Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Tyran wrote: You may not be giving ISIS enough credit. They may be fanatics, but they are (relatively) well trained and motivated fanatics.
You're giving them too much credit.
There are factions within ISIS' ranks of fighters that are relatively well-trained.
For the most part it is simply "motivated fanatics".
Relative to their enemies (Iraq and Syria's armies) they are well motivated (which is more than the Iraqi army can say) and at least decent training (they know how to shoot).
Tyran wrote: You may not be giving ISIS enough credit. They may be fanatics, but they are (relatively) well trained and motivated fanatics.
You're giving them too much credit.
There are factions within ISIS' ranks of fighters that are relatively well-trained.
For the most part it is simply "motivated fanatics".
Relative to their enemies (Iraq and Syria's armies) they are well motivated (which is more than the Iraqi army can say) and at least decent training (they know how to shoot).
Hrm, watching combat footage (including the stuff ISIS itself puts out), I dont know about the "know how to shoot" part, running into a street and yelling "alahu ackbar" and empting an AK mag at a random direction from the hip seems to be par for the course for seemingly most of them, but with fanatics thats sometimes workable, if for nothing else than to keep the other side distracted while the handful of capable guys do their thing.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Tyran wrote: You may not be giving ISIS enough credit. They may be fanatics, but they are (relatively) well trained and motivated fanatics.
Well trained by who? And at what? Gunning down civilians and burying crappy homemade bombs? Trashing statues and raping women?
This isn't a guerilla campaign right now, where they can slip into the shadows and civilian populace. They quite literally hold entire towns and cities. This is conventional warfare. And yet for some reason, it's taken literally /years to deal with them. I repeat, this isn't Stalingrad here. How could you tell if ISIS was well motivated or not? At the moment, the Iraqi Army is showing more poorly than the Italians in North Africa. It doesn't require much motivation to fight a force like that.
If you threw a half competent army into the equation, ISIS would be rolled up in a fortnight.
Hrm, watching combat footage (including the stuff ISIS itself puts out), I dont know about the "know how to shoot" part, running into a street and yelling "alahu ackbar" and empting an AK mag at a random direction from the hip seems to be par for the course for seemingly most of them, but with fanatics thats sometimes workable, if for nothing else than to keep the other side distracted while the handful of capable guys do their thing.
Perhaps their training was delivered by Nick Frost.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/02/20 19:06:05
Tyran wrote: You may not be giving ISIS enough credit. They may be fanatics, but they are (relatively) well trained and motivated fanatics.
Well trained by who? And at what? Gunning down civilians and burying crappy homemade bombs? Trashing statues and raping women?
This isn't a guerilla campaign right now, where they can slip into the shadows and civilian populace. They quite literally hold entire towns and cities. This is conventional warfare. And yet for some reason, it's taken literally /years to deal with them. I repeat, this isn't Stalingrad here. How could you tell if ISIS was well motivated or not? At the moment, the Iraqi Army is showing more poorly than the Italians in North Africa. It doesn't require much motivation to fight a force like that.
If you threw a half competent army into the equation, ISIS would be rolled up in a fortnight.
They also come up with things like filling drones with explosives for homemade airstrikes, or put enough explosives in a truck to blow up a tank. Also it may be conventional warfare, but it is conventional warfare on a large city. Even when it comes to high-end armies like the US, they would prefer to raze it down to the ground than taking it because urban combat sucks.
Also it is the middle east, the only competent armies are Israel and Iran and at the other end of the spectrum it has Saudi Arabia which makes Iraq seem like a tactical genius in comparison.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/02/20 19:17:43
They also come up with things like filling drones with explosives for homemade airstrikes, or put enough explosives in a truck to blow up a tank.
This depiction of every place ISIS holds as some kind of booby trapped version of Jim Henson's Labyrinth you read in the media is misleading. You think that this is the first conflict where people have dug in? People have been firing cities, tying explosives to everything that moves and then some more to what doesn't and digging support trenches/tunnels in warfare since time immemorable. Yet when you sit down and read a history of any conventional conflict, it barely gets mentioned.
