0
0
0
Everyone bad mouths the Iraqis, but is it deserved?
From the Deseret Morning News
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765666145/At-Yazidi-shrine-Iraqis-recount-Islamic-State-battle.html
SHARAF AL-DEEN, Iraq — As thousands of Yazidis fled up the rocky slopes of Mount Sinjar to escape the Islamic State group during its rampage across northern Iraq last summer, 18 men armed with assault rifles remained behind to face the extremists and defend a holy site.
Behind their meager number stood the Sharaf al-Deen temple shrine, one of the holiest for the Yazidis, a religious minority whom the Islamic State group considers heretics ripe for slaughter. But despite the heavy machine gun fire and mortars lobbed at them, the men held the line and soon were joined by others, locals recounted recently.
"We really believe in it, and it's holy for us. That's why we are here to protect it from ...
From the Deseret Morning News
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765666145/At-Yazidi-shrine-Iraqis-recount-Islamic-State-battle.html
SHARAF AL-DEEN, Iraq — As thousands of Yazidis fled up the rocky slopes of Mount Sinjar to escape the Islamic State group during its rampage across northern Iraq last summer, 18 men armed with assault rifles remained behind to face the extremists and defend a holy site.
Behind their meager number stood the Sharaf al-Deen temple shrine, one of the holiest for the Yazidis, a religious minority whom the Islamic State group considers heretics ripe for slaughter. But despite the heavy machine gun fire and mortars lobbed at them, the men held the line and soon were joined by others, locals recounted recently.
"We really believe in it, and it's holy for us. That's why we are here to protect it from ...
Terrorism
ISIS
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 3
2
2
0
Hi, Colonel.
I'll lambast the Iraqi military. After Mosul fell so easily because they dropped their gear and ran in the other direction, I have yet to see anything that would make me change my opinion.
But these 18. That's heroic.
I'll lambast the Iraqi military. After Mosul fell so easily because they dropped their gear and ran in the other direction, I have yet to see anything that would make me change my opinion.
But these 18. That's heroic.
(2)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SSgt (Join to see) Not being on the scene at the time, all I can say is that the Iraqi Army appears to lack identification, motivation, direction, and leadership. Possibly it's overstating the case, but there is an appearance that the Iraqi Army recruited on the basis of either "You won't have to do anything except, possibly, shoot your ancient sectarian enemies and steal whatever they have." or "You won't have to do anything at all because I just need names on the muster list so that I can get my hands on a bunch of that money the Americans are handing out with no idea what they are getting for it and not really caring because the only thing that anyone is looking at is the number of names on the muster lists.".
Just as I will never "lambaste" troops who "don't succeed" because their political leaders don't actually have any plan (other than weasel worded platitudes) I will never "lambaste" soldiers who do not fight because their military leader do not lead.
Just as I will never "lambaste" troops who "don't succeed" because their political leaders don't actually have any plan (other than weasel worded platitudes) I will never "lambaste" soldiers who do not fight because their military leader do not lead.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
- All generalizations are just that. Generalizations. It is a way to understand a complex event, situation, or problem by breaking it down into a simple model.
- A math analogy would be standard deviation (think of a bell curve). There is a 95% probability that a data point is within one standard deviation of the center. This is a generalization.
- Are there data points which show that some Iraqis are competent and fierce warriors. Sure. The Kurds and Yazidis are two data points that support this statement.
- Are there data points which show that some Iraqis are not competent or fiece warriors. Sure. This is self evident when an enemy force of about 300 ISIS fighters are able to defeat an Iraqi force of 20K fighters.
- At the end of the day, however, ISIS controls significant portions of Syria and Iraq for several international, national, tribal, cultural, religious, and individual reasons. The key to countering this fact is a proper understanding of the current situation, how we/they got here, and what do we need to do going forward. Unfortunately, the US senior leaders can not or will not use the words "Islamic Terrorist" and think that ISIS is not Islamic (I wonder what the first "I" stands for then). Because of this we do not have a proper understanding of the situation which means the probability of coming up with a correct solution is very low.
- A math analogy would be standard deviation (think of a bell curve). There is a 95% probability that a data point is within one standard deviation of the center. This is a generalization.
