Some of the Kurds at Kobane are recent volunteers with a few days or weeks of training but they have the same attitudes. The Kurds will follow orders and their officers, who were also trained, usually by Americans, are dependable and, unlike their Iraqi Arab counterparts, not corrupt and prone to run away when things get rough. Because of the greater effectiveness and reliability of the Kurds the U.S. trusts them to look after American air control teams sent to work with them, or to provide accurate and reliable information to warplanes overhead when there are no air controllers available. Thus the Kurds provide more good targets for air strikes.

 

Many of the Kurds are Muslim, so it cannot be THAT SUPERSTITION that is at work here for THEM. 

 

The Iranians are Muslim, and they are effective, too. 

 

But Iraqi Arabs under their officers run away. Why?  

 

"Iraqi Arab counterparts, not corrupt and prone to run away when things get rough."

 

Blacktail once snitted a question about M-1 tanks and Iraqis. How effective could they be?

 

Very effective ... when not manned and supported by COWARDS was my answer.

 

Part of personal COWARDICE is the refusal to face the truth that you gotta ditch your world view and do it the way that your reality actually dictates.

 

No other failure mechanism teaches it so well to Human beings collectively as defeat in war. 

 

Take the Egyptians as the example.

 

For sheer INCOMPETENCE, it was harder to find a bunch of inepticons to fit that description better than Nasser's Egypt. 

 

1967 happens. WHOOPS.

 

The Egyptians sat back on their knocked down butts and took stock as they looked at their asses that the Israelis handed them. 

 

Nasser remained a roadblock to 'reform' but he wasn't going to completely stop the Egyptian military from self analysis (British trained and it stuck enough). They figured they were as brave as the Israelis. It was that they did it wrong.  

 

So they tried to do it right, and when Nasser took his overdue dirt nap, Sadat allowed them (encouraged them) to really try.

 

1973 happens and at first, they do it right (Offense/defense). Israel is in DEEP trouble.

 

Then the Syrians (still stuck in 1967 and doing it wrong.) get in trouble themselves and appeal to their Egyptian brothers to save them.

 

The Egyptians try (all offense) and run into the Israeli buzzsaw.

 

Sadat calls a halt and wins at the peace table what the Egyptian military almost threw away on the battlefield.

 

Then the Muslem Brotherhood fanatic assassinates Sadat and where is Egypt now?

 

Back in 1967 .

 

Point? Islam may not addle everyone, but certain groups already prone to magical thinking (Imshallah) can use it as a world view and excuse to not embrace reality.

 

Part of courage is PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and ACCOUNTABILITY. The Iranians and the Kurds have it. 

 

And apparently the Arabs as a people and a culture, collectively, do not.  

 

There seems to be an interesting development in Iraq. IS is targeting Iranian personnel. Debka article is HERE

 

IS is using conventional methods, like snipers and 'precision strikes' with suicide bombers.  (In)famous general Soleimani was wounded, allegedly.

 

According to another article, HERE, IS took out more than 550 Iranians in last four months.

 

Also, Soleimani seems to be, de facto, top field commander of Iraqi Army at the moment. He assigns and relives Iraqi officers as he sees fit, rebuilding Iraqi Army from the bottom up. If Iran ever decides to execute a military coup in Iraq, they will have all the connections and know all the right people. IF they are going to need military coup, at all.

 

IS seems to be quite effective in its elimination campaign. That might means that Iranians were effective, too, otherwise IS wouldn't commit resources to it. Reminds me of 2006 summer war when Hezbollah stirred things up and ended up in near total control of Lebanon.

 

 

The elimination campaign I mentioned in previous post might be the reason why Iranians conducted an unexpected airstrike with their vintage Phantoms, some two months ago. It might have been in retaliation for someone who got killed.

