Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: wmenorr67 on November 07, 2014, 03:14:24 PM
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/07/white-house-expected-to-approve-dod-request-to-double-number-us-soldiers-in/
White House expected to approve DOD request to double number of US soldiers in Iraq
2500 plus troops is a lot of advisors.
-
If this administration has proven anything, it's that they can't ever get enough advice...
-
Honestly, how does everyone here look at this? Do you want to keep fighting or just get the hell out? Just curious about opinions.
I am tired of our soldiers fighting endless overseas wars of one kind or another. I don't trust our current govt to do it right. If those govts over there can't defend themselves then do they really deserve to exist? It isn't like some big foreign power like the Russians are invading (not talking about Ukraine).
-
Honestly, how does everyone here look at this? Do you want to keep fighting or just get the hell out? Just curious about opinions.
I am tired of our soldiers fighting endless overseas wars of one kind or another. I don't trust our current govt to do it right. If those govts over there can't defend themselves then do they really deserve to exist? It isn't like some big foreign power like the Russians are invading (not talking about Ukraine).
I'm quite sick of it myself, actually.
Either pull them out or take the *expletive deleted*ing bindings off. Tell them "Kill ISIS and break their stuff."
Or bring them home. Enough of this half-assing the job.
-
I'm quite sick of it myself, actually.
Either pull them out or take the *expletive deleted*ing bindings off. Tell them "Kill ISIS and break their stuff."
Or bring them home. Enough of this half-assing the job.
Until/unless we face a pucker factor 11 existential crisis, I'm afraid the half-assery is all we can expect. The people and politicians have no stomach for "total war". =|
-
Some day we will get a clue.
Do not fight the way your enemy fights best.
-
Give logistical, material support to the Kurds as well as military intelligence.
Tell Turkey to stuff it if they don't like that.
Get the he!! out of the middle east with a not very subtle message that if we are forced back in to protect our allies/friends we will be pissed and the gloves will be off.
-
If those govts over there can't defend themselves then do they really deserve to exist?
There was a govt in Iraq quite capable of fighting stuff like ISIS, that is - until ............ :facepalm:
-
Honestly, how does everyone here look at this? Do you want to keep fighting or just get the hell out? Just curious about opinions.
I am tired of our soldiers fighting endless overseas wars of one kind or another. I don't trust our current govt to do it right. If those govts over there can't defend themselves then do they really deserve to exist? It isn't like some big foreign power like the Russians are invading (not talking about Ukraine).
I am also tired of fighting endless wars. But I look at it through the lens of being a Vietnam veteran. There is no question that ISIS is a serious problem. Beyond that, fundamentally the U.S. is responsible for their existence. If we hadn't meddled in Iraq and Syria, ISIS would probably not exist, and they certainly wouldn't be the regional/world threat that they are now.
There are two ways to not be engaged in an endless war. The first is to turn tail and run -- we did that in Vietnam. The other is to win. The Patton philosophy. I think what's called for against ISIS is a full-out effort to just wipe them off the map. Then we can relax and bring our troops home.
Vietnam began with a few advisors ...
-
"We have the worst ruling class in our history" as Glen Reynolds writes. They are arrogantly ignorant and not nearly as smart as they think they are. They will continue to get us involved and screw the pooch until they are removed and not allowed near the levers of power. I include most Republicans in this group.
Yes, ISIS is a problem. No, our ruling class is not capable of solving it.
-
Honestly, how does everyone here look at this? Do you want to keep fighting or just get the hell out? Just curious about opinions.
I am tired of our soldiers fighting endless overseas wars of one kind or another. I don't trust our current govt to do it right. If those govts over there can't defend themselves then do they really deserve to exist? It isn't like some big foreign power like the Russians are invading (not talking about Ukraine).
I have real mixed feelings.
1.) We should not have gone into Iraq in the first place. We did so because we thought that Iraq had WMDs and might give them to Al-Qaeda. Well, we find out the WMD stuff was overblown (I think Iraq had them and a WMD program but Saddam got rid of it pre-invasion, but let's not get into a debate) and also that whatever ties it had to AQ were largely imaginary and based pretty much on the fact one AQ terr had a broken leg set there.
2.) OK we went in, deposed Saddam and got rid of his vile murderous sons. We ought to have stayed there and assured they could handle a force like ISIS. We broke it and we own it. Obama was far too anxious to get our guys home.
3.) So we left -- what now? I don't think we're going to do much against ISIS with just air power. It may hurt them but I think if we REALLY WANT to TKO ISIS, we need our troops back there and doing what Patton's Third Army did to the Nazi soldaten in WW2 to the ISIS army.
However, I do not trust Obama to get it right....so I think maybe we ought perhaps not to.
All this may, IMHO, come back to haunt us. Potential future enemies are beginning to see us as a "paper tiger." Putin is making aggressive moves -- we all know about this. China is developing a modernized military force and is making noises about Taiwan and other islands it thinks it ought to possess.
And they have no reason whatever to think America, despite her military and her nuclear missiles has the gumption and stamina to fight a long war and get it right.
Uh, "history check:" isn't that what the Japanese thought about our country, more or less, pre World War Two? ? ? ? ?
I just hope history doesn't repeat ..... but I have bad feelings about the future .....
-
I really feel like we created ISIS, and should be responsible for wiping them out.
I also feel like our politicians and public lack the testicular fortitude to DO WHAT IS NECESSARY to accomplish that.
So, I dunno man.
If i had confidence that we'd be truly UNLEASHED, i'd be all for another full scale invasion.
But when i had to defend my guys from investigation for KILLING THE ENEMY WRONG, that's how you know something is *expletive deleted*ed.
-
Thanks Fitz. That fits what I was thinking. Done right, I could live with continuing. That won't happen so it is better not to start.
-
We ought to have stayed there and assured they could handle a force like ISIS.
That would mean either staying permanently or installing another Saddam. No matter when the US left, some bunch would have risen to fill the void, unless there was another strong arm to keep them in check.
-
That would mean either staying permanently or installing another Saddam. No matter when the US left, some bunch would have risen to fill the void, unless there was another strong arm to keep them in check.
:facepalm:
"Some bunch" might have come along, but if the Iraqi military had been properly trained, properly equiped then they would have been able to nip ISIS in the bud, so to speak. A great deal of blame must also go to the leadership we left in power; many of Iraq's better generals were discharged as they were not "sufficiently loyal" to the leadership or belonged to a different sect. That condition ought not have been tolerated by us.
Do you think soldiers fight well only when there's a dictator in charge? Was FDR a dictator of America during WW2?
Also note your statement is self-contradictory; What you said in red is contradicted by what's in blue. What I've suggested is, essentially, what's in blue. The "other strong arm" should have been the Iraqi Military.
You are not alone in expressing that idea which only makes it more frustrating.
;)
-
:facepalm:
"Some bunch" might have come along, but if the Iraqi military had been properly trained, properly equiped then they would have been able to nip ISIS in the bud, so to speak. A great deal of blame must also go to the leadership we left in power; many of Iraq's better generals were discharged as they were not "sufficiently loyal" to the leadership or belonged to a different sect. That condition ought not have been tolerated by us.
Do you think soldiers fight well only when there's a dictator in charge? Was FDR a dictator of America during WW2?
Also note your statement is self-contradictory; What you said in red is contradicted by what's in blue. What I've suggested is, essentially, what's in blue. The "other strong arm" should have been the Iraqi Military.
You are not alone in expressing that idea which only makes it more frustrating.
;)
Not exactly.
IRAQI soldiers only fight well when there's a dictator in charge.
IRAQI soldiers are weak, and operate efficiently only when they are in complete fear.
IRAQI soldiers only operate efficiently when they know that the people they're charged to serve and protect are completely loyal to the brutal power that saddam and his sons wielded.
Many of Iraqi's "better generals" were not allowed to serve because they were in service of Saddam before. And this was something we did.
-
"Some bunch" might have come along, but if the Iraqi military had been properly trained, properly equiped then they would have been able to nip ISIS in the bud, so to speak.
No amount of training and equipment would make any Middle Eastern military worth a damn (except Israel). Do you not know any history? Those people have been completely worthless on the battlefield since it was about horse and sword. Their idea of marksmanship is to fire "where Allah wills it", manuals are useless because the lower ranks are illiterate and the officers consider manuals beneath them.
A great deal of blame must also go to the leadership we left in power; many of Iraq's better generals were discharged as they were not "sufficiently loyal" to the leadership or belonged to a different sect. That condition ought not have been tolerated by us.
There was no other condition to choose. This is how things are in the Middle East.
