" The House of Saud " Thread

[AzariLoveIran]

[Tinker]

[HAL9000]

[HAL9000]

[AzariLoveIran]

[AzariLoveIran]

[Ibrahim]

[AzariLoveIran]

[AzariLoveIran]

[Milo]

Read that Wikileaks and this one. Not that either is a new story... The oil figures are bullshit.

The only debate now is how much...


http://goo.gl/eTl3g" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ibrahim]

Running out of oil are they? Good thing they already bought a giant army, US political influence, and stuffed Swiss bank accounts with filthy lucre.

[AzariLoveIran]

[HAL9000]

[Ibrahim]

[Caskhades]

Yup, while the Saudis probably* couldn't defend themselves, despite all their toys, the Iranians surely couldn't attack, especially with their outdated toys. For crying out loud, Iran can barely keep the lid on their own population and keep their economy from imploding while at peace, without starting a ruinous war in which the US/NATO would surely intervene.

More to the point, when's the last time you can recall that a (non-superpower) state successfully invaded and annexed a neighbor?

This is nothing but Spengler/Azarian sexual fantasy here.

There's a great discussion of the nature of military power (equipment, numbers, force deployment) in Stephen Biddle's . I meet the guy through a common acquaintance, and he's sharp as a razor. He'd argue that neither Iran nor KSA have managed to implement modern force deployment doctrines, mostly because of the nature of the regime and culture make it hard to instill the needed sense of initiative in the low-ranking officers. (and yes, I'm a war nerd)

[AzariLoveIran]

[Ibrahim]

[Caskhades]

Biddle's idea is that in many authoritarian regimes, troops are trained to only act on orders, leaving very little room for battlefield initiative. Case in point, at the Battle of 73 Easting during the Gulf War, an O3 (captain H. R. McMaster) had the authority to make decisions about a massive engagement when the opportunity arose, destroying over enemy 400 tanks and APCs in the process. Imagine an Iraqi or Saudi or Iranian captain having the guts to enter such an engagement without specific orders from someone waaaay higher in rank (O6 --colonel-- or higher).

The crux of the argument, if I understand it correctly, is that rigid top-down command structures are inappropriate in a fast-changing high-destructive-power environment, where the local commanders must take advantage of local cover opportunities and local mistakes by the enemy or be utterly destroyed. Hence the importance of initiative. If I recall, Biddle gives specific historical examples to argue that outnumbered and out-teched troops employing modern deployment tactics tend to win over more numerous and better armed enemies who do not.

[Ibrahim]

[Caskhades]

Leaving aside the sheer technical complexity of coordinating dispersed assaults and the scarcity of such expertise in many countries due to low quality education systems, I don't think he argued it's anything about West Asian cultures, just that the authoritarian regimes that implemented autonomy doctrines of this kind (making brigades and even platoons operationally capable on their own, for instance) were risking overthrow now for the benefit of future combat capability later. Not a very appetizing choice.

I mean, there could be something about the cultures too, but it's not necessary for the argument.

[AzariLoveIran]

.

So happy be among military personnel ..

Caskhades , your expert opinion :

Why, despite all the strategy analysis in West Point and other American military collages, despite America not losing a single battle, despite that, America has not won a single war since end of WW II ?

Why ?

Reason is, wars are not winning battles ..

In classic times, Chingiz khan ruled his conquest by terror .. that is why wars were won by battles, because the conquest was later ruled by terror .. it worked for awhile .. but once the terror could not be uphold everything reverted back.

Today, for many reason, lasting terror of population not viable .. Israeli learned it the hard way .. and terror cuts both way, Asymmetric war and resistance ..

So, Caskhades, all those talks of tanks and strategy is waste of taxpayers money .. it is business for the few .. but it will not win a war .. destruction and killing, yes .. but not winning a war ..

Signs indicate American strategist getting the message

At the end of the day : "good thoughts, good words, good deeds" (Humata, Hukhta, Hvarshta in Avestan) will win the day, will win wars ..

That is the new reality

.

[Najar]

Azari,

If the apex nation supports subjugation thru terror , then it will work. Romans have done it in the past. If USA does the same you will see us wining wars and colonizing the world. USAs core principle has been promotion of equal rights and democracy , and whenever military steps out of that line , they face trouble backhome. If the mindset in USA changes to support imperialism and terror , you will quickly see wars soon escalate to conquests and terror. There are abberations like the situation in Palestine , but most of the US population doesnt have an interest in the issue , unless the media puts it in front of them..

US has been the only superpower in history to behave this way. Greeks , Romans , Mohammadens , Mongols , Spaniands , ottomons , Brits , Aztecs - every known superpower in its time and place ruled thru terror and they won wars.

The next superpower may not be as kind and gentle as the US.

[Hans Bulvai]

Most of those regimes kept armies to save their own hides; not for border protection

[AzariLoveIran]

[Tinker]