It's all very simple. Islam is a unique religion in that its main prophet had military chops and there are specific surahs that suggest that fighting well gives you a reward and is a sign of being righteous.

So any competent general has de-facto political legitimacy and is a de-facto threat to whatever government is in place. Most of the leaders in the region know this and as a result armies are staffed with insiders (which the article notes).

Saudi airforce is basically a jobs programme for elite families.

Basically the same arguments, in a longer story: https://www.meforum.org/middle-east-quarterly/why-arabs-lose...

undefined

I've heard that in some recent battles, the units turned out to have many fewer soldiers than the payroll might suggest. Why? Commanders were registering fake names and pocketing the salaries.

One could ask similar questions about the Americans, or the Russians. America hasnt won a war since 1991. Russia hasnt won since WWII.

Winning wars, as opposed to just battles, requires such an intense emotional commitment to the state being fought for that people are willing to die for the mission. That extends not just to combatants but the citizenry and polity behind them. Few wars of the modern era meet the bar. Wars of national survival may do, so long as the (defending) political class dont screw it up, eg by internal corruption.

tl;dr is that a state should not start a war unless they are prepared --truly prepared-- to finish it. I guess that's why so many politicians shy away from the word "war" to something else.

it also has to do with military power if I high ranking officer disciplines an officer of lower rank but that lower rank officer is the cousin of so and so, then there is a problem for the high ranking officer, thus a lack of discipline pervades

Average IQ by country:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/average-i...