• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS[W:452]

Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

People forget that. After Iraq I the UN had found stockpiles of WMD that Saddam had not show as having been destroyed and had to be assumed to still be in possession. Why he did not want to show his hand did not become clear until the inner circle was interviewed after the invasion. But that is uncomfortable knowledge, if you want to attack the decision to remove the dictator. So it is usually evaded by the anti Bushies.

These "WMDs" were obsolete leftovers, barrel bottoms and other such relics forgotten here and there from the Iran/Iraq war and the Kurdish repression, most of them supplied by the US and its allies. Just by using depleted uranium ammo, the US used more WMDs in Iraq that the Iraqis ever had.

You want to get real, un-registered WMDs? Check the Israeli arsenal, a country that made Hussein's Iraq like like peaceniks.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

These "WMDs" were obsolete leftovers, barrel bottoms and other such relics forgotten here and there from the Iran/Iraq war and the Kurdish repression, most of them supplied by the US and its allies. Just by using depleted uranium ammo, the US used more WMDs in Iraq that the Iraqis ever had.

You want to get real, un-registered WMDs? Check the Israeli arsenal, a country that made Hussein's Iraq like like peaceniks.

Sure, sure. Of course the anti Bushies are belligerent about their position. But don't listen to them. Just ask yourself why Saddam did not just show the inspectors the "obsolete leftovers". He would still be dictator.

PS: The Israelis are not my worry. And they will not be as long as the UN does not guarantee security in the world and everyone is on her own. When there is a believable deterrence of robust policemanship in the UN, you will have a point. Until then, your position is dangerous to us all.
 
Last edited:
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Using the fire analogy, the US fought a small bush fire (that was doing giving off more smoke than heat) with flamethrowers and explosives. So now of course it's a wildfire, that some of you still want to fight with flamethrowers and explosives.

Just get the feck out of there. You have done enough, thank you very much from the arms sellers' part. The US is good at demolishing infrastructures but it has proved incompetant in what happens after - probably because a hawkish majority refuses to acknowledge that there might be other ways than the American one, futhermore when facing civilisations that are millenias old.

Destroying old stuff is the easy part of reconstruction.

No, not really. While military operations were being conducted, there was a reduction in terrorist activities and deaths. The presence of in country US and coalition troops had a suppressive and deterrent effect on the terrorists, this can't be denied.

To use the fire analogy, the firemen were pulled out before the fire was completely out, and before the local fire brigade could handle future flair ups.

In long view retrospect, the sectarian strife and fighting would have eventually erupted anyway. Perhaps on Saddam's death, given his totally incompetent sons would have taken over. But as all crystal ball gazing of what could have happened, the margin of error is very wide.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

The Iraqi forces as reconstituted may never have had the will to fight anyone, only to make a corrupt career move.

" ...The dismantling of Saddam’s Ba’ath army by the coalition forces in 2003 saw the end of Iraq’s previously organised and professional army unit. Its passing left not so much a vacuum but a gap for showing off governmental incompetence and cronyism. Iraq is a country split along sectarian lines and when the Americans withdrew, Nouri al-Maliki, the then prime minister of Iraq – and a Shia – ostracised Sunnis from the military and security forces. Their response was to either opt for alternative careers away from the front lines or join fellow Sunni brothers in arms – Islamic State.

The lack of inclusiveness is only half the story here: experienced, battle-hardened, professional soldiers were replaced by commanders and troops whose interests and motivations were more akin to opportunistic business men. Joining the Iraqi army has become more of a career development-style investment opportunity, a bit like a student doing an MBA who hopes that his tuition fees will result in fame and fortune in some blue-chip commercial nirvana. The prospect of fighting off extremist insurgents is not what they signed up for – and it shows.... "

https://theconversation.com/corrupt...rces-in-the-fight-against-islamic-state-41418



Mornin Skipper. :2wave: It has more to do with not having the will to fight. It goes back to Nov of last year. ;)



Iraq's Sunnis Won't Fight ISIS for U.S......

Iraq's Sunnis won't fight ISIS for the U.S. says NIQASH, a non-profit media organization operating out of Berlin. Without Sunni support, America's war in Iraq cannot succeed. Here's why.

According to NIQASH, a source at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad said there have been secret negotiations between various Sunni Muslim armed factions, via Arab and Iraqi Kurdish intermediaries, for the past three months. At the request of U.S. diplomats and military personnel, Shia officials from the Iraqi government have also been meeting with the leaders of these groups in Erbil, Kurdistan and Amman, Jordan.

The Sunnis seem to be choosing a middle ground, one which does not serve America's interests. According to a 1920s Revolution Brigades (Sunni militia) leader, various militias came to the decision "not to support the international coalition against ISIS. They also decided not to cooperate with ISIS either. If the [Iraqi] army or the [Shia] militias attack [Sunni] areas they control though, they will fight both groups."....snip~

Iraq's Sunnis Won't Fight ISIS for U.S. | Peter Van Buren
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Iraq's Sunni's have been expelled from the Iraqi armed forces. They now defend their own, and no more. It's hardly surprising.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

No, not really. While military operations were being conducted, there was a reduction in terrorist activities and deaths. The presence of in country US and coalition troops had a suppressive and deterrent effect on the terrorists, this can't be denied.

It was the US presence in the region that caused the terrorist threat to exist in the first place. Hussein may well have been a repressive dictator but he kept such groups well in check and was no friend of Muslim fundamentalism which threatened his own position.

In long view retrospect, the sectarian strife and fighting would have eventually erupted anyway.
Perhaps on Saddam's death, given his totally incompetent sons would have taken over. But as all crystal ball gazing of what could have happened, the margin of error is very wide.

Hussein and his offspring were the devil we knew and could cope with. Now look what we've got :(
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Which Democracy was that--the one were Bush/Cheney's stooge MALIKI massacred Sunnis and did not allow them a voice in the Iraqi government?
Think that the development of ISIL was an overnight thing?

Why did Maliki refuse a SOFA agreement with Bush/Cheney to protect our soldiers from Sharia law?
Few Americans would consider Sharia Law for our Soldiers a "Democracy" .



Why did he come to the US and Speak at the Peace Institute.....Then Meet with BO later in Dec of 2013. Requesting Aid and Assistance, as well as trainers? Why was he telling BO if the US and International Support quit that they would have a World Problem on their Hand? That it would be disastrous to the World.




Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, in an October 31 address at the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) in Washington, called for more support from the United States in countering an ongoing wave of terrorism in Iraq that has been attributed primarily to al-Qaida-backed extremists, as well as for American patience as Iraq tries to build its young democracy amid the country’s deep internal political disputes.

The centerpiece of his USIP speech was an appeal for more U.S. support in defeating al-Qaida militants in Iraq. Iraq is seeking additional U.S. weaponry, including Apache attack helicopters and drones, though Maliki’s remarks focused on counterterrorism and intelligence cooperation. “Iraq needs its friends, to benefit from their experience and training,” he said.

Insufficient U.S. and international support, he warned, would “be disastrous for the whole world.” He said his government has a position of neutrality on the Syrian conflict and favors “a democratic, pluralistic regime” resulting from negotiations in Syria, where an array of opposition forces, including radical groups linked to al-Qaida, are fighting to remove Bashar al-Assad from power. Maliki also acknowledged the need for Iraqi domestic “peace and reconciliation” to defeat terrorists. “Facing terrorism,” he said, “is not only about military force….We need a sound social structure.”.....snip~

Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki Urges Greater U.S. Support | United States Institute of Peace


Did you know he also did not have the Seats with the Votes from the Shia to approve the SOFA. 120-80 seats.....by Dec, He thought he could get approval. But it was to late and now he was going to be out of the picture.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

If our president was instead a dictator who was gassing our own citizens, I would be glad if the UK liberated us, wouldn't you? And as far as letting other countries get away with it, I don't think we should let them either, we simply don't have the resources to stop everyone.

So how do we pick and choose who to help? I think Saudi Arabia is awful and treat women like animals...in public. Where are the troops to assist them? Saddam, gassed his people, but Saudi Arabia tortures people daily with the lashings, stonings, etc...while the Saudi's cheer it on like barbarians. The warlords in Africa kill and maim everyday...and zero intervention from any countries. The ME is on the other side of the globe and the chances of them rolling up on American shores is zero to none. They would not get within a 100 miles before they were intercepted. The ME knows nothing but corruption, violence and extreme religion and that will never change. If we wipe out ISIS another will take its place and we will be in a constant war. The US needs to concentrate their efforts closer to home...such as the Mexican border. The Cartel proposes more of a threat to our way of life than any other evil element out there and we do nothing about it. The Cartel is alive and well in the US...drugs that are poisoning our neighborhoods pours across the border every day as well has human trafficking. Why don't we liberate, Mexico, our neighbor from the Cartel?

