If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   So how's that Iraqi National Army we trained to take our place in Iraq doing? Well, recently 300 Iraqi soldiers backed by US fire and air support, took on four insurgents--and got their asses kicked   (npr.org) divider line 149
    More: Fail  
•       •       •

12975 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Oct 2010 at 5:36 AM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



149 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-10-04 10:18:20 PM
You can lead a camel to water...

/ If this isn't pissing away taxpayer dollars
// Cut the military budgets, bring our troops home
 
2010-10-04 10:33:16 PM
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.
 
2010-10-04 10:43:18 PM
So, not well.
 
2010-10-04 11:04:44 PM
Best money we ever spent, thanks Bush!
 
2010-10-04 11:53:38 PM
THIS IS NOT QUITE SPARTA
 
2010-10-04 11:59:11 PM
sounds like nobody gives a frak.
 
2010-10-05 12:07:57 AM
i575.photobucket.com
 
2010-10-05 12:30:45 AM
Iraqi soldiers were sent into the grove, in single file, each headed by an officer, Molinari says. The insurgent snipers would simply take aim at the officer who was leading each column.

"It was a matter of, as soon as the officers went down, the [Iraqi soldiers] went to ground. They didn't know what to do next," Molinari says.


*facepalm*

{mission_accomlished.jp --- Oh, I see it's been posted]
 
2010-10-05 12:51:48 AM
img203.imageshack.us
 
2010-10-05 01:17:10 AM
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.
 
2010-10-05 02:01:50 AM
How the hell can we be the same country that kicked ass on two fronts in WWII?
 
2010-10-05 02:49:13 AM
eddyatwork: How the hell can we be the same country that kicked ass on two fronts in WWII?

Depends on how you define "kicked ass."
 
2010-10-05 05:46:36 AM
FTA: On the first day of training, Molinari's men draw diagrams of how soldiers should move in diagonals, not straight lines.


I dunno. I think this player is lined up to blow the whole diagonally moving line away one by one.

t3.gstatic.com
 
2010-10-05 05:47:15 AM
Well, props to our guy for saying "no no no, let them do it for themselves". It's like having a child....even though we've spent billions, at some point they need to learn how to do it themselves.
 
2010-10-05 05:47:44 AM
4 guys beat 300? Let's hire those guys!
 
2010-10-05 05:48:19 AM
eddyatwork: How the hell can we be the same country that kicked ass on two fronts in WWII?

Because we left everything a smoking pile of rubble back then. Now we're trying to fight a careful, surgical war and sometimes it ends up like this.
 
2010-10-05 05:49:44 AM
Read the Article. The US forces didn't act in the engagement beyond the air support and were there to observe. US forces could have handled it, but they wanted the Iraq military forces to destroy the enemy. They failed.

We know our military can accomplish the mission, we need to see the Iraqi military handle a rather simple task. On this test they failed, but hopefully they will learn from the failure so that next time they may do better. Our military destroying insurgents isn't any big deal, for the Iraq military it is still a work in progress.
 
2010-10-05 05:50:42 AM
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?
 
2010-10-05 05:58:35 AM
yes, but once the Americans saw they were failing badly, why did they not offer the commanders advice at that time and use it as a training opportunity?
 
2010-10-05 05:59:11 AM
What I got from the article: "Iraqi soldiers, like American soldiers, are not police."
 
2010-10-05 05:59:14 AM
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.


Whatever you say CodePinko, if you bothered to read the article you would have read that the Americans knew they could easily take out the 4 insurgents but that wasn't their mission, it was to get the Iraqis to do it which they failed at. Geez go read the article dumbass for me to explain this would be to write out the whole article here.
 
2010-10-05 06:01:05 AM
eddyatwork: How the hell can we be the same country that kicked ass on two fronts in WWII?

I'm sure if America wanted to, it could put itself back in a position and mindset that it had during WW2 it could steamroll the middle east leaving nothing but smouldering cities and stacks of skulls the likes of which they haven't seen since the Khans stormed through.

Question is, is the war even worth it? The answer is no, it's not worth the current lives lost, or the money spent, and it certainly wouldn't be worth what it would cost to completely annihilate everyone, thus ensuring American pre-eminance in the region.
 
2010-10-05 06:01:43 AM
Eagle747: yes, but once the Americans saw they were failing badly, why did they not offer the commanders advice at that time and use it as a training opportunity?

It was a training opportunity. We chose not to commit soft assets, instead offering air support and then helping the Iraqis to recap what went wrong and go from there.
 
2010-10-05 06:09:00 AM
ShillinTheVillain: Eagle747: yes, but once the Americans saw they were failing badly, why did they not offer the commanders advice at that time and use it as a training opportunity?

It was a training opportunity. We chose not to commit soft assets, instead offering air support and then helping the Iraqis to recap what went wrong and go from there.


The article mentions the battle lasted over 24 hours ("By the second night").

At some point during the battle couldn't we have given them some advice? Wouldn't removing 4 terrorists from the country be worth taking a slightly more active role?
 
2010-10-05 06:13:40 AM
US military insists Iraqi security forces are ready to handle their own security....
So, they are lying, right?
 
2010-10-05 06:14:27 AM
Better post this and get it out of the way.

Why Arabs Loose Wars. (new window)

Seriously, read the link and then read the article. It explains so much about the general ineffectiveness of Arab militaries and why a few extra training sessions are not gonna fix the problem.
 
2010-10-05 06:23:09 AM
eddyatwork: How the hell can we be the same country that kicked ass on two fronts in WWII?

We're not fighting a war, it's an insurgency?
 
2010-10-05 06:50:35 AM
oi52.tinypic.com
 
2010-10-05 06:52:39 AM
ghare: eddyatwork: How the hell can we be the same country that kicked ass on two fronts in WWII?

We're not fighting a war, it's an insurgency?


So much this.

Its not our ability to kick the ever living shiat out of a country's armed forces... its polishing a turd. Iraqis are not an easy turds to polish.
 
2010-10-05 06:53:56 AM
Vietnamization. That is all.
 
2010-10-05 06:56:15 AM
Insurgents are gettin' there!
 
2010-10-05 07:05:01 AM
Great, so he holds US forces back to prove a point. In return, four or five insurgents escape to continue building bombs and killing innocents.
 
2010-10-05 07:05:02 AM
Got halfway thru the article and just couldn't read anymore .. was just painfull!!

FAIL indeed, fail indeed.

/Stay Thirsty Myfriend.
 
2010-10-05 07:13:33 AM
They should have just used their Death Blossom maneuver. 5 or 6 IA doing that would have worked real quick... maybe. I will never forget the first time i saw that in action.
 
2010-10-05 07:15:49 AM
Well either the Iraqi army was worth squat in either Operation Desert Bullshiat I or Operation Desert Bullshiat II or the US military aren't capable of training the Iraqi Army to peel potatoes.
 
2010-10-05 07:16:51 AM
Substitute wasn't for was.
 
2010-10-05 07:21:28 AM
Good to think we took away most of our resources from Afghanistan so that we could enable this sort of epic failure in Iraq. I'd sure hate to think what might have happened if we'd have just committed to the one war instead of going globetrotting for Bush and his vile ilk to get their rocks off on shooting brown people.

/ get used to it; we'll be feeling Bush's failures for decades to come
// so vote republican!
 
2010-10-05 07:34:06 AM
For once don't blame Bush first. Blame DOD they put the bug in his ear since they were ticked that the CIA operation in Afghanistan had gone all ducky and they wanted to play. Then blame the State Department for equating the Baath party to be exactly like the Nazi party and assuming what worked in Germany post WWII would work in Iraq. Two different cultures do not behave the same to identical stimuli.
Then blame Bush for falling for the above.

Splinshints: Good to think we took away most of our resources from Afghanistan so that we could enable this sort of epic failure in Iraq. I'd sure hate to think what might have happened if we'd have just committed to the one war instead of going globetrotting for Bush and his vile ilk to get their rocks off on shooting brown people.

/ get used to it; we'll be feeling Bush's failures for decades to come
// so vote republican!
 
2010-10-05 07:39:32 AM
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.
 
2010-10-05 07:43:22 AM
aearra: Substitute wasn't for was.

www.clipland.com

Same as it ever wasn't...
 
2010-10-05 07:48:04 AM
Well: if the ever-begging, victim-declaring, whining, sniveling, gutless, spineless, effeminate, Socialist, refugees-from-Mamma's-apron-strings at NPR don't know how to run an army; then nobody does.

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.

I think I'll get my military analysis from people who aren't professional beggars and Fist Bottoms.
 
2010-10-05 07:56:24 AM
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.
 
2010-10-05 08:03:44 AM
www.theage.com.au

Iraq had one of the best equipped, best trained, most tested in the field armies in the world (consisting almost entirely of Sunni soldiers). Then they were disbanded.

What was left was fresh shiate recruits who were lucky to have fought in a militia, and less likely to have fought in a war. Certainly without any military discipline.

Iraq has some of the best soldiers in the world. They're called the insurgency, and if you don't believe they can't put up a fight, just look at both Fallujah battles.

They're just smart enough (as we would be) to not spend too much time in an extended slogfest against a nation with air superiority.

Don't worry, the professional Iraqi army will make a comeback... as the national sunni army in the coming Iraq civil war.
 
2010-10-05 08:04:51 AM
Splinshints: Good to think we took away most of our resources from Afghanistan so that we could enable this sort of epic failure in Iraq. I'd sure hate to think what might have happened if we'd have just committed to the one war instead of going globetrotting for Bush and his vile ilk to get their rocks off on shooting brown people.

/ get used to it; we'll be feeling Bush's failures for decades to come
// so vote republican!


Sad and true.

I was berating my landlord the other day about how it must feel to have been on a team... er, in an army that had so much technology, training, supplies - every sort of resource - and still have trouble and sometimes get their asses kicked. Yeah, I was making fun of a guy that sleeps with a pump-action 5+1 pistol-grip shotgun beside him and has a CWP for his 44 and 9.
 
2010-10-05 08:05:28 AM
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
 
2010-10-05 08:09:07 AM
Iraq, for all it's oil-fueled modernity, is still a country where the vast majority of the people still believe in a completely unscientific, non-historically based world view. This is not unlike the United States. And for the record (and I'm a yank) the US didn't beat the Germans and the Japanese; the Soviets, the British (including all Commonwealth members) as fighting soldiers, did more than the US; we did quartermaster the whole shebang but the event was "bled" by the Soviets. We did win the Pacific war more or less alone. What won WWII was the ability of the US to build ships and planes and accessories. There is a long history of unwillingness to die in Islamic countries except for to die for Allah which isn't the case here.
 
2010-10-05 08:11:46 AM
Where have I heard of this before?

www.psywarrior.com
 
2010-10-05 08:12:53 AM
So with nearly ten years, and millions of dollars spent, the 'Iraqi military' still has the fighting ability of a girls highschool basketball team? Money well spent there.
 
2010-10-05 08:14:11 AM
OBBN: 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


but but but... bush lied!
 
2010-10-05 08:14:34 AM
I don't care about Iraq or it's people any more.
 
Displayed 50 of 149 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report