 

Iranians don't seem to have that much influence, if any, on Iraqi Kurds at the moment. However, one of two major Iraqi Kurd parties, don't remember which one, used to be pro Iranian while Saddam was still in power. Kurds are often pragmatic when forging alliances, especially if they see an opportunity for greater autonomy or independence. Perhaps US and allies should give priority to Kurdish needs, because Turks and Iraqi Shiites don't look reliable these days. Even if government in Baghdad doesn't take it kindly. No matter how it all ends, Kurds will always be a separate entity, one way or another.

 

If you've been following them for long enough, or simply delve into their recent history, you'll realise this is nothing new.

The converse, this is exactly how ISIS fights.

From 2009 until they came to public attention in late 2013, ISIS had managed to assassinate through various means all the SUNNI tribal leaders that may have posed any kind of future threat to them. They identified these Sunni tribes as the primary cause of their loss in 2007 to the american forces in Iraq and have been putting that lesson to work ever since.

Between 2009 and 2012 over 8,000 of the top Sunni military leader, tribal elders, 'famous warriors' plus any academic that proved popular and anti extremist. By the time they started doing their big victory marches across Iraq, and subsequently Syria, the battle had already been won. A very clever way of fighting. 

Look for the same to happen here. Western media are talking about a 2 year campaign to eliminate ISIS. They're probably right about the timeline only not about the outcome. That's roughly how long it'll take before ISIS feels its in a position to do another one of their big largely unopposed offences.

U.S. diplomatic sources had been trying to warn the whitehouse about this coming storm for nearly 5 years. Lucky for ISIS the U.S. has a president that prefers to bury his head in the sand than actually do anything pro-active. Good for the economy, not so much for foreign policy. 

Self defeat?

 

Saladin 

 

Maybe we should take a page from history? And wind up like Saladin did. 

 

Sometimes you have to subvert the apple.

 

 

 

If you've been following them for long enough, or simply delve into their recent history, you'll realise this is nothing new.

The converse, this is exactly how ISIS fights.

From 2009 until they came to public attention in late 2013, ISIS had managed to assassinate through various means all the SUNNI tribal leaders that may have posed any kind of future threat to them. They identified these Sunni tribes as the primary cause of their loss in 2007 to the american forces in Iraq and have been putting that lesson to work ever since.

Between 2009 and 2012 over 8,000 of the top Sunni military leader, tribal elders, 'famous warriors' plus any academic that proved popular and anti extremist. By the time they started doing their big victory marches across Iraq, and subsequently Syria, the battle had already been won. A very clever way of fighting. 

Look for the same to happen here. Western media are talking about a 2 year campaign to eliminate ISIS. They're probably right about the timeline only not about the outcome. That's roughly how long it'll take before ISIS feels its in a position to do another one of their big largely unopposed offences.

U.S. diplomatic sources had been trying to warn the whitehouse about this coming storm for nearly 5 years. Lucky for ISIS the U.S. has a president that prefers to bury his head in the sand than actually do anything pro-active. Good for the economy, not so much for foreign policy. 

I agree with Nate Dog. IS keeps killing, that is what they do, and there is nothing new about it.

 

However, I was, once again, surprised by the pace and extension of Iranian involvement, how deep they penetrated Shia government. Maybe 'penetrate' is not a good term, 'take over' is better. Maliki was the prime minister endorsed by US and allies, because he had some sort of Iraqi unity and equal rights for all ethnic groups on his agenda. Maliki blew it and Shia terrorists are taking over.

 

Keffler suggested, I think, that current US administration is willing to let Iranian take over Iraq, so that they (administration)  don't have to worry about it any more. Perhaps hoping that Iran will maintain some order. That is terribly unfair to all the good people who fought down there.

 

The way I see it, Shia is with Iran, Kurds are with America and allies, Turkey is flirting with IS and Sunnis are having two bad options to chose from, government or IS. I am not suggesting that Americans and some others should put the helmets on and go back to Iraq. I suggest to stop impeding Kurdish goals, and stop having illusions about the government in Baghdad.

 

Considering Iran, their ambitions goes far beyond Iraq. Yielding to them is not the solution. However, current administration always had a soft spot for Iran, for some reasons.