Other countries in the ME have funded terrorism for years...just to keep them out of their backyards. They fund terrorism while we use tax dollars to fight terrorism. It doesn't make sense any more to help them. It also doesn't help the perception of Americans when other ME countries sit back and watch ISIS slaughter thousands of people. This is their war, not ours.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

How could you stay? By occupying a sovereign nation that had told you to leave?

Well I did show that Maliki was requesting aid and more trainers. Moreover.....the Kurds never wanted us to leave. Nor did all the Sunni.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

So how do we pick and choose who to help? I think Saudi Arabia is awful and treat women like animals...in public. Where are the troops to assist them? Saddam, gassed his people, but Saudi Arabia tortures people daily with the lashings, stonings, etc...while the Saudi's cheer it on like barbarians. The warlords in Africa kill and maim everyday...and zero intervention from any countries. The ME is on the other side of the globe and the chances of them rolling up on American shores is zero to none. They would not get within a 100 miles before they were intercepted. The ME knows nothing but corruption, violence and extreme religion and that will never change. If we wipe out ISIS another will take its place and we will be in a constant war. The US needs to concentrate their efforts closer to home...such as the Mexican border. The Cartel proposes more of a threat to our way of life than any other evil element out there and we do nothing about it. The Cartel is alive and well in the US...drugs that are poisoning our neighborhoods pours across the border every day as well has human trafficking. Why don't we liberate, Mexico, our neighbor from the Cartel?

Other countries in the ME have funded terrorism for years...just to keep them out of their backyards. They fund terrorism while we use tax dollars to fight terrorism. It doesn't make sense any more to help them. It also doesn't help the perception of Americans when other ME countries sit back and watch ISIS slaughter thousands of people. This is their war, not ours.



Mornin Nursmate.
hat.gif
With Iraq.....we should have went with those who wouldn't have stabbed us in the back in the first place. Bush and the Neo-Cons chose wrong. That would be the Kurds. We should have told Turkey to shut up. They wanted in NATO. Then we should have told the Shia. The Kurds will be Autonomous.....and that's where we should have put our Embassy. BO dropping the ball, not only added much more of a mess.....but a whole New Dimension of problems.

Doesn't take but watching BO go thru 3 Secretary of Defenses, Changing out the Joint Chiefs of Staff twice. Changing out his CIA directors, and firing Numerous Generals and Admirals form the Military. Truly all top Brass and any that Opposed him or speaks out against him.

Up and out of the way of the Sectarian Headgames that the Sunni and Shia play and involve all others to be involved. One way or another.

So another whole new problem exists wherein BO has increased the Risk of Harm upon all Americans and the Country. Damn near a new Dimension. Its like the Twilight Zone. :mrgreen:
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Sure, sure. Of course the anti Bushies are belligerent about their position. But don't listen to them. Just ask yourself why Saddam did not just show the inspectors the "obsolete leftovers". He would still be dictator.

Anti-Bushies are not alone - the most aware Bushies also know that Iraq was a failure. Only the mindless cheerleaders are still clinging to, in retrospect, find any sort of utility this great waste of ressources might have had. There are none.

IMO (and only that), Hussein did not want to appear weak in the face of threats, and in this line of thought, keep WMDs (or their absence) as a mean of prevention from foreign attack. Politics, you know?

PS: The Israelis are not my worry. And they will not be as long as the UN does not guarantee security in the world and everyone is on her own. When there is a believable deterrence of robust policemanship in the UN, you will have a point. Until then, your position is dangerous to us all.

WEll, if rabid, xenophobic and self-centered militaristic countries that are always at war with neighbours (that they accuse of being sub-humans squatting lands that the Creator gave them) have unregistered nukes, then why did you care about Hussein's Iraq in the first place?
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

No, not really. While military operations were being conducted, there was a reduction in terrorist activities and deaths. The presence of in country US and coalition troops had a suppressive and deterrent effect on the terrorists, this can't be denied.

