HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The real reason "cow...

Fri Jun 12, 2015, 02:46 PM

 

The real reason "cowardly" Iraqi troops cave before ISIS . . .

It's very simple: Sunni troops refuse to fight for a Shia gov't that treats them and their group like shit.

It's exactly what we anti-invasion folks warned against when we marched 2 million strong to stop the impending war, the invasion would de-stablize the region, cause Iraq to splinter, and make terrorism worse.

(quote) After all U.S. forces left in 2011, the Iraqi army basically fell apart because of the cronyism and corruption that took place under Nouri al-Malaki, Iraq’s prime minister from 2006 to 2014.

Those sectarian splits caused by Malaki’s government sapped the Iraqi forces “will to fight” to save Ramadi from being overrun by ISIS last month, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said. While training can give troops the skills needed to prevail on the battlefield, training can’t teach will. Nonetheless, U.S. troops who trained Iraqi forces the first time around say Iraqi forces, given decent leadership, are good fighters. (unquote)

http://time.com/3916866/isis-iraqi-army-training/

(quote) California Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, argued that more troops could "aggravate" the threat that ISIS already poses and risk further escalation of the fight.

He argued that the U.S. will not be able to sustain any victories in Iraq unless the government is able to resolve its political differences.

During the Iraq War, "We won Ramadi but it didn't stay won because the political problems that preceded the first Iraq war haven't been solved and that is the Sunnis have not been brought into the government (unquote)

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/defense-sec-carter-iraqi-forces-showed-no-will-to-fight-isis-ramadi/

(quote) US military man, General John Allen – officially the US' Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter IS – had been trying to contact the tribal factions and leaders who were his friends and allies when he was a soldier in Anbar, the source said. Allen was also the brains behind Iraq's “Awakening Movement”, a group of Sunni Muslim fighters, funded and formed by the US government, to get Al Qaeda out of their hometowns, post 2003.

“But it was surprising,” the source said. “Most of them [General Allen's former allies] refused to cooperate with us. And some of them are actually now living outside of Iraq because of the previous Iraqi government's policies.”

When the IS group took control of certain Sunni Muslim-majority areas in Iraq, long running disputes with, and locals' anger towards, the Shiite Muslim-led government in Baghdad meant that at first, the IS fighters were welcomed. Many locals in these areas saw them as liberators from the Iraqi army – which was heavily Shiite Muslim and which Sunni locals had accused of treating them unfairly, beating, imprisoning and arresting them - and basically “occupying” the Sunni-majority areas.

For both the locals, the various Sunni Muslim armed factions and the IS group, there was a common enemy: the government in Baghdad. (unquote)

http://www.niqash.org/en/articles/security/3558/Sunni-Muslim-Militias-Decide-They-Won't-Fight-With-IS---or-The-US-Alliance.htm

16 replies, 1503 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to Damansarajaya (Original post)

Fri Jun 12, 2015, 02:52 PM

1. Three other reasons...

 

1) The Iraqi officers are largely corrupt and appointed to, rather than earned their rank. There have been no few cases of commanders cutting deals with Daesh, and splitting on their men to get away.

2) The Iraqis are over-equipped and under-trained. The Us sees the iraqi military as a customer, and has no interest in a capable Arab military existing in the middle east. So we basically just sell them gadgets and treat user manuals as "military training."

3) Perhaps the most obvious... this is not an overseas engagement for the Iraqis. If an iraqi soldier wants to abandon, home and family are within easy traveling distance. if Daesh is making gains against your position, are you going to stay there and fight and die, or are you going to break, drive the distance to your home and family and try to save what you can? Desertion was a HUGE problem for both sides of the US Civil War for the same reason

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #1)

Fri Jun 12, 2015, 02:55 PM

3. So why hasn't ISIL taken Tehran?

 

All the same factors are in play there too . . . except for maybe no. 1.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Damansarajaya (Reply #3)

Fri Jun 12, 2015, 03:08 PM

7. Iranians would defend their country from non-Iranian invaders.

It's a real historical nation, with a unique language and culture, dating back to the Persian empire.

Iraq is an artificial country created by Western powers. Many Sunni Iraqis feel a closer affinity to ISIS than they do to the government in Baghdad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dawg (Reply #7)

Fri Jun 12, 2015, 03:14 PM

9. Exactly my point in the OP!

 

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #1)

Fri Jun 12, 2015, 03:09 PM

8. I'll add: they'll get executed, probably painfully, if captured

It's all very well for us in the West to talk about 'cowardly' troops running away, but their likely treatment at the hands of Islamic State, if they are captured, is roughly like the fate of fighting Jews in Nazi hands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Damansarajaya (Original post)

Fri Jun 12, 2015, 02:54 PM

2. Gotta bust up that place.

The "nation" of Iraq is a legal fiction. It needs to be partitioned into a Sunni nation, Kurd nation, and Shiite nation.

No good reason not to do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dawg (Reply #2)

Fri Jun 12, 2015, 02:57 PM

4. Is that the role of the US? To determine the borders of soverign

 

states?

If the Iraqis choose to do that by popular decree, I guess they can. But it's not our decision to make.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Damansarajaya (Reply #4)

Fri Jun 12, 2015, 03:03 PM

5. They are choosing to do that by popular decree right now.

Unfortunately, they can't do it through the Shiite dominated political system that *we* set up, so they are using bullets instead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dawg (Reply #5)

Fri Jun 12, 2015, 03:16 PM

11. Sounds about right . . . nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Damansarajaya (Original post)

Fri Jun 12, 2015, 03:07 PM

6. I have never heard a key public official basically denounce the ground soldiers that we are

partnered with as cowards who won't fight. And then a week later suggest to the President that we partner up some more with these cowards who won't fight. The fact that Ass Carter is still SecDef after that astounds me, but then he's the Neocon Chickenhawk in residence (presumably the MIC lurves him) plus it may have been Obama who trotted him out to say that. Either way, the man is a disaster who shot a hole through the entire war effort, demoralized the ground forces whom we rely upon, and yet signed deployment orders to put more of our ground soldiers next to the very cowards he denounces--he obviously doesn't give a shit about them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #6)

Fri Jun 12, 2015, 03:15 PM

10. Excellent analysis. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Damansarajaya (Original post)

Fri Jun 12, 2015, 03:20 PM

12. When this latest mess started it was suggested that the country be broken up into three sections.

I still think that is the only way to go. However, ISIS seems to have other ideas. They want the Caliphate. They want to rule the whole area. Don't have a solution for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jwirr (Reply #12)

Fri Jun 12, 2015, 03:27 PM

13. Imagine how destabilizing that would be, if they were given the time and space to be successful at

running even more territory than they currently hold--it would be a positive feedback loop, attracting more on-the-fence Sunnis and converts from other areas. As bad/dysfunctional as Iraq is, that cannot be better--and I doubt SA and Jordan, etc., really want that to happen even if it serves as a buffer to Iran.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #13)

Fri Jun 12, 2015, 03:40 PM

14. You may be right but then we are in an eternal war. And I have some doubt that the ME can get

much more destabilized.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jwirr (Reply #14)

Fri Jun 12, 2015, 04:10 PM

15. Watch the kingdoms start going up in flames. Or a multi-sided nuclear arms race.

Yes, it can get worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #15)

Fri Jun 12, 2015, 04:39 PM

16. I agree on the nuclear issue. At this time there are very few countries that are not already up in

flames.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread