So, not well.

THIS IS NOT QUITE SPARTA

This is something that a lot of people don't seem to get.

Modern-day Iraqis don't understand the western concepts of freedom and willingness to die in the defense of freedom. We've proven twice in the past twenty years that Iraqis are not willing to fight and die for their country (unless they're forced to by a brutal dictator), but they're great at surrendering when the going gets tough for them. Oh sure, they're full of bluster and posturing when they want to show the world how far they've come, but when faced with actually having to defend their country from forces who wish to destabilize and undermine it, they don't understand why they should risk their lives to do it. In other words, what's the payoff for risking one's life? Concepts like freedom and liberty, in the western context, don't strike the same chord with them, at least not right now. This makes them very vulnerable and puts us in a very awkward position if their neighbors decide to take advantage of that vulnerability (and you just know they will) after we pull out.

GW took us back into Iraq on the assumption that of course the Iraqis would step up to the plate if we freed them from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein's brutal regime. (Dick Cheney said we would greeted in the streets as liberators, a la WWII.) Well, we've done that, and look at the damned mess we've caused.

FormlessOne: Not just camels, either. FTFA: And despite the efforts of hundreds of Iraqi soldiers, about 50 American soldiers, and massive firepower, the insurgents eventually managed to escape from the palm grove.

To put this in American terms, we had planes, mortars, grenades, 50 highly trained American soldiers, and all the military skills of an American commander, and 4 insurgents still managed to walk away.

You think it's bad on the Iraqis? They do have an excuse - they're relatively new at this. We, on the other hand, are old hands at this, and even with 11-to-1 odds, we also sucked buttermilk. Killed 5, wounded 15, and made it out alive? The insurgents are going to be cheering about that one.

Hell, the cost of having one plane drop 2 500-pound bombs on the area probably outstrips the yearly budget of that insurgent cell - and they accomplished their goal.

FTFA: "Back at the base, Molinari says he simply wasn't going to put his men on the front lines.

"It took a lot to hold them back," he says, "because my NCOs and my scout platoon leaders were saying, 'We can do this. We can eliminate this threat right now. I just need to go out on a flank and make this happen.' I basically had to take an appetite suppressant and I had to say, 'No. If I send you out there, you will probably eliminate the threat. But that's not the mission. The mission is to get them to do it.' "

Mission... frustrating?

Fark Me To Tears:
Modern-day Iraqis don't understand the western concepts of freedom and willingness to die in the defense of freedom.

I think it is something more simple than that: Military forces in the Middle East generally don't have a professional NCO corps like in a lot of Western militaries. Their society really doesn't encourage lower ranks to use initiative. In fact, it actively works against it. You could have the strongest bodybuilder in the World, but if you decapitate him (and keep the body alive), an eighty year old osteoporosic grandmother can kick the crap out of him. That appears to be precisely what happened here.

It's not like this is something we don't know about, either. NPR could have Googled "Middle Eastern Military Culture" and the third link is "Why Arabs Lose Wars", an article about this very phenomenon written in 1999 by someone with 30 years experience. This is a part of the conclusion:

Arab political culture is based on a high degree of social stratification, very much like that of the defunct Soviet Union and very much unlike the upwardly mobile, meritocratic, democratic United States. Arab officers do not see any value in sharing information among themselves, let alone with their men. In this they follow the example of their political leaders, who not only withhold information from their own allies, but routinely deceive them. Training in Arab armies reflects this: rather than prepare as much as possible for the multitude of improvised responsibilities that are thrown up in the chaos of battle, Arab soldiers, and their officers, are bound in the narrow functions assigned them by their hierarchy. That this renders them less effective on the battlefield, let alone places their lives at greater risk, is scarcely of concern, whereas, of course, these two issues are dominant in the American military culture, and are reflected in American military training.

It's a systemic problem, not just in Iraq, but in the entire region.

Plus, a handful (or even one) talented sniper can hold off a *MUCH* larger force, especially if they are smart and kill the officers first. Carlos Hathcock and his spotter kept an entire company of NVA regulars at bay for *FIVE* days. He did much the same thing: He killed the officers first.

aearra: Substitute wasn't for was.



Same as it ever wasn't...

Little.Alex: I remember their 'combat analysis' before the invasion, where they explained that the US Army could never reach the outskirts of Baghdad with less than 30,000 casualties.

They made the same mistake back then that they are making now: Assuming that Middle Eastern military forces are trained and operate like Western military forces.

Baggins Best money we ever spent, thanks Bush!

Wow, what an incredibly origional thought. You must be one of the higher educated people I always hear about. No, on second thought you are a complete Moran.
You know, the war in Iraq was 100% Bush's idea and he forced it thru without A SINGLE Democrate voting to go to war. Really, that is how I remember it. Let's see:

October 10, 2002 at 3:05pm it seems that OMG NO FARKING WAY .......... 82 Peace Loving Democrats from the House of Representatives voted to go to war with Iraq. And what's this?:

NO FARKING WAY AGAIN .. OMGBBQ .... October 11, 2002 at 12:50am it seems that 29 Peace Loving Democrats of the Senate voted to go to war with Iraq. Now let's do some simple math:

111 Democrats voted for war in Iraq vs. 1 President Bush (I am too tired to look up the GOP vote, but it is higher as they tend to have working brains), it looks as though your Hippy Peace Loving Democrat friends have a hand in all this too, but you go on and keep blaming one man for all of our troubles if it makes you feel better.
Kinda funny now, your saviour has been in office for two years now with a controlling majority and we are STILL in Iraq and Afganastan. I thought only Bush wanted to be there and it was sooo simple to just pull the troops out? Oh yeah, and remember the part about the slowing economy and how Obama was going to have it fixed in a matter of months? Hmmmmmmm, didn't work out like you thought did it? Must be tougher to be a President that you thought?
But, since you seem so highly educated and know where to place blame how come YOU are not running for President? Apparenely you would have everything fixed in minutes. What did our Country ever do without you and your amazing blame powers?

/snark
//semi-serious. Amazing how all the Libs blame everything on the GOP, but never ever seem to take any blame for anything?
///but it's okay, they are in office now and we are doing just fine. I expect them to gain a few seats in the upcoming elections and for Obama to easily win a second term.
////Suck it libs