Thanks for this. Yes, it's always been a bizarre thing. We've heard endlessly for decades about how the US is going to "train" troops in this country and that country. All over the world we "train" troops. That's supposed to be a good thing, to boost their fighting power.
So now here we have an Iraqi army filled with troops who've been "trained" and supported and armed by the US completely helpless in the face of a terrorist guerilla band who has never been trained by the US -- except in the reverse sense of being battle-hardened by fighting AGAINST the US.
I guess you could make the argument that ISIL is so powerful in part because they've been "supplied" arms by the US, but only inadvertently and through error and blowback.
That an Iraqi army trained and armed by the US has lost a provincial capital to a terrorist group and then had their/our weapons taken by the victors is a spectacle almost too scary and tragic to mentally take in.
Why is there this assumption that people in third world countries need to be "trained" by the US, and that that makes them better fighters?
Just learning about all this... I know there are Iran-aligned militias in Iraq, but does Iran actually have its own military (Revolutionary Guards, etc.) fighting against ISIS in Iraq currently? Has that specifically been requested by Iraq?
If this Shiite coalition does come into being, what kinds of specific things could Iran do against ISIS, say, in Syria? Send troops? Or are we talking about diplomatic steps?
Thanks for this. Yes, it's always been a bizarre thing. We've heard endlessly for decades about how the US is going to "train" troops in this country and that country. All over the world we "train" troops. That's supposed to be a good thing, to boost their fighting power.
So now here we have an Iraqi army filled with troops who've been "trained" and supported and armed by the US completely helpless in the face of a terrorist guerilla band who has never been trained by the US -- except in the reverse sense of being battle-hardened by fighting AGAINST the US.
I guess you could make the argument that ISIL is so powerful in part because they've been "supplied" arms by the US, but only inadvertently and through error and blowback.
That an Iraqi army trained and armed by the US has lost a provincial capital to a terrorist group and then had their/our weapons taken by the victors is a spectacle almost too scary and tragic to mentally take in.
Why is there this assumption that people in third world countries need to be "trained" by the US, and that that makes them better fighters?
Just learning about all this... I know there are Iran-aligned militias in Iraq, but does Iran actually have its own military (Revolutionary Guards, etc.) fighting against ISIS in Iraq currently? Has that specifically been requested by Iraq?
If this Shiite coalition does come into being, what kinds of specific things could Iran do against ISIS, say, in Syria? Send troops? Or are we talking about diplomatic steps?