Can the U.S. Military Train the Iraqi Army to Victory Over ISIS?

[Purveyor]

The U.S. military likes to say that when it comes to war, the enemy gets a vote. President Obama made that clear Wednesday as he continued to retool his strategy to “degrade and destroy” the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria. The biggest tweak to U.S. policy was his decision to boost the 3,180 U.S. trainers and advisers in Iraq by as many as 450 additional troops.

The White House has made it clear U.S. troops will be limited to advising and training Iraqi forces and will not be sent into combat against ISIS. “To improve the capabilities and effectiveness of partners on the ground, the President authorized the deployment of up to 450 additional U.S. military personnel to train, advise, and assist Iraqi Security Forces at Taqaddum military base in eastern Anbar province,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said in a statement. But some on Capitol Hill were not impressed by Obama’s reinforcements. Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, a senior member of the armed services committee, called them a “knee-jerk reaction” to recent poor showings by the Iraqi army, rather than a “long-term strategy.”

In many ways, this assignment is déjà vu for the U.S. military. They were ordered into Iraq in the wake of the U.S.-mandated dissolution of the Iraqi army following the 2003 invasion, and told to build a new one from scratch. After all U.S. forces left in 2011, the Iraqi army basically fell apart because of the cronyism and corruption that took place under Nouri al-Malaki, Iraq’s prime minister from 2006 to 2014. Over the past several months they’ve begun anew, training more than 9,000 Iraqi troops, with 3,000 more in the pipeline.

Those sectarian splits caused by Malaki’s government sapped the Iraqi forces “will to fight” to save Ramadi from being overrun by ISIS last month, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said. While training can give troops the skills needed to prevail on the battlefield, training can’t teach will. Nonetheless, U.S. troops who trained Iraqi forces the first time around say Iraqi forces, given decent leadership, are good fighters. They’ve shared their experiences with Army interviewers. The resulting oral histories offer guidance to those U.S. trainers in, or soon headed for, Iraq.

In the initial rebuilding of the Iraqi army, many units suffered from a Saddam Hussein hangover, where the traditional top-down and centralized command structure stifled innovation and initiative. While the passage of time has eased that problem, Iraqi forces remain hampered by their inability to support their forward forces with the intelligence and logistical support that makes for an effective fighting force. That’s less critical for their ISIS foes, whose terror tactics sow fear across wide swaths of Iraq with only hit-and-run attacks.

more...

http://time.com/3916866/isis-iraqi-army-training/

[avebury]

1. Can the U.S. Military Train the Iraqi Army to Victory Over ISIS?

I would guess the answer to that would be - a big fat NO! We don't ever seem to learn.

[old guy]

2. No.

[TheKentuckian]

3. No, next question. "I won't let them pull the old okie Doak on you". No, because you wanted the

privilege yourself.

[cherokeeprogressive]

4. Nnnnnnope.

[cloudbase]

5. Not bloody likely.

It would be easier and more productive teaching a cat to sing America the Beautiful.

[Rex]

6. Have we ever successfully trained any foreign army to win a war against their opponents?

Think hard.

[linuxman]

10. Afghani mujahideen. South koreans

If you count cross training and material assistance, the list is endless.

Just saying.

[Rex]

11. LOL then why are we in both countries with a big military/occupying force?

Nope try again, just saying.

[linuxman]

12. Set down those goalposts whenever your back starts aching.

We left Afghanistan after the soviets did. The mujahideen won in total. We had no presence for the entirety of the 90s. Technically, training and supply from the U.S. Was a success.

[Rex]

13. Again, you are wrong and use two examples of countries we have a huge military presence in.

That's okay I did not expect anyone to get the right answer it has only happened once.

[linuxman]

14. please show me where the mujahideen required assistance afterwards.

Then show me where that stipulation was made in the OP. If not, shut it. If being wrong chaps you that bad, you need to step away from the computer or be more specific. A question was asked ( a poorly worded clueless one) and an answer was given. If you can't deal with it without redefine the original parameters, you should go take a break and try again later. You're not being rational.

[Rex]

15. Wow, need a nap?

All that and all you had to do is ask for the answer. WOW. I kinda figured my post went right over your head. NP.

[Exilednight]

7. We could, but we won't. I've lived in the ME and if

Our government actually took off our western rose colored glasses, the first thing we would learn is that we do not understand their culture.

The only officer I truly respected on the army was an XO I had that taught me about winning at modern war. No war is ever truly won, someone must give up and surrender. If you kill ten thousand people from a million man army, you're not going to win if the other 990,000 keep coming at you.

[joshcryer]

8. Worked against FARC.

But a half million innocent people died.

[cwydro]

9. Nope.

Vietnam all over again.

I thought Obama was smarter.