What's new

US Donates More Abrams Tanks, Humvees to Iraq

You really believe that Militias are temporary? Al-Qaeda was a militia one day, ISIS when it was ISI was a militia, Hizboullah was a militia, Houthis were a militia. Khameer Rouge were a militia, Al-Maliki's overtly sectarian government that created the bed for Sunnis to take in ISIS in the first place was put in place by these militias.

What you are asking for basically is entire ethnic cleansing of Iraq. Killing of entire families, and this doesn't make you and ISIS supporters any different, they call for the same exact thing, only from the other side. If these militias you support have the same mentality as you then maybe they deserve each other.

My views of the militia's are that they will be useful in the fight against ISIS, the fighters of the militia's are Shi'ite Iraqis with most of them loyal to Iraq and Najaf school not Qom. Iran has it's own interests, they of course don't want the militia's to disappear as this gives them influence like an article stated, but that's unlikely to happen with the counterbalance of support provided to Iraqi gov and army from the west. Also unlike in other countries the Iraqi militia's won't fight the army. Remember Basra 2008, Mahdi army melted away from the city, same will happen here.

Abadi has called for the militia's to place themselves under Iraqi government command indicating his plans, their leaders will resist but the forces won't fight each other over it.

During Maliki the militia's were inactive, Al Arabiya and everyone was calling the army Maliki army so now they got their ideal situation, let them enjoy it as they wished for. Did you see the video I posted of Ali Hatem ? that explains their mentality, Safavid army is gone they're enjoying life with Dawla.

I don't call for killing innocent people, killing those who house and feed ISIS is a necessity to defeat the enemy which is inside the body ( country ). What is your issue with that anyway, it's treason during wartime, Europe used firing squads for such people.
 
My views of the militia's are that they will be useful in the fight against ISIS, the fighters of the militia's are Shi'ite Iraqis with most of them loyal to Iraq and Najaf school not Qom. Iran has it's own interests, they of course don't want the militia's to disappear as this gives them influence like an article stated, but that's unlikely to happen with the counterbalance of support provided to Iraqi gov and army from the west. Also unlike in other countries the Iraqi militia's won't fight the army. Remember Basra 2008, Mahdi army melted away from the city, same will happen here.

Abadi has called for the militia's to place themselves under Iraqi government command indicating his plans, their leaders will resist but the forces won't fight each other over it.

During Maliki the militia's were inactive, Al Arabiya and everyone was calling the army Maliki army so now they got their ideal situation, let them enjoy it as they wished for. Did you see the video I posted of Ali Hatem ? that explains their mentality, Safavid army is gone they're enjoying life with Dawla.

I don't call for killing innocent people, killing those who house and feed ISIS is a necessity to defeat the enemy which is inside the body ( country ). What is your issue with that anyway, it's treason during wartime, Europe used firing squads for such people.

And it was wrong then as it is wrong now. I have deep distrust of Iraqi militia, with their every other statement being a threat against KSA. So you can understand my concern. If these militia would take control of the country, they would pretty much give it whole sale to Iran, then you can say goodbye to your Iraq, enjoy being an Iranian domain. Maybe the supreme leader will have pity on Iraqi Arabs and make them second class citizens instead of third. And these militias will worship him more than they already do for it. Be careful who you trust, Saudi Arabia ran a very organized and tight militia branches stretching from Afghanistan to Bosnia, look where that brought us. Iran is just following on the same Saudi footsteps.
 
@Mosamania tell me your realistic plan on how to defeat ISIS then ?

Before the militia's cleansed Jurf al Sakhr there were a lot more car bombs in Baghdad, why do you want us to do nothing and stay asleep just so that we aren't 'sectarian' ? I'll be labeled sectarian even if i'm atheist. ISIS massacred 1700 people in 1 day and no one speaks about it, militia's kill ISIS supporters and everyone cries SECTARIAN

And it was wrong then as it is wrong now. I have deep distrust of Iraqi militia, with their every other statement being a threat against KSA. So you can understand my concern.
Yeah I understand, but for those living in Iraq is it priority to please foreigners or to provide safety ? You as a doctor know the theories of Maslow and others, it's in their nature to choose for safety.

If these militia would take control of the country, they would pretty much give it whole sale to Iran, then you can say goodbye to your Iraq, enjoy being an Iranian domain. Maybe the supreme leader will have pity on Iraqi Arabs and make them second class citizens instead of third. And these militias will worship him more than they already do for it. Be careful who you trust, Saudi Arabia ran a very organized and tight militia branches stretching from Afghanistan to Bosnia, look where that brought us. Iran is just following on the same Saudi footsteps.
They can't take control and they won't fight the army, and even if they did you have the coalition military in the air and in the region so what's the chance of that happening.
 
@Mosamania tell me your realistic plan on how to defeat ISIS then ?

