Originally Posted by senojekips

The insurgents listen to the News too, they knew that they had the coalition forces beaten and that they were leaving, then they could do pretty much as they wanted, that is what we are seeing now.

Coalition forces beaten? Are you living on Mars?

Dream on, Pinocchio. The coalition knew they were never going to succeed even before Maliki was installed.

They already succeeded. Most of the country was at peace. They left before the political part was finished. Obama made a terrible mistake.

The insurgents may have lost many battles, but in the end they won the war. The coalition forces were totally out of their element when combating a guerrilla force, just as they were in Vietnam, Central America and a dozen other small wars they have been involved in. Their strength is in technology as we saw in Kuwait where they had a resounding success.

The insurgents were defeated. Coalition forces were training the Iraqis to take over but left too soon.
The US did not lose the war in Vietnam. They won. They bombed the Vietnamese to the negotiation table in Paris where they signed a peace agreement. They promised not to enter South Vietnam and the US would send its forces back home. The US kept its promise, the Vietnamese didn't. What happend afterwards is that the US didn't come to the rescue of South Vietnam.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

The insurgents were defeated. Coalition forces were training the Iraqis to take over but left too soon.

Too soon?
Hitler took over most of Europe within 6 years of taking over, Alexander conquered most of the known world within 5 years of coming to power are you seriously telling me the USA and Britain could not train a force to fight 6,000 guys in pick up trucks using modern military equipment in 10 years?

The US did not lose the war in Vietnam. They won. They bombed the Vietnamese to the negotiation table in Paris where they signed a peace agreement. They promised not to enter South Vietnam and the US would send its forces back home. The US kept its promise, the Vietnamese didn't. What happend afterwards is that the US didn't come to the rescue of South Vietnam.

Now I accept that this is a rather simplistic break down but I have always worked on the principle that when the country you are defending no longer exists because it is in the hands of the people you were defending it from it is called a loss.

[QUOTE=MontyB;673678]Too soon?
Hitler took over most of Europe within 6 years of taking over, Alexander conquered most of the known world within 5 years of coming to power are you seriously telling me the USA and Britain could not train a force to fight 6,000 guys in pick up trucks using modern military equipment in 10 years?

The Coalition - US basically keep the insurgents at bay, maintaining order. Particularly near the end their force was small and the rules of engagement to limited for them to do much more 'completely control Iraq". When the US left the Iraqi army could not fill these shoes. 1st their leadership was in a shambles. Had they keep more of the original officers perhaps they would have been capable of doing the job. But they were replaced with untried officers which lead to a complete breakdown.

Originally Posted by JOC

The Coalition - US basically keep the insurgents at bay, maintaining order. Particularly near the end their force was small and the rules of engagement to limited for them to do much more 'completely control Iraq". When the US left the Iraqi army could not fill these shoes. 1st their leadership was in a shambles. Had they keep more of the original officers perhaps they would have been capable of doing the job. But they were replaced with untried officers which lead to a complete breakdown.

But it comes down to a matter of opinion, were the insurgents kept at bay which would indicate a victory of US tactics or did they simply bide their time knowing that coalition forces would be leaving which would indicate a victory of insurgent tactics?

I would argue that the collapse of the Iraqi army at the first sign of opposition would also indicate that the institutions of the Iraqi armed forces simply were not up to spec and I think this is illustrated by the fact that the Iraq has 1 million people under arms in a country with a population of less than 40 million, I would suggest that any serious attempt to build a functioning military would have been more along the lines of Germany 1922 and 1955 where they limited the size of the military and retained only the best veterans who then formed the nucleus of the future German armed forces.

Originally Posted by MontyB

But it comes down to a matter of opinion, were the insurgents kept at bay which would indicate a victory of US tactics or did they simply bide their time knowing that coalition forces would be leaving which would indicate a victory of insurgent tactics?

I would argue that the collapse of the Iraqi army at the first sign of opposition would also indicate that the institutions of the Iraqi armed forces simply were not up to spec and I think this is illustrated by the fact that the Iraq has 1 million people under arms in a country with a population of less than 40 million, I would suggest that any serious attempt to build a functioning military would have been more along the lines of Germany 1922 and 1955 where they limited the size of the military and retained only the best veterans who then formed the nucleus of the future German armed forces.

The insurgents were present for years as evident by the > decade long infighting. They were keep at bay meaning their ability to take control and do as they wished was keep in check by the coalition – US forces. As mentioned the “coalition - US were too small and the rules of engagement to limited for them to “completely control Iraq or eliminate the insurgents". I also think some of these insurgents are opportunist, that doesn’t recognizing any formal borders. I.e.: Al-Qaeda which sends terrorist - fighter where an opening occurs. Who BTW helped out the ISIS early on. So a country can be relatively free of the influences of these groups but when signs of instability occur they stand ready to come in. This has happened in Bosnia, Afghanistan, Somalia, Chechnya and several other African nations. In the case of Bosnia and Chechnya the countries had a national identity that acted as a binding agent which helps prevent complete destabilization.

The Germans keep a small but extremely effective officers corps. This is exactly what Iraq is lacking. The trouble was a lot of the building of an Iraqi military had nothing to do with the US. They can only train those who are referred to them to train. Unlike in Germany the head had been cut off the Iraqi military for sectarian reasons. The original officer corps “could have” provided more effective leadership. Many of them now lie dead. In fact most of the effective government is also out of a job, for sectarian reasons. The Shiites had a majority vote and they put many of their own newbie’s in office and in the head officer’s corps as well. This was done regardless if they had experience. Now they are calling on any able boded Shiite to grab a gun and join the Shiite militia in order to fight the ISIS.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

Coalition forces beaten? Are you living on Mars?



They already succeeded. Most of the country was at peace. They left before the political part was finished. Obama made a terrible mistake.



The insurgents were defeated. Coalition forces were training the Iraqis to take over but left too soon.
The US did not lose the war in Vietnam. They won. They bombed the Vietnamese to the negotiation table in Paris where they signed a peace agreement. They promised not to enter South Vietnam and the US would send its forces back home. The US kept its promise, the Vietnamese didn't. What happend afterwards is that the US didn't come to the rescue of South Vietnam.

When Nixon decided to use the B52's to bomb Hanoi to the stone age the communists suddenly became very willing to negotiate. Things started moving at the long stalled peace Paris Peace talks and a negotiated settlement was reached in 1-73. The North promised not enter the south. However during the spring of 75 the north crossed the DMZ and took the south. As stated we kept our promise to withdraw they didn't and invaded.

We could examine this deeper by saying that the peace accord was just a step in their plan towards reunification however a lie is a lie, and that would be for another tread.

I would really like to comment thoroughly on this thread but I'm at Ft Knox right now trying to turn cadets into officers. I'll be home in a few weeks and will comment at that time. Sorry this is so late, but I'd really like to put some perspectives out there as this is an issue that is close to my heart.

Iranian pilot 'killed fighting in Iraq': state media

http://news.yahoo.com/iranian-pilot-killed-fighting-iraq-state-media-102648954.html

It means that Iranian soldeirs are in Iraq now to help Maleki. It was predictable.

Sounds like Iran is providing weapons support. Perhaps some sorties as well. However their is nothing in the article to indicate a large scale movement of Iranian troops - revolutionary Guards into Iraq.

Iran military is far superior to ISIS and it's Sunni allies. Perhaps Iran would step in to preventing a total victory by ISIS in Iraq.

As for ISIS they would all be better off dying and going to their paradise. For all the murdering they do. Already they have driven nearly a million people from their homes Shiites, Christians, etc..

Originally Posted by JOC

Sounds like Iran is providing weapons support. Perhaps some sorties as well. However their is nothing in the article to indicate a large scale movement of Iranian troops - revolutionary Guards into Iraq.

Iran military is far superior to ISIS and it's Sunni allies. Perhaps Iran would step in to preventing a total victory by ISIS in Iraq.

As for ISIS they would all be better off dying and going to their paradise. For all the murdering they do. Already they have driven nearly a million people from their homes Shiites, Christians, etc..

While I am not sure about the quality of Iranian forces I do not see any issues with them assisting the Iraqi government if invited to do so.

As for ISIS or IS as they seem to want to be called I can see nothing that justifies their continued existence as they seem determined to spread their ideas through conquest so yeah by all means nuke the bastards and move on with life.

However if Iraq actually wants to become a thriving stable nation it only has one option and that is a genuinely inclusive secular government as the alternative is going to be a split into three unstable nations.