"To get back on its feet, Iraq’s ‘rotten’ army needs ..." Topic

…leadership.

"Behind the headlines of air strikes against ISIL forces, there is worrying evidence of the continuing failure of the Iraqi army to resist the assaults of the jihadists, despite having coalition air support. The new Iraqi prime minister, Haider Al Abadi, told the BBC this week that the Iraqi army could defeat ISIL "if we have good air cover". Reports from the battlefield over the past two weeks tell a different story.

Soldiers fighting in Anbar Province bordering Syria where large swathes of territory are controlled by ISIL complain bitterly about the performance and courage of their officers, and their inability to supply food, water and ammunition to army bases scattered around like mini-Alamos. Behind every defeat lurks a suspicion that the officers were the first to flee.

The most serious setback began in mid-September when Camp Saqlawiya, a base 70km west of Baghdad manned by some 800 men, was cut off by ISIL forces. Despite frantic appeals for resupply, the soldiers found themselves short of ammunition and water, and having to drink brackish water from the ground…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

…a steady paycheck

…leaders who aren't stealing the equipment

If I remember correctly, Paul Bremer fired all the competent Iraqi officers back in 2003.

A poorly led Middle Eastern army?

I am shocked. Shocked I tell you.

Bad decisions compounded by more bad decisions by all involved all around … And the Iraqis proved again to be less than generally effective soldiers, politicians, etc., again and again … I'm with you G Dog !

AcrylicNick:

If I remember correctly, Paul Bremer fired all the competent Iraqi officers back in 2003.

Which is why so many of these former Ba'athist officers and soldiers joined armed-resistance movements and eventually joined IS!
Notwithstanding the defections to IS, the Iraqi army would still be poor because no one in it gives a damn about Iraq. Allegiances are to charismatic leaders, to tribes, to sects and to ethnic groups but not to the state of Iraq.
Rod Robertson

The Iraqis seem to fight OK when they're tribal militia or indeed Kurds.

Problem is, as Rod says, a lack of a desire to fight for 'Iraq'.

Add to that corruption and sectarianism and you have a recipe for defeat.

G Dog – plenty of well-led armies in that neighbourhood…. it's just the USA hasn't fought them.

The Turks, Iranians and Jordanians are perfectly competent and it's not like the Syrian Army has folded after years of fighting either.

I would argue that the Iranians are not very competent, against well-trained foes, given their poor showing against Saddam, in the protracted Iran-Iraq War. They were able to fight to a stalemate, with heavy losses.

I suspect the jury is still out on the Turks and Jordanians, who haven't fought in a very long time.

The Iranians have been training Hezbollah, who have done reasonably well against the Israelis – though the IDF isn't as good a sit used to be.

Turks have been fighting the Kurds in a war with over 40,000 dead. I'd call that significant experience.

As for the Jordanians – I don't think they've fought anyone since 1973, but no-one has ever said their armed forces are anything except very good. Certainly the Israelis have always respected them.

And their air force is, unlike possibly the Saudis, actually dropping things on ISIS.

of course the Qataris seemed perfectly competent in the Libyan conflict also.

They need a good kick up the Fertile Crescent

I would argue that the Iranians are not very competent, against well-trained foes, given their poor showing against Saddam, in the protracted Iran-Iraq War. They were able to fight to a stalemate, with heavy losses.

Bare in mind several factors:

1. Iran was under a massive arms embargo, Iraq was not

2. Iran's military had been purged from 1979 onwards. They had to drag generals, pilots and other military professionals out of prison.

3. Iran's military was still in state of ideological flux with new Revolutionary Guards pushing for a greater chunk of the defence pie.

4. Iraq had massive financial and logistical support from Arabs, Europe and USSR (as well as access to US intelligence). Iran had no such support – limited covert US, Israeli and Chinese aid.

The Iranians initially did relatively well – they stopped the Iraqis and put them on the defensive. They petered out after a while – lack of new arms and equipment will do that to a force.

Also the Iraqi army was never well trained. Their leadership was dismal from NCOs upwards. They weren't exactly motivated. Their tactics and doctrine were dismal -e.g. the tank was always viewed an armoured AT gun to be dug in and not as a a maneouvre asset.

The Iraqis also had loyalty issues, especially the airforce which from memory tried to assassinate Saddam a few times. Hence purges here too (including one in 1990).

Iran-Iraq was basically a conflict of two incompetents fielding high tech weapons

Turks have been fighting the Kurds in a war with over 40,000 dead. I'd call that significant experience.

The Turks haven't proven to be exactly competent in COIN.

As for the Jordanians – I don't think they've fought anyone since 1973, but no-one has ever said their armed forces are anything except very good. Certainly the Israelis have always respected them.

1973 was 41 years ago.

And their air force is, unlike possibly the Saudis, actually dropping things on ISIS.

We're not really sure what sort of sortie rates any of the Arabs are contributing.

of course the Qataris seemed perfectly competent in the Libyan conflict also.

Qataris used various militias and groups to further their goals. They don't deploy their troops (they don't have much of an army in the first place).

They did deploy air force jets.

Bare in mind that even the once mighty Israeli Defence Force struggles in terms of tactics, leadership, logistics and morale. The war in Lebanon in 2006 revealed many deficiencies in the IDF.

So if the mighty IDF is in such bad condition, how good are the less than motivated Arabs?

