Why do Arab countries lose wars?

Does an individual Arab country going to war make it an "Arab" war?

Arab states involved in armed conflicts may not be winning, but look at Arab guerrilla wars; they bring superpowers down to their knees.

Lebanon didn't fight a state-to-state war with Israel, but Hizbullah managed to kick them out not long ago.

America can't win a war in Iraq because of Iraqi resistance.

With all its mighty power, Israel can't fight off the Palestinians.

Let's be realistic.

Yes, Arab states cannot win against modern armies, because they're not geared up to fight them.  Similiarily, modern armies are not geared up to fight guerrilla wars against Arabs. 

Besides, what kind of wars are you talking about?  The kind where armies drop down rocket bombs from the sky, or send unmanned fighter planes to do that?

Originally posted by xristar And at last, I thought that Iraq won the war with Iran.

no, the war ended in stalemate, but if we are to pick a winner, it would be iran because 6 years of the war was in iraqi territory, and the war ended in iraqi territory.

but again, the war was ended in stalemate in 1988, however, iraq would have collapsed in a matter of months had the west not helped them.

not only the arab countries,  but all of the western world supported iraq with money, weapons, satellite imagry, etc...

Originally posted by Mira Does an individual Arab country going to war make it an "Arab" war? Arab states involved in armed conflicts may not be winning, but look at Arab guerrilla wars; they bring superpowers down to their knees. Lebanon didn't fight a state-to-state war with Israel, but Hizbullah managed to kick them out not long ago. America can't win a war in Iraq because of Iraqi resistance. With all its mighty power, Israel can't fight off the Palestinians. Let's be realistic.

What superpower have Arabs brought down to there knees?

"All" of Israel's mighty power? Yeah, lets be realistic.

Originally posted by Mira Yes, Arab states cannot win against modern armies, because they're not geared up to fight them. Similiarily, modern armies are not geared up to fight guerrilla wars against Arabs.

How is this relative to the thread? Are you conceding that Arabs suck in open warfare?
Are Arabs superior guerrilla fighters to this type from other areas of the world?No
Are Arabs actually good fighters?I would say,yes
Perhaps they havent chosen their enemies wisely?Yes

Originally posted by edgewaters Originally posted by xristar The arab countries, and their armies, are young. I don't think this is really it. Plenty of examples of young armies being quite fearsome, eg ANZAC and Canadian armies in WW2, USA in 1812, Germany in WW1. Look at China, it is an old country but the current state and its military (and military doctrine) is about the same age as most of the Arab states, and it has a large, powerful, and professional army, when the formal PLA was just one year old it managed to secure its objectives in Korea against US and international forces (not a total victory, but it achieved what it set out to do, keep the US far from the Yalu River). I tend to think Mira is more on the right vein, Arab armies seem to be highly proficient at guerrilla warfare but for some reason do not seem to do well in conventional conflict. It's sensible to develop a guerrilla tradition in their position; no matter how much they developed their conventional forces, they would not be enough to withstand superpowers.

Hmm, you have apoint there.
First of all, the ANZAC was not a young army. The ANZAC came from Oceania, which used to be British colony. They bear the customs of the British.
But indeed, communist China in Korea war was young. I'm not sure how to explain their very good performance in that war. Probably, it is because they had gained enough experience fighting against the nationalists and the Japanese, to not be considered a "young" and unexperienced army. THink, the same goes to Vietnam.

And in 1973 war, Syria almost defeated Israel. She broke the line at Golan, but (at least according to Israelis) Israel threatened with a nuclear attack and the Syrians haulted. Israel gained enough time to reinforce it's positions, and counterattack. So, we can say that in the open field, the Arabs (Syria) won the battle, but it was other factors, beyond the capabilities of the Arab nations that decided the end of this war.
I think that what Arab armies lack (which is pretty much what I meant when I called them "young") is experience. There hasn't been any important war recently in the area, that we could use to see the Arab performance. I think that Egypt for example is capable of waging a good war. For Syria I'm not sure, as Syria is monolithic in her thinking. Iraq, did not have the experience against "good" enemies (Israel). The misuse of airforce during the Gulf war, is a proof to that.
In some years, a more objective view of the recent Iraq war will come out, and I think we'll see that when it comes to the mere infantryman, the Arab is able to compare with the heavily geared, highly trained USA man.

Originally posted by Gerenalissimus Sinclair First of all, the title to this topic jumps out at me as racist, but i'll forgive you for now. What i don't think people understand is that the middle eastern countries' customs are shaped by their religion. and i personally support them in their beliefs. the western world has no right to interfere with their beliefs. The military descisions of arab armies can seem crazy at times, yes. As well the wars that arabs lose are the ones fought against the better equipped western world, or other arab countries with a better army. Its no wonder they lose when the forces are outmatched

Hmm .. Yeah, it's a bit complicated.  People have done studies on this subject.  It's not just the lack of war technology; there's also the class-issue in the army hierarchy.  The foolish pride, and who takes orders from who and what not.  Arabs are very disorganized - and we know that about ourselves.

Originally posted by cattus The U.S. is the only "superpower" in the world and still capable of projecting power like no other entity has ever had the ability to. My state of Washington is hardly on its knees and stronger than ever. I see hard working Arabs contribute to this every day.

The only superpower that has had a major attack at home, you mean.

You seem very proud of your state.  Good for you.  I just hope you're not as proud of the fact that your state is responsible for the torturing and killing of so many innocents around the world, and labeling them "collateral damage."

Originally posted by cattus Originally posted by Mira A country with such a huge defense expenditure - you'd think they'd win a war easily. They can't even win a war against their army-less neighbor. You and I both know that if Israel had the will, they could wipe-out every last "Palestinian" in a day. Funny, 4.5 million Jews in tiny Israel surrounded by 300 million Arabs and they cannot take care of business.

I don't think Arab countries have anything like the Dimona reactor, or an ally, as I said, with a veto right.  But why should Arabs take any action anyway?  Even with all the checkpoints, walls and high security, Palestinians are still "hitting at home."

If Israel was able to wipe-out all Palestinians, they would have done so long time ago.

Originally posted by cattus Originally posted by Mira The only superpower that has had a major attack at home, you mean. Yeah, thats the one Mira. Is it on its knees?

I don't know how else you'd explain the fact that they can't control a country half the size of the US, and a bunch of "insurgents."  They're even making plans to pull out.

Originally posted by cattus Originally posted by Mira You seem very proud of your state. Good for you. I just hope you're not as proud of the fact that your state is responsible for the torturing and killing of so many innocents around the world, and labeling them "collateral damage." Unlike your glorified warriors which are killing innocents around the world, innocents that are the specific targeting in the first place.

I think you're the one glorifying a terrorist country.  By your own definition, your country is terrorizing innocents in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And I don't think "collateral damage" is equivalent to "specific target."  Or maybe it is - one concept used before you drop the bomb, and the other right after you hold a press conference.

Originally posted by cattus Originally posted by Mira If Israel was able to wipe-out all Palestinians, they would have done so long time ago. If you think Israel lacks the ability but has the desire to wipe out all the Palestinians as the Palestinians or Hamas themself actually do, then I think your hijab or whatever is currently on your head is a little too tight.

How interesting to see a mod violating the forum rules.  I find it quite insulting and derogatory of you to say that my hijab is "a little too tight."  I think you're a bit too arrogant.  Believe what you want if it makes you feel better, and keep half-masting your flag at the death of every soldiers.

The resistance will cease to "resist" when the occupation is gone.  We don't hear as much about confrontations between the resistance and non-American troops.  It's always got to do with the "American invaders." 

Europeans are more civilized when it comes to war, I guess.