive end to things.

The Thirty Years' War? The Hundred Years' War? The Seven Years' War? World War One? World War Two? What, exactly, do you mean by 'the West' and what do you define as a 'quick, decisive end to things'?

The ancients middle east never had that.

What? Quick and decisive wars? Well, sorry champ, but neither did the Romans, by that definition of 'quick and decisive'.

the middle East never did anything

Someone's forgetting all about the Parthians, the general Arab Jihad of the 7th and 8th centuries, the Persian Empire, Byzantium and military states like the those the Hittites formed. And this is only a sampling of what's on offer in this regard.

Every battle up to the Crusades pretty much the west had won, even if in the West.

LOL. I'm sorry, but... LOL.

Do you even understand where Tours is?

Sadaams army stand up to fight us openly,

Yes. Are you saying that Poland didn't 'stand up to fight' against the Nazis in '39? Just because the Iraqis lost, and the war was short, it does NOT mean that their army was incapable, 'low' or 'irregular'.

Op. Anaconda was different though. They were quite effective, and gave us a large scale battle which was extremely advantagous to them and they won.

... :roll:

Do you see what Im trying to say?

Sadly, I do. More sadly, I have neither the time nor the patience to educate you.

Lokos

[Atlantic Friend]

If you notice, and can have an open mind about it, the "Western" world has employed its armies and its battles to be decisive.

Wanting to be decisive, yes. Hoping to be decisive, certainly. But actually trying to be decisive, hardly. Look at the quagmire of WW1 on the Western Front, or the lack of offensive stratgy of France and Great Britain in the opening phases of WW2, or the often-undecisive battles of the Napoleonic Wars.

The armies of Alexander, the Romans, France, Briritan, Germany, America have never wanted to fight an unconventional war.

Granted, but they were forced to do so by their adversaries (for the modern armies). I think it's largely because an army is trained to defeat its military equivalent, while fighting an insurgency (as an unconventional war usually takes the form of) is as much a political task as it is a militray one. our armies are not well suited to do that, and our leaders are usually all too happy to let the military run the show.

Do we send in just Speical Ops to fight a big multinational war for years? Do we want to prolong enganments for years and years, because we dont have the numbers, or training or equipment to fight a 1 on 1 battle?

Yes and no. You sometimes send small units, special ops, instructors, in foreign wars that do not directly affect America's position. You did just that in Vietnam before it was decided to deploy large units and even conscripts. But it's not because you lack the hardware or ther training, it's because, there again, getting involved in these foreign wars is a political decision, and you have to weigh the pros and the cons of direct, undeniable involvement.


No, the west has always wanted a quick decesive end to things. Not having to spend years hunting people down and have brief engagments that prolong themselves over and over.

This trend seems pretty recent to me, given the millions of dead soldiers and civilians that Western countries accepted as the price to defeat,, say, Imperial or Nazi Germany. Post Vietnam (or Algeria for France), the deployment of troops and the risk of high casualties became a major factor not only in political decisions, but in militray doctrines just as well.


The ancients middle east never had that. Besides the Turks and Muslims of the Crusades, who did rage open war succefully, the middle East never did anything, but beat its kind.

Not sure what your point is here.

Every invasion of Greece failed.[quote]

If you mean complete invasions, yes. Partial invasions and occupations worked pretty well for Turks and Persians.

[quote]
You can look at OIf and OEF though. Did the Taliban, AlQeada, and Sadaams army stand up to fight us openly, were their men trained fighters who could effectivlly fight a manuver war against us? No.

Saddam's army stood up to fight the Coalition in pretty much a Western fashion in 1991, though, and did the same against Iran from 1980 to 1988. Pakistan's army stood up against India's army in a very acceptable Western-like battle, too.

Now, were these men able to fight, and more importantly win, a modern maneuver battle against Western armies ? No. They were outmatched in skill, and more importantly in materiel, especially with their air force gone. The German commanders in Europe from 1944 to 1945 said that fighting the Allies was like playing chess against a foe that could move two pieces each time they moved one, because they had lost air superiority to the point of their only being able to move at night. The Iraqis in 1991 and 2003 were more or less in the same situation.


They were brave, courages, had spirit yes. But once a real battle started, they did not have the heart or will to stay, especially after we started to put the hurt on them.

Look, I understand it's reassuring to think they are almost genetically (or socially, or culturally) inferior as soldiers, and that Iraq 1991, Iraq 2003 and Afghanistan 2001 proves that. But what is striking is that they were fighting a much better-equipped, and much better-trained foe. Give the new Iraqi army the same weapons and the same training, and you will pretty much obtain the same soldiers as those who are the rank and file of Western armies.

Look at the difference, for example, between the Egyptian and Syrian soldiers that the Israeli defeated in 1948 or 1956, and those who threatened the Hebrew state in 1973. They had been taught a thing or two by their Soviet instructors, and they had been given advanced weapon systems.