Pardon me, but this is making no sense: there were no Al-Q organisation in Iraq before the invasion - their forces were, to the contrary, busy repressing religious war. AQ then move in as a result of the power vaccuum you guys created. The perceived lull in the terrorist attacks have roots in the Afghanistan invasion, not the Iraqi one.
To use the fire analogy, the firemen were pulled out before the fire was completely out, and before the local fire brigade could handle future flair ups.

Not only it wasn't completely out, but it had amplified tenfold and exported other foyers where there wasn't any fire before. It was a short-sighted operation, more executed out of righteous rapture than anything else.

In long view retrospect, the sectarian strife and fighting would have eventually erupted anyway. Perhaps on Saddam's death, given his totally incompetent sons would have taken over. But as all crystal ball gazing of what could have happened, the margin of error is very wide.

Hard to say how you'd expected Iraq to turn in after the invasion. Another KSA? You guys can indeed live with a KSA-like regime, but not Hussein's, mmh? A shame: For all of its bad sides (and there were many), Hussein was your best ally out there, your only secular one. But you chose the KSA over him when he entered Kuwait.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Anti-Bushies are not alone - the most aware Bushies also know that Iraq was a failure. Only the mindless cheerleaders are still clinging to, in retrospect, find any sort of utility this great waste of ressources might have had. There are none.

IMO (and only that), Hussein did not want to appear weak in the face of threats, and in this line of thought, keep WMDs (or their absence) as a mean of prevention from foreign attack. Politics, you know?



WEll, if rabid, xenophobic and self-centered militaristic countries that are always at war with neighbours (that they accuse of being sub-humans squatting lands that the Creator gave them) have unregistered nukes, then why did you care about Hussein's Iraq in the first place?

-Whether it was a "failure" or not, is quite another question and would require considerably more than your statement to analyse and decide.
-Your opinion indeed seems humble, if it was preventing an attack, that Saddam wanted. Or do you think, he thought that the US would not enforce the Resolution against Schröder and Putin's wishes, after the President's speech to the General Assembly? Of course he would have wanted to look strong to the Iranian Regime after Bush let him stay. But what made him think he would survive?

I think you have a bias towards Israel and not with the reality of the case.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

-Whether it was a "failure" or not, is quite another question and would require considerably more than your statement to analyse and decide.

It isn't my sole statement - it is a consensus that you are going against. I don't get the feel that the Bush administration would invade Iraq if they knew what we now know. Do you?

-Your opinion indeed seems humble, if it was preventing an attack, that Saddam wanted. Or do you think, he thought that the US would not enforce the Resolution against Schröder and Putin's wishes, after the President's speech to the General Assembly? Of course he would have wanted to look strong to the Iranian Regime after Bush let him stay. But what made him think he would survive?

Politics are as much about what you don't know than what you know. It's easy to be armchair analysts here with the benefit of retrospect, but for Hussein, apparent weakness in his own country was something he couldn't have survived. Beside, the idea the US attacking Iraq was almost surrealistic before it happen - a solid part of the planet figured it was just posturing, since it was clear that there was no reasons to invade Iraq whatsoever.

I think you have a bias towards Israel and not with the reality of the case.

So Israel and the KSA can do but Iraq can't? You can't be the policemen of the world if you have a measure for each weight that you come across. Poeple just see throught this, you know, and hardly accept such geometrically variable values. Be consistant.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

It was the US presence in the region that caused the terrorist threat to exist in the first place. Hussein may well have been a repressive dictator but he kept such groups well in check and was no friend of Muslim fundamentalism which threatened his own position.

You forget. Bush handed over a relatively stable, relatively peaceful and relatively secure Iraq over to Obama.

Obama needlessly injected himself into the Syrian situation, was too busy to be bothered to achieve a SoF agreement, and instead withdrew the US troops, and it is then this ISIS all hell broke lose. Had Obama stayed the course from the beginning, we wouldn't be in this mess now, as the US troops in country did have a deterrent effect on terrorist attacks, and the additional benefit of training the Iraqi security forces. Granted Maliki screwed the pooch as well, only to compound the issue.