Before the militia's cleansed Jurf al Sakhr there were a lot more car bombs in Baghdad, why do you want us to do nothing and stay asleep just so that we aren't 'sectarian' ? I'll be labeled sectarian even if i'm atheist. ISIS massacred 1700 people in 1 day and no one speaks about it, militia's kill ISIS supporters and everyone cries SECTARIAN


The way to defeat ISIS is to have a coalition of troops on the ground spread across Iraq and Syria, state militaries that won't engage in extra-judicial activity and taking laws into their own hands type of deal. That would be the best way to deal with ISIS. Second best is for these militias to join the army and not act as militias. Because honestly they are very clearly affirming that they don't wish to be part of the regular army and rather remain loyal to their respective leaders who are loyal to not so Iraqi leaders.

In Saudi Arabia we have something called "Nafeer centres" these Nafeer centres act as reserve force in times of war, that civilians go to join the military and be under direct military command. This is so that there won't be militias. Iraq should consider a similar system to absorb those who wish to fight, let them fight for their country and not for religious beliefs.

@Mosamania Yeah I understand, but for those living in Iraq is it priority to please foreigners or to provide safety ? You as a doctor know the theories of Maslow and others, it's in their nature to choose for safety.


They can't take control and they won't fight the army, and even if they did you have the coalition military in the air and in the region so what's the chance of that happening.

It is not about pleasing foreigners, it is about not giving ISIS a higher moral ground, and further push Sunnis to believe that ISIS is truly their only saviour from Shia massacres. Sectrianising the conflict will result in Shia groups that are identical to Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and one day they will realise that they are not pleased with one Iraqi prime minister and will stage a violent revolt the next day because this is what history has taught us, and you know that to be true as well.

So when they eventually choose to fight the Army openly one day, you will again call for a coalition of the willing? Is that a realistic plan do you think?
 
The way to defeat ISIS is to have a coalition of troops on the ground spread across Iraq and Syria, state militaries that won't engage in extra-judicial activity and taking laws into their own hands type of deal. That would be the best way to deal with ISIS. Second best is for these militias to join the army and not act as militias. Because honestly they are very clearly affirming that they don't wish to be part of the regular army and rather remain loyal to their respective leaders who are loyal to not so Iraqi leaders.

Takes time to integrate militia's, it's not that they don't want to be part of the army, it's that the army is full of corrupt commanders.

It is not about pleasing foreigners, it is about not giving ISIS a higher moral ground, and further push Sunnis to believe that ISIS is truly their only saviour from Shia massacres. Sectrianising the conflict will result in Shia groups that are identical to Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and one day they will realise that they are not pleased with one Iraqi prime minister and will stage a violent revolt the next day because this is what history has taught us, and you know that to be true as well.

So when they eventually choose to fight the Army openly one day, you will again call for a coalition of the willing? Is that a realistic plan do you think?
I actually don't want to convince Sunnis like that, the likes of Ali Hatem, his tribe wants him dead as well for betrayal no one wants trash like that back, let ISIS tear him and his fellow friends a 2nd one.

The majority of Shi'a militias aren't extreme to the level where they will fight gov troops, if a small group choses to do so they won't last long, this happened earlier and they didn't last longer than a week. Theres a bigger threat to worry about than militia's, removing militia's now means ISIS advancement. Besides this is a war on all of us, have you seen the ISIS supporting monkeys on PDF, worry about the bigger threat instead.
 
@1000

The problem with Iraq since 2003 has been the various terrorist groups and non-state actors that have roamed around freely and which all have been able to influence the political parties and regimes.

Call them militias, al-Jays al-Iraqi al-Hurr, or whatever you want to. Sunni, Shia, Salafi/Wahhabi (just to make the farsis happy).

As long as they are present, as long as regional powers support them or are favorable to them, as long as various Iraqi regimes are sympathetic towards those groups as long as they are "their own" = from the same sect supposedly Iraq will continue to be in huge trouble.

To tell you honestly then I see a black feature for Iraq if unity and a strong independent Iraq is the goal. The Kurds in the North are basically ruling their own two countries (Barzanistan and Talabanistan), the mistrust between Sunni Arabs and Shia Arabs is huge and will take decades to heal if not generations, federalism is on the rise (see in Basra etc.).

People are getting more and more radical and extreme in their though process. Iraq's location is not helping either or the demographic makeup as no ethnic (outside of Arabs obviously) or religious group will dominate fully. It's not like in KSA, Iran and Turkey where you have 3 dominating ethnic sects and ethnicities.

Iraq should have a strong government and a strong leader that promotes Iraqi nationalism but at the same acknowledges that he is part of the Arab fold and always will be. Abadi might do this but one can't seriously have high hopes when he is a Islamic Dawa Party member. All while the State of Law coalition is still the biggest political bloc and the Shia alternative is Al-Hakim (Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq) and Al-Sadr (Sadrist Movement). Even bigger Shia islamists. Indeed the Arab world has been blessed with great retarded leaderships. Farsi influence in Iraq must be gone in order for Iraq to truly advance as before. As long as this is not the case Iraq will end up as another Southern Lebanon. Just on a bigger and more complex scale.