Why? Because they're weak weapons. You might kill a few people you take off guard, and a few more when you first come up with something new. But otherwise? Everytime someone spots a drone they shoot it and blow it before it gets close. They chuck grenades into rooms before they walk in to trigger/obliterate whatever traps might be waiting. They dump liquids down tunnels.
People adapt, and nobody adapts quicker than a good soldier with people trying to kill him. Because he doesn't want to die.
Also it may be conventional warfare, but it is conventional warfare on a large city. Even when it comes to high-end armies like the US, they would prefer to raze it down to the ground than taking it because urban combat sucks.
If you look at the speed of the actual advance over the last year, it goes well beyond waiting for air cover and artillery to nail a point before you assault it. In most cases, the assault literally just doesn't happen. And that's the problem. They're trying to defeat the enemy without actually having to get close enough to see him, which just doesn't work.
What happens is that you pound on them for a while with artillery and rockets, you catch one guy in a crossfire, another taking a leak, and a third one trapped in rubble. The other twenty guys there then just pull back once their position is untenable, to another one they prepared five miles back. Oh, and since it took you a month, they've conscripted/recruited/brainwashed another six guys to replace the three you killed. The result being that you're gaining territory, but you're not actually degrading their ability to fight.
This is why they keep catching the Iraqi Army off guard. They pile a few dozen guys into jeeps, set off at night, and attack a point behind the Iraqi Army. At which point their commanders go, 'Wait, what? They're allowed to move from the spot we're bombarding? WHY DID NO-ONE TELL US THAT?!' At which point the entire fething frontline gets re-adjusted as they hurriedly move their equipment around, by which time ISIS have piled back into jeeps and buggered off again.
The only reason that's not still happening is because the US is keeping an eye out for that sort of thing now, and hitting them as they get moving from the air, but it should illustrate just how fething incompetent the Iraqi Army actually is.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/20 19:26:31
Ketara... I've got veterans in my family and we've talked about the competencies of the Iraqi Army.
Their point, is that you are not likely to train up a competent army over a period of years (or decades) and expect them to be all awesome-sauce on their own. It's going to be a multi-generational growth for the Iraqi to be able to stand on their own.
Which is why it was so galling that the US left when they did... it's like we spent all this blood and money, and all that effort was essentially wasted.
Additionally, regarding Monsul, it's much harder to go 'house-by-house' to clear the city, than to carpet bomb the fethers. I'm sure the Iraqi people don't want to see their city destroyed in order to root out ISIS...
whembly wrote: Ketara... I've got veterans in my family and we've talked about the competencies of the Iraqi Army.
Their point, is that you are not likely to train up a competent army over a period of years (or decades) and expect them to be all awesome-sauce on their own. It's going to be a multi-generational growth for the Iraqi to be able to stand on their own.
Thing is, I could reel off a list of revolutionary armies which have armed, trained, and been effective in reasonably short periods of time. I maintain it's down to the local culture, as opposed to any inherent flaw with the idea of training a professional army quickly.
Which is why it was so galling that the US left when they did... it's like we spent all this blood and money, and all that effort was essentially wasted.
I can imagine and sympathise. That's what's so stupid about these Middle-Eastern adventures. They never resolve anything there, any more than the Mahdist War did.
You know, its almost as if invading Iraq, deposing its government and disbanding its professional army was a bad idea with long lasting knock on effects for the long term professionalism of the Iraqi army...
I wonder how many former Iraqi Army Colonels and Generals and Majors are fighting for ISIS and the various other militant groups...
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: You know, its almost as if invading Iraq, deposing its government and disbanding its professional army was a bad idea with long lasting knock on effects for the long term professionalism of the Iraqi army...
I wonder how many former Iraqi Army Colonels and Generals and Majors are fighting for ISIS and the various other militant groups...
