[October 15, 2014] During the 1967 and 1973 Arab-Israeli Wars1, the militaries of the Arab states2 were well organized but performed poorly on the battlefield. For those of us who study war, it is well known that militaries of socialist countries are inferior to democratic national armies. While it is hard to pinpoint any one reason why, what we can say definitively is that socialist militaries have been successful but only when employed in mass. So why is it that the Islamic State1 and its less organized army is so successful in their war against Syria and Iraq?
From the Soviet armies of World War II to the Chinese army in Korea, socialist nations have used mass as their primary principle of war. Deception and surprise are also used and I will hold this topic for another discussion. Some claim that socialist countries place a lower value on human life than democracies. Others say that socialists simply believe the existence of the state supersedes any individual’s rights or needs. However, that does not answer the fundamental question, “why has the Islamic State’s armies been so successful in Iraq, and in Syria?” Also, “why have they rolled over the U.S.-trained Iraqi military?”
Part of the answer lies in the distinction between a soldier and a warrior. The Islamic State (IS) army is composed of “warriors” while they are fighting “soldiers”. There has been much written about the distinction between the two and I find most of that discussion unhelpful. Ralph Peters however helps us understand the difference and clarifies the main characteristics of each (see link). On the one hand, he believes that our modern militaries are composed of soldiers who have technology, training, and the raw power to shatter conventional enemies. On the other hand, he thinks that warriors have a volatile allegiance, are habituated to violence, and have no stake in civil order. The warrior, he notes, thrives on lawlessness and havoc, respects no treaties and doesn’t obey orders when he’s not in the mood. Warriors raise fear in the hearts of all humankind when they are near. This certainly sounds like the IS army to me.
Both Syria and Iraq are socialist nations and their armies are generally not as strong as democratic militaries in a one-on-one match. Socialist armies are good at fighting each other in wars of attrition where slugging it out mass against mass often works when your opponent is not as flexible and lacks training and experience throughout its ranks. Attila the Hun’s forces were composed of warriors and they were not well trained in conventional war but they were experienced and feared. Fear, because when they conquered a location they raped the people of that area and instilled greater fear for those about to be conquered. Large migrations occurred just to avoid warrior armies. That is what is happening in both Iraq and Syria.
The problem we have today is that professional armies, like those in the nation-state, have to fight a warrior army in IS. The warrior has few rules of conduct while the soldier has many restrictions on his behavior. Thus, the soldier fights with a disadvantage in a strategic sense. Overcoming this disadvantage is paramount to winning any fight. Advanced weaponry of the soldier is helpful. Regardless of what we hear in the media, there is a way to soundly defeat warrior armies.
Here is the secret to winning a war against warriors. First, one must fight with “boots on the ground,” soldiers willing to directly engage the warrior on his own ground and never give up. Second, the soldier must have a citizenry with the will power to allow such a war to continue for an undetermined length. And third, the soldier must have a strong and intelligent political elite that understands strategy and does not unnecessarily restrict the soldier army’s options. IS can be defeated by the U.S. or any coalition but only when these three things are applied without waiver.
[Don’t forget to “Like” the Leader Maker at our Facebook Page.]
———————-
[1] The 1967 war is also called the Six-Day War, June War, or Third Arab-Israeli War. The 1973 war is also called the Yom Kippur War, Ramadan War, and October War.
[2] The Arab coalition in the 1973 war was composed of Egypt and Syria, which provided the combat forces, and Iraq, Jordan, Algeria, Cuba, Morocco, and Tunisia, which were primarily support.
[3] Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). More here in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant