Hacker News Reader

Comment by devoply | Hacker News Reader

Mostly because there is no Arab or Muslim empire left after Europeans killed off the Ottoman empire and it's easy to beat down tyrants with few allies. What's the reasons for these tyrants, dictators, and terrorists. Insecurity. What's the reason for insecurity? Lack of empire... so you always end up becoming someone's bitch... which leads to feelings of insecurity and inferiority.

The only way to deal with this is to become a vassal of an existing empire and good examples of this are Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc.

View on HN

If you were to actually read the article you might find it to be a thoughtful meditation on Arab military (and, more generally, male) culture by someone who has broad and deep firsthand knowledge of the topic.

Having advised the Iraqi army, and having tried to prepare beforehand by reading Lawrence, Patai, Nydell, etc, I would say that this short essay was by far the best of the bunch.

I think de Atkine also makes insightful points about how good people can create toxic organizations when they feel insecure about their status within the organization.

Well to me it reeks of Orientalism in that most of these countries are run by tribal syndicates which are more or less a result of social engineering and destruction of Arab nationalism. So obviously there are no stable power structures which would lead to some sort of successful organization of a military. And that's all by design. After you have created a disaster you can go in there point your finger at their culture and say see, this is why the native is stupid. And all the bigots buy it... because that's the situation you have created.

When corruption is the norm, how do you think it would be expressed in society?

I have no doubt as to the value of the social engineering, knowledge of American values and norms are spread by American media, for the price of an armored division and hiring from the Arab emigre population in the United States, an Arabic movie and TV studio could be created. More people throughout the world are familiar with Miranda rights than with the US constitution, partially because the US constitution is dead words, while what Hollywood produces are reenactments.

I mostly agree with your point of view.

This comment has nothing to do with de Atkine's essay, which I recommend you actually read.

> Along these lines, Kenneth Pollack concludes his exhaustive study of Arab military effectiveness by noting that "certain patterns of behavior fostered by the dominant Arab culture were the most important factors contributing to the limited military effectiveness of Arab armies and air forces from 1945 to 1991."16 These attributes included over-centralization, discouraging initiative, lack of flexibility, manipulation of information, and the discouragement of leadership at the junior officer level.

> The barrage of criticism leveled at Samuel Huntington's notion of a "clash of civilizations"17 in no way lessens the vital point he made—that however much the grouping of peoples by religion and culture rather than political or economic divisions offends academics who propound a world defined by class, race, and gender, it is a reality, one not diminished by modern communications.

> But how does one integrate the study of culture into military training? At present, it has hardly any role. Paul M. Belbutowski, a scholar and former member of the U.S. Delta Force, succinctly stated a deficiency in our own military education system: "Culture, comprised of all that is vague and intangible, is not generally integrated into strategic planning except at the most superficial level."

You don't. You change the culture by socially engineering it. That's how the West has always done things. But we must understand the savage and his culture... and understand his brute nature so that we may deal with him.

>it works better if you substitute 'arabic nations' with 'dictatorships'.

But that begs the question of why the Middle East, which for thousands of years had ruled western eurasia, was conquered by the West. I say it was because the West developed a form of culture, politics and military that is simply more powerful. And the article is giving some of the particulars here.

>Well to me it reeks of Orientalism

So is it your view that the Middle East would be a wonderful, just, egalitarian, materially comfortable place if it weren't for the evil West?

> Mostly because there is no Arab or Muslim empire left after Europeans killed off the Ottoman empire

Can you describe the Ottoman's as Arabs? Without resorting to sources I seem to recall their origins were in Scythia. In any case, I do think there is some value in looking back at the history, even though it is pretty orthogonal to the analysis in the post (there may be some cultural touch points). Also, isn't it more accurate to say that the Ottomans chose the wrong (German) side in a war, and that this is the cause of their final dissolution?

The Ottomans start as one of the beyliks in the ruins of the Sultanate of Rum, which is Seljuk (Turkic) Anatolia wrested from the Byzantines. The Ottomans use the late Byzantine instability to expand Turkic control into Thrace, Macedonia, and the Balkans, as well as conquering the other remnant beyliks of Anatolia. Later, they expanded into other ruins of the Ilkhanate (modern-day Iraq, predominantly), and resoundingly defeated the Mamluk Sultanate, giving them control over Egypt, Palestine, and the Hejaz (including the holy cities).

For much of its existence, the Ottoman Empire combined both Turkish and Arabian as prestige languages within its empire. It was only in the latter part of its existence, the last century or so, that the modernization effort focused on a narrow, Turkish identity that alienated the Arab populations within its borders.

> Also, isn't it more accurate to say that the Ottomans chose the wrong (German) side in a war, and that this is the cause of their final dissolution?