Yup... disbanding the professional army was a colossal mistake that added to the immediate chaos.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: You know, its almost as if invading Iraq, deposing its government and disbanding its professional army was a bad idea with long lasting knock on effects for the long term professionalism of the Iraqi army...
One would think, and one would have thought the lost WW2 experience would have taught peoplr a few lessons on that, but one would be wrong...
I wonder how many former Iraqi Army Colonels and Generals and Majors are fighting for ISIS and the various other militant groups...
More than a few by all accounts
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
It could've been used to forge closer links between nations where things have been typically tense.
But no. We've seemingly learned nothing, and remain fething about with cats paws when we could've presented a united front.
No one in the west is divided on ISIS. The divide is over how to deal with which of ISIS frenemies (which is pretty much everyone else). The US is stubborn on Iran. Russia is stubborn on Syria. The Kurds are going to backfire on everyone and we all know it. Turkey is like the red head step child no one knows what to do anything with. Poor little Jordan is over there kind of like "someone do something for the love of God help!"
It could've been used to forge closer links between nations where things have been typically tense.
But no. We've seemingly learned nothing, and remain fething about with cats paws when we could've presented a united front.
No one in the west is divided on ISIS. The divide is over how to deal with which of ISIS frenemies (which is pretty much everyone else). The US is stubborn on Iran. Russia is stubborn on Syria. The Kurds are going to backfire on everyone and we all know it. Turkey is like the red head step child no one knows what to do anything with. Poor little Jordan is over there kind of like "someone do something for the love of God help!"
Jordan. Yeah they are tiny yet host alot of refugees, where at one stage not far from Isis teritory.
They need support.
Israel have remained rather quietly vigilant to the threat.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
Vaktathi wrote: To be fair, that's also rather common doctrine amongst NATO militaries as well, why spend three hours clearing a block through bloody infantry assault when you can call in an airstrike to level it instead? It's not like the homes will be fit to move back into either way.
Sure, but put it this way. If a militia seized Minneapolis with 2000 guerillas, and it turned out they'd secretly been mining and tunneling the place under a dominated local government for a few months beforehand, it would still only take the nearest US force a couple of days at most. If the US military heard that what's been going on in Mosul was happening in Minneapolis? Hours. The concept of those sort of civilian atrocities and casualties would galvanise them into action.
They would take casualties, but that's the point of a professional army. They're willing to lay down their lives for the civilians of the country. Not cheaply, or unnecessarily, but if it comes to the crunch? The commander says go in, and the troops go in. That's what separates a professional army from a bunch of hastily conscripted teenagers with guns. (well, that and much better equipment and training)
The bigger issues is that the Iraqi army is ineptly led, the government insanely corrupt, their logistics support is practically nonfunctional, and initiative to act is held only by the highest commanders who will not do so unless guaranteed success to avoid embarassment in an extremely face-concsious society. Pretty typical for many middle east armies of the modern period in general actually, and not unique to the Iraqi army.
I'd be inclined to argue it's deeper than that. It's a cultural thing. There's a reason nobody has ever been able to truly rule Afghanistan. I actually don't think the soldiers on the ground in Iraq are actually willing to risk their lives. It's why they all turned tail and ran the first time. They're happy to be paid to be 'trained', they're happy to parade around, and impress the girls with the uniforms and weapons. But lay down their lives? One sniff of actual danger, and they change career faster than Arnold Rimmer. They're a fething joke. Even if they take back Mosul, an army like that will be fighting a guerilla war against ISIS for the next two decades, if not forever.
The Peshmerga's and other such groups and militias have different issues. Mosul for the Kurds is not a "defend the homeland" thing, it's a "if we take it, at best it's a cool money-making feather in our cap, at worst we have to give it back to Baghdad" thing, and their resources are much more limited and not sufficient to engage in an offensive on a strongly held urban fortified zone without insane casualties. For the Shia militias, even if they've got the gumption, they don't have the resources, and many of them have some of the same problems as the Iraqi army (e.g. initiative to act held only by the highest commanders).
