• 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!

U.S. Defense Secretary Blames Iraqi Forces for ISIS Victory in Ramadi

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
59,034
Reaction score
38,583
Location
Best Coast Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/25/w...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

While that critical assessment of Iraqi security forces has been voiced in Congress and by policy research institutes, Mr. Carter’s remarks on CNN’s “State of the Union” were some of the administration’s strongest language to date about Iraq’s repeated inability to hold and take back territory from the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL.

“They were not outnumbered. In fact, they vastly outnumbered the opposing force and yet they failed to fight and withdrew from the site,” he said. “That says to me and, I think, to most of us, that we have an issue with the will of the Iraqis to fight ISIL and defend themselves.”
Thoughts are?
 
He's right. The Iraqi army fled in the face of inferior numbers. They don't have the will to fight ISIS for whatever reason. It cant be overemphasized that ISIS is not a strong military force. They are brutal and evil, but not numerous or great fighters. They just happen to have the good fortune of having the Iraqi army as their opposition.
 
He's right. The Iraqi army fled in the face of inferior numbers. They don't have the will to fight ISIS for whatever reason. It cant be overemphasized that ISIS is not a strong military force. They are brutal and evil, but not numerous or great fighters. They just happen to have the good fortune of having the Iraqi army as their opposition.

Well, the Pentagon disagrees with you, but perhaps you've got a better handle on the abilities of the Islamic State than the Pentagon does.

Islamic State controls wide areas of Iraq and neighboring Syria. Months of U.S.-led bombardment have slowed and in some cases reversed the militants’ advance. But Islamic State remains a formidable, well-armed foe with substantial civilian support in Anbar and elsewhere in Iraq and Syria, the Pentagon said in a statement.

Iraqi forces repel Islamic State attack on base in Anbar province - LA Times
 
Until the people in the region are willing to stand up and eliminate this threat, there isn't anything that can be done.
 
Until the people in the region are willing to stand up and eliminate this threat, there isn't anything that can be done.

Pity that we broke the country a dozen years ago and they even have to struggle with this at all.
 
Well, the Pentagon disagrees with you, but perhaps you've got a better handle on the abilities of the Islamic State than the Pentagon does.

Islamic State controls wide areas of Iraq and neighboring Syria. Months of U.S.-led bombardment have slowed and in some cases reversed the militants’ advance. But Islamic State remains a formidable, well-armed foe with substantial civilian support in Anbar and elsewhere in Iraq and Syria, the Pentagon said in a statement.

Iraqi forces repel Islamic State attack on base in Anbar province - LA Times

They also claim that there are only 30,000-40,000 ISIS fighters spread over a very wide area. How many ISIS fighters did it take to capture Ramadi? A couple hundred? A few dozen SEALS probably could have fought them off.
 
Which raises the question why the US continues to make the mistake of being involved there at all. It was an mistake to get involved 12 years ago, it was a mistake to stay involved for 10 years, and now it is a mistake to get sucked back in. The Iraqis don't care enough to fight them, so why should the US? Let ISIS take over and then deal with whatever governnent they hobble together.
 
Pity that we broke the country a dozen years ago and they even have to struggle with this at all.

No, ISIS is the product of the collapse of Assads authority is Syria. No Syrian civil war, no ISIS.
 

This has been known from the very beginning. It was apparent when, facing a few hundred fighters, 30,000 Iraqi soldiers fled Mosul while begging civilians for their clothes along the way. The explanation then was that all of their officers, who had purchased their ranks for the authority and prestige that came with it, had forewarning and got out of dodge before the rest of the Iraqi army was informed so they followed suit. Fact is the military of Iraq is worthless.
 
Which raises the question why the US continues to make the mistake of being involved there at all. It was an mistake to get involved 12 years ago, it was a mistake to stay involved for 10 years, and now it is a mistake to get sucked back in. The Iraqis don't care enough to fight them, so why should the US? Let ISIS take over and then deal with whatever governnent they hobble together.

I know that as much of a cliche that it is to mention the interests of the military industrial complex. It is nevertheless a monstrosity that employes a significant number of Americans, and makes a healthy contribution to our nations GDP. Additionally, many American media outlets are invested in American defence contractors, problematic as that is.
 
This has been known from the very beginning. It was apparent when, facing a few hundred fighters, 30,000 Iraqi soldiers fled Mosul while begging civilians for their clothes along the way. The explanation then was that all of their officers, who had purchased their ranks for the authority and prestige that came with it, had forewarning and got out of dodge before the rest of the Iraqi army was informed so they followed suit. Fact is the military of Iraq is worthless.

The question to answer is how that came to be, after billions were spent on them.
 
No, ISIS is the product of the collapse of Assads authority is Syria. No Syrian civil war, no ISIS.

