Dunnigan: "Why Arabs Lose Wars"

[Guest]

James F. Dunnigan makes another brilliant analysis.

The thing I like most about Dunnigan is how he emphasizes human factors over counting weaponry. He recognizes that technology does have its place and effects, but still shows that "it's the size of the fight in the dog".

One of his truisms which I like is that up to a point, "the effectiveness of soldiers is inversely proportional to the snazziness of their uniforms". In other words, sharply dressed troops on parade certainly look impressive, but it's no indication of how well they can fight. Remember the big Soviet parades in Red Square, with huge missiles being towed, etc...a lot of them were FAKES.

Edit for grammar

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[quade 4]

Interesting analysis, but I'm not certain all of those attitudes can be based soley on lessons leaned from their own culture or the Russians.

As I recall . . . the Brits had a little bit of an issue with promoting people based on politcal issues rather than capabilities during the Victorian era. Hence, "The Modern Major-General" parody by Gilbert & Sullivan.

I'm guessing this didn't go unnoticed in the time of T.E. Lawrence either. Speaking of which, I guess they don't lose them all.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Guest]

Dunnigan remarked on that phenomenon in "How to Make War".

He said that the best military leaders come up from the ranks, and this is part of what made generals like France's Marshall Ney so effective. In post-revolutionary France, meritocracy was dominant, so Napoleon took advantage of that (he chose able men to be leaders, not just the ones that kissed his ass).

Dunnigan also noted that the US inherited some of the "Officer Aristocrat" stuff from the British.

However, the British eventually reformed, and so have we. Back in Lord Nelson's day, a wealthy man could purchase a military commission or even a promotion, regardless of whether he knew beans about soldiering or not. This could sometimes be disastrous, as was dramatized in the "Sharpe's Rifles" television miniseries.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[kiltboy 0]

Nelson was Navy, the Sharpe series was Army so a bit different.

True promotions were purchased or even traded though the Royal Engineers could only be promoted by seniority and so promotion could not be purchased.

Even then there was a minimum time requirement before you could purchase the next step up the ladder.
In the infantry/cavalry, officers rank really didn't mean much until you were a Mayor. The unpopular/useless/dangerous ones were killed by their own troops at the first opportunity.

On a side note the purchasing of promotion was used by Arthur Wellesley. Without doing so his promotion to general would have been delayed and Napolean would have won at Waterloo.

David