This I agree with. Which is why it's the Iraqi army I'm really holding in contempt here.
Its sounds smart on their side. Why try to take something and lose people when you can take your time and bomb it? Its going to be full of boobytraps anyway.
Depends on what the people in there are doing to civilians trapped with them.
Which was Ketara's point, I think.
Not their civilians though. Kurds and Irani Shiites are separate entities.
Its sounds smart on their side. Why try to take something and lose people when you can take your time and bomb it? Its going to be full of boobytraps anyway.
Because when they can build another house quicker than you can move one house forward, you're probably missing the 'advance' part in your strategy.
There's a time and a place for air strikes and sieges. I know the British Army have always felt the American Army was a little too reliant on vehicles and airpower, and not enough on yomping and bayonets, but this is that attitude taken to the utter extreme. When the Iraqi Army could probably all pack up and leave for a weekends vacations in the Maldives and it would have little discernible impact on the offensive? It's fething ridiculous.
They've had the best gear America can provide, the best training NATO can give them, a level of tactical advantage most militaries get wet dreams over having, and they still take several years to deal with a few thousand teenagers high on Jesus(well, Allah) juice with handweapons. Meanwhile, the fanatics are given free reign to rape, torture, and kill whoever they can get their hands on.
So to answer your question, 'Why try to take something and lose people when you can take your time'? Because taking your time causes such a vast quantity of human suffering, and it's your fething job to do something about it.
No, its not the Kurds' and shiites job to do something. Iraqi army, yes, but there is no Iraq any more. They are sunnis essentially fighting themselves.
if it sounds like I am defending them, I am just shaking my head. We spent bazillions to set up a functioning government and military, and it turns out New Rochelle could kick their ass.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: You know, its almost as if invading Iraq, deposing its government and disbanding its professional army was a bad idea with long lasting knock on effects for the long term professionalism of the Iraqi army...
I wonder how many former Iraqi Army Colonels and Generals and Majors are fighting for ISIS and the various other militant groups...
Well their professional army didn't do very well either. When did Iraq's army beat anyone?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/21 12:14:58
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Well their professional army didn't do very well either. When did Iraq's army beat anyone?
1990.
I mean, not the most impressive feat of arms...but you did ask
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Well their professional army didn't do very well either. When did Iraq's army beat anyone?
1990.
I mean, not the most impressive feat of arms...but you did ask
You're right. I forgot they actually managed to defeat Kuwait's police force and take over. How could I have forgotten.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Whether or not the Baathist era Iraqi army defeated other national armies in a conventional war is irrelevant.
The fact is, Saddam Hussain was able to maintain order and rule over Iraq with an iron fist for decades, and they fought Iran (which has a very big military AFAIK) to a stalemate. So the Army must have had at least some degree of effectiveness surely.
Compare the Iraqi army today, to the Iraqi Army under Saddam. Do you think Iraq would have descended into the same lawless power vacuum it is today under the Saddam era Army? (assuming Iraq was never occupied, the Baathist party never deposed and the army never disbanded).
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Whether or not the Baathist era Iraqi army defeated other national armies in a conventional war is irrelevant.
The fact is, Saddam Hussain was able to maintain order and rule over Iraq with an iron fist for decades, and they fought Iran (which has a very big military AFAIK) to a stalemate. So the Army must have had at least some degree of effectiveness surely.
Compare the Iraqi army today, to the Iraqi Army under Saddam. Do you think Iraq would have descended into the same lawless power vacuum it is today under the Saddam era Army? (assuming Iraq was never occupied, the Baathist party never deposed and the army never disbanded).
Well, let us not forget that some of that order and rule over Iraq and fighting against Iran was through the use of chemical weapons like Mustard Gas and nerve agents like Sarin.
So would we be okay with the Iraqi army gassing ISIS held cities, resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent people caught in such an atrocity?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/21 15:54:27
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Whether or not the Baathist era Iraqi army defeated other national armies in a conventional war is irrelevant.