- Are there data points which show that some Iraqis are competent and fierce warriors. Sure. The Kurds and Yazidis are two data points that support this statement.
- Are there data points which show that some Iraqis are not competent or fiece warriors. Sure. This is self evident when an enemy force of about 300 ISIS fighters are able to defeat an Iraqi force of 20K fighters.
- At the end of the day, however, ISIS controls significant portions of Syria and Iraq for several international, national, tribal, cultural, religious, and individual reasons. The key to countering this fact is a proper understanding of the current situation, how we/they got here, and what do we need to do going forward. Unfortunately, the US senior leaders can not or will not use the words "Islamic Terrorist" and think that ISIS is not Islamic (I wonder what the first "I" stands for then). Because of this we do not have a proper understanding of the situation which means the probability of coming up with a correct solution is very low.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM Colonel, I prefer to call ISIS what it actually is - a band of murderous sociopaths who are purporting to be following the teachings of Mohamed because they know that if they don't have some excuse for what they are doing then everyone in the world will hunt them down and kill them like rabid dogs.
This, however, is not to say that the leadership of ISIS isn't intelligent - it is.
But, Colonel, why are you asking the politicians (especially the Executive Branch) to abandon the methods which have been so successful over the past 13 years? I mean, really now, knowing who the enemy is and fighting them in a manner which is most likely to defeat them?!? Don't be silly, it won't be tried because no one has tried it lately.
This, however, is not to say that the leadership of ISIS isn't intelligent - it is.
But, Colonel, why are you asking the politicians (especially the Executive Branch) to abandon the methods which have been so successful over the past 13 years? I mean, really now, knowing who the enemy is and fighting them in a manner which is most likely to defeat them?!? Don't be silly, it won't be tried because no one has tried it lately.
(0)
(0)
COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM
COL Ted Mc, a few points:
- Islamic Terrorists, to include ISIS, are an ideology. We need to defeat an ideology in the 21st century using the same strategy and tactics that we used to defeat the 20th century "isms" (communism, nazism, socialism).
- First, we were successful in the 20th century for two main reasons. Whether Democrat or Republican, you agree that 1. This "ism" was bad. and 2. At the end of the day it was going to be either us or them. This is not currently they case when it comes to Islamic Terrorists.
- Second, we need a "whole of government" strategy to defeat Islamic Terrorists. Airstrikes against ISIS is a tactic, not a strategy.
- Third, the Commander in Chief needs as many different tools at the strategic level as possible so that he can pick and choose the tool that the US needs at a particular place and time. Arbitrarily and unilaterally taking tools away such as no boots on the ground or shut down Gitmo helps neither the current CiC or future ones.
- Fourth, everyone needs to understand that defeating an ideology is a generational fight. The Cold War lasted about 43 years and Nazism flourished for 13 years as two examples.
- Finally, I am not saying that we abandon the methods used since 2001. I do, however, disagree that these methods have been so successful over the past 13 years. We may have been winning battles but are we winning the war? I argue we are not for the above reasons listed.
- Islamic Terrorists, to include ISIS, are an ideology. We need to defeat an ideology in the 21st century using the same strategy and tactics that we used to defeat the 20th century "isms" (communism, nazism, socialism).
- First, we were successful in the 20th century for two main reasons. Whether Democrat or Republican, you agree that 1. This "ism" was bad. and 2. At the end of the day it was going to be either us or them. This is not currently they case when it comes to Islamic Terrorists.
- Second, we need a "whole of government" strategy to defeat Islamic Terrorists. Airstrikes against ISIS is a tactic, not a strategy.
- Third, the Commander in Chief needs as many different tools at the strategic level as possible so that he can pick and choose the tool that the US needs at a particular place and time. Arbitrarily and unilaterally taking tools away such as no boots on the ground or shut down Gitmo helps neither the current CiC or future ones.
- Fourth, everyone needs to understand that defeating an ideology is a generational fight. The Cold War lasted about 43 years and Nazism flourished for 13 years as two examples.
