战争中的阿拉伯人
Arabs at War
Kenneth M. Pollack · 初版 2002 年
2人推荐
2位读者提及
4次提及
曾任 CIA 波斯湾军事分析员兼国家安全委员会波斯湾事务负责人的 Kenneth M. Pollack，记述并分析了六个主要阿拉伯国家——埃及、伊拉克、约旦、利比亚、沙特阿拉伯和叙利亚——在二战结束以来的军事历史。这是几乎所有这些国家的完整战后历史首次以非解密形式被记录下来。Pollack 特别着眼于阿拉伯军队本身，有助于阐明他们在战场上面临的顽固问题。他详细阐明了
Hacker News 上怎么说
正在加载完整评论……
关于现代这一话题，有一本极好且通俗易懂的书，叫 Kenneth M. Pollack 的《Arabs at War》。他考察了相关地区近期的多场战争，并探讨了他总结出的一些普遍规律。他还发现了该地区军队在若干情境下……
An excellent and very readable book on this in the modern era is "Arabs at War" by Kenneth M. Pollack He examines a number of recent wars in the area of interest and discusses some of the common findings he makes. He also finds a number of situations in which armies in the region…
作者参考的一位研究者 Kenneth Pollack，把他的博士论文成果出成了两本书：《Arabs at War》（2004）和《Armies of Sand》（2019）。第一本对 20 世纪阿拉伯军队的作战表现做了非常出色的梳理。第二本则试图把这些都放进一个理论框架里。虽然 2019 年那本书……
One researcher the author relies on, Kenneth Pollack, published his dissertation work in two books Arabs at War (2004) and Armies of Sand (2019). The first gives very good overviews of Arab combat performance over the 20th century. The second tries to place it all in a theoretical framework. While the 2019 book…
主贴文章（TFA）是基于 Kenneth M. Pollack 的博士论文。如果你对军事史感兴趣，他的《Arabs at War》（2002）涵盖了论文的历史部分，信息量非常大。他的第二本书《Armies of Sand》（2019）则包含了理论部分，但我感觉并没让人增进多少理解。
TFA is based on the dissertation work of Kenneth M. Pollack. If you are into military history, his Arabs at War (2002) contains the historical part of the dissertation and is very informative. His second book, Armies of Sand (2019), contains the theoretical part and I didn't feel that it added much understanding.
这篇文章看起来像是 Kenneth M. Pollack 博士论文的衍生品，那篇论文出版为《Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991》（2004）。他的第二本书《Armies of Sand: The Past, Present, and Future of Arab Military Effectiveness》（2019）并没有为他的基本论点增添太多新意。
This article seems derivative of Kenneth M. Pollack's dissertation, published as Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991 (2004). His second book, Armies of Sand: The Past, Present, and Future of Arab Military Effectiveness (2019) doesn't add much to his basic argument.