The fact is, Saddam Hussain was able to maintain order and rule over Iraq with an iron fist for decades, and they fought Iran (which has a very big military AFAIK) to a stalemate. So the Army must have had at least some degree of effectiveness surely.
Compare the Iraqi army today, to the Iraqi Army under Saddam. Do you think Iraq would have descended into the same lawless power vacuum it is today under the Saddam era Army? (assuming Iraq was never occupied, the Baathist party never deposed and the army never disbanded).
Well, let us not forget that some of that order and rule over Iraq and fighting against Iran was through the use of chemical weapons like Mustard Gas and nerve agents like Sarin.
So would we be okay with the Iraqi army gassing ISIS held cities, resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent people caught in such an atrocity?
The Syrians did it in the 80's by just blasting 40,000 people with conventional weapons and nobody seemed to mind.
That said, ultimately the big issue is that those tensions exist because these borders and governments are artificialities originally imposed by outside powers for their own reasons and sustained for the benefit of a small ruling elite, and required as much pressure put back on the population as they were exerting on the regime to break it in order to keep the peace and maintain that government, and often those pressures just build up and explode. It's a pattern we see many places unfortunately, and a lot of the time the only way they sort themselves out is in blood when no other pressure release exists, and sadly in some cases thats the only way for a region to organically reorganize itself to a more stable state of affairs, as we're seeing now.
It probably would have been best if the US had not insisted on keeping Iraq a unified state but allowed and guided partitions and used that vast military power and logistics capabilities to keep a lid on things to prevent an India style partition disaster, but that was not without danger as well and the opportunity has come and gone for that solution.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Whether or not the Baathist era Iraqi army defeated other national armies in a conventional war is irrelevant.
The fact is, Saddam Hussain was able to maintain order and rule over Iraq with an iron fist for decades, and they fought Iran (which has a very big military AFAIK) to a stalemate. So the Army must have had at least some degree of effectiveness surely.
Compare the Iraqi army today, to the Iraqi Army under Saddam. Do you think Iraq would have descended into the same lawless power vacuum it is today under the Saddam era Army? (assuming Iraq was never occupied, the Baathist party never deposed and the army never disbanded).
Well, let us not forget that some of that order and rule over Iraq and fighting against Iran was through the use of chemical weapons like Mustard Gas and nerve agents like Sarin.
So would we be okay with the Iraqi army gassing ISIS held cities, resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent people caught in such an atrocity?
Well I certainly wouldn't be happy with it. But its better than the current situation.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Whether or not the Baathist era Iraqi army defeated other national armies in a conventional war is irrelevant.
The fact is, Saddam Hussain was able to maintain order and rule over Iraq with an iron fist for decades, and they fought Iran (which has a very big military AFAIK) to a stalemate. So the Army must have had at least some degree of effectiveness surely.
Compare the Iraqi army today, to the Iraqi Army under Saddam. Do you think Iraq would have descended into the same lawless power vacuum it is today under the Saddam era Army? (assuming Iraq was never occupied, the Baathist party never deposed and the army never disbanded).
Well, let us not forget that some of that order and rule over Iraq and fighting against Iran was through the use of chemical weapons like Mustard Gas and nerve agents like Sarin.
So would we be okay with the Iraqi army gassing ISIS held cities, resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent people caught in such an atrocity?
Well I certainly wouldn't be happy with it. But its better than the current situation.
In what way?
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Whether or not the Baathist era Iraqi army defeated other national armies in a conventional war is irrelevant.
The fact is, Saddam Hussain was able to maintain order and rule over Iraq with an iron fist for decades, and they fought Iran (which has a very big military AFAIK) to a stalemate. So the Army must have had at least some degree of effectiveness surely.
Compare the Iraqi army today, to the Iraqi Army under Saddam. Do you think Iraq would have descended into the same lawless power vacuum it is today under the Saddam era Army? (assuming Iraq was never occupied, the Baathist party never deposed and the army never disbanded).
