How did they accomplish the rarest of military feats?

C

coberst

Active member
How did they accomplish the rarest of military feats?

The people, who made up Israel and considered for centuries to be non fighters, were surrounded on three sides and facing a far superior enemy “accomplished the rarest of military feats”, they shattered the enemy forces “within a given time and with an absence of blunder”.

Fighting that began in May of 1948 ended in January 1949 when an armistice was signed. The IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) realized that they had “won a state but not the peace”.

The major surprise was the performance of the “espresso” generation; given this name because they were considered to have discarded the traditional Jewish ideals while lazing about drinking espresso in the local cafes. It was this generation that, when challenged and well led, performed this “rarest of military feats”.

From what I have read there is a small (35%) absolute difference in the intellectual potential between extremes in normal humans. When we examine specific individuals we can detect a gigantic difference (1000%?) in accomplishment. When we compare Winston Churchill with the others we see this difference and when we compare the Israeli nation in this situation with other nations we see this difference.

The difference is illuminated not only when comparing one person with another or one nation with another but it is startling in the difference in accomplishment of humans in matters of technology versus matters of ‘reasoning together’.

We live in two very different worlds; a world of technical and technological order and clarity, and a world of personal and social disorder and confusion. We are increasingly able to solve problems in one domain and increasingly endangered by our inability to solve problems in the other.

Science solves puzzles. The logic of the paradigm insulates the professional group from problems that are unsolvable by that paradigm. One reason that science progresses so rapidly and with such assurance is because the logic of that paradigm allows the practitioners to work on problems that only their lack of ingenuity will keep them from solving.

Science uses instrumental rationality to solve puzzles. Instrumental rationality is a systematic process for reflecting upon the best action to take to reach an established end. The obvious question becomes ‘what mode of rationality is available for determining ends?’ Instrumental rationality appears to be of little use in determining such matters as “good” and “right”.

There is a striking difference between the logic of technical problems and that of dialectical problems. The principles, methods and standards for dealing with technical problems and problems of “real life” are as different as night and day. Real life problems cannot be solved using deductive and inductive reasoning.

In summary:

Humans differ greatly in achievement even though potential as measured by intellectual capacity is small.

Humans perform grandly in matters of technology but are wimps in performance in matters communication and reasoning together.

I find this to be a puzzlement? Do you have any answers?

Quotes from Practicing History by Barbara Tuchman
 
Some cultures appear to be highly focussed and motivated whilst others seem to be lethargic and useless. Perhaps it is their society, the cohesion of a group and the political environment that is far more important than the ability of individuals
 
With regards to the Arab armies of the 40s and 50s I tend to stick by the reasons my father gave me, you don't build good armies from people who's sole reason for signing up is to get 3 meals a day and own a pair of shoes.

So I agree the reason for the failure of Arab nations to win the wars of that period are solely because of the social, economic and political environment of those nations at the time.

Further to this you only have to look at Arab armies even today to see that they are designed more to control poorly armed and equipped rebellions than fight advanced and prolonged wars against well armed opponents hence they are loaded with armour and flying 50 year old aircraft that were consider low quality when they were new.

So on one hand you have a modern well equipped and motivated nation that is fighting for its survival and understands effective use of combined arms and on the other hand you have thousands of poorly trained conscripts who are wearing a uniform because they have to in order to get fed fighting with tactics that had barely moved on from WW1 (hell replace tanks with horses and Ramesses The Great would not have been out of place).

If you want to make a strong military first you must create a strong economy with a large middle class and give them something worth defending (nationalism is not enough).
 
I'll second what Monty says but I'll also add that a lot of their military commanders were princes that should have never been involved. A merit based rank system would have improved some things for the Arabs but that was not the case. A bad Army was being led to war by even worse leaders.
 


I think that character is a major factor in determining what accomplishments a person and perhaps nation might achieve. I think that the nation displays character just as does an individual person.

I mother tells her son “you must change your attitude”. How does a boy change his attitude?

I think that attitude is much like character so I will speak about character especially intellectual character. How does a person change their character either ‘normal character’ or ‘intellectual character’?

What is character? Character is the network of habits that permeate all the intentional acts of an individual.

I am not using the word habit in the way we often do, as a technical ability existing apart from our wishes. These habits are an intimate and fundamental part of our selves. They are representations of our will. They rule our will, working in a coordinated way they dominate our way of acting. These habits are the results of repeated, intelligently controlled, actions.

Habits also control the formation of ideas as well as physical actions. We cannot perform a correct action or a correct idea without having already formed correct habits. “Reason pure of all influence from prior habit is a fiction.” “The medium of habit filters all material that reaches our perception and thought.” “Immediate, seemingly instinctive, feeling of the direction and end of various lines of behavior is in reality the feeling of habits working below direct consciousness.” “Habit means special sensitiveness or accessibility to certain classes of stimuli, standing predilections and aversions, rather than bare recurrence of specific acts. It means will.”

“Were it not for the continued operation of all habits in every act, no such thing as character would exist. There would be simply a bundle, an untied bundle at that, of isolated acts. Character is the interpenetrating of habits. If each habit in an insulated compartment and operated without affecting or being affected by others, character would not exist. That is conduct would lack unity being only juxtaposition of disconnected reactions to separated situations. But since environments overlap, since situations are continuous and those remote from one another contain like elements, a continuous modification of habits by one another is constantly going on.”

My understanding of character and the quotations concerning the nature of character are taken from “Habits and Will” by John Dewey http://www.alexandercenter.com/jd/johndeweyhabits.html.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top