Do you think soldiers fight well only when there's a dictator in charge? Was FDR a dictator of America during WW2?
Iraq is not America. Afghanistan is not America. Nowhere in the Middle East is America. Neither is ME Germany or Japan. Would you get this through your head already? There is no loyalty to country over there. Loyalty is to family, tribe, religion, in that order. Country is probably not even on that list for those people. Iraq was Saddam's family beating the crap out of all the other families. That's it. It was never a real country, and there is no reason to expect it to stay cohesive after taking out the strong arm.
Seriously, why is this so hard to understand?
-
Seriously, why is this so hard to understand?
because, to accept that is to accept *gasp* that the problems in the ME can't be blamed on obama pulling out early, or policy decisions. (with maybe the exception of a failure to use a 'turn them to ash' policy)
-
because, to accept that is to accept *gasp* that the problems in the ME can't be blamed on obama pulling out early, or policy decisions. (with maybe the exception of a failure to use a 'turn them to ash' policy)
I don't blame Obama; I blame Bush.
However, he dithered around and kept us over there spending money and losing lives several more years on something already proven to be a losing proposition. Then he goes and gets us involved in more foreign fighting - all this from a "Peace President" ;/
-
If i had confidence that we'd be truly UNLEASHED, i'd be all for another full scale invasion.
But when i had to defend my guys from investigation for KILLING THE ENEMY WRONG, that's how you know something is *expletive deleted*ed.
All too true. That's what we faced in Vietnam -- ridiculous rules of engagement -- and that's why we lost (even though the official line is that we didn't "lose," we just withdrew). I think in one of his western novels (probably many of them) Louis L'Amour had his protagonist say, "If you're going to talk, talk. If you're going to shoot, shoot." ISIS is not interested in talking with us infidels, and they couldn't be trusted if they would talk because their religion teaches that it's morally acceptable to lie to infidels. That leaves only one option -- shoot.
So we should shoot. But not restrict the "shooting" to lobbing a few bombs at them from "coalition" aircraft. What's needed is basically a reboot of D-Day. Just do it, and get it over with.
-
All too true. That's what we faced in Vietnam -- ridiculous rules of engagement -- and that's why we lost (even though the official line is that we didn't "lose," we just withdrew). I think in one of his western novels (probably many of them) Louis L'Amour had his protagonist say, "If you're going to talk, talk. If you're going to shoot, shoot." ISIS is not interested in talking with us infidels, and they couldn't be trusted if they would talk because their religion teaches that it's morally acceptable to lie to infidels. That leaves only one option -- shoot.
So we should shoot. But not restrict the "shooting" to lobbing a few bombs at them from "coalition" aircraft. What's needed is basically a reboot of D-Day. Just do it, and get it over with.
But, but, but, but, HEARTS AND MINDS! WE GOTTA HAVE LIMITED CONFLICT! ROE TO GIVE THE ENEMY A CHANCE!
It's what happens when you let bleeding heart liberals, "office manager" generals, and college "whiz kid" advisers run a war. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, it's all the *expletive deleted*ing same.
-
Not exactly.
IRAQI soldiers only fight well when there's a dictator in charge.
IRAQI soldiers are weak, and operate efficiently only when they are in complete fear.
IRAQI soldiers only operate efficiently when they know that the people they're charged to serve and protect are completely loyal to the brutal power that saddam and his sons wielded.
Many of Iraqi's "better generals" were not allowed to serve because they were in service of Saddam before. And this was something we did.
because, to accept that is to accept *gasp* that the problems in the ME can't be blamed on obama pulling out early, or policy decisions. (with maybe the exception of a failure to use a 'turn them to ash' policy)
What is all this bigotry against Iraqi soldiers? Do you guys think they're subhuman apes or something?
They can be properly trained and properly trained and properly motivated. Maybe we're too dumb to figure out how -- which is not surprising if we think because they're mideasterners they're not worth a damned.
Iraq is not America. Afghanistan is not America. Nowhere in the Middle East is America. Neither is ME Germany or Japan. Would you get this through your head already?
:facepalm:
OK you convinced me they're all subhuman idiots who can only fight for meanies with bushy black mustaches.
"Iraq is not America" WOW what a earth-shattereing revelation.
"Afghanistan is not America." Again, earth-shattering.
Curiosly you bring up Germany. THEY are neither America or mideast; the German Whermacht fought like Tasmanian Devils on speed in WW2. Yet their soldiers in the mideast are strangely reluctant to engage in firefights .... atleast in comparison to their WW2 forebears.
The French, OTOH, have a bad reputation for ..."dropping their rifles" (shall we say) largely from WW2 are in fact being far more aggressive in their mideast roles than the Germans.
Things change.
And the Iraqis can change. Perhaps they don't want to, perhaps we're too dumb, as I say, to figure out how to convince them (the more I read on this forum the more convinced I am of this :-* ) but all I've read here is largely a bunch of racist claptrap that should have been tossed into a garbage pail when we got rid of Jim Crow.
:mad:
-
No one said they were subhuman. They just don't have the same motivations or ideas of honor and courage that we do. They look at that stuff differently. You can see parallels in some of the ancient history when they were fighting the Greeks and others.
I don't think that will change without cultural change which our current leadership has no interest or will to do.
-
No one said they were subhuman. They just don't have the same motivations or ideas of honor and courage that we do. They look at that stuff differently. You can see parallels in some of the ancient history when they were fighting the Greeks and others.
I don't think that will change without cultural change which our current leadership has no interest or will to do.
The people who make up ISIS are of the same ilk and have 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% the same genetics and they are having no trouble conquering, fighting and killing, notwithstanding the fact that we westerners take enormous exception to how they do it and to whom they're doing. "Ideas" of honor and courage are concepts and can be instilled, and should have been.
How did Patton inspire the Third Army? Do you think all the little virginal kiddies who showed up in boot camp had had a in depth background on honor, courage, and going through the enemy like "**** through a goose" instilled in their IDs by their parents?
-
What is all this bigotry against Iraqi soldiers? Do you guys think they're subhuman apes or something?
No. We know that they come from a vastly different cultural background. This influences how they think and how they do things. This is a fact.
They can be properly trained and properly trained and properly motivated. Maybe we're too dumb to figure out how -- which is not surprising if we think because they're mideasterners they're not worth a damned.
Nobody managed to do it yet. The English failed, the Russians failed, everyone ever failed.
OK you convinced me they're all subhuman idiots who can only fight for meanies with bushy black mustaches.
Do you have some sort of difficulty in understanding the written word? Nobody was trying to convince you of that.
Curiosly you bring up Germany. THEY are neither America or mideast; the German Whermacht fought like Tasmanian Devils on speed in WW2. Yet their soldiers in the mideast are strangely reluctant to engage in firefights .... atleast in comparison to their WW2 forebears.
The French, OTOH, have a bad reputation for ..."dropping their rifles" (shall we say) largely from WW2 are in fact being far more aggressive in their mideast roles than the Germans.
Things change.
Once again, you might want to look into this thing called "history". The French soldier has rarely been the problem, but France has been cursed with deficient leadership pretty much since Napoleon. France also has always been rather aggressive in colonial wars. The rifle-dropping is a myth born of ignorance.
You might also notice that the Germans of today are a couple of generations removed from Wehrmacht. A couple of generations brought up bathed in shame over what their fathers and grandfathers did.
And the Iraqis can change. Perhaps they don't want to, perhaps we're too dumb, as I say, to figure out how to convince them (the more I read on this forum the more convinced I am of this :-* ) but all I've read here is largely a bunch of racist claptrap that should have been tossed into a garbage pail when we got rid of Jim Crow.
:mad:
Sure they can. However, this change needs to be a cultural shift on the scale greater than that of the Germans. This can only be achieved by having the carriers of oldthink dying and the new generations being brought up in the way you wish them to be. There are only two ways to do this - wait for old age to do it's thing, like Moses did, or dig some big graves, like Lenin/Stalin/Mao and the rest of that crowd, all the while indoctrinating the young. Are you advocating for the US to do the Moses thing and lead Iraquis for 40 years? Or the Mao thing and have some long marches?
-
"Some bunch" might have come along, but if the Iraqi military had been properly trained, properly equiped then they would have been able to nip ISIS in the bud, so to speak.
Horse Hockey. We did properly train and equip them. In fact, I was talking to one of my former soldiers yesterday about this very subject. He stayed in, retired in 2007 then went to work as contractor training the Iraqi police. His comment, and I'll paraphrase, was: The Iraqis are worse then Tennessee hillbilly-inbred stupid. Add on top of that there was no concept of "Rule of Law", Plus no loyalty to Iraq, their .gov, their leaders, or even each other, but to family, clan and tribe. And he was surprised that they didn't start beating each other over the head the day after we left. The fact that they DID NOT is testament to the skill and dedication of those who worked with the IP's, civilian and military.
