"Why Iraq's Military Has No Will to Fight" Topic

"The Obama administration has run out of patience with Iraq's Army. On Sunday, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter appeared on CNN's "State of the Union" to discuss the recent fall of Ramadi, one of Iraq's major cities, to ISIS. Despite possessing substantial advantages in both numbers and equipment, he said, the Iraqi military was unable to prevent ISIS forces from capturing the city.

"That says to me and, I think, to most of us, that we have an issue with the will of the Iraqis to fight ISIL and defend themselves."

Carter's frustrations are shared by his boss. When asked about the war against ISIS in a recent interview with The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, President Obama said that "if the Iraqis are not willing to fight for the security of their country, then we cannot do it for them."…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

It's them damned inept cowards in ISIS again. I wish someone would go tell them that Arabs can't win wars.

Arabs fighting Arabs don't count. Anytime you put too fools with guns in a closet someone is going to get hurt.

Nothing new here, had the same issue with the South Vietnamese Army, after the American pullout. Right up to the very end, that thought the U.S. would come back and do the fighting for them. Despite the large amount of Equipment, Resources and training, that the US provided.

Well if Irag's would risk their lives, for their county, leave that to their own fate.

All well, seem's like nothing ever changes.

Maybe it is like high school football. The Freshmen team (Iraqi Army) can't stand up to the experience of the Junior Varsity (ISIS or ISIL, whatever you prefer).

That's what ISIS (ISIL) is right?

The JV team.

At least that's what I was told.

British general agrees: link

So "it's over"? Are "we" really bringing everybody home and letting the ME do its cyclical meltdown by itself?

Have "we" learned to not meddle? Will we stay out of other's civil disturbances and affairs?

I'll believe it when I see it happen for a bunch of years in a row without our troops being sent off here or there, for this reason or that one, to fight for this cause or that people, yadayadayada….

Much of this has already been discussed for 3 pages here > TMP link Just say'n …

Everything that needs to be said has been said, but not everyone's had their chance to say it. ;)

The Iraqi army is unwilling to fight because America has been doing it for them for so long. They're used to having others fight their wars and want us to fight ISIS for them.

Like the South Vietnamese they're spoiled beyond redemption with their overbloated sense of entitlement.

Those 'cowardly, inept' Arabs seemed pretty resilient when knocking seven shades out of each other during most of the 80's during the Iran-Iraq war.

"they're spoiled beyond redemption with their overbloated sense of entitlement."

Maybe a legitimate sense of entitlement given their country was invaded on a wholly spurious pretext, economically ruined, with several hundred thousand civilian deaths (there cannot be a family in Iraq unaffected)and a region left more unstable yet with greater potential to cause mayhem far beyond its borders than at any time in modern history.

Had we experienced what the general population of Iraq have experienced, I think having an "overbloated sense of entitlement" might be understating our annoyance with the creators of the whole damn mess.

Just heard that Tony Blair has stepped down as Middle East Envoy – now we're really going to be in a mess, given his meaningful contribution to peace in the region over the last 15 years…

Gosh, if I were an "Arab", I'd just be chomping at the bit to die for America's geopolitical goals in the mideast. Especially while being told I'm cowardly, inept and not even worth counting as a casualty.

Can't understand what's gotten into those men's heads. Especially after seeing what the U.S. did in Vietnam.

Look on the bright side, however: we'll soon have plenty more Iraqi and Afghan restaurants in the U.S.

Abrams Driver and sjwalker38,

Touche, gentlemen. Perhaps America will consider more carefully the consequences of starting her wars in the future, let us hope.

Sjwalker38 --

Do you really think that a majority of Iraqis wish that Saddam hadn't been removed?

Odd how those 'cowardly' Arabs are still fighting ISIS and we're not…

I think that, given the choice between life as it was under Saddam, and what they have endured since he was deposed, yes, the majority of Iraqis would now choose the former – it's a question of "be careful what you wish for" combined with unforeseen consequences.

Given how crazy Saddam Husseins sons were, I don't think the long-term prognosis would have changed much.

Odd how those 'cowardly' Arabs are still fighting ISIS and we're not…

Wait … let's think about this … WE … the US, UK, etc., have a whole lot of "advisors" there on the ground "re-training" the various factions of that are the denizens of the "artifical" Iraqi state. And those who don't understand history are bound to repeat it … Did WE not invade Iraq twice and in both cases saw less than satifactory results in the long and/or short run ? Massive amounts of OUR Western Infidel fighters won't change the dynamics of the situation. WE (as Western Nations) Been THERE … Done That …

It's their Sunni-Shia civil war that has it's roots in the machinations of long dead European politicians after WWI and even before that. With the schism of the islamic religion. Which neither of the dominate religions in the region. The Jews and Christians had anything to do with … The last thing WE need to do is repeat the error of a massive infidel invasion. So all the radicalized islamic lunatics, yell "The Crusaders are back !!!!!!!" And jihadis come out of bulkheads like the rats they are from a sinking Dhow. There are supposed to be 60 nations in the US lead Coalition against Daesh. The islamic nations should be the leaders in this civil war … NOT the West.

