Who's wearing the white hats over there?

I'm not sure why I'm starting this thread given that I'm opposed to US involvement in Iraq, but I just read a NYT article about US advisers in Iraq being dismayed by how completely ineffectual and disorganized the Iraqi government forces were. This is the same Iraqi army we've invested billions of dollars over more than a decade to arm and train. While at the same time ISIS can field an small force of teenage volunteers poorly equipped with no air support and yet they manage to more than hold their own. I'm afraid I know the answer to my question and it doesn't bode well for the future.
 

I have read articles about the Iraq army and how the did away with the well trained portion after we pulled our troops. If I could find those again I will post them here.

Anyway, what is told about was after the US took it's main forces away the folks in Iran decided to put their personal buddies in charge and that then did away with the dedicated and better responding officers of the Iraq army. So, no wonder they are near useless as they were before the US attempted to organize and train a good dedicated military force for Iraq.
 
I'm not sure why I'm starting this thread given that I'm opposed to US involvement in Iraq, but I just read a NYT article about US advisers in Iraq being dismayed by how completely ineffectual and disorganized the Iraqi government forces were. This is the same Iraqi army we've invested billions of dollars over more than a decade to arm and train. While at the same time ISIS can field an small force of teenage volunteers poorly equipped with no air support and yet they manage to more than hold their own. I'm afraid I know the answer to my question and it doesn't bode well for the future.


Last week I read an interview by Columbia School of International and Public Affairs with Bashar al-Assad and he was saying that ISIS is actually growing, contrary to what you might hear in the msm. That since the bombing started, ISIS has taken more land in Syria. Another case of good money after bad? I don't know but it's actually a very interesting interview because it gives you an idea as to how that man, that 'government' thinks. As for the Iraqi soldiers, well.....maybe the Middle East truly needs to work all of this out on their own...or not.


http://www.foreignaffairs.com/discussions/interviews/syrias-president-speaks
 

I think that had the UN coalition had stayed together for a few more years and helped the nations get adjusted to their new constitution rather than to just cut and run as we did, things might not be so crazy as they are today. Look at how long we stayed in place after WWII and how many of those one time enemies are now quite peaceful and helpful. That might have been a good help in Iraq too.

It appears that some help will stay in Afghanistan for a short while. Maybe that should also have been a lot of help for a longer while in order for those folks to get the feel and desire for freedom.

Germany, Italy, and Japan now seem to be able to live without being in a war for something.
 
Exactly, Don. We forget at our peril how different these countries are and cannot expect them to become like us. so much was ill advised and badly thought out in simply charging in all guns blazing with no plan for afterwards.
 
I have read articles about the Iraq army and how the did away with the well trained portion after we pulled our troops. If I could find those again I will post them here.

Anyway, what is told about was after the US took it's main forces away the folks in Iran decided to put their personal buddies in charge and that then did away with the dedicated and better responding officers of the Iraq army. So, no wonder they are near useless as they were before the US attempted to organize and train a good dedicated military force for Iraq.



In trying to find something on what you said Bob, I came across the following article: http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/04/13/twelve-years-later-we-know-winner-iraq-iran
which talks about how America's invasion of Iraq set the stage for a strengthening and strategic move up in influence in that region for Iran. He does mention that the cooperation between Iraq's new government and Iran after the USA left is one of those strategic moves. It's a current article, the authors got good credentials and talks too about why in his opinion, Iran really wasn't interested in developing atomic weapons. A really good article.
 
I'm afraid I don't agree Bob. I think if we'd stayed longer and tried harder, the results would be just as dismal, except maybe a few more Iraqi colonels would have Swiss bank accounts.



I think that's a more accurate prognosis. It's going to be years, decades and maybe more decades probably, before that region is peaceful and how it's governed likely won't look anything like here. Maybe like Iran, where there are some democratically decided things at a lower level of government but that government is governed by clerics.

And maybe if that was respected by the West, there would be room for changes to begin happening within the attitudes of some of those hardliners. After all, push that raccoon or dog or cat into a corner and threaten it, and it begins to threaten right back. But sit down and be peaceful and give it space and with time it gets relaxed and more accepting. Are we that much different than the animals in our reactions to pressure? I don't think so.
 
I'm afraid I don't agree Bob. I think if we'd stayed longer and tried harder, the results would be just as dismal, except maybe a few more Iraqi colonels would have Swiss bank accounts.

I agree with you, Josiah -- all that money went somewhere -- probably Switzerland and the Cayman Islands. Or buried in some sheik's backyard.
 
We don't learn as the same happened in Vietnam They wouldn't fight unless we were with them and led them from what I have read...
 


Back
Top