Why isn't the Iraq army fighting back? Why aren't they defending their own families and country?

How can a few thousand terrorists take over a country? :confused: I realize the Iraq army isn’t the most highly disciplined or trained anymore. But simply by sheer numbers they can easily defeat these guys. 10,000 can easily defeat 1,000. The US left millions of dollars in equipment over there.

Theres got to be some former Republican Guard Generals and other officers that will step up and defend their own country. When you see your people being brutally executed. Anybody with prior officer experience would feel an obligation to defend their own city. Just to save their own family and friends.

WTH is wrong with these guys? The Republican Guard was a very highly trained unit. They didn’t directly fight US troops and most of them should still be alive. There has to be some guys with military training that can pull together units that can fight. Thats how the colonial armies formed to fight the British. Men like Washington and Daniel Morgan had military training and knew how to fight.

I can not understand not defending your country. I know the current government there sucks and is probably corrupt. Raise an army and kick the terrorist’s asses. Then demand a change in government. By force if absolutely necessary. Take back your own country.

Your idea of a bunch of guys getting together to defend their country is exactly what the guys in ISIS believe they are doing.

It’s a shame they are crazy, radical Islamists that want to enslave everyone under radicalized Sharia law.

I hate to admit it but what Iraq needs is a another ruthless power hungry dictator. Somebody that is driven strictly by a desire for power. At least a guy like that isn’t blinded by crazy religious zeal. Saddam actually gave more freedom to women than the crazy Islamists ever will. Women held jobs in Iraq. They socialized in public. Saddam didn’t execute women for appearing in public with their hair uncovered. He killed plenty of people but usually it was to suppress uprisings. Saddam understood how important it is to take out these radical Islamists before they got too powerful.

Why is no one willing to stand up and shout “Go Wolverines!”? What kind of people are they?

There’s an old saying about people getting the kind of government they deserve. If the Iraqi people are prepared to tolerate a “military” that will turn tail and run, despite outnumbering the opposition 30,000-1,000, then maybe they deserve to be governed by thugs. Self-determination is a double edged sword.

:rolleyes: You know I wasn’t referring to a bunch of untrained teenagers. Saddam had the largest army in the entire Middle East for over three decades. They fought the Iranian Guard too a stand still for several years. There are trained, former officers in Iraq that know how to lead men into battle. They know tactics. If you have a special skill set wouldn’t you feel an obligation to use it to save your families?

Remember, the Iraqi army didn’t stand and fight against the US invasion. It would have been suicidal. We had over whelming Air and land forces. They wisely shed their uniforms and melted back into the population. Those former officers are still alive and could reform an army.

I agree. Its just crazy these men won’t defend their own cities and homes. Thats the most basic reason to have a militia. There are times Citizens have to take up arms and defend themselves and their families. Use the advantage in sheer numbers to defeat a much smaller force.

If these men want to act like like a bunch of scared sheep then fuck them. They deserve whatever oppressive government they get.

Put simply, the ISIS-led Sunni insurgency has been able to steamroll through predominantly Sunni-inhabited areas because those areas and their people have been disaffected and disenfranchised by the predominantly Shiite government. It’s not that they don’t want to defend their country, it’s that they’re not particularly motivated to defend its current government, since it’s treated them like shit. This is particularly egregious from their point of view, since it used to be the other way around when Sunnis ran things. And from their point of view, it might be that they see that their inaction IS defending their country from the likes of the quite profound Iranian influence and control over the current predominantly Shiite government.

It’s a very dynamic situation, as these sort of sectarian and tribal things always are, but ISIS won’t have nearly the same sort of sweeping success in Shiite or Kurdish dominated areas. What you’re seeing is the further Balkanization of Iraq in progress - that sort of thing is seldom neat and pretty, and NEVER simple. (So I’m sure I’m guilty of oversimplifying.) But if you want an idea of what it’s likely to look like, you don’t need to look much further than Syria.

That is true. The US foolishly supported the formation of a Shiite government. All the former Baathists (mostly Sunni) have been disenfranchised.

It’s embarrassing how badly Iraq was mishandled.

The only bright part of this mess has been the creation of Kurdistan. They have been quite successful in governing themselves and living autonomously within Iraq.

I was going to post something similar. It was my understanding that when push comes to shove, most people in the middle east don’t want to live under a theocracy. In elections they (usually) don’t do that well.