All in all, I'd still rate the IDF better than anyone else in the region. That being said, as noted there are a lot of varibles here to cnsider. As far as Bremer firing former Ba'athist officers and soldiers. There was a similar conundrum at the end of WWII with the Nazis … As Patton noted, with the "de-Nazifaction" of Germany, it left many jobs in the infastructure empty with no one qualifed to run them … Someone still has to run the railroads, take care of water, sewage, etc. … So lessons learned … or not …

White officers

I assume by that you mean European officers, OSchmidt?

Yes

Which is like the old joke that Irish regiments in the British army did well with white officers.
Not my joke, a Marine told it to me.

Otto, Otto, Otto. tsk tsk tsk

Dear John

Well they apparently did very poorly under Arabic and Islamic Officers, so……

And John--- that's no joke.

Actually I read a similar analysis that the Jordanian army did best under British officers.

Arab officers tend to enforce tribal loyalties that impair dissemination of knowledge and promotion based on merit. European armies and by extension the Israeli's, gave up such practices a long time ago. Individually, Arab officers perform just as competently as their Western counterparts, when trained by the latter, in their home country. The trouble arises when the Arab officers return home and immediately are enveloped in a smothering cloak of nepotism, and corruption.

Modern Western War fighting requires a modern Western society, to operate with maximum efficacy. Though paradoxically, that Western society will only allow it's armed forces to operate to their maximum effectiveness, in extremis.

Stu, the IDF would struggle to fight the Iranians if they hid behind their civilian population, used the worlds media as an arm of their struggle and only fought from well prepared defensive positions, built into the civilian infrastructure. Otherwise it would only be limited by it's logistical demands and the distance from the home front. As for Jordan, a faded lion resting on a dubious reputation which has been bolstered simply because the Kingdom is vaguely pro-Western.

s for Jordan, a faded lion resting on a dubious reputation which has been bolstered simply because the Kingdom is vaguely pro-Western.

There is a bizarre tendency on TMP to assume everyone that is vaguely pro-Western is awesome whilst everyone else is rubbish.

No, Jordan's reputation has been bolstered by 'historians', simply because it was pro-Western. The performance of their Army in 67 and 73 was nothing to write home about, they gave the IDF a few sticky moments, but most Israelis I worked with were more complimentary of the Syrian Commandoes, than the Jordanians.

In the fevered propaganda atmosphere of the Cold War, much was made of the Arabs following Soviet doctrine and being thrashed by the outnumbered Israelis, taught to fight a Western doctrine. Trouble was, the Arabs did not follow Soviet tactical doctrine, let alone their operational and strategic doctrine, whereas the IDF did, with an emphasis on relentless advance and avoiding MLR's, where possible.

The West has a distinct advantage in modern warfare, in that it's military is a product of technologies and subsequent doctrines that derived from it's civilisation. We have, so to speak, grown up with these methods, parachuting in Western training is a nonsense, unless the recipient nation has a similarly developed sense of civic duty and national identity.

The West has a distinct advantage in modern warfare, in that it's military is a product of technologies and subsequent doctrines that derived from it's civilisation.

Since 1991 the West also has the advantage on overhwhelming numerical and technological superiority against poor quality opponents from unstable countries.

And in all instances since Vietnam, air superiority was generally uncontested (Iraqis were using same SAMs the North Vietnamese had and their fighter fleet weas obsolete by 1991).

I'm sure if you reversed the situation in 1991 with a massive Soviet style force facing a Western equipped Iraq, the result would still have been Iraqi forces being obliterated.

The West avoids difficult opponents – it's why Pakistan or Saudi Arabia were turned into "allies" in the war on terror despite being main supporters of AQ. It's why even Iran is avoided from a military perspective (less military confrontation between Iran and US now then in 1980s).

These "easy" opponents create a myth of Western superiority which is true against the Iraqis, the Libyans, the Afghans or the Serbs.

I always wonder how Western forces would fair against reasonably trained and led troops with reasonable initiative especially if air superiority was contested.

It was noticeable that Coalition air power was net to useless against the Serbs… and we didn't rush into fighting them in hilly terrain.

you're right – a lot of superiority in some posts here.

Just remember, the Japanese can't build decent aircraft. After all, they're not white….

I always wonder how Western forces would fair against reasonably trained and led troops with reasonable initiative especially if air superiority was contested.

It would be very messy for all involved … and lets hope it never comes down to that …

The West avoids difficult opponents – it's why Pakistan or Saudi Arabia were turned into "allies" in the war on terror despite being main supporters of AQ. It's why even Iran is avoided from a military perspective (less military confrontation between Iran and US now then in 1980s).

Modern weapons, tactics, etc., usually makes conflicts very bloody … Going to war as a last resort seems the best of a lot of bad options.

He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot, will be victorious.

Sun Tzu

I think is appropriate …

"Iraqi Soldiers Bribe Officers So They Don't Have to Fight ISIS:"
link

I think the old military adage of no bad soldiers just bad officers apply. For the Iraqi army it was more than simply sacking the old Baathist officers. The Americans did a reasonable job in retraining the Iraqi army. The problem was that Nouri Al-Maliki replaced many of the army officers with his own supporters or in some instances sold off the senior positions. He rated loyalty over competence which resulted in the recent terrible performance of the Iraqi army. This was compounded by his pro Shia stance picking on Sunni tribes which undermined the good work done via the Awakening Programme so that these Sunni tribes who had shut down the insurgency were not opposing ISIL/ISIS.

In relation to the comments above whether some middle East armies are incompetent, the following is very interesting. link