Well, let us not forget that some of that order and rule over Iraq and fighting against Iran was through the use of chemical weapons like Mustard Gas and nerve agents like Sarin.
So would we be okay with the Iraqi army gassing ISIS held cities, resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent people caught in such an atrocity?
Well I certainly wouldn't be happy with it. But its better than the current situation.
In what way?
In a cynical big picture way, one could argue that Saddam killing a few thousand of his people every few years was better, on the whole, than tens of thousands dying every year and the economy being crippled and paralyzed. Not sure I'd take that stance if I were a Kurd or a Shia, but from some viewpoints there is a logic to it. Thats partly what kept the US from going further in 1991.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Whether or not the Baathist era Iraqi army defeated other national armies in a conventional war is irrelevant.
The fact is, Saddam Hussain was able to maintain order and rule over Iraq with an iron fist for decades, and they fought Iran (which has a very big military AFAIK) to a stalemate. So the Army must have had at least some degree of effectiveness surely.
Compare the Iraqi army today, to the Iraqi Army under Saddam. Do you think Iraq would have descended into the same lawless power vacuum it is today under the Saddam era Army? (assuming Iraq was never occupied, the Baathist party never deposed and the army never disbanded).
Well, let us not forget that some of that order and rule over Iraq and fighting against Iran was through the use of chemical weapons like Mustard Gas and nerve agents like Sarin.
So would we be okay with the Iraqi army gassing ISIS held cities, resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent people caught in such an atrocity?
Well I certainly wouldn't be happy with it. But its better than the current situation.
In what way?
In a cynical big picture way, one could argue that Saddam killing a few thousand of his people every few years was better, on the whole, than tens of thousands dying every year and the economy being crippled and paralyzed. Not sure I'd take that stance if I were a Kurd or a Shia, but from some viewpoints there is a logic to it. Thats partly what kept the US from going further in 1991.
But there also isn't really any evidence to suggest that Saddam would've been any more successful in preventing IS gaining a foothold to begin with. In 1991, after the Gulf War ceasefire, he lost control of huge areas of Iraq in an uprising against him, with the Iraqi forces often surrendering or deserting to join the rebels, with the exception of the Republican Guard. Internal struggles, lack of heavy weaponry (especially anti-aircraft weaponry) and lack of foreign support meant that he could put it down and regain control.
As for the death tolls, well, one mass grave which resulted from this uprising and the reprisals enacted on the people of Iraq after it was put down is estimated to contain around ten thousand people. That is only one of many sites and figures put the death toll of the uprising and resultant repression at over one hundred thousand, ranging up to around one hundred and eighty thousand
ISIS has a lot of captured weaponry, a proper command structure and a means of gathering resources and supplies. It is entirely possible they would have done just as well in Saddams Iraq as they did in non-Saddam Iraq.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/21 20:46:53
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Whether or not the Baathist era Iraqi army defeated other national armies in a conventional war is irrelevant.
The fact is, Saddam Hussain was able to maintain order and rule over Iraq with an iron fist for decades, and they fought Iran (which has a very big military AFAIK) to a stalemate. So the Army must have had at least some degree of effectiveness surely.
Compare the Iraqi army today, to the Iraqi Army under Saddam. Do you think Iraq would have descended into the same lawless power vacuum it is today under the Saddam era Army? (assuming Iraq was never occupied, the Baathist party never deposed and the army never disbanded).
Well, let us not forget that some of that order and rule over Iraq and fighting against Iran was through the use of chemical weapons like Mustard Gas and nerve agents like Sarin.
So would we be okay with the Iraqi army gassing ISIS held cities, resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent people caught in such an atrocity?
Well I certainly wouldn't be happy with it. But its better than the current situation.
In what way?
In a cynical big picture way, one could argue that Saddam killing a few thousand of his people every few years was better, on the whole, than tens of thousands dying every year and the economy being crippled and paralyzed. Not sure I'd take that stance if I were a Kurd or a Shia, but from some viewpoints there is a logic to it. Thats partly what kept the US from going further in 1991.
