|
Re: Surprising ratio of losses in Iraq
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisdom_Seeker
How can the Iraqi Army do better when they are not trained, they have been recruited recently. They are unexperienced. The vast majority are shia who only joined cos they had a thing or two against Saddam... and also joined up cos they were unemployed.... they are not with it mentally as well.
I am not the only one saying this.... its US soldiers complaining in blogs saying "when are these Iraqi soldiers gona stand up for themselves and fight for their country".... ermmm cos they are uncapable... and turning Iraqis against Iraqis will not mean success. This is what creates civil war and sectarianism. I think the Americans had enough and pushed untrained Iraqi Shia Soldiers to the front line. Of course, the bodies of those soldiers are found scattered around baghdad the next day.
Oh and by the way, those Iraqi Shia soldiers are divided themselves. Some pay allegiance to Moqtada Al Sadar, some to Iran directly, some to their tribal shia leaders... some to the government... and some are working for the resistance also providing intelligence.
WS.
|
The Iraqi army may outperform the US army, because the insurgents will feel more comfortable openly challenging the Iraqi army.
I gave the example of the Afghans against the Soviets, where the advantage in kill ratio disappeared as the Afghans became better armed and more confident because they engaged the Soviets more openly, and suffered much higher casualties.
__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”
Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776
"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address
|