Indeed, another place that long term USFP ambition of regime change has compromised the US from engaging properly. Al Qaeda grew in Afghanistan as a result of the American mission there, followed us into Iraq, where Saddam had allowed them no quarters, grew as a result of that operation, announcing the formation of the Islamic State in Iraq in 2006. And then followed our folly into Libya, helped us dispose of Gaddafi and then are now helping us in our attempts to rid Syria of Assad. There just really is no end in sight to failed US policy in the region.
 
Indeed, another place that long term USFP ambition of regime change has compromised the US from engaging properly. Al Qaeda grew in Afghanistan as a result of the American mission there, followed us into Iraq, where Saddam had allowed them no quarters, grew as a result of that operation, announcing the formation of the Islamic State in Iraq in 2006. And then followed our folly into Libya, helped us dispose of Gaddafi and then are now helping us in our attempts to rid Syria of Assad. There just really is no end in sight to failed US policy in the region.

The thing for which there is 'no end in sight' is your desire to blame everything on America. Let me guess: were it not for America, the Middle East would be the Garden of Eden and Islam would be the religion of peace.
 
The thing for which there is 'no end in sight' is your desire to blame everything on America. Let me guess: were it not for America, the Middle East would be the Garden of Eden and Islam would be the religion of peace.

No, I've never suggested that. Btw, there's no end to you blaming Obama for the woes of the Middle East, what's your point dude. Funny you guys can show up at DP every ****ing day blaming Obama, but when somebody points out that both Obama and Bush policies have failed, its un-American. Such is your hypocritical BULL****.
 
Apparently Obama's strategy of sending in advisers to "train" Iraqi forces is a failed policy.


Literally every decision Obama has made in Iraq has been the wrong one. Imagine that, an anti-war liberal college professor doesn't know how to win wars. Is it 2016 yet?
 
No, I've never suggested that. Btw, there's no end to you blaming Obama for the woes of the Middle East, what's your point dude. Funny you guys can show up at DP every ****ing day blaming Obama, but when somebody points out that both Obama and Bush policies have failed, its un-American. Such is your hypocritical BULL****.

All of Obama's policies have failed. Bush handed Obama a stamped envelope with a won war inside and instead of sealing it Obama dumped out the contents and set it on fire.
 
The news reports I saw indicated that the Iraqi soldiers outnumbered ISIS by around 10-to-1. Unfortunately, while training can teach one how to use weapons, it doesn't necessarily give one courage.

Maybe they're sympathisers to the Islamic State cause. Sure would be nice to be occupying ourselves solving problems in places like the Middle East, had we not been such a contributing factor to the troubles the people in Iraq were suffering under to begin with.
 
No, I've never suggested that. Btw, there's no end to you blaming Obama for the woes of the Middle East, what's your point dude. Funny you guys can show up at DP every ****ing day blaming Obama, but when somebody points out that both Obama and Bush policies have failed, its un-American. Such is your hypocritical BULL****.

I don't blame Obama for everything. You just assume I am blaming Obama because I defend Bush against lying liberals. ISIS is not Obamas fault. Nor is it Bushs. ISIS is the result of the failed state in Syria. That happened on Obamas watch, so in that respect it is his problem. He can choose to deal with it or not, but he doesn't get to lie about it and blame Bush.
 
Pity that we broke the country a dozen years ago and they even have to struggle with this at all.

Yeah, if only we'd left Sadam Hussein in charge. It would all be peaches and cream now.
 
Apparently Obama's strategy of sending in advisers to "train" Iraqi forces is a failed policy.


Literally every decision Obama has made in Iraq has been the wrong one. Imagine that, an anti-war liberal college professor doesn't know how to win wars. Is it 2016 yet?

Bush spent 5 years equipping and training the Iraqi security forces!!!
 
The question to answer is how that came to be, after billions were spent on them.

A liberal college professor somehow became President of the United States and turned his back on peaceful Iraqis while evil became emboldened by anti-American rhetoric spewed from the forked tongue of its community organizing, cop hating, racist, clown of a "leader".
 
All of Obama's policies have failed. Bush handed Obama a stamped envelope with a won war inside and instead of sealing it Obama dumped out the contents and set it on fire.

The phoney "War on Terror" has never been won, cannot be won, but is fantastic job security measure for Americas defence contractors. The "enemy", al Qaeda that we went to Afghanistan to defeat for having attacked us on 9/11, were in fact not defeated there (nothing won) followed us into Iraq where they grew in strength, reorganised as the Islamic State in Iraq (ISI) in 2006 under Bush's nose, and then migrated to Libya, where they helped us overthrow Gaddafi, and ultimately on to Syria becoming the new and improved Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, (ISIS).
 
Back
Top Bottom