You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq
Why did the Iraqi army flee another city in the face of ISIS?
2015-05-21
Because like most Arab armies they're more suited for oppressing the populace?
Because like most Arab armies they've no support whatsoever from the guys who send them to fight and die?
[RUDAW.NET] Islamic State
...formerly ISIS or ISIL, depending on your preference. Before that al-Qaeda in Iraq, as shaped by Abu Musab Zarqawi. They're very devout, committing every atrocity they can find in the Koran and inventing a few more. They fling Allah around with every other sentence, but to hear the pols talk they're not really Moslems....
 (ISIS) forces of Evil captured Anbar's largest city of Ramadi on Sunday, forcing Iraqi troops to retreat. Hundreds of people were killed during the offensive, many of them civilians. The Iraqi government has deployed at least 3,000 Shiite murderous Moslems nearby Ramadi in response.

In the past 72 hours US-led Arclight airstrikes have conducted 19 Arclight airstrikes in areas surrounding Ramadi, targeting ISIS.

The Iraqi army left behind at least 30 armoured vehicles and dozens of weapons while retreating Ramadi. The pictures of weapons left behind surfaced on various ISIS affiliated social networking sites, boasting of their victory in the face of what seems to be a crippled army.

This is not the first time that the Iraqi army has fled in the face of ISIS, and often leaving weapons behind for them. The question that has prompted much-heated discussions online has been -- why? The Iraqi army is well-equipped and trained, but has consistently failed to drive ISIS forces of Evil out, while the poorly equipped Kurds in Kobani canton, fought ISIS vehemently during a 134-day siege despite lack of sufficient equipment.

Ramadi did not fall to thousands of ISIS fighters, but surprisingly to 150 fighters in the face of an army of 6,000 according to a former US Central Command Adviser Ali Khedery.

Although the US Secretary of State John F. I was in Vietnam, you know Kerry
Former Senator-for-Life from Massachussetts, self-defined war hero, speaker of French, owner of a lucky hat, conqueror of Cambodia, and current Secretary of State...
 has downplayed the significance of the defeat by saying, "I am absolutely confident in the days ahead that will be reversed", the damage to Iraqi army's reputation has plundered.

Official statistics indicate that at least 500,000 people live in Anbar city, which is a predominately Sunni area. Between 2012 and 2013 there were large-scale protests and strikes against the former Prime Minister and current Vice President Nuri al-Maliki. The tensions between Shiites and Sunni were furthered, and Maliki's troops were deployed to quell protests.

Rafi al-Issawi, the former Sunni Deputy Prime Minister argued that US should directly arm Sunnis to keep the Iraqi state unified, while speaking at the Brookings Institution in Washington. This might help ease tensions between Iraq's Sunni population, which has suffered alienation by the previous Iraqi cabinet.

The Iraqi army's defeat has not only rocked their confidence and morale but the public'a faith in their ability to function as a capable army to defend the nation against a notorious threat. Perhaps, there's more at play than we imagine because the Iraqi army's incompetence further legitimises the deployment of Shiite murderous Moslems in Sunni-populated areas, which has been opposed by Sunni groups, fearing reprisals by the militiamen.
Posted by:Fred

#7  I do NOT buy the "only 150" BS. They're not popular enough to hold the city with that few troops. That's a company -- how much area can a company patrol, 24x7? There's close to 200,000 people in Ramadi -- if only 1 in a 1,000 people are willing to take up arms, the ISIS thugs are out-numbered. Even a little coordination and they're outnumbered AT ANY INSTANT IN TIME.

And the pics we saw out of there took more than 150 to stage.

Does this administration trust the idiot press to repeat ANYTHING?
Posted by: Rob Crawford   2015-05-21 19:58  

#6  Sorry about your loss OS. Perhaps if our support to the Iraqis was something other than notional, some CAS could have saved the day.
Posted by: Besoeker   2015-05-21 18:28  

#5  Why did the Iraqi army flee another city in the face of ISIS?

Because they had another city to flee to?
Posted by: gorb   2015-05-21 16:19  

#4  Not all of them ran. A friend died. 1LT Ali. Born fighter.

الله يرحمه


Posted by: OldSpook   2015-05-21 14:44  

#3  The Iraqi army left behind at least 30 armoured vehicles and dozens of weapons while retreating Ramadi

Were they trained by USA or by the French?
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2015-05-21 14:39  

#2  At this point, would you seriously want this administration "strengthening the Kurds"?
Posted by: Pappy   2015-05-21 14:07  

#1  The problem with deploying the Shiite militias is that they're less competent than the Iraqi army and they're given to the same kind of rape and pillage as the IS animals.

Maliki spent much of his time in office purging Sunnis. The Sawha troops who had assisted (without bearing the full burden) in the surge were stiffed on their pay. Where he could get away with it the Sawhwa were disbanded. The army is predominantly Shiite--and I'm sure the ranks are conscious of the fact.

The Kurds are going out of their way to emphasize the secular nature of their regime. They are "Kurdish," but they are allied with and have elements that are Assyrian and Chaldean and Turkmen--and Arab. The Peshmerga has actually been around longer than the current Iraqi army and it appears to be well-disciplined and competently officered.

It's hard to emphasize how much that last means. The militias, like al-Sadr's and the Badr Brigades and the Iraqi Hezbollah, tend to be swarms of light infantry. They wave their guns, make faces, and charge. They win when there are sufficiently more of them than the enemy; they overwhelm with numbers, not with tactics. If there aren't quite enough of them they'll turn around and run.

Arming the Peshmerga would put them in position to seriously oppose IS and probably win. The reason we (meaning the U.S., in the person of the B.O. administration) haven't done this is because strengthening the Kurds makes an eventual Kurdistan, including territories in Iraq, Syria, Turkey, and eventually Iran, much more likely. The Saudis don't like that idea because the Kurds aren't Arabs. The Turks don't like it because they've been fighting a nuisance war with them for years. The Iraqis don't like it because there's lots of oil money involved that they won't get to rake off. The Syrians approximately ditto.
Posted by: Fred   2015-05-21 13:45  

00:00