CULTURES DETERMINE VICTORY AND LOSS CONDITIONS
–“We can topple the Governments in the Middle East but the vast majority of Middle Easterners are tribal and don’t care about their Government.”–IRISHER78
Correct. The Western way of war presumes value of human life, war as duty to the polity before self and family, war as a means of changing government decision makers, policy, and control over the economy, and restoration of cooperation after the war between fighting sides. This strategy is not possible in the Middle east given that ‘all middle eastern states are failed states and always have been’.
The middle east is a religious culture of the bottom classes – islam is a peasant revolt just as christianity is a slave revolt, just as marxism is a peasant revolt, just as judaism is a separatist (outcast) revolt.
The societies are organized from the bottom, without trust, therefore the only states that can exist are authoritarian. Because the people have no means of resolving interests in the interests of the bcomons – only of pride and the self and the feamily and the tribe.
You can’t defeat these cultures by defeating a government – you can only defeat them by defeating the population and forcing them to reform. Even then, it’s unlikely. Becuase they have no mechanism or tradition for doing otherwise.
VAN CREVELD ON CULTURE OF WAR
–“The idea that the criteria for victory in war differ from culture to culture is most closely associated with Martin van Creveld, an Israeli military historian and theorist. Van Creveld’s work often delves into the cultural, psychological, and non-material dimensions of warfare. In books like “The Transformation of War” and “The Culture of War,” he explores how different societies and civilizations have varying conceptions of what constitutes victory or defeat in military conflicts. These views are influenced by a multitude of factors, including religion, societal values, and historical experiences.”–
Reply addressees: @CRAWL781 @jacksonhinklle