Hussein and his offspring were the devil we knew and could cope with. Now look what we've got :(

Pardon me, but this is making no sense: there were no Al-Q organisation in Iraq before the invasion - their forces were, to the contrary, busy repressing religious war. AQ then move in as a result of the power vaccuum you guys created. The perceived lull in the terrorist attacks have roots in the Afghanistan invasion, not the Iraqi one.

If I'm not mistaken, there was a fall of in terrorist activities in both countries. Seems to coincide with Obama injecting himself into the Syrian situation where ISIS came far more to rise.

Not only it wasn't completely out, but it had amplified tenfold and exported other foyers where there wasn't any fire before. It was a short-sighted operation, more executed out of righteous rapture than anything else.



Hard to say how you'd expected Iraq to turn in after the invasion. Another KSA? You guys can indeed live with a KSA-like regime, but not Hussein's, mmh? A shame: For all of its bad sides (and there were many), Hussein was your best ally out there, your only secular one. But you chose the KSA over him when he entered Kuwait.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Carter saying Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' sparks more criticism, concern about Obama plan | Fox News

Here we go again with our desperate attempts to train those who will shoot at our backs once they will be left alone.

They say you can take a horse to the water, but you cannot make him drink. Bush Jr. invaded the wrong country (as if he could invade the right one). Iraqis understand they will die from ISIS attacks, but many of them got addicted to ISIS propaganda. So both facts are against US there - the fact Iraqis are muslims makes them sympathize isis and they never stopped treating us as invaders so I'm not surprised they don't want to fight.

It seems Pentagon's idea was to create non-US troops to fight ISIS and to oppose terrorists without getting involved to a direct confrontation.

So, does it mean we spend money on training future terrorists?

The war was never thought out well, this end was rather obvious. But the purpose wasn't so much "Freedom and Democracy" as much as it was Forever War.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Would posters prefer we left Iraq to fight alone even if this meant that ISIS took full control of the region?
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Well, I learned from my year in Vietnam that it's really impossible to be an occupying army in any foreign culture. That is, countries don't like to be invaded by any other.

Yup, it's rather obvious too, but that didn't stop us from doing it. It has to be pretty purposeful as there was never a solution to the war from the start and we've fought wars to stalemates before under similar circumstances.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Would posters prefer we left Iraq to fight alone even if this meant that ISIS took full control of the region?

Do you have a plan to defeat ISIS in a timely manner and dismantle its infrastructure?
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Would posters prefer we left Iraq to fight alone even if this meant that ISIS took full control of the region?

Saddam Hussein did a great job fighting terrorists and he was easier to contain.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Without commenting on whether or not the US should or shouldn't commit ground troops to what President Obama promised would be the destruction of ISIS, I would say the comments of the Secretary of Defense are curious. Seems odd to me that the representative of the man in the Oval Office who is well known to be averse to combat would challenge the will and determination of Iraqi forces to do what his country isn't doing. What's the motive here? Is it to embarrass Iraqi troops into putting up a better fight, or is it a backhanded way to embarrass Obama into putting troops on the ground.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

If I'm not mistaken, there was a fall of in terrorist activities in both countries. Seems to coincide with Obama injecting himself into the Syrian situation where ISIS came far more to rise.

I didn't heard of any "terrorist activity" in Iraq prior to the invasion. As for Syria, I don't know if you remember the days, but it was when people wondered if they should backup Assad's regime "à la Hussein" or "the rebels" that turn out to be the IS.

Retrospect is too convenient in this case.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Saddam Hussein did a great job fighting terrorists and he was easier to contain.

But he is gone, im talking about right now.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

You forget. Bush handed over a relatively stable, relatively peaceful and relatively secure Iraq over to Obama.

I'm not particularly interested in US party political point scoring. This whole Iraq business was launched for domestic US political motives it had little to do with the welfare of Iraqis nor with any war on terror. Bush was warned before he went in back in 2003 of the power vacuum that would exist after Hussein and how that would most likely be filled by Islamic extremism. He was however more concerned with avenging 9/11 for an angry US electorate and thereby securing his second term. It didn't matter that the wrong guys were being killed as long as the US could feel good about itself again and the Muslim bodycount stacked up. The aftermath has been of little consequence for the US
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Do you have a plan to defeat ISIS in a timely manner and dismantle its infrastructure?

Increase bombing, I would form together a collation of countries which would include Saudi Arabia/othe arab nations and get boots on the ground asap.
 
Back
Top Bottom