Plus the government and I assume most of the soldiers are shia. Why wouldn’t they fight against a sunni militia? Do they think the shia taking over the country is going to make their life better? I don’t get it. If people who wanted to form an oppressive, abusive theocratic government where I was going to be persecuted were attacking, I’d fight back.

Reading Voltaire’s post, these seem to be mistreated sunni soldiers who are running. If so, that answers my question.

I don’t know a ton about Saddam, but yeah at first he wasn’t terrible in some ways. He even won some awards from the UN due to improvements in health care and education. However he led the country into incessant war and was a kleptocrat who didn’t seem to care about the economy or improving the country in any meaningful way after he was in power for a while. In ‘the dictator’s handbook’ Bruce Bueno De Mesquita claims that politicians rule based on who they have to keep happy in order for them to stay in power (and rich, and well connected, and famous, and loved, etc). Saddam only had to keep his bodyguards, secret police and elite military units happy. Everyone else could be kept in line by these groups. The fact that his son made Ted Bundy seem like a nice person didn’t help. If you could find a pro-social authoritarian leader then maybe what you say would work. But what are the odds of that? Aren’t most dictators by nature too selfish and incompetent (not to mention abusive) to govern well?

It’s not as simple as that. Any real democracy in Iraq had to be majority Shiite, short of some quite extensive preliminary ethnic cleansing. The creation of the government that the US supported tried to be as inclusive as possible, but with a Shiite majority, and de facto Iranian control over Shiite politics, religion and militias, an inclusive government was probably destined to be an exercise in futility.

It was less than 24 hours after the US troops finished pulling out that Iraq’s Shiite PM Maliki had the Sunni Vice-President arrested. And it was all downhill from there, with Maliki grabbing power and acting more and more like the typical sectarian dictator.

I rather live under a dictator than a crazy radical religious government. A religious government wants to force people to live according to their beliefs. They get much more deeply into the daily lives of people. You have to live exactly like they want you to live.

A dictator usually doesn’t make individual demands of most people. Someone that works a regular job, pays their taxes, and avoids politics probably won’t be harassed. Keep your head down and your mouth shut. The people that speak out are the ones that get arrested and tortured. Its an oppressive society but someone that follows the rules can survive and have somewhat of a normal life.

I’m very thankful to live in a democracy. :wink:

The Republican Guard were overwhelmingly Sunni. The insurgents are Sunni. The government is Shiite.

Any more questions?

Remember all those insurgents that the US used to fight, back when were were running around Iraq fighting insurgents? The guys that had the balls and gumption to form militias to defend their homeland that you’re so surprised Iraq doesn’t have?

Didn’t we try our damnedest to kill all those guys for ten years?

<shrug> I can understand the Sunni wanting to take back power. But why did they organize under these crazy radical Islamists? Once these Islamists started this Sharia law crap and started mass executions. The Sunnis should have turned on them. I suspect the the majority of Sunni aren’t radical Muslims. They’re just regular guys fed up with the Shiite gov.

I’m not sure how reliable the source is, but if this article is correct, former Republican Guard members are indeed involving themselves in this crisis…on the side of ISIS:

I think you misunderstood. The former military, The Republican Guard for example, was predominantly Sunni. After the invasion they were told their services were no longer needed and the new Shiite government filled the ranks of the army with Shiites. It’s these Shiite soldiers who are currently running scared from ISIS in the majority Sunni regions of Mosul and Tikrit.

In all probability, now that I’m thinking of it, their decision to tuck tail and run from a few hundred militants is likely and specifically because they are afraid that all those former Sunni soldiers who were disaffected by the new government will see this as a rallying call and opportunity to take back what’s theirs.

I highly recommend reading this article, which I went looking for after having mentioned the arrest of the Sunni VP immediately after the US troop pullout, which is where I originally read about it. It’s long, and to support the point I was trying to make I’m about to quote a few largish sections (but still, a small percentage of the whole) as a teaser, but it’s really worth reading the whole thing.

Don’t be so quick to categorize and stereotype. It depends on the military dictatorship in question and the theocracy in question.

You have to understand the specific circumstances of the people involved and the conditions they’re living under.

We created this mess because people like Rumsfeld believed they knew everything and didn’t need to consult experts.