Posted on 06/12/2014 6:57:15 PM PDT by Hojczyk
The British and French imposition of the Iraqi state means that the Iraqi army lacks the historical and cultural foundations to sustain a real fighting spirit, particularly against zealots like ISIS
The disintegration of the Iraqi Army in the face of the ISIS advance should not have taken us by surprise. Napoleon once weighted the fighting worth of his military by commenting: “The moral is to the physical as three is to one.”
If we are to understand events in Iraq, we need to look at the Arab culture, of which we show repeated ignorance. “[The challenge] is not about equipment or about training, it’s all about loyalty”, I was told in 2007 by a police general who had just survived his third assassination attempt in as many weeks. “And you can’t touch this”.
Iraq is the creation of lines on a map imposed by the French and British after the First World War. The challenge ever since has been to bring together the varied interests and loyalties of a people divided by religion, ethnicity and locality. This is a people who are further subdivided by tribes, few of which are in any way constrained by lines on maps.
In the hierarchy of internal loyalties, the weakest loyalty is to institutions.
The Iraqi Army lacks the historical and cultural foundations that create selfless loyalty and sustain fighting spirit. The ISIS forces that routed the Iraqi army in Mosul are imbued with a unifying loyalty verging on the fanatic.
This weak moral component was throughout the Achilles’ heel of the mission to rebuild Iraq’s army. Superior Western equipment and training was more evident
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
And what exactly constitutes the “moral” component of our own armed forces these days? Gay pride?
In other words, they come from a long line of cowards.
They don’t “get” ‘Democracy’. Never have....never will.
Shoot bullets with pig grease on them. See if their morals drop.
Yet the ISIS Arab terrorists are not cowards, they are fighting fanatically.
This isn't about cowardice, it's about a predominately Shiite military that isn't willing to die for the Iraqi state outside of Shiite territory. They were fine when they had all the best gear and no opposition, but the minute the going got tough they left.
Once these Sunni ISIS crew get to Shiite areas they will meet rabid opposition. Which is why Baghdad may fall into civil war, but these terrorists forces are unlikely to ever take it.
There is not enough that unites all the Iraqi people to generate an army that wants to fight for an Iraqi state. That, unfortunately, is beginning to happen here as we are increasingly overwhelmed by illegals and immigrants who don't care a whit about being an American, but only want to milk the system for freebies for as long as the gravy train lasts.
There are news reports about new recruits joining up to defend Baghdad and the reports make it sound as if there will be a determined defense there.
I guess we’ll see if the ISIS terrorists make it to the Baghdad.
Then why did they abandon their gear to be captured by ISIS?
There was a reason Saddam had the Republican Guards.
If you re-read my previous comment I think I already answered that.
A predominately Shiite military is simply not willing to bleed in Sunni areas against a brutal Sunni terrorist army. They feel no loyalty to an Iraqi state. Put those same Shiite soldiers in a Shiite region where they feel some loyalty to their "area" and they may have fought ferociously.
That's the whole point. The Kurds fight fanatically - in Kurdistan or thereabouts, when they feel like they are fighting for the Kurdish nation. Put those same soldiers in Basra and ask them to fight for the Iraqi state and they might lay down their arms too.
Again, it's not about individual cowardice, it's about an collection of soldiers in an army that isn't willing to die for the Iraqi state.
OK.....and that moral force is what?......rape and plunder and torture?
I think we are witnessing the partitioning of Iraq.
The Kurds will assume open control of the areas they claim. The shia will begin to fight when the jihadis approach areas that the shia hold dear. Iran may even enter the fray at that point.
A question for me is this. While we more-or-less promised we’d be close by if they needed us, we show no interest in helping Maliki against the jihadis. If Iran rolls in, will we suddenly get interested in helping the jihadis against Iran?
I think they are engineering a three-state solution in what was once called Iraq.
Exactly, which is why the US was insane to invade Iraq in the first place. The morons who thought they could remake the Middle East failed miserably.
We shouldn’t have bailed out the Saudis in the first Gulf War, and if the Muzzies weren’t so busy killing each other that they still pulled off 911, we should have nuked Mecca and kicked all the Muslims out of the US.
Invading and occupying countries with troops is an absurd way to find and destroy loosely knit bands of terrorists scattered all over the world.
correct. The split of iraq is immanent
If we had not gotten involved in 1990, then Saddam would have used Kuwaiti money to fund another war against Iran, probably destroying the Ayatollah's regime. he would have also threatened Saudia and sucked in jihadis to fight him
Al Qaeda wouldn't have attacked the US in 9/11 and we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.