RE: 2nd/3rd rate powers - LLAR - and now Africans...

Hi Folks,

ok, I know I'm wading into a minefield here... but what the heck...

>> someone please explain to
>> dumbo here why the PAU have such a crap reputation?
>> Is it projecting from
>> now bias? Or is there some major comment in the
>> timeline that my selective
>> memory has conveniently deleted on me?
>
>Because the only good quality professional militaries
>to ever come out of that continent have been either
>Rhodesian or South African before the end of apartied.

Oh?  Ever?  In all of human history?  There have been NO good
professional
soldiers, EVER, from Africa - except for the Rhodesians (who were beaten
and lost their country) and South Africans (who collapsed and saw their
enemies elected to the Presidency)?

Ask the British regulars who were wiped out at Isandlawanda.  The worst
defeat at the hands of "native forces" the British army faced *ever*. 
The
Zulus has some very good troops, well trained, well motivated, and
pretty
well led - for their era and their technology.	Ok, the British beat
them
silly once they had their act together, but that was 2000 years of
technological advantage talking, not necessarily just the training,
quality
and fighting spirit of the troops.  If the Zulus had the same weapons
and
the same access to "modern" training, etc., they'd have been plenty to
handle for anyone.  Both the Boers and the British army had respect for
their fighting abilities, discipline, etc.  

For pete's sakes, the ancient Egyptians hired black African troops as
mercenaries because of their reknowned ferocity in battle, and the
armies
of the Pharoah, for that matter, had periods of great success.	For
their
era, great professional fighting forces.  And most certainly from the
African continent...

Or do you mean good quality professional *modern western just-like-us*
militaries?

Your comments ignore all of North Africa, right?  Some of the units of
the
modern era Egyptian and Algerian armies might be pretty decent - the
Egyptian combat engineers did a pretty good job breaching the Israeli
canal
defenses, for example.	

The Moroccan army is supposed to have some very good troops, one author
I
read called them the best in the arab world (and yeah, I know you aren't
exactly the biggest arab fan, but there are some good units out there...
the Jordanians have some also).

Anyway, ignoring North Africa, and ignoring anything further back than
the
past 50 years or so...	The ANC fielded some *excellent* fighting units
in
their war with South Africa.  I got this from a fascinating dinner
conversation I had with a South African (white) paratrooper officer a
couple of years back at the RCMI.  He commented that while there were
plenty of crap ANC units, some were very very good.  These were
incorporated into the SAfrican army wholesale after Mandela took over. 
In
fact, Executive Outcomes was staffed primarily by veterans of the
SAfrican
army's commandos, paratroops, and the ANC field forces, because these
were
the best guys available...  Remember, the South African army, as good as
it
might have been at one time, never actually *beat* the ANC completely.

He also described a force consisting of black African soldiers from one
of
the other countries in the area (ex-Portuguese colony, IIRC) who were
feverently anti-communist, and also very good, hardened professional
troops.  They joined up with the SAfricans against the ANC, and fought
long
and hard.  Eventually, they ended up in SAfrica, but the army there
didn't
know what to do with them after the ANC took over, as the ANC leadership
*hated* them passionately (they were Portuguese speakers, were from
completely different tribal backgrounds, and had beat on the ANC pretty
seriously, including being used by the SAfrican gov't in the black
settlements while aphartied was still ongoing).  

Africa is perfectly capable of producing good military formations. 
Certain
of their cultures have LONG warrior traditions;  though granted, Africa
has
been *seriously* buggered up by colonialism and its after-effects.  Will
Africans be able to get their act together again by 2183, and have some
professional fighting forces?  Sure, why not?  180 years is a lot of
time
to change, and NO culture is fixed in stone.  Plenty of European
countries
in the past 180 years have had phases of military strength followed by
feebleness...

Ok, the military history of Africa in the past century or so isn't
exactly
filled with shining examples, but you're condeming an entire continent
of
people, for all time, except the white Europeans who settled there...
There
is a pretty huge leap of faith to say "they're crap now and that means
they'll be crap 200 years from now because nothing will ever change",
don't
you think?    Especially if you pull out a book of military history, and
see some of the MANY examples of other countries who have gone through
the
boom-and-bust cycle of military success and effectiveness.

***************************************

Adrian Johnson
adrian@stargrunt.ca
http://www.stargrunt.ca