-
No. We know that they come from a vastly different cultural background. This influences how they think and how they do things. This is a fact.
Nobody managed to do it yet. The English failed, the Russians failed, everyone ever failed.
Do you have some sort of difficulty in understanding the written word? Nobody was trying to convince you of that.
Once again, you might want to look into this thing called "history". The French soldier has rarely been the problem, but France has been cursed with deficient leadership pretty much since Napoleon. France also has always been rather aggressive in colonial wars. The rifle-dropping is a myth born of ignorance.
You might also notice that the Germans of today are a couple of generations removed from Wehrmacht. A couple of generations brought up bathed in shame over what their fathers and grandfathers did.
Sure they can. However, this change needs to be a cultural shift on the scale greater than that of the Germans. This can only be achieved by having the carriers of oldthink dying and the new generations being brought up in the way you wish them to be. There are only two ways to do this - wait for old age to do it's thing, like Moses did, or dig some big graves, like Lenin/Stalin/Mao and the rest of that crowd, all the while indoctrinating the young. Are you advocating for the US to do the Moses thing and lead Iraquis for 40 years? Or the Mao thing and have some long marches?
Okay, you convinced me; the Iraqis are completly incapable of fighting coherently, or learning how to.
They're a bunch of ignorant mideastern ragheads best left to blow with the shifting sands of fate, hatred, and Jihadi asshattery.
As for the French, Charles DeGaulle might have some enlightening words for you were he still alive.
Horse Hockey. We did properly train and equip them. In fact, I was talking to one of my former soldiers yesterday about this very subject. He stayed in, retired in 2007 then went to work as contractor training the Iraqi police. His comment, and I'll paraphrase, was: The Iraqis are worse then Tennessee hillbilly-inbred stupid. Add on top of that there was no concept of "Rule of Law", Plus no loyalty to Iraq, their .gov, their leaders, or even each other, but to family, clan and tribe. And he was surprised that they didn't start beating each other over the head the day after we left. The fact that they DID NOT is testament to the skill and dedication of those who worked with the IP's, civilian and military.
Oh please tell me how calling them "worse then Tennessee hillbilly-inbred stupid" isn't bigotry. If your friend was surprised they didn't start hitting each other over the head the day after we left he had no reason to believe their training was anywhere near complete.
And no, I am not blaming the soldiers or contractors who were training them; I'm blaming our own home team, WASHINGTON, USA for screwing the pooch over there.
Whether I am right or wrong, a historical genius or a historical idiot is not the question. We're the ones who "broke" it, and we are not fixing it. All we seem to want to do is fold our tails and run. And as I pointed out that's a lousy lesson to show to the rest of the world.
The fact they ran from the fight is proof they were not sufficiently well trained.
-
The fact they ran from the fight is proof they were not sufficiently well trained.
???
-
The people who make up ISIS are of the same ilk and have 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% the same genetics and they are having no trouble conquering, fighting and killing, notwithstanding the fact that we westerners take enormous exception to how they do it and to whom they're doing. "Ideas" of honor and courage are concepts and can be instilled, and should have been.
How did Patton inspire the Third Army? Do you think all the little virginal kiddies who showed up in boot camp had had a in depth background on honor, courage, and going through the enemy like "**** through a goose" instilled in their IDs by their parents?
You are comparing ISIS terrorists to Patton's Third Army?
Yes, the soldiers that joined the army in WWII did have an in depth background in honor, courage, and self sacrifice and fighting for our country. It is part of our culture and traditions. Not all cultures have that in the same way. I am sure it is possible group of Iraqis could be trained and formed into a competent force. I am sure we have military trainers who could do it given time and a completely free hand. Given what we know of our ROE's, I really doubt they had full control.
Also, Look at the short History of Israel. They have beaten every army that has attacked them. It isn't genetics. The US is made up of people from all over, but we have seen good service in our military from every race as far as I know.
-
What is all this bigotry against Iraqi soldiers? Do you guys think they're subhuman apes or something?
They can be properly trained and properly trained and properly motivated. Maybe we're too dumb to figure out how -- which is not surprising if we think because they're mideasterners they're not worth a damned.
:facepalm:
OK you convinced me they're all subhuman idiots who can only fight for meanies with bushy black mustaches.
"Iraq is not America" WOW what a earth-shattereing revelation.
"Afghanistan is not America." Again, earth-shattering.
Curiosly you bring up Germany. THEY are neither America or mideast; the German Whermacht fought like Tasmanian Devils on speed in WW2. Yet their soldiers in the mideast are strangely reluctant to engage in firefights .... atleast in comparison to their WW2 forebears.
The French, OTOH, have a bad reputation for ..."dropping their rifles" (shall we say) largely from WW2 are in fact being far more aggressive in their mideast roles than the Germans.
Things change.
And the Iraqis can change. Perhaps they don't want to, perhaps we're too dumb, as I say, to figure out how to convince them (the more I read on this forum the more convinced I am of this :-* ) but all I've read here is largely a bunch of racist claptrap that should have been tossed into a garbage pail when we got rid of Jim Crow.
:mad:
TommyGunn:
Read some history about the region and its cultures. Had our leadership done so, they would not have proceeded as they did.
The Closed Circle
http://www.amazon.com/Closed-Circle-Interpretation-Edward-Burlingame-ebook/dp/B002EVP4V8/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1415517945&sr=1-1&keywords=the+closed+circle
This is a nice and gentle look at Arab culture and explains why Arab countries are as they are.
And now I Am Going To Do It. What follows, TG, you can only lay at your own feet, especially after invoking chickenshinola charges of racism and incompetence on the part of our SF, big Army, contractors, and such.
Take a gander at some of Tom Kratman's writings.
http://www.baen.com/WarTraining-Part2.asp
Example; Arab armies, with only a few exceptions – exceptional because of a peculiar make up in those few cases – stink. I mean they just suck. They’re awful. Why the hell do you suppose half trained Israeli citizen soldier militia have routinely beat them like they owned them for decades? It’s because they’re militarily rotten. And they’re militarily rotten because of the outlooks, values, and beliefs they acquired as young boys, as mentioned, more or less with mother’s milk.
Now one might – and surely someone will – take the preceding paragraph as racist. And the problem with that is it’s not only no solution, the claim deflects even the possibility of a solution. “Their culture makes it impossible to trust anyone not a blood relation.” “Racism!” “They’ve got a tendency to leave maintenance up to God.” “Racism!” “Their leaders routinely extort money from the rank and file because said rank and file are not blood relations.” RRRaaaccciiisssmmm!!!”
Every [Arab privates] man reached into his back pocket, pulled out a wallet and began peeling off notes. The three who came up with the smallest bribes were picked to guard the tents. These three then proceeded to hold hands (this doesn’t imply gay in Arab cultures, though there is a homoerotic tendency there) and squat by the side of the road, crying like babies. And it is understandable that they cried because for the next four days they got no food or water except what our men gave them out of pity. Their officer didn't care; they weren’t blood, after all.
See, the Arabs are what the sociologists like to call, "amoral familists." This means that they are usually incapable of forming bonds of love and loyalty with anyone not a blood relation. Even there, degree of blood relation determines where loyalty legitimately lies. The saying in the area is, as written above, "Me and my brother against my cousin; me, my brother and my cousin against the world." This not only allows one to extort baksheesh from non-relations, but clouds every military unit that is not blood/clan based.
Picture the poor Arab private. He knows no one in his unit gives a *expletive deleted*it about him; after all, he doesn't give a *expletive deleted*it about any of them, either. They're not family. What happens when that private is placed in the loneliest position in the world, the modern battlefield? He runs at the first sign things are going badly. (He'll be fine as long as they are going well, though. Note: things rarely go well.)
Add in the fantasy mindset. Don't forget "Insh'allah", (which is like "mañana," but without the sense of urgency) which makes it somewhat impious to train really well since it is all the will of God anyway. Add in a set of social values that despise and loathe doing physical labor.
Militarily, they've got nothing going for them, as long as they insist on following western models of non-blood based military organization.
Now, ISIS is also made of Arabs. But, as a lesson for the reader, what is different about them relative to the armies of the Arab states?
-
Okay, you convinced me; the Iraqis are completly incapable of fighting coherently, or learning how to.
They're a bunch of ignorant mideastern ragheads best left to blow with the shifting sands of fate, hatred, and Jihadi asshattery.
As for the French, Charles DeGaulle might have some enlightening words for you were he still alive.
I like how you completely ignore what people tell you when it's inconvenient and doesn't fit with your worldview. Also, lovely job of putting words in my mouth.
The administration must be filled with people just like you, completely unwilling to face the reality of culture they are dealing with. This is precisely why US efforts in the Middle East are doomed to failure.
-
It's a problem that goes way back. Americans seem to believe that others folks are " just like me!"
They are mistaken.
It was a problem in china japan and Vietnam. There are folks who have actually been there and know. When they give opinions that go against the group think they are shunned and it's full steam ahead. The folks who make the big decisions do so based on what they believe and they generally face no tangible consequences for their screw ups
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
TommyGunn:
Read some history about the region and its cultures. Had our leadership done so, they would not have proceeded as they did.
The Closed Circle
http://www.amazon.com/Closed-Circle-Interpretation-Edward-Burlingame-ebook/dp/B002EVP4V8/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1415517945&sr=1-1&keywords=the+closed+circle
This is a nice and gentle look at Arab culture and explains why Arab countries are as they are.
And now I Am Going To Do It. What follows, TG, you can only lay at your own feet, especially after invoking chickenshinola charges of racism and incompetence on the part of our SF, big Army, contractors, and such.
Rooster, had you actually READ what I wrote you would know I was NOT accusing any of our soldiers -- or contractors -- of being bigots.
I was accusing PEOPLE ON THIS FORUM of being bigots.
Perhaps though I overspoke my case.
The idea that "culture is destiny" is something I will deal with below.
I like how you completely ignore what people tell you when it's inconvenient and doesn't fit with your worldview. Also, lovely job of putting words in my mouth.
The administration must be filled with people just like you, completely unwilling to face the reality of culture they are dealing with. This is precisely why US efforts in the Middle East are doomed to failure.
Another idiotic response. I am NOT ignoring it. I am disputing the apparent belief that it is inevitable dogma that because (apparently) "Arab armies, with only a few exceptions – exceptional because of a peculiar make up in those few cases – stink. I mean they just suck. They’re awful," That such will always be the case, and cannot ever be overcome or rectified.
See, the Arabs are what the sociologists like to call, "amoral familists." This means that they are usually incapable of forming bonds of love and loyalty with anyone not a blood relation. Even there, degree of blood relation determines where loyalty legitimately lies. The saying in the area is, as written above, "Me and my brother against my cousin; me, my brother and my cousin against the world." This not only allows one to extort baksheesh from non-relations, but clouds every military unit that is not blood/clan based.
The arabs are hardly the only ones with this culture. It is a handicap sure but when the appropriate bashing together of heads it can be defeated.
Certainly we will never be the ones who can, or will defeat it, because we don't believe it CAN be defeated, and people who don't believe something can happen will never put forth any effort to make it happen.
Therefor it is a self-fulfilling prophesy.
If yooz guyz would read my earlier posts this is what I've been saying all along.
Don't forget "Insh'allah", (which is like "mañana," but without the sense of urgency) which makes it somewhat impious to train really well since it is all the will of God anyway. Add in a set of social values that despise and loathe doing physical labor.
Oh, you mean they PROCRASTINATE -- just like 98% of the rest of humanity does, except they make a religious practice out of it. That also explains why true leadership qualities are so rare, or partially explains it, I should say.
You are comparing ISIS terrorists to Patton's Third Army?
ISIS is more appropriatly an "army" than a group of disjointed group of terrorists. The ONLY point in the Third Army comparison was to show they are acting in a coherent, aggressive manner. I am certainly NOT comparing Patton's goals, ethics, or morality, or any part of any American Army, past or present, with the morality or ethics of ISIS.
Al Qaeda terrorists, as well as others, operated in "cells," more comparable really to espionage agents than an army. ISIS has discarded this in its formation into what is really, now (IMHO) an army.
Yes, the soldiers that joined the army in WWII did have an in depth background in honor, courage, and self sacrifice and fighting for our country. It is part of our culture and traditions. Not all cultures have that in the same way.
Perhaps only in a primitive form. In between WW1 and 2 we actually were a pretty isolationist country and there remained many who thought we ought to let the europeans fix their own problems as Hitler rose to power. FDR & Churchill, and a few others realized it wasn't going to work out that nicely, and when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, it spurred many to join and fight. But, we still required a draft and would never have filled the ranks of what was to be the largest army America had during WW2 up to that point in history without the aforsaid draft.
I am sure it is possible group of Iraqis could be trained and formed into a competent force. I am sure we have military trainers who could do it given time and a completely free hand. Given what we know of our ROE's, I really doubt they had full control.
I totally agree with the above. We're NOT going to do it.
What I have been doing in this thread is to make a THEORETICAL argument, and possibly I have been doing a poor job of it. Maybe if I HAD done a better job people like Roo_ster and Scout26, et al, wouldn't be pouncing on me like starved leopards at a fresh kill.
I get that other peoples have a different culture. Sometimes that's for the good ....sometimes it has detrimental aspects, as apparently it does in the Arab culture ( Add in the fantasy mindset. Don't forget "Insh'allah", [which is like "mañana," but without the sense of urgency]), but what I am saying is that a people need not be a slave to that history.
Convincing such people to escape the shackles of that culture is a daunting task for sure. I never thought otherwise.
George Santayana remarked "those who forget the lessons of history are forever doomed to repeat its mistakes."
Some in our government could learn from that, but the Iraqis could be taught that as well. They're not incapable of learning, but it will take better teachers than we seem to want to be to teach it.
That's why I originally said: "1.) We should not have gone into Iraq in the first place.
Gee, I really hope the guys here who've been beating on me will remember that. :-*
Also, Look at the short History of Israel. They have beaten every army that has attacked them. It isn't genetics. The US is made up of people from all over, but we have seen good service in our military from every race as far as I know.
Yes. Israelies have a thousand year history of persecution behind them, and when Hitler tried to exterminate the Jewish Peoples, down to the last man, woman, child, zygote with his "Final Solution" the Jewish Ppeople formed Israel under the "spiritual banner" of "never again." And they have been forced by their surrounding neighbors (many of whom were Nazi sympathizers during the "Dritte Reich") to enforce that by force of arms ever since.
It isn't genetics. But is should be.
PEACE, gentlebeings, okay? Peace? =(
-
I'm afraid the Arab nations are not worth the blood and treasure it would take to get them up to speed (20th, 21st century).
Just like TommyGun I believed and made similar arguments about the Iraqis before the second invasion. I believed given the chance they would embrace modernity putting aside ancient wrongs and happily embrace liberty, peace and security.
The Iraqis have proved me wrong beyond what I could have ever imagined. Permanently occupying their country to teach them at the point of a gun how to do modern civilization isn't what I want our military doing.
The Kurds have a clue and they don't need to be occupied. They just need material support against the crazies and states opposed to them.
-
PEACE, gentlebeings, okay? Peace? =(
Ummm, not after being called a bigot.
Pointing out the cultural norms for a certain society which causes their police and/or military to in-cohesive is NOT bigotry. Simply a statement of fact. And I was paraphrasing what a former soldier of mine told me. Although thinking back to CPT Al-Shambari of my Officer Basic class, he was the same way. We all got the impression that he looked down on us. Whenever there was anything physical to do, it was suddenly time to pray, and those prayers seem to last as long as the physical activity. Plus, he had a hard time grasping basic concepts like Land Nav, Call for Fire, Rifle and Pistol Marksmanship, etc. It seemed like he was above learning that. We had the impression that he was a Captain in the Saudi National Guard because A) His family was only of very, very minor nobility, and B) He was the idiot son who wasn't smart enough to run/be involved with the family business (whatever it was) or even find a "real" job.
Now my sample size is only one, but when someone whom I know very well and has worked with hundreds if not thousands of Iraqis and comes to the same conclusion, throw in the empirical evidence of the Iraqi's hiking their skirts and running like little girls in their first confrontations with ISIS (Plus 70 years of Israeli and US armed action against Arab armies) and one can only draw one conclusion.
They suck.
Why? Because they are not Cohesive. You can (and we do) take Americans (or Brits, Germans, Canooks, Frogs) of widely disparate backgrounds (including religious) and after 8-11 weeks have a cohesive force that will kill you or die trying, if told to do so. And that will retreat only if forced to, and that retreat will be cohesive. (mostly, they may run at first, but very, very, very few will completely quit the battlefield). Why? Henry the V.