Ehh, picking the wrong side in WWI was only the coup de grace. It was the fourth war in 4 years that the Ottomans had fought--the Italian war for Libya, the First Balkan War (Serbia, Bulgaria, and Greece team up to wrest Macedonia), the Second Balkan War (Serbia, Romania, the Ottomans, and Greece team up to force Bulgaria to give up the land it just won), followed by WWI. The Ottoman Empire was deeply unstable from the Greek independence through its final collapse, and the very start of WWI has its roots in the instability of the Ottoman Empire and the Christian states attempting to peel Christian statedoms out of the Muslim Ottoman Empire.

I think the Ottoman empire was already failing at the time of WW1. Perhaps choosing the winning side would have allowed them to survive a little longer, but I think the empire was doomed at the time.

Ottomans were not Arab by any-means. Ottoman State is founded by Osman Bey, leader of the Kayi Tribe which is a sub-tribe of Oghuz Turks, who migrated from Khorasan. The official language in Ottoman empire was Ottoman Turkish, which is basically Turkish with many many Persian and Arabic words, while the structure and grammer was Turkish. Ottoman Turkish mainly used in Istanbul by a limited-number of people who are closed to state affairs or some educated people like poets or government officials in the federal states. Common people was speaking plan Turkish, which don't have much Persian and Arabic influence, and this language was the language of the Ottoman Army. Ottoman state and army culture, discipline and structure was a classical Turkish state structure, of course with differences from previous Turkish states.

The problem Arabs faced after dissolution of Ottoman Empire is similar in a sense to Turkish people faced, in regards to the national awareness.

Ottoman Empire didn't dissolved because they chose the wrong side, instead it was huge empire consisting of many nation and spans over an enourmous area (East Europe, Anatolia, Syria-Iraq, Egypt, Arabia, North Africa), while the army and many government offices couldn't keep up with the developments of the time. Basically, Ottoman Empire dissolved because of the wrong politics and failure to renew itself. After the French Revolution, nationalism started to spread over whole Europe and this affected the Ottoman Empire most, not only consisting of different nations, but also different religions. Being a religious state (Islamic), main subjects were Muslims and non-Muslims, separated by Millet system according to religious affiliation. Government officials were either Turkish or Devshirmes (Christian boys converted to Islam and trained to be gov. officials), being Muslim even wasn't a qualification to be an official.

When nationalism sweeps Europe, Christian Balkan nations like Greeks, Serbians, Bulgars etc. started to rebel against the empire to found their own independent nation states, feeling comfortable as the empire was loosing power every day. In that situation, Ottoman government was trying to cope with "the problem" by supporting the empire-identity of Ottomanism, and only small number of educated people were following the idea of Turkish nationalism and to create a Turkish nation-state. This was all happening at the last decades of 1800s, and Ottomans lost Balkan region, latery Ottomans also lost Middle East, Egypt, Iraq, Arabia, North Africa. British Empire also supported Arab nations to rebel against Ottoman Empire, promising their own land (British Mandates).

Empire was already dissolved when most of the nations declared their independence. WW1 was just nail in the coffin, that officially surrendered Ottoman Empire and Istanbul to British Empire. After the end of WW2, Allied forces (British, Greek, French, Italian, Armenian) shared the remnants of the empire with Treaty of Sevres, but Ottoman Army generals and irregular Turkish armed forces rebelled against the invading forces and this resulted in the victory for the Turkish side in the War of Independence, and ultimately resulted in the foundation of the Turkish national state.

TL;DR: Empire didn't dissolved because of choosing the German side. And also Arab nations didn't share "ottoman" ideals as Turkish and even many non-Muslim millet did and finally rebelled against Ottomans with the British support. Saying Ottoman Empire was an Arab Empire is simply ignoring the historical facts. This is not so different than saying all the Christian nations in Europe are descending of the Jews because Jesus was one. Having words from a language and having the same religious affiliation doesn't make two different states, nations or cultures one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_and_modernization_of_t... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_of_nationalism_in_the_Ott... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_War_of_Independence

Thanks so much for the insights.

> Ottoman Empire didn't dissolved because they chose the wrong side, instead it was huge empire consisting of many nation and spans over an enourmous area (East Europe, Anatolia, Syria-Iraq, Egypt, Arabia, North Africa), while the army and many government offices couldn't keep up with the developments of the time.

Not an uncommon pattern.

Multicultural empires couldn't survive the onslaught of nationalism that came in the 19th century. The modernization attempts of the Ottoman Empire (unlike Austria-Hungary or Russia, the other two major multicultural empires of Europe) rested very heavily on a very narrow Turkish nationalism movement that alienated the Armenian, Arab, and Balkan peoples in the country. But Austria-Hungary, which was somewhat successfully trying to force an inclusive, multicultural modernization process still imploded, as did Russia, which was somewhat in the middle between Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans.

Even the multicultural aspects of the British Empire would come flying apart in the 20th century--Irish nationalism was successful in splitting from Britain in the inter-war period, and Indian nationalism would end the British Raj shortly after WW2. And Britain was consistently the most modern, liberal, and inclusive country in this period. The only countries that could successfully survive multiculturally were those that received multiple countries from the sheer immigration of the period and channeled them into a melting pot of immigrant cultures (most notably the US, but many of the large American countries went through similar experiences).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com