Military Orientalism: Eastern War Through Western Eyes

by Patrick Porter

Westerners have long fetishized the idea of "Oriental" warfare, hoping to either emulate the strategies of foreign armies or assimilate members of Eastern and "martial races," such as Sikhs or Gurkhas, into their ranks. Samurai warriors, obedient to an ancient code of chivalry and honor, and the Mongol hordes thundering across the steppe-these exotic visions have thrilled Western imaginations for centuries. Yet, at the same time, today's Eastern warriors, such as the Taliban and Hezbollah, are treated with skepticism, and their success is acknowledged only grudgingly in the West. These contradictory positions throw into question the romantic notion that race, culture, and tradition determines how armies fight. Military Orientalism argues against the idea that culture dictates the strategy of war. Culture is powerful, Patrick Porter asserts, but it encompasses an ambiguous repertoire of ideas rather than a clear code of action. To divide the world into Western, Asiatic, or Islamic ways of war is a misconception, one that profoundly impacts our approach to present and future conflicts, especially the "War on Terror." Porter also emphasizes the danger of fetishizing the exotic, which complicates a more accurate understanding of the enemy. Launching a rare investigation into the history of this trend as it has appeared in the work of Herodotus and numerous other fictional and nonfictional narratives, Porter strikes at the heart of the fear, envy, and wonder inspired by the Oriental warrior.

Genres: History, Military Fiction, War, Nonfiction, Military History

256 pages, Hardcover

First published June 22, 2009

Reviews

[notabattlechick · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've read this book probably five times now. I'm still learning from it. I think it remains one of the most important books I've read in the last 5 years. It's challenging and insightful. Highly recommended. I don't give out five stars lightly.

[Chase Metcalf · Rating 3 out of 5]

Critical analysis of the explanatory power of “strategic culture” and argument for “cultural realism." The author warns against the overuse of culture to explain adversary behavior while acknowledging that a cultural perspective applied appropriately can improve understanding of your own and adversary behavior. Ultimately three major points stuck out:
- Culture is often abused in an attempt to understand and explain adversary behavior and motivations. Cultural realism can help to avoid the extremes of neo-realism (global “man” or culture) and cultural determinism.

- Peoples/groups motivations, and thus behavior, are complex and culture is only one of multiple factors shaping them. Interests, especially in war, can overcome cultural and does reshape or influence culture in pursuit of ends.

- War is a dynamic activity which compels groups to adapt and evolve in pursuit of desired ends (survival and victory) - this includes overcoming and reshaping culture.

Valuable book for strategists and policy makers alike that reinforces the importance of context, the dynamic nature of conflict and how that compels actors to evolve and adapt over time, and the reality that war remains an issue of politics and power.

[Zare · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book that shows taking extremes when judging the opposition while running the state [and with it state's foreign policy and external conflicts] results in same - downfall of assumptions albeit at the cost of lives and not just academic pride.

In order to fully achieve insight into unknown parts of the world it is not only necessary to collect data but also to look into without bias and get actual, historical and non-biased information [with context] to create the view of the world one is to enter - as a tourist, economist, entrepreneur or invasion army.

This is especially important when entering parts of the world where society structure is completely different, politics are nowhere close to homeland's and it is very easy to get enamored with exotic locales and way of life. When encountering different societies people get pushed over the brink - in negative way or positive way. Usually there is no middle ground. It is very easy to dismiss these others as barbarians, or dismiss one's own culture as overburdened when compared to advantages (be it simplicity or something else) of life of people in exotic countries. In any case how we approach the situation and foreign societies in instinctive way says more about us then about people we observe. Usually observer compares things with what he knows and fears and more often then not gets to the completely wrong conclusions (at least (or better said - hopefully only) in the beginning). Everything can be learned and minds can change but to achieve that correctly is to exclude one self from the observation.

As author states throughout the book culture is not static but dynamic element - it is directed by relations within certain society and with other societies, conflicts (internal and external) and application of lessons learned through history. Humans are humans no matter where they live - if tool or approach cannot be used to achieve advantage it will be discarded, approaches changed, tools retooled and tested again.

To focus on the culture as a static element (expecting behavior on the basis of archetypes for given area) is to make same error as it is to go to much into questions of culture scientifically and pile out data without context - and therefore lose valuable insights that would explain lots of things. Chapters on B. Liddell Hart and the way he used Mongols to push for ideas on mechanization shows that sometime scientists create proofs for their own theories. Sometimes they prove to be right (or at least point in the right direction) but this is not correct scientific approach.

Although academically written book style is very easy to follow. Everything the author states is given in a very precise and lean way, and backed up with examples, proofs (provided in the retrospective of course) and detailed notes. Chapters on Japan, Mongols and (from modern times) IDF's conflict in summer of 2006 were especially informative.

Author made me see that what one might take for granted (or at least expected) - that governments do their job before entering conflict and check against who and why - seems to be rarely done and depending on the standing on possible opposition could lead to total blunder. It is so easy to stir the masses with the rhetoric when no one ever asks the important question - who and why? Maybe when people start to ask these questions governments will also change. Hope remains.

Highly recommended to military history readers.

[Sana · Rating 3 out of 5]

“Instead of assuming sameness, [Westerners] can regard foreigners as eternally separate and primordial, an alien species with their ‘ancient hatreds’ or primal urges.”

[Graham · Rating 5 out of 5]

Patrick Porter's Military Orientalism provides an excellent analysis of the recent culturally-focused bent within western military thinking. "It is not a question of whether culture matters," writes Porter, "but how it matters, and how to conceptualise [sic:] it." This is expressed through several case studies: British perceptions and accounts of the Russo-Japanese War, interwar military thinking and the "lessons" of Ghengis Khan (particularly as expressed by Basil Liddell Hart), the United States and the Taliban in Afghanistan, and finally Israel's experience in the 2006 Lebanon War.

Almost without exception, Porter does a fantastic job outlining relevancies, misperceptions, and the 'trap' that is overawareness of an enemy's culture. While there are certainly traditions and beliefs that inform the actions of say, al Qaeda, they are equally willing to preserve their own lives at the cost of their perceived traditions. Porter also goes on to demonstrate how a group like al Qaeda might encourage such unchanging assumptions, as then any deviation from those expectations will easily surprise their opponents.

However, it is the last of the case studies that might be a stretch. While Israel is certainly to be considered a part and an ally of the west, the circumstances and nature of their war in Lebanon is a bit tricky to use as an example of military orientalism. More than some sort of cultural bias, what the Lebanese experience shows is perhaps an overreliance on Israeli military history - a case of generals preparing to fight the previous war.

Nevertheless, Porter's book is an excellent counterpart to those professing to understand the "Arab mind" and other such monolithic nonsense, and recommended reading for anyone engaged in study on the middle east and eastern military history in general.

[Eric Randolph · Rating 4 out of 5]

Despite lapses into academic anti-English (skip the jargon-laden introduction), this is for the most part a readable and crucially important destroyer of stereotypes of non-Western militaries, pulling apart common and simplistic ideas about, for example, the Japanese Samurai (not as honour-bound and righteous as the myth would have us believe) or the Taliban (not simply a blood-feud-obsessed death cult), to argue that culture is an important part of defining foreign groups but that survival will often trump tradition -- all militaries adapt and learn based on rational, strategic considerations -- and over-emphasising culture risks "recycl(ing) old bigotry in the language of political correctness."

[Corto · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this a very long time ago, so I can't provide specifics in this review. However, I do remember that this was a very stimulating and thought provoking collection of essays. An intellectually deep addition for any military history or modern warfare library.