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
Arabs don't have (nor cultivate) that sense of brotherhood. Loyalties remain to Family, Clan, and Tribe. Not to Fellow Soldiers, Unit, and Regiment. When I was in Baumholder, the easiest fights to breakup was Soldier A (from Unit B) against Soldier C (from Unit D), next was a group of Soldiers from Unit E taking on another group (or all comers), yet the most vicious fights were soldiers from the same overarching unit (Battalion or Company) versus soldiers from the same overarching unit, but a different sub-unit (Company or Platoon), aka "A civil war".
And as anyone who served will tell you, those that one served with become closer then family. That doesn't happen in Arab armies, for the reasons Roo_ster and I stated.
And that's where we failed in Iraq, trying to take three disparate groups (who hate each other) and make them into a country, an army and a police force. Breaking it into three countries would have made the most sense.
-
Pointing out who cultural norms for a certain society causes their police and/or military to in-cohesive is NOT bigotry.
:facepalm:
Again my point is being missed. My reason for the epithet was the expressed belief that "culture is destiny," ie., that the Iraqis were incapable of learning because of their pre existing culture.
At some point earlier in this thread it was remarked by someone that the Germans weren't fighting in the mideast because of two generations of being beat-down after the horrors of WW2. This was a good point but it also ought to indicate that the Iraqis, as well, ought not be forever mired in their ways because of their culture, be it two generation or two thousand.
I have also stipulated that it WILL take a long time, and that we are not going to be able to be the ones to do it.
Do I really have to explain this all over, again?
BTW in my previous post I said: "Perhaps though I overspoke my case."
I'll re-state the matter, more directly, I HEREBY APOLOGIZE FOR THE ACCUSATION OF BIGOTRY.
What I ought to do is go back and edit it out, but that really wouldn't be honest and I think I've been jumped on enough. >:D
-
TG:
My reason for the epithet was the expressed belief that "culture is destiny," ie., that the Iraqis were incapable of learning because of their pre existing culture.
It just happens to be true and has been for centuries, hysterical accusations of racism or no.
Here is the relationship:
Biology --> Culture --> Institutions (Political, Military, etc.)
With feedback loops.
Military institutions are downstream of culture and will be subject to its strengths and limitations. There are some exceptions, but they are truly exceptional.
And Inshallah is not a synonym for "procrastinate." It is a paradigm, the understanding of which will illuminate part of the reason Arab armies are ineffective when they encounter serious resistance.
There were many reasons the Ottoman Empire stole, kidnapped, and bought Christan boy children to turn into Janissaries. It was not just, "Because the Ottomans were evil beasts," though that is also true. No, the main reason was that they needed a fighting force that was not of Muslim culture to be its shock troops, willing to place loyalty to one another over loyalty to blood. They needed shock troops that did not, in their heart of hearts, believe in Inshallah.
Problem is, TG, you don't know what you don't know and accuse others that do of being racists. Welcome to the Progressive camp, in spirit if not card-membership.
"Demography is destiny."
----Auguste Comte
As it is. Culture is also destiny, barring truly exceptional circumstances we were not willing to impose on Iraq.
-
This is very interesting, and I am learning a lot. I know we have some people here who were on active duty in the Balkans. As a general rule, do these same issues apply to the indigenous military forces in that area?
-
:facepalm:
Again my point is being missed. My reason for the epithet was the expressed belief that "culture is destiny," ie., that the Iraqis were incapable of learning because of their pre existing culture.
Okay, they aren't incapable of learning.
They are unwilling to learn.
Does that make you feel better ... even though the end result is the same? (They don't learn.)
-
Another idiotic response. I am NOT ignoring it. I am disputing the apparent belief that it is inevitable dogma that because (apparently) "Arab armies, with only a few exceptions – exceptional because of a peculiar make up in those few cases – stink. I mean they just suck. They’re awful," That such will always be the case, and cannot ever be overcome or rectified.
If you bothered to read what I wrote, you would have noticed that I actually said that it can be overcome. I even laid out how it can be done. You blithely ignored that.
The arabs are hardly the only ones with this culture. It is a handicap sure but when the appropriate bashing together of heads it can be defeated.
Got any examples? Or is this just some hippie faith in humanity here?
But, we still required a draft and would never have filled the ranks of what was to be the largest army America had during WW2 up to that point in history without the aforsaid draft.
What you are missing here, time after time, is that the people being drafted identified as Americans. The people you think of as Iraqi do not think of themselves that way. Imagine how successful that draft would have been if they drafted only Canadians to fight for US.
Convincing such people to escape the shackles of that culture is a daunting task for sure.
What would it take for you, presumably an adult, to be convinced by some foreigner to stop considering yourself an American? It would take about the same for an Iraqi to become an Iraqi you want him to be.
George Santayana remarked "those who forget the lessons of history are forever doomed to repeat its mistakes." Listen to the man.
I have also stipulated that it WILL take a long time, and that we are not going to be able to be the ones to do it.
We shouldn't be the ones doing it. As I explained, there are two ways to do it, the Moses way or the Mao way. Neither one is the American way, as I understand it.
-
I saw some of the things you mentioned earlier in the thread. I think you are expanding them beyond anything the authors intended.
:facepalm:
Again my point is being missed. My reason for the epithet was the expressed belief that "culture is destiny," ie., that the Iraqis were incapable of learning because of their pre existing culture.
At some point earlier in this thread it was remarked by someone that the Germans weren't fighting in the mideast because of two generations of being beat-down after the horrors of WW2. This was a good point but it also ought to indicate that the Iraqis, as well, ought not be forever mired in their ways because of their culture, be it two generation or two thousand.
I have also stipulated that it WILL take a long time, and that we are not going to be able to be the ones to do it.
Do I really have to explain this all over, again?
BTW in my previous post I said: "Perhaps though I overspoke my case."
I'll re-state the matter, more directly, I HEREBY APOLOGIZE FOR THE ACCUSATION OF BIGOTRY.
What I ought to do is go back and edit it out, but that really wouldn't be honest and I think I've been jumped on enough. >:D
-
ISIS is more appropriatly an "army" than a group of disjointed group of terrorists. The ONLY point in the Third Army comparison was to show they are acting in a coherent, aggressive manner. I am certainly NOT comparing Patton's goals, ethics, or morality, or any part of any American Army, past or present, with the morality or ethics of ISIS.
Al Qaeda terrorists, as well as others, operated in "cells," more comparable really to espionage agents than an army. ISIS has discarded this in its formation into what is really, now (IMHO) an army.
Where are you getting details on ISIS organization and movements? I would like to see it.
Perhaps only in a primitive form. In between WW1 and 2 we actually were a pretty isolationist country and there remained many who thought we ought to let the europeans fix their own problems as Hitler rose to power. FDR & Churchill, and a few others realized it wasn't going to work out that nicely, and when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, it spurred many to join and fight. But, we still required a draft and would never have filled the ranks of what was to be the largest army America had during WW2 up to that point in history without the aforsaid draft.
I was speaking of culture and you mixing in politics and equating the two. Not the same.
Americans have not always been eager to fight or volunteer, but will do so if required. The cultural tradition of the citizen soldier it real. The Japanese thought we wouldn't fight. We didn't always fight well, but we did fight. You also say isolationist like it means the same thing as pacifist. I don't know where you get that. The Marine Corp fought in a number of small actions during that time.
I think you are ranging all over the place with your thoughts and stepping on your own points.
-
Where are you getting details on ISIS organization and movements? I would like to see it. I was speaking of culture and you mixing in politics and equating the two. Not the same.
Every expert I've heard discussing ISIS/ISIL has pointed out that they are more like an army with a command structure than a terrorist group like Al Qaeda. AQ, as I pointed out earlier has a mor disparate, or cell sctructure. It's not one big homogeneous structure.
If it isn't true, then I apologize, but a helluva lot of supposed "experts" also owe an apology.
It's not like I can go over there and personally study ISIS.
:O
Americans have not always been eager to fight or volunteer, but will do so if required. The cultural tradition of the citizen soldier it real. The Japanese thought we wouldn't fight. We didn't always fight well, but we did fight. You also say isolationist like it means the same thing as pacifist. I don't know where you get that. The Marine Corp fought in a number of small actions during that time.
I think you are ranging all over the place with your thoughts and stepping on your own points.
Isolationism often means pacifism because a desire to remain out of wars (especially in foreign countries) often motivates the pacifist. It's true the two are not the same thing.
As far as stepping on my own points....I appreciate your understatement. I suppose some might say I've been stomping all over them, considering how this thread has progressed. :facepalm:
-
Who are the good guys over there?
What is the plan to win?
What is the plan to get out after victory?
I'm failing to see what our compelling national interest is in fighting ISIS and propping up an Iraqi government that does not represent the Iraqi people.
