Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Purveyor

(29,876 posts)
Sun May 24, 2015, 01:44 PM May 2015

US Defense Chief: Iraqis 'Showed No Will to Fight' ISIS in Ramadi

Source: ABC News

Iraqi security forces have "showed no will to fight" in recent battles with ISIS, resulting in the group's alarming recent territorial gains, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said today.

"We have an issue with the will of the Iraqis to fight [ISIS] and defend themselves," Carter said in an interview on CNN. "We can give them training, we can give them equipment; we obviously can't give them the will to fight."

The unusual public rebuke of the Iraqi military, which the U.S. has been training and equipping for years, comes after a week of significant ISIS victories. The jihadist group took control of the key provincial capital of Ramadi and the ancient city of Palmyra. ISIS is now estimated to control half of Syria and broad swaths of Iraq.

In Ramadi, the Iraqi forces "were not out numbered, but in fact they vastly outnumbered the opposing force, and yet they failed to fight," Carter said.

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-defense-chief-iraqis-showed-fight-isis-ramadi/story?id=31273453

27 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
US Defense Chief: Iraqis 'Showed No Will to Fight' ISIS in Ramadi (Original Post) Purveyor May 2015 OP
And that is to be a News Flash, Wellstone ruled May 2015 #1
Do you hear that? MannyGoldstein May 2015 #2
Yep, it's coming. nt bemildred May 2015 #3
I'm afraid of it and we haven't seen anything yet. Wait until a new President is installed Purveyor May 2015 #5
This is a war... sendero May 2015 #4
No, this is Iran vs Saudi Arabia over who will control the Mid East and the Persian Gulf. happyslug May 2015 #27
We've known about this for decades. procon May 2015 #6
And thats the whole point. Sadly, everyone is not ready for "democracy". 7962 May 2015 #7
these people are tribal. They do not want democracy. quadrature May 2015 #11
Right. There's a reason Iraq was ruled by the Sunni minority. They could fight. hollowdweller May 2015 #19
Exactly What Has Been Predicted DallasNE May 2015 #8
I doubt it would've happened if we stayed, but forever? 7962 May 2015 #9
if we had stayed? qazplm May 2015 #22
If we had stayed in force. But again, this wouldve returned as soon as we left. 7962 May 2015 #23
But If We Would Have Stayed DallasNE May 2015 #24
Just another reason to have never gone to begin with. nt 7962 May 2015 #25
Even after George Jr. brought them their democratic, 'blue finger' elections? What a surprise! jalan48 May 2015 #10
Let Sam do it. moondust May 2015 #12
I still think Iraq should be partitioned. DCBob May 2015 #13
And where was the US Air Force. Jesus Malverde May 2015 #14
If True, This is Bad, very bad.. BadGimp May 2015 #15
Many of the soldiers experienced ten years of bombings, then a decade fighting a foreign force, alfredo May 2015 #16
Says a man who never bothered to wear the uniform or pick up a rifle for TwilightGardener May 2015 #17
People determined to fight sulphurdunn May 2015 #18
BTW, Dempsey and Carter wrote off Ramadi as strategically unimportant in April. TwilightGardener May 2015 #20
Remember it like yesterday jamzrockz May 2015 #21
Put a wall around the whole middle east and let them all work out their own shit. n/t Binkie The Clown May 2015 #26
 

Purveyor

(29,876 posts)
5. I'm afraid of it and we haven't seen anything yet. Wait until a new President is installed
Sun May 24, 2015, 02:17 PM
May 2015

come 2017.

sendero

(28,552 posts)
4. This is a war...
Sun May 24, 2015, 02:16 PM
May 2015

.... between Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims. Any government official that though a Sunni would take arms against a Sunni or a Shia against a Shia should resign and accept a position at Taco Bell.

 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
27. No, this is Iran vs Saudi Arabia over who will control the Mid East and the Persian Gulf.
Tue May 26, 2015, 05:45 PM
May 2015

The Shiites see Iran as their Natural Ally, the Sunni Saudi Arabia. The Alawaits in Syria (Assad's people and tribe) are a mixture of Islam and Christianity with some Zoroastrianism through in (And is considered an off shoot of Shiite Islam, but in recent decades embraced Sunni Practices).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alawites

The Alawaits are closely connected by trade to the Shiites of Iraq and Iran AND the Christians of Lebanon. For years Assad's father received money from Saudi Arabia (which is roughly the time period the Alawites embraced more and more Sunni Practices). Then the revolt against Assad started and the radicals from Arabia said they were going off to fight "Christians" which to such radicals included (and the main thrust of their attack was against) the Alawites. IS still tends to call Assad and his fellow Alawites "Christians".

Religion tends to follow economics, and in the Mid East the historical main economic route over the last 1000 years has been Iran-Iraq-Syria- Lebanon. The competing route is Saudi Arabia-Jordan- Western Iraq, Eastern Syria then Turkey. Thus the fight in Eastern Syria and Western Iraq, that is where these two trade routes cross each other and come into conflict for that reason.

