[lit-ideas] Re: A Question REALLY Answered
- From: david ritchie <ritchierd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 11:05:50 -0800
On Dec 25, 2005, at 10:35 PM, Andreas Ramos wrote:
Specifically, he meant their lack of experience. The officer said
that he had "not met one, not one, Iraqi who knew how to use a
scope". They simply don't understand how to use weapons, act as an
army, act as a team, and so on.
I wonder about the Iraq/Iran War. Did they just simply slaughter
each other in the most primitive way?
"Andy" adds, "Iraqi soldiers are in fact not trainable in the sense
that the American Army is trainable. "
May I call your attention to the following website
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/iran_iraq_war/iran_iraq_war3.php
which repeats, in different form, the claim that both Iraq and Iran's
forces were unable to use scopes (the ref here is to tank scopes).
And yet, you'll note, the air war was fought in sophisticated fashion.
You'll see that the infantry slaughter was very primitive,
particularly once the Iranians put Mullahs in charge of military
operations.
Is "Andy" saying that those people who choose to join Iraq's new
armed forces are different from their American counterparts in some
way: I.Q. or hand-eye co-ordination or willingness to listen and to
be subject to military discipline? What makes them "untrainable"?
David Ritchie
Portland, Oregon
Other related posts:
