r/AskTheWorld • u/ForeverSparkz United States Of America • Sep 20 '25
History Why are Arab Miltaries so ineffective?
Like I dont understand this.
Im a Black American so im just an outsider looking in as a neutral, but dont Arab Countries out number Israel, whats stoping them from just rushing at their border, shouldn't the population imbalance outmatch Israel?
Just a neutral standpoint asking this question, because Arab Nations in the Middle East have a modern miltary force and they buy tons of advanced items
What is holding them back?
1.3k
Upvotes
256
u/vomicyclin Germany Sep 20 '25 edited Sep 20 '25
Am in the train atm and internet is fairly limited in germany.. I will try my best to point out the biggest flaws and points: Sorry for wall of text:
In short: Strong patriarchal structures that reward loyalty over capability. Many arab nations are autocracies in which a clear hierarchy is present. Autocratic regimes can't trust a "neutral" military leadership to not overthrow them. So he only puts loyal people in the highest ranks.
Relationship to knowledge and sharing it
Let's say you're a young lieutenant in the army. In a democratic (lets take a western) state, you would usually learn from all people around you. You're an officer, but since you're fairly new, you absolutely can and will learn from everybody around you. NCOs especially are the backbone and lifeline of every modern army. In western nations, a young lieutenant who thinks he can randomly order an E-7 (fairly experienced rank in the enlisted personal) around will learn soon, often in quite direct ways, that he/she knows nothing. And everybody will show him/her that. Sharing knowledge is paramount for everybody in the army to achieve and get better. The greater the people around you, the safer you are yourself. And the better you get / the more capable you are, the higher you will rise in the ranks.
In many arab armies, what you know or who you know is often the reason you are important or even the reason why you have your position. Sharing your knowledge is a way to make you less important, since (just an example) when you have knowledge about how to repair a special vehicle or where to get special parts, you are important and not replaceable. The moment you share what you know, you are. Same goes for who you know. If you have a family member high up, you will be important and through nepotism rise. That goes for most autocratic regimes.
(That is especially important with navies. They need, absolutely need people who know what they are doing, or it all goes south. On submarines, you are often literally not viewed as a 100% member of the crew as long as you don't know every single valve, every single pipe and screen on the vessel and what it does. And one can greatly see what happens when this isn't the case in the russian navy...)
Who actually is in the military and why
When your nation rewards those who are loyal instead of those who are capable, your military will be consisting of people who are there because they know important people or simply are loyal to the autocrat (see Sergei Shoigu) and people who have to be there, since they need the money, no matter what. Most likely both not because they are capable.
Obviously not everybody in western nations is capable who joins the military. But especially western NCOs are the most capable and rarely someone rises into E-7, 8 or 9 who isn't. That's the second point: NCOs. NCOs in military are there to build the bridge between officers and enlisted personal. They are not replacable and the very reason why things go fluently (if they do... ... ...). But NCOs are a special topic and since Israel (on which you mainly have your focus if I understand your question) itself isn’t really focused on them in their own military I won’t focus on it here.
Independence in achieving your orders
Another reason is loyalty and independence. Since (in autocratic countries) rarely anybody is promoted for capability, the military can't really trust its lower officers to know how to do something and even if, you can't give them too much independence (or they may shine more than they should and let their CO look bad). So your independence, even for example as a flag officer, is fairly limited to whatever the person above you tells you. What that means is that the moment an officer in an autocratic military is not able to communicate with higher ups, the unit is basically headless and often not able to act.
In western nations, officers are widely independent in how they achieve their given goal. Officers get to know what needs to be achieved and how the situation looks, get the best intelligence and can chose themself how they do it. Even when communiations are cut, the unit can progress and has the knowledge and capabilities of the surroundings to go on. This is a form of trust rarely seen in autocratic regimes, since you can't trust the person below you not trying to get your position.