Religion in this case is following the Trade routes. Radical Sunni Islam, is working its way from Saudi Arabia to other Arab Nations and even Turkey. Shiite Islam is working its way from Iran, into the Persian Gulf, Iraq and Syria for that is how each of these countries see themselves.

Turkey is in many ways the odd man out. Turkey is dependent in Iranian Natural Gas and oil. Turkey wants to be where Iran, Saudi Arabia and even Russia sends they Natural Gas to Europe through. Thus Turkey is playing a dangerous game, working with all three (Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia) making commitments to each, but also having its own problems (The Turkish Army hates the present Government as to the "Secular Elites" of Turkey, but the present Government has done the best job of running the Economy of every government of Turkey, including its Military Dictatorships,since at least the 1950s, thus has massive support from the people of Turkey). Turkey has had several fair election and the present ruling religious party had prevailed in those elections.

On the other hand the present Government of Turkey is Sunni, but not the radical Sunnis of Saudi Arabia. The present Government of Turkey seems to be willing to work a deal for transporting National Guard to Europe from Russia, Iran or Saudi Arabia. Trade is more important then religion even in Turkey.

The present government of Turkey was the role model the Moslem Brotherhood indicated they wanted Egypt to follow; thus seeing how the military elites of both countries sees the Moslem Brotherhood. Please note Saudi Arabia also dislikes the Moslem Brotherhood for tge Brotherhod not being radical enough and for the Brotherhood being willing to work with secular people but also for the supports the Brotherhood give the Palestinians in not only words but deeds.

In many ways the fighting in Eastern Syria and Western Iraq is whose pipeline gets to go to Turkey. The big Natural Gas Field is off the coast of Qatar in the Persian Gulf, thus between Iran and Qatar (Qatar is a close Saudi Arabia Ally). Unlike oil, it is cheaper to ship Natural Gas by pipeline instead of by ship. The best route for a Qatar-Arabian- Turkey route is through Eastern Syria and Western Iraq, the best route from the Iranian shore opposite Qatar, to Iraq and then to Turkey is also through Eastern Syria and Western Iraq. That is the main reason for this fight NOT religion. Who ends up controlling Eastern Syria and Western Iraq will determine which pipeline from Qatar will be built and thus who gets to pump most of that Natural Gas off Qatar.

Thus the fight is between Iran and its allies and Saudi Arabia and its allies which includes Turkey, but only to a limited degree (Turkey is willing to take Iranian and even Russian Natural Gas if that is how events go).

Remember natural gas is a gas, to haul it by ship means you have to compress it, which required very well built ships to keep the compressed natural gas liquid AND you have to use about 1/3 of the natural gas to provide the power to compress the other 2/3rds. Thus pipelines, which lose less then 1% of it natural gas, cheaper when it comes to transporting natural gas to market. . i.e. if Iran or Saudi Arabia wins this fight, the other side has a 1/3 increase in its cost to get its Natural Gas to market. Thus whoever wins the pipeline fight, had a 1/3 advantage in the price of the Natural Gas it can sell.

Yes it is the route of Natural Gas that is being fought over, religion is just an excuse (and religion reflects existing political and economic alliances).

Thread on Natural Gas and this fight from September 2014, after the following thread was written, Putin gave up his Black Sea pipeline and agreed to a Turkish one to Europe, and Iran talked Turkey to accept its route so the Iran route can go via Turkey instead of Lebanon, Cyprus then Greece (But the later was NOT cut out of the deal, it is still doable).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=903741



Map of the Natural Gas Field that can be pumped:



Existing Pipelines:



http://mapsontheweb.zoom-maps.com/post/75789003317/study-on-middle-east-oil-and-gas-pipelines

procon

(15,805 posts)
6. We've known about this for decades.
Sun May 24, 2015, 02:17 PM
May 2015

Ever since George H. W. Bush and the 1990 Persian Gulf War when we watched Iraqi soldiers surrendering to TV news crews, and throughout George H. Bush's invasion of Iraq when US trained Iraq army forces deserted and ran away.

The entire middle east is built on ancient tribal cultures where people have strong ties to a particular region, but there is no national patriotism that would make them fight for the state. A powerful warlord, like Saddam, could demand fealty from every village elder and town council, binding those individual tribal affiliations to him personally, but again, the concept of allegiance to the state is not even a factor.

No amount of training is ever going to replace centuries of tribalism and produce a unified military force that is loyal to the state, and while they might be willing to die for their own community, they have no conception of dying for their country.