But there also isn't really any evidence to suggest that Saddam would've been any more successful in preventing IS gaining a foothold to begin with. In 1991, after the Gulf War ceasefire, he lost control of huge areas of Iraq in an uprising against him, with the Iraqi forces often surrendering or deserting to join the rebels, with the exception of the Republican Guard. Internal struggles, lack of heavy weaponry (especially anti-aircraft weaponry) and lack of foreign support meant that he could put it down and regain control.
As for the death tolls, well, one mass grave which resulted from this uprising and the reprisals enacted on the people of Iraq after it was put down is estimated to contain around ten thousand people. That is only one of many sites and figures put the death toll of the uprising and resultant repression at over one hundred thousand, ranging up to around one hundred and eighty thousand
ISIS has a lot of captured weaponry, a proper command structure and a means of gathering resources and supplies. It is entirely possible they would have done just as well in Saddams Iraq as they did in non-Saddam Iraq.
possibly, but a lot of those weapons, supplies, money and connections came from outside groups that were only there because America was there, including lots of American origin itself, and the nationwide power vacuum after Saddam provided the perfect enviro ment for ISIS to grow, coupled with Syria collapsing with large levels of foreign involvement there as well. ISIS would not have had the same ideological bad guy to rally against with the same intensity without US intervention.
Not saying I subscribe to the theory either way, just that its not totally bonkers from a big picture view. I doubt Saddam's regime would have lasted indefinitely and what has come to pass may have either way, but a lot more weapons and material flowed into Iraq for such groups than would otherwise have been available.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled wrote: I sense someone attempting to blame us for ISIL.
Are you saying...thanks Obama?
Nah, that one would be on H.W. Bush, in my opinion. If the US had supported the 1991 uprising, even just with air strikes on the Iraqi artillery and interceptions of the Iraqi helicopters then it is quite possible that Saddam would have been overthrown in the early 90s, and with the Iraqi people doing a lot of the work, as opposed to the 2nd Iraq War where there was very little action by the Iraqi people themselves against Saddam, partly because of the US inaction in the 1991 uprising.
The US could then offer units to help train up the Iraqi army and diplomats to help Iraq transition into a democracy, helping to organise elections, parliaments etc.
That would have given Iraq over 20 years to find its feet and work its way through training its army and making its democracy work, possibly resulting in a much stronger Iraq today, and an Iraq much more grateful to the US for stepping in and helping them when they took the initiative to stand up against Saddam, rather than leaving them to stand alone and be crushed. This could also potentially have helped to check that "US being a good ideological bad guy" rhetoric.
But hindsight is 20/20, as the saying goes.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/21 21:35:33
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Frazzled wrote: I sense someone attempting to blame us for ISIL.
Are you saying...thanks Obama?
Nah, that one would be on H.W. Bush, in my opinion. If the US had supported the 1991 uprising, even just with air strikes on the Iraqi artillery and interceptions of the Iraqi helicopters then it is quite possible that Saddam would have been overthrown in the early 90s, and with the Iraqi people doing a lot of the work, as opposed to the 2nd Iraq War where there was very little action by the Iraqi people themselves against Saddam, partly because of the US inaction in the 1991 uprising.
The US could then offer units to help train up the Iraqi army and diplomats to help Iraq transition into a democracy, helping to organise elections, parliaments etc.
That would have given Iraq over 20 years to find its feet and work its way through training its army and making its democracy work, possibly resulting in a much stronger Iraq today, and an Iraq much more grateful to the US for stepping in and helping them when they took the initiative to stand up against Saddam, rather than leaving them to stand alone and be crushed.
But hindsight is 20/20, as the saying goes.
Or we would havce been stuck there without the support of the ME, just like what happened.
Need I remind everyone ISIL started in Syria, not Iraq. Following this logic we need to blame Assad for not being repressive enough in putting it down when it started.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