We've been there, done that…. and left with the job not done. We can't repair Iraqi society but beating ISIS should be easy enough – the Lebanese managed in a small way after all.

I'm not even sure it's Sunni/Shia anymore given both denominations are happily fighting ISIS.

Anyone who would regard our intervention as an 'infidel' invasion is already in ISIS I think.

Beating ISIS tactically on a small scale can be done as the Kurds have shown, but they'll turn up somewhere else or come back later when we leave.

Playing "Whack a Mole" with no end in sight is a patience game, and Americans (or the west for that matter) aren't particularly known for that virtue.

28mm Fanatik

The Iraqi army is unwilling to fight because America has been doing it for them for so long. They're used to having others fight their wars and want us to fight ISIS for them

Just a thought – when exactly did the US last fight a battle on the behalf of Iraqis?

Touche, Gwydion

America fought for no one but herself. So maybe the Iraqis see the fight against ISIS as fighting for American interests as much as – if not more than – Iraq's own.

After all, we created this mess to begin with.

I wouldn't put the blame wholly on the US – lots of other folk involved.

Just a thought – when exactly did the US last fight a battle on the behalf of Iraqis?

Or a better question … when did the Iraqis ? And again, all in all soldiers on a tactical level generally don't fight for anything but the survival of their comrades and their own. And as any Grunt will tell you, the best way to do that is to kill all the bad guys shooting at you … period … I'm pretty sure not too many US Grunts or Tanker said after a firefight, that he did it for the Iraqis or the 6 major tribes in A'stan, etc., etc, …

Anyone who would regard our intervention as an 'infidel' invasion is already in ISIS I think.

There's that.

But things get dicey pretty quickly.

"America, please show up and kill these guys…but we'll flip out if you accidentally kill some civilians in the mix AND we'll 'yankee go home!' you the whole time as domestic political fodder. And we'll flip out when you add strings like 'don't murder your ethnic minorities' or 'don't spend our aid money on your new private resort and imported hookers.'"

It's a tough selling point to US citizens. Americans, for good or ill, are on the whole both very charitable and idealistic. We like to think we're doing something good in the world.

You can save your personal assessments of the efficacy of those actions, or how that inclination gets exploited, but it's still the case.

That means once Americans are convinced of the "rightness" of the cause, we're also generally reluctant to walk away from it, or to accept a host nation's desire to boot us out.

That interventionism has gotten knocked back quite a bit from war-weariness, but even then there's a tremendous reluctance to say OIF and OEF were "wasted" efforts, for example. Too much blood and treasure spent to completely walk away and say "mmmmyeah, that sucked."

If I was ISIS I would launch an attack against Bagdad, there might be a repeat performance of what happened in Ramadi. If Bagdad falls I would blitzkrieg the rest of the country. I would also do it before the next US election, a different president might be willing to commit troops to this conflict.

Baghdad is a death trap for ISIS and they show signs of knowing it.

That'll be where the families of most of the soldiers live – if they'll fight for anywhere, they'll fight for Baghdad.

As will the militias and the millions who live there.

ISIS simply don't have that kind of manpower.

Agreed. But, there are many sympathizers within the city. If the religious swing toward Sunni power occurs within the city that could change everything….

Comes down to leadership.

Iraq lost their strong generals & officer corps when Saddam was toppled.

His forces stood up to and fought the Americans during the invasion, even though they'd inevitably lose. During Iran-Iraq war, the Iraqis stood & fought toe-to-toe against Iranian human wave assaults.

Reason? The Iraqis were more afraid of Saddam and his generals than they were of the enemy. -And Saddam would execute his generals for running.

That memory and fear is gone now, or to be more accurate, those Baath party generals have gone over to ISIS.

And who threw the officer corps out of the Iraqi Army?
We did after we took over.

Lots of people at the time said you had to re-integrate those officers into an army of you wanted an effective Iraqi military.
We didn't and this is what we got.

I seriously doubt if many Baathists have really 'gone over' to IS. The one is a secular, nominally 'socialist' pan Arab movement the other is …well… anything but. It may be convenience but I doubt they could work together for more than a short time.

Saddam himself hand-wrote a Koran in his own blood when he was trying to rally his people for a last stand against the Crusaders.

Whether out of sincere belief or pragmatism, a number of former Iraqi officers are known to have discovered their inner mujahidin and joined Daesh.

They have no will to fight because, frankly, what do they get from it? A U.S.-owned puppet government?

To a lot of people on the ground, ISIS probably represents a change, at least. Something new and perhaps better. I'd say "Better the devil you know…", but that's just me.

But if you think the Iraqui people have no reason to be angry with the U.S., you really haven't been paying attention. I think many folks in Iraq are probably saying "At least they are OUR bastards…"

I seriously doubt if many Baathists have really 'gone over' to IS.

I agree that Baathists aren't real believers, but since they share common goals, they will work together to topple the current govt. of Iraq & elsewhere.

If ISIS wins in the Middle East, there will be a new bloodbath as they then fight to see who retains power. Always happens between differing groups when the immediate threat is gone.