 

7962

(11,841 posts)
7. And thats the whole point. Sadly, everyone is not ready for "democracy".
Sun May 24, 2015, 02:24 PM
May 2015

Saddam kept everyone in line. Certainly he was brutal if you went against him, but he kept the country stable as well as kept a line against Iran. Without him, Iran is afraid of no one

 

quadrature

(2,049 posts)
11. these people are tribal. They do not want democracy.
Sun May 24, 2015, 07:49 PM
May 2015

they want their tribe to
be on the winning side.

 

hollowdweller

(4,229 posts)
19. Right. There's a reason Iraq was ruled by the Sunni minority. They could fight.
Mon May 25, 2015, 02:02 AM
May 2015


The Iranians and the Shiite militias are the only ones that can kick ass against ISIS. Iraqi army is like the South Vietnamese.

DallasNE

(7,402 posts)
8. Exactly What Has Been Predicted
Sun May 24, 2015, 02:40 PM
May 2015

Lessons of Vietnam were not learned so we are seeing a repeat here in Iraq. ISIS is like the Viet Cong and the Baghdad government is so like the ARVN. We have attempted to train government forces for roughly a dozen years so the answer is obviously not more training. Shiite troops have no interest in defending Sunni residents so they turn and run. Who couldn't see this coming? So the "will" Ash talks about applies less to the troops that refused to fight than to the central government that lacks the will to govern effectively or appropriately. Nation building is something that we still have not learned how to do so we just put in place the conditions that are ripe for failure -- now how stupid is that. And, no, we did not have it "won" but left too early as Republicans now charge. Indeed, the "surge" and awakening planted the seeds for what we see today as it just force al Qaeda in Iraq to retreat into Syria when we failed to secure that border and where they regrouped, changed their objectives and returned with vengeance.

 

7962

(11,841 posts)
9. I doubt it would've happened if we stayed, but forever?
Sun May 24, 2015, 02:48 PM
May 2015

Because thats how long we wouldve had to stay. And I say no way

qazplm

(3,626 posts)
22. if we had stayed?
Mon May 25, 2015, 11:44 AM
May 2015

with 10K mostly noncombat troops who are trainers?

How exactly would they have prevented this?

 

7962

(11,841 posts)
23. If we had stayed in force. But again, this wouldve returned as soon as we left.
Mon May 25, 2015, 02:57 PM
May 2015

Theres nothing in Iraq worth staying for indefinitely. Hell, we dont even get the oil!

DallasNE

(7,402 posts)
24. But If We Would Have Stayed
Mon May 25, 2015, 07:43 PM
May 2015

We would have to either stayed on military bases or faced constant roadside bombs. I view the surge like Nixon going into the Parrot's Beak in Cambodia. That just had a destabilizing effect that resulted in a wider war - remember Pol Pot. Hello! This is just nothing but Vietnam II.

moondust

(19,968 posts)
12. Let Sam do it.
Sun May 24, 2015, 08:50 PM
May 2015

Why risk your life fighting barbarians with a death wish when you can probably just sandbag and wait for the American fools heroes to come charging in and do it for you?

DCBob

(24,689 posts)
13. I still think Iraq should be partitioned.
Sun May 24, 2015, 08:56 PM
May 2015

It was proposed a long time ago and it made sense back then and still makes sense.

alfredo

(60,071 posts)
16. Many of the soldiers experienced ten years of bombings, then a decade fighting a foreign force,
Sun May 24, 2015, 10:18 PM
May 2015

and now they are fighting a well trained, and well funded insurgent. I say they have a morale problem.

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)
17. Says a man who never bothered to wear the uniform or pick up a rifle for
Sun May 24, 2015, 10:47 PM
May 2015

his OWN country. Yeah, the Iraqis are scared, shitty soldiers with terrible morale. This is what we're stuck with. Suck it up, buttercup.

 

sulphurdunn

(6,891 posts)
18. People determined to fight
Sun May 24, 2015, 11:52 PM
May 2015

and willing to die fighting will eventually defeat those merely trained to fight, regardless of any advantage in equipment and numbers possessed by the latter.

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)
20. BTW, Dempsey and Carter wrote off Ramadi as strategically unimportant in April.
Mon May 25, 2015, 11:36 AM
May 2015

They declared the US military's main focus was on ISIS's oil and gas field threats elsewhere. If you were an Iraqi soldier, after hearing that, would you stick around? But now suddenly Ramadi is of utmost importance and it's the Iraqis that blew it? Blame-shifting and excuse-making on our side.

 

jamzrockz

(1,333 posts)
21. Remember it like yesterday
Mon May 25, 2015, 11:43 AM
May 2015

when the administration pressured Al Malaki to step down saying that it would lead to Sunnis being interested in fighting for their country. I think its about time the Iraqis stop trying to appease the Sunni's. Get your real friends in Iran, Hezbollah and Russia and aggressively fight this menace and kill off anyone who stands in your way.

ISIS has to be stopped once and for all and the sunni's can take a hike if they are not will be unite with the country and efend the whole of it.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»US Defense Chief: Iraqis ...