- Finally, I am not saying that we abandon the methods used since 2001. I do, however, disagree that these methods have been so successful over the past 13 years. We may have been winning battles but are we winning the war? I argue we are not for the above reasons listed.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
When I look at history, any new country (new type of government, leadership, etc) will always have difficulty in standing up their military. Many don't realize that during the Revolutionary War we had quite a few deserters, couldn't match up to the British in almost every account (in the beginning at least) and was very close to losing the War.
When the Korean War broke out shortly after the creation of South Korea, South Korea's military was virtually non existent and without the support of the US would have lost the war. There are quite a few other examples of this.
Bottom line I see is that in today's day and age we expect things to happen immediately. With social media, the internet, technology, when things take longer, we get upset and think something is going wrong.
With culture, and people's mindset, that can take generations to change. Most of the Iraqis lived through Saddam's reign and know little about being proactive and self-reliant. So when we came in, they didn't know what to do since they were used to only taking orders. I am generalizing here. The point I am trying to make is the the Iraqi military was weak not because of training, arms, resources (they had our support), but their mindset wasn't ready yet.
This is why I disagree with pulling out so early. South Korea would have been invaded again if the US pulled out, but as a result of taking the 65 years since the Korean War to help build the country, we now have Samsung, LG, Hyundai (and people like me!).
It took three generations before the success came through. I would it expect it to be the same for Iraq.
When the Korean War broke out shortly after the creation of South Korea, South Korea's military was virtually non existent and without the support of the US would have lost the war. There are quite a few other examples of this.
Bottom line I see is that in today's day and age we expect things to happen immediately. With social media, the internet, technology, when things take longer, we get upset and think something is going wrong.
With culture, and people's mindset, that can take generations to change. Most of the Iraqis lived through Saddam's reign and know little about being proactive and self-reliant. So when we came in, they didn't know what to do since they were used to only taking orders. I am generalizing here. The point I am trying to make is the the Iraqi military was weak not because of training, arms, resources (they had our support), but their mindset wasn't ready yet.
This is why I disagree with pulling out so early. South Korea would have been invaded again if the US pulled out, but as a result of taking the 65 years since the Korean War to help build the country, we now have Samsung, LG, Hyundai (and people like me!).
It took three generations before the success came through. I would it expect it to be the same for Iraq.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
LTC David S. Chang, ChFC®, CLU® Indeed, that is one of those strange things about "history" - it takes years to complete (and even then the job isn't done).
IF the entire Iraqi directing class hadn't been simply told "OK guys - Go home you are now out of jobs and you can't have a job in the future." (which was - essentially - what the CPA did) Iraq might have been in much better shape than it is now.
Hell, if the US government had carried out "De-Baathification" with the same "thoroughness" as it carried out "De-Nazification" Iraq WOULD be in much better shape than it is (and the US weapons programs would have a whole bunch of new people in it [and the US intelligence agencies would have a whole bunch of new personnel {and "agents in place" in Iran}]).
On the other hand, since doing all that would take longer than the Baseball season, it simply wasn't going to be planned for. Remember, the underlying political/strategic/tactical/sociological thesis that the invasion of Iraq was footed on was "Our troops will be cheered (in fluent American) as liberators and showered with flowers thrown by hordes of 'friendly' nubile young women (all of whom speak fluent American) as they stroll the peaceful streets of Baghdad after the bus ride from their departure point to their destination."
IF the entire Iraqi directing class hadn't been simply told "OK guys - Go home you are now out of jobs and you can't have a job in the future." (which was - essentially - what the CPA did) Iraq might have been in much better shape than it is now.
Hell, if the US government had carried out "De-Baathification" with the same "thoroughness" as it carried out "De-Nazification" Iraq WOULD be in much better shape than it is (and the US weapons programs would have a whole bunch of new people in it [and the US intelligence agencies would have a whole bunch of new personnel {and "agents in place" in Iran}]).
On the other hand, since doing all that would take longer than the Baseball season, it simply wasn't going to be planned for. Remember, the underlying political/strategic/tactical/sociological thesis that the invasion of Iraq was footed on was "Our troops will be cheered (in fluent American) as liberators and showered with flowers thrown by hordes of 'friendly' nubile young women (all of whom speak fluent American) as they stroll the peaceful streets of Baghdad after the bus ride from their departure point to their destination."
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google