-
I don't call the desire to remain out of wars is the same as pacifism. I guess that word covers a broad definition. I feel we fell more along the lines of someone who is willing to fight if needed, but doesn't go looking for a fight. To me, a pacifist would rather be conquered than fight or someone like Chamberlain who would give up all sorts of concessions to avoid war. They see war is something to be avoided at all costs.
Not too long before WWI, European countries were constantly fighting one another for little or no gain. I can understand not wanting to get sucked into that mess. Hell, prior to WWI, we were only a few years past the Indian Wars and the Spanish-American War. We had a lot of internal territory to expand into and had no need to go picking fights.
-
The reason that ISIS is successful is because they are fighting for an Ideology and are drawing in fighters from all over the world. If the Christianity and all other religions were to die out today and only Islam was left Shia and Sunni would start fighting each other over who was right. And it would be some of the ugliest and bloodiest fighting you would ever see.
You can't change culture overnight.
I have helped train Iraqi Correctional Officers and when you had to keep them separate because one family didn't like another, like the Hatfields and McCoys, you will never have a cohesive force. Additionally you had to be careful where you put the officers because we had to the prisons were split by sect, sometimes you couldn't have a Sunni guard a Shia.
Bush nor Obama is to blame for us not staying in Iraq, the Iraqi government has themselves to blame for not signing a SOFA.
-
What is all this bigotry against Iraqi soldiers? Do you guys think they're subhuman apes or something?
They can be properly trained and properly trained and properly motivated. Maybe we're too dumb to figure out how -- which is not surprising if we think because they're mideasterners they're not worth a damned.
:facepalm:
OK you convinced me they're all subhuman idiots who can only fight for meanies with bushy black mustaches.
I'll come out and say it.
yes, by and large, the majority of them are subhuman apes that cannot be properly motivated to fight without constant pressure from tyrants and their puppets.
Maybe, just *expletive deleted*ing MAYBE, you'd feel the same if you watched people you care about die trying to train those f *expletive deleted*faces, and directly dealt with the consequences of our 8 year effort to turn a bunch of backwards, superstitious, tribal, incompetent aholes into a fighting force that wouldn't hide behind civilians/US forces.
Maybe, just *expletive deleted*ing MAYBE, if you had rolled up on checkpoints that were booby trapped with IEDs because these cowards gave up their uniforms, gave the enemy their patrol schedules, and gave them rough estimates of YOUR patrol schedules, you'd feel the same.
Maybe if you had taken some fire inside the fob because the iraqis you "turned over" security to cut and run, leaving a gate wide open, you'd feel the same.
But you don't . Because you have no *expletive deleted*ing clue what you're talking about, having never dealt with the iraqi army. you're a *expletive deleted*ing blowhard talking out your ass, and then you have the *expletive deleted*ing AUDACITY to get indignant after you call us bigots?
Strap on your *expletive deleted*ing boots and go train them, Rambo, or shut the *expletive deleted* ck up
just THINK for a minute about your argument
"The iraqis can be trained, you guys just did a shitty job"
And you wonder why that viewpoint makes people upset.
-
It's not like I can go over there and personally study ISIS.
:O
You could, if you weren't a coward
-
https://www.academi.com/
http://careers.academi.com/index.php?m=portal&a=details&jobOrderID=
-
I'll come out and say it.
yes, by and large, the majority of them are subhuman apes that cannot be properly motivated to fight without constant pressure from tyrants and their puppets.
Maybe, just *expletive deleted*ing MAYBE, you'd feel the same if you watched people you care about die trying to train those f *expletive deleted*faces, and directly dealt with the consequences of our 8 year effort to turn a bunch of backwards, superstitious, tribal, incompetent aholes into a fighting force that wouldn't hide behind civilians/US forces.
Maybe, just *expletive deleted*ing MAYBE, if you had rolled up on checkpoints that were booby trapped with IEDs because these cowards gave up their uniforms, gave the enemy their patrol schedules, and gave them rough estimates of YOUR patrol schedules, you'd feel the same.
Maybe if you had taken some fire inside the fob because the iraqis you "turned over" security to cut and run, leaving a gate wide open, you'd feel the same.
But you don't . Because you have no *expletive deleted*ing clue what you're talking about, having never dealt with the iraqi army. you're a *expletive deleted*ing blowhard talking out your ass, and then you have the *expletive deleted*ing AUDACITY to get indignant after you call us bigots?
Strap on your *expletive deleted*ing boots and go train them, Rambo, or shut the *expletive deleted* ck up
just THINK for a minute about your argument
"The iraqis can be trained, you guys just did a shitty job"
And you wonder why that viewpoint makes people upset.
One Goddamned LAST time: I was not blaming the U.S troops or contractors for Iraq, I was blaming the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. --oh, and the respective politicians, let's not forget THEM.
MY "viewpoint makes people upset?" ??? :O
From my first post in this thread:
1.) We should not have gone into Iraq in the first place.
Why in hell do you think I said that? Can you give ME a reason, since you seem so astute at getting to the bottom of my motives, intents and intellect, just what in the friggin" ***** I might have meant by that statement?
The fact that the Iraqis are not really one people but several peoples artificially put together in an "artificial" country a century or so ago is something that's been known a long time. I mistanly thought that maybe Bush had the determination to get it right in Iraq, and he almost did, really, with the surge. It's an open question whether he'd have been able to do much more if he'd had a longer term. Obama was more worried about bringing our troops home than anything; I never had any illusions he'd be able to accomplish much.
Another point I will state again; I never thought or said turning the Iraqis into a coherent fighting force would be easy. Or that it could happen quickly. -- A really big reason that I made the statement #1 above.
We don't have the patience or staying power, and, unfortunatly we are too willing (on the part of our politicians) to be gullible to the false claims of others.
I just finished Fox News analyst Bill O'Reilly's newest book, Killing Patton. One thing that impressed me in the book (though I'd known it before) was Patton's attitude toward the Soviets and how he'd clashed with the political leadership (and even other generals such as Eisenhower & Bradley) about the future of europe with regard to those Soviets. Stalin wished to usurp eastern europe (and eventually the world) and every move he made, every lie he told, was toward that end. Meanwhile, both Churchill and Patton saw through this and realized the Soviets really ought to be pushed back, but this idea horrified Truman and other political leaders, since we'd been allied with the Soviets. There was a substantial portion of the peoples in europe who gave a lot of credit to the Soviets for taking down the Nazi Regime as well.
In my opinion, Patton and Churchill had it right. Our poilitical leadership didn't have the forsight or stamina to do what should have been done, as a result europe, and America, were condemned to a half century long cold war.
A great many of our country's "best" believed we could co-exist with Stalin peacefully, in spite of the fact his NKVD had already infiltrated the American government, state dept, and even Donovan's OSS. When Truman told Josef Stalin at Potsdam about the recent development of the nuclear bomb, the poker-faced tyrant merely hoped they'd use it on Japan soon. Truman didn't know Stalin already knew about the "bomb" -- thanks to Klaus Fuchs.
The gullibility we showed was stunning.
Iraq isn't the first time we ended a war in a short sighted manner (I won't get into the Treaty of Versailles >:D ).
I never thought the Iraq War would end pretty.
I was just thinking that we could have done it right if we'd have been willing to stay and bounce enough heads off each other to convince the disparate Iraqi tribes to get their *&^%$ act together. Should we have been able to we could show that they were not condemned by their culture to a chaotic future.
But we can't, and they are.
-
I think training cats, would be easier. :mad: We could not get them to understand, the basic fundamentals of marksmanship.
Afghan National Army (ANA) Atghar 2011
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi140.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fr29%2FAZtoy75%2FP7160011_zpsf93d8f17.jpg&hash=007ccdd6a0c3a1641be70859829d431d493186b0)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi140.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fr29%2FAZtoy75%2FP7160013_zps68980ddd.jpg&hash=dbec127f6e51c6909441946858c7c0338571246b)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi140.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fr29%2FAZtoy75%2FP7160015_zps8fae21d2.jpg&hash=ce80fa70fd2eaa2a1c31d4b297a3dd80545609b8)
-
I think training cats, would be easier. :mad: We could not get them to understand, the basic fundamentals of marksmanship.
:rofl:
THAT'S the mistake we made!!!! We should have armed the Iraqis with 10,000,000 cats! :facepalm:
-
I never thought the Iraq War would end pretty.
I was just thinking that we could have done it right if we'd have been willing to stay and bounce enough heads off each other to convince the disparate Iraqi tribes to get their *&^%$ act together. Should we have been able to we could show that they were not condemned by their culture to a chaotic future.
But we can't, and they are.
