Secretary of Defense Ash Carter: Iraqis showed 'no will to fight' in Ramadi

  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    May 25, 2015 5:07 PM GMT
    "What apparently happened was that the Iraqi forces just showed no will to fight," Carter told CNN's Barbara Starr. "They were not outnumbered. In fact, they vastly outnumbered the opposing force, and yet they failed to fight, they withdrew from the site, and 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."


    http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/24/politics/ashton-carter-isis-ramadi/index.html



    It's not like this is anything new in the Arab world. They've been doing this since before Big Mo came along and invented Islam.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2015 5:13 PM GMT
    Part of the lack of motivation probably arises from knowing that US doesn't have their back. Not keeping any residual forces, against the recommendation of the military, and having limited air strikes both reinforce the US lack of resolve.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    May 26, 2015 3:17 AM GMT
    socalfitness saidPart of the lack of motivation probably arises from knowing that US doesn't have their back. Not keeping any residual forces, against the recommendation of the military, and having limited air strikes both reinforce the US lack of resolve.


    That's true but then the history of wars in the middle east - and their military - all show their armed forces are undependable. It even precedes the Mongol invasion force of 50,000 what is Iran today when the Shah of that empire was so uncertain of his 600,000 soldiers' allegiances that he divided them up so he wouldn't lose them all at once.

    Arab/Muslim enlisted forces have one goal in warfare; to to stay alive by allying with themselves with the most barbarous of the two opposing leaders to escape his wrath. It's always been that way for them.

    That in turn effects the entire military. Well trained and informed enlisted troops are an asset for most armies. In the middle east if they defect they are they are invaluable to the other side. Therefore they are given limited supplies, ammunition and information.

    Remember the tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers without ammunition, food or shoes who deserted Saddam during Desert Storm? Same thing.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    May 26, 2015 3:45 AM GMT
    "All" Middle Eastern forces are undependable?

    You mean, except for ISIS. You're not even making sense. If anything, a more Islamic military is more ferocious since it's beating the comparatively secular Iraqi army.

    Do you listen to your arguments or just say them? icon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gif
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    May 26, 2015 5:01 AM GMT
    You'd have a valid point if the leaders of present day Iraqi were more ruthless than ISIS. The army wouldn't be going en masse AWOL/deserting because they feared him more than ISIS.

    I don't remember the exact number of Iraqis who deserted to the coalition during Desert Storm but it was in the tens of thousands. After the war was over they were repatriated to Iraq. Everyone knew they'd be publicly executed and sure enough they were - just to 'inspire' other soldiers and the rest of the population to fear Saddam more than US forces.

    Saddam Hussein came to power by overthrowing and executing all of the old regime of Iraq.

    Quackadaffi in Libya? Same thing. He came to power the same way he left power except he overthrew a king.

    Nasser of Egypt? the planner of the overthrow of the King, became 2nd to the prime minister, overthrew the president then tortured and killed the Muslim Brotherhood nearly out of existence.

    It's been the dominant theme in middle east politics since the beginning.