The very fact that you think that is possible shows you still don't get it. Don't feel bad, I didn't either until I had to work with Arabs. Nothing on this Earth could make them get their act together. They LITERALLY think it's impious and sinful to try hard. It show a lack of faith.
ISIS looks halfway decent because 1. they are engaging in jihad, which allows more definate purpose and effort, and 2. they haven't met any non-Arab troops yet.
You still have no real grasp of the gulf between our cultures. In varying level's of politeness the folks here with hands on experiance in that gulf are trying to tell you, and you are refusing to grok.
One last time: Arabs are culturally unable to field a disciplined and professional, modern military. Raiders, Light infantry, and pirates yes, but not an Army. Trying to make them do so will waste your time, and annoy them.
-
The very fact that you think that is possible shows you still don't get it. Don't feel bad, I didn't either until I had to work with Arabs. Nothing on this Earth could make them get their act together. They LITERALLY think it's impious and sinful to try hard. It show a lack of faith.
ISIS looks halfway decent because 1. they are engaging in jihad, which allows more definate purpose and effort, and 2. they haven't met any non-Arab troops yet.
You still have no real grasp of the gulf between our cultures. In varying level's of politeness the folks here with hands on experiance in that gulf are trying to tell you, and you are refusing to grok.
One last time: Arabs are culturally unable to field a disciplined and professional, modern military. Raiders, Light infantry, and pirates yes, but not an Army. Trying to make them do so will waste your time, and annoy them.
So you tried and couldn't make it happen.
"They LITERALLY think it's impious and sinful to try hard. It show(s) a lack of faith." ~~ Did you, or anyone else try to destroy this ethic? Sometimes you have to destroy before you build. If you were unable to, or prevented from doing it because superiors said "no" or politicians said "no" then I can understand that it simply isn't going to happen, but this only enforces my previous point that Washington is to blame, really (leaving aside for a moment any culteral indoctrinations on the part of the arabs) for not allowing it or allocating the time for it.
Destroying a pre-existing ethic is painful, ugly, dirty, sometimes rotten and nasty nasty, but if it is something that is preventing progress (and the ethic you mention does seem to be working that way [!!!!!!]) then it has to be destroyed before anything positive is to be done.
"The very fact that you think that is possible shows you still don't get it."
At the point where I wrote the quote you cite I was becoming quite convinced that never, ever, was it going to happen that we'd be able to "bounce heads together" and create a coherent Iraqi fighting force.
The bottom line is that humans are our own worst enemy at times. Culture can doom a people if it is allowed to....and it's awful damned hard to overcome, and we won't be the ones to do it.
So please don't continue the false meme that I want to continue to try to make things work in Iraq. I didn't before and I don't now.
As for ISIS, I have no doubt should we send in troops we could deal with them. Probably without much difficulty. I just don't think airstrikes alone will be enough. And I also don't trust Obama to ... well, do much of anything, really, except to paint a pretty political picture.
-
That's the point, guy... We DID try. For EIGHT *expletive deleted*ing YEARS
If you got any ideas that the best trained Soldiers, Sf teams, etc didn't think of, then get off APS and start a PMC. Because clearly you know something that the absolute BEST do not.
You're not listening. Quoting people, cranking up your font size, and repeating nonsense again and again doesn't mean you aren't completely talking out your ass
-
So you tried and couldn't make it happen. Did you, or anyone else try to destroy this ethic? Sometimes you have to destroy before you build.
How? Has anyone ever managed to do this? What would it take for your ethic to be destroyed?
I was just thinking that we could have done it right if we'd have been willing to stay and bounce enough heads off each other to convince the disparate Iraqi tribes to get their *&^%$ act together.
Once again, do you have an example of this happening? Ever? Do you seriously support US staying there for multiple generations? Or wiping out enough adults to matter?
-
Holy Hell, this is why it took me three days to calm down enough to answer this crap.
We would have to kill every adult and raise a generation not as Arabs. You're not going to break down 2 thousand years of engrained culture. Yes, we tried, no it didn't work. Yes, we tried multiple ways. No it didn't work.
The ONLY way to counter cultural tribalisim at the level Arabs have it is to destroy the culture completly. Ethnic cleansing. Seriously. And even if our politicans felt like that was appropriate, I, as a US soldier, wouldn't do it.
-
How? Has anyone ever managed to do this? What would it take for your ethic to be destroyed?
Once again, do you have an example of this happening? Ever? Do you seriously support US staying there for multiple generations? Or wiping out enough adults to matter?
No I do NOT support US troops staying there forever -- if you had read what I have said you wouldn't ask a question like that. As for tearing down ethics and rebuilding them that's done all the time in boot camps where soldiers are taught to act as a team, and it works. The ethic of "me" is removed and replaced with "we."
That's the point, guy... We DID try. For EIGHT *expletive deleted*ing YEARS
If you got any ideas that the best trained Soldiers, Sf teams, etc didn't think of, then get off APS and start a PMC. Because clearly you know something that the absolute BEST do not.
You're not listening. Quoting people, cranking up your font size, and repeating nonsense again and again doesn't mean you aren't completely talking out your ass
It seems very few are listening. And a lot of talk is coming out of a lot of asses.
You know I've said over and over again in this thread from the first post to the last that I thought going into Iraq was a mistake, and absolutly no one has mentioned that, aknowledged that or anything.
If said over and over my argument was theoretical and would be very tough to accomplish, and we weren't going to and THAT's never been aknowledged to any extent.
All that can be done is say I'm "quoting people and cranking up font sizes" and it "repeating nonsense."
And I am sick of this crap.
You stop talking out of your ass, because after all this time you're claiming I've made arguments I have never been doing, like blaiming US troops for Itaqi culture,
so YOU stop TALKING OUT OF YOUR EFFIN ass!!
-
EDIT:
Hell, forget everything I have said. No one is hearing, I am sick and tired of this pissant thread .
See you elsewhere.
-
So you tried and couldn't make it happen.
"They LITERALLY think it's impious and sinful to try hard. It show(s) a lack of faith." ~~ Did you, or anyone else try to destroy this ethic?
It's not an ethic, it's a religion. I suppose forcibly converting them from Mid-East Muslim to Pennsylvania Dutch Protestant with its attendant work ethic might have been successful, but I hear that's un-PC...
I think that if we did a full scale colonization, ruled with an iron hand for a few generations, and forced the natives to adopt Western culture and religion at gun point then you could successfully field a competent Middle Eastern army in say 50-60 years. But I don't see that happening, and so would prefer to not piss away more blood and treasure to try to help a group of people who have thousands of years of fail in their very cultural institutions.
Americans are frequently accused of arrogance and hubris, and in this area (the assumption that everyone in the world needs only a minimal; exposure to our culture to shed their own and become like us) it is absolutely true.
-
No I do NOT support US troops staying there forever -- if you had read what I have said you wouldn't ask a question like that. As for tearing down ethics and rebuilding them that's done all the time in boot camps where soldiers are taught to act as a team, and it works. The ethic of "me" is removed and replaced with "we."
It seems very few are listening. And a lot of talk is coming out of a lot of asses.
You know I've said over and over again in this thread from the first post to the last that I thought going into Iraq was a mistake, and absolutly no one has mentioned that, aknowledged that or anything.
If said over and over my argument was theoretical and would be very tough to accomplish, and we weren't going to and THAT's never been aknowledged to any extent.
All that can be done is say I'm "quoting people and cranking up font sizes" and it "repeating nonsense."
And I am sick of this crap.
You stop talking out of your ass, because after all this time you're claiming I've made arguments I have never been doing, like blaiming US troops for Itaqi culture,
so YOU stop TALKING OUT OF YOUR EFFIN ass!!
And yet, you continue, even in your first goddamn paragraph, to spew platitudes about military training that you think we don't already know and haven't tried.
HOLY *expletive deleted* it. YOU MEAN I SHOULD TRAIN THEM LIKE NEW RECRUITS AND TEAR THEM DOWN, BUILDING THEM UP STRONGER.
JESUS TAPDANCING CHRIST WHY DIDNT I THINK OF THAT
You're not blaming troops for Iraqi culture, you're assuming we are all morons.
-
EDIT:
Hell, forget everything I have said. No one is hearing, I am sick and tired of this pissant thread .
See you elsewhere.
Lulz
(https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10473908_10105599508661634_6689596547594755267_n.jpg?oh=262efedf5cee570b68b00c2b8a70f3a4&oe=54E9445E)
-
But hey, maybe we didn't try hard enough to make them stop willing Allah to move their bullets.
-
And yet, you continue, even in your first goddamn paragraph, to spew platitudes about military training that you think we don't already know and haven't tried.
HOLY *expletive deleted* it. YOU MEAN I SHOULD TRAIN THEM LIKE NEW RECRUITS AND TEAR THEM DOWN, BUILDING THEM UP STRONGER.
JESUS TAPDANCING CHRIST WHY DIDNT I THINK OF THAT
You're not blaming troops for Iraqi culture, you're assuming we are all morons.
:-*
-
Lulz
(https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10473908_10105599508661634_6689596547594755267_n.jpg?oh=262efedf5cee570b68b00c2b8a70f3a4&oe=54E9445E)
He will be back. If not this thread, in another, to remind us all that he knows better than thousands of experienced warriors how to make the Iraqi army self sufficient
-
He will be back. If not this thread, in another, to remind us all that he knows better than thousands of experienced warriors how to make the Iraqi army self sufficient
:-*
-
I think that if we did a full scale colonization, ruled with an iron hand for a few generations, and forced the natives to adopt Western culture and religion at gun point then you could successfully field a competent Middle Eastern army in say 50-60 years.
British Empire already tried this. =D
-
British Empire already tried this. =D
They should've tried harder. ;)
-
It's not an ethic, it's a religion. I suppose forcibly converting them from Mid-East Muslim to Pennsylvania Dutch Protestant with its attendant work ethic might have been successful, but I hear that's un-PC...
I think that if we did a full scale colonization, ruled with an iron hand for a few generations, and forced the natives to adopt Western culture and religion at gun point then you could successfully field a competent Middle Eastern army in say 50-60 years. But I don't see that happening, and so would prefer to not piss away more blood and treasure to try to help a group of people who have thousands of years of fail in their very cultural institutions.
Americans are frequently accused of arrogance and hubris, and in this area (the assumption that everyone in the world needs only a minimal; exposure to our culture to shed their own and become like us) it is absolutely true.
British Empire already tried this. =D
They should've tried harder. ;)
The Ottoman Turks had a pretty damn strong warrior ethic that was, relative to the Arabs, practical and trainable. They ruled the ME for ~500 years and could not make the Arabs into a close-combat force. Of course, they had only limited methods of persuasion at their disposal. Like crucifixion. Impaling. Strangling. Genocide. And various & sundry other tortures.
-
He keeps making kissy faces at me.
I think I've identified why he loves the Iraqis so much. They're into that, too
-
He keeps making kissy faces at me.
I think I've identified why he loves the Iraqis so much. They're into that, too
:-*
:angel:
-
1) enough on the name calling
2) I'm just gonna leave this here
http://youtu.be/cCga2xMIitw
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
The Ottoman Turks had a pretty damn strong warrior ethic that was, relative to the Arabs, practical and trainable. They ruled the ME for ~500 years and could not make the Arabs into a close-combat force. Of course, they had only limited methods of persuasion at their disposal. Like crucifixion. Impaling. Strangling. Genocide. And various & sundry other tortures.
They were still Moslems. One would need to treat Islam the same way the Brits treated the Thuggee. Note: I am not advocating for this, merely pointing out how it could be done.
-
1) enough on the name calling
2) I'm just gonna leave this here
http://youtu.be/cCga2xMIitw
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm convinced. If you can't get 11 otherwise healthy males to successfully perform a basic exercise to a 3-step repetitive cadence, not much else is going to happen in a training context.
-
No I do NOT support US troops staying there forever
Oh. My. God. TommyGunn answered half a question. Of course, the rest of the questions were completely ignored. Especially the all-important "How?".
Also, I didn't say "forever". I said "a couple of generations".
As for tearing down ethics and rebuilding them that's done all the time in boot camps where soldiers are taught to act as a team, and it works. The ethic of "me" is removed and replaced with "we."
That is not in any way comparable. Boot camps do not uproot a recruit's entire culture and religion. They start with people who at the very least consider themselves Americans.
What would it take for you to stop considering yourself an American?
Hell, forget everything I have said. No one is hearing, I am sick and tired of this pissant thread .
We hear you. You just aren't saying anything of substance and continuously ignore direct and simple questions.
-
They were still Moslems. One would need to treat Islam the same way the Brits treated the Thuggee. Note: I am not advocating for this, merely pointing out how it could be done.
The Turks were and still are pretty decent fighters in that part of the world. I think Arab culture is sort of special. Islam+Arab culture = hot mess in close combat. The Ottoman Empire had a pretty good run and I would hesitate to attribute its fall to Islam or Turk culture.
Another example of effective muslims in combat are the Chechens, but they are more hillbilly badass like highland scots and their descendants. Not sure if they could work it in a large organized military.
But, yeah, not a lot of real standouts in the Muslim world. Without a caliph and a weak opponent, they are not too impressive.
-
British Empire already tried this. =D
That brings up another thought. When the surrounding nations tried to attack the new nation of Israel, I was thinking I remember hearing that many of those armies were British trained and some led by British colonial military leaders. I guess they didn't do so well then either.
I was thinking that is goes back a little to culture that pre-dates Islam. Reading the Anabasis, I noticed a few things there that parallel to the present day and that was 2500 year ago or so.
-
The Turks were and still are pretty decent fighters in that part of the world. I think Arab culture is sort of special. Islam+Arab culture = hot mess in close combat. The Ottoman Empire had a pretty good run and I would hesitate to attribute its fall to Islam or Turk culture.
Another example of effective muslims in combat are the Chechens, but they are more hillbilly badass like highland scots and their descendants. Not sure if they could work it in a large organized military.
But, yeah, not a lot of real standouts in the Muslim world. Without a caliph and a weak opponent, they are not too impressive.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant that the Ottomans allowed their Arab subjects to remain Muslim (obviously, given that they themselves were Muslim) and that was what contributed to their inability to make them an effective force. I think only forced conversion away from Islam and breaking up the tribes via forced relocation would work on the ME and neither is really ethically acceptable to Western nations.
-
Another example of effective muslims in combat are the Chechens, but they are more hillbilly badass like highland scots and their descendants. Not sure if they could work it in a large organized military.
Historically, they didn't work so well. The Wild Division of the White Army was mostly great at pillaging the people they were supposed to be defending, while failing miserably on the battlefield, the Chechen regiment that Stalin tried to form in WWII wound up being only half-staffed due to massive draft dodging, and the Chechen volunteers deserted in numbers that are just staggering. Not that there weren't some rather heroic Chechens, but by and large, they still need a weak opponent and a strongarm leader.
-
Historically, they didn't work so well. The Wild Division of the White Army was mostly great at pillaging the people they were supposed to be defending, while failing miserably on the battlefield, the Chechen regiment that Stalin tried to form in WWII wound up being only half-staffed due to massive draft dodging, and the Chechen volunteers deserted in numbers that are just staggering. Not that there weren't some rather heroic Chechens, but by and large, they still need a weak opponent and a strongarm leader.
They play defense pretty well.
-
They play defense pretty well.
Only on their home turf. Take them out of their village, they aren't so hot.
-
Only on their home turf. Take them out of their village, they aren't so hot.
Clearly, they just weren't trained right
-
Clearly, they just weren't trained right
Perhaps you should have taught them soldiery things
-
Perhaps you should have taught them soldiery things
Shoulda torn em down, built em back up. I was going with the "let them do what they want" approach. Silly me
-
Good job buddy. Gold star.
-
If only we had taken a tough love approach and put the Iraqi recruits into timeout.
-
Stress cards?
-
Perhaps counselors would have been in order.
Lots and lots of counselors to help them cope with leaving their beloved goat back at the hut. Maybe just more weekend leave to go visit.
-
Never trust a culture that isn't supposed to eat bacon, drink alcohol and considers being with boys or farm animals more enjoyable than women.
-
Never trust a culture that isn't supposed to eat bacon, drink alcohol and considers being with boys or farm animals more enjoyable than women.
Dammit, man! I almost choked on my bacon! :rofl:
-
Dammit, man! I almost choked on my bacon! :rofl:
Wash it down with some beer and you'll be right as rain.
-
Make sure it was a beer poured by a pretty woman
-
Breakfast at work, so beer and comely ladies are in short supply. =(
-
Breakfast at work, so beer and comely ladies are in short supply. =(
Have you tried changing the culture at your workplace to include beer and ladies?
I'm told it's not that difficult.
-
Have you tried changing the culture at your workplace to include beer and ladies?
I'm told it's not that difficult.
A tough road, but praise be no goat love to contend with...
-
Iraqi army in a nutshell...
-
On a more serious note:
A suggested read for TommyGunn, perhaps it will open his eyes...
http://www.amazon.com/The-Western-Way-War-Classical/dp/0520260090