They are not even effective leaders. Iraq is an Islamic country and that is very good but they make a mockery out of it all with their retarded behavior, statements, corruption etc. It's the same all over the Islamic world.

The Shia militias are not doing what their enemies are doing because they have no reason to do so. They are in power but if they ever found themselves in a similar position they would employ similar tactics and fight the regime in power. As seen previously under the US occupation and under Saddam.

Of course I might be wrong and I hope so.

Anyway you know that I am right as my track record in terms of predictions in the Arab world tells its own clear story.
 
Last edited:
@1000

The problem with Iraq since 2003 has been the various terrorist groups and non-state actors that have roamed around freely and which all have been able to influence the political parties and regimes.

Call them militias, al-Jays al-Iraqi al-Hurr, or whatever you want to. Sunni, Shia, Salafi/Wahhabi (just to make the farsis happy).

As long as they are present, as long as regional powers support them or are favorable to them, as long as various Iraqi regimes are sympathetic towards those groups as long as they are "their own" = from the same sect supposedly Iraq will continue to be in huge trouble.

To tell you honestly then I see a black feature for Iraq if unity and a strong independent Iraq is the goal. The Kurds in the North are basically ruling their own two countries (Barzanistan and Talabanistan), the mistrust between Sunni Arabs and Shia Arabs is huge and will take decades to heal if not generations, federalism is on the rise (see in Basra etc.).

People are getting more and more radical and extreme in their though process. Iraq's location is not helping either or the demographic makeup as no ethnic (outside of Arabs obviously) or religious group will dominate fully. It's not like in KSA, Iran and Turkey where you have 3 dominating ethnic sects and ethnicities.

Iraq should have a strong government and a strong leader that promotes Iraqi nationalism but at the same acknowledges that he is part of the Arab fold and always will be. Abadi might do this but one can't seriously have high hopes when he is a Islamic Dawa Party member. All while the State of Law coalition is still the biggest political bloc and the Shia alternative is Al-Hakim (Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq) and Al-Sadr (Sadrist Movement). Even bigger Shia islamists. Indeed the Arab world has been blessed with great retarded leaderships. Farsi influence in Iraq must be gone in order for Iraq to truly advance as before. As long as this is not the case Iraq will end up as another Southern Lebanon. Just on a bigger and more complex scale.

They are not even effective leaders. Iraq is an Islamic country and that is very good but they make a mockery out of it all with their retarded behavior, statements, corruption etc. It's the same all over the Islamic world.

The Shia militias are not doing what their enemies are doing because they have no reason to do so. They are in power but if they ever found themselves in a similar position they would employ similar tactics and fight the regime in power. As seen previously under the US occupation and under Saddam.

Of course I might be wrong and I hope so.

Anyway you know that I am right as my track record in terms of predictions in the Arab world tells its own clear story.

Everything depends on the Sunnis, if they side with Iraq than the state will be strong and Kurds will be dealt with, if they side with ISIS / revolution against 'Safavids' than it benefits the enemies ( kurds ). What good does ISIS bring to Sunnis though ? It makes their life's shit, the only good thing is bombings will stop. Now already their life's are shit, prices of products are high, there's no freedom, aerial attacks daily, massacres daily not to mention what will happen when IA/militia's retake cities.. ISIS puts IED's in every home and road before they leave indicating how much they care about those Sunnis.

So it depends on them, if they're really with the state than ISIS will be defeated with ease for the same reason why there is no ISIS in Southern Iraq.
 
Everything depends on the Sunnis, if they side with Iraq than the state will be strong and Kurds will be dealt with, if they side with ISIS / revolution against 'Safavids' than it benefits the enemies ( kurds ). What good does ISIS bring to Sunnis though ? It makes their life's shit, the only good thing is bombings will stop. Now already their life's are shit, prices of products are high, there's no freedom, aerial attacks daily, massacres daily not to mention what will happen when IA/militia's retake cities.. ISIS puts IED's in every home and road before they leave indicating how much they care about those Sunnis.

So it depends on them, if they're really with the state than ISIS will be defeated with ease for the same reason why there is no ISIS in Southern Iraq.

Nothing which we all know (and they themselves know outside of a few hardcore supporters) but you also need to ask yourself why they were willing to accept Daesh in the first place. The reasons for that are many.

The point I was trying to make is that all non-state actors are a danger if you want to see a truly stable, pluralistic Iraq and where meddling by outsiders is small or as small as it can possibly be.

Those militias might serve the most important goal now which is to defeat Deash but when that is done and dusted they will become a big problem. Unless you want your country to become a semi-Farsi colony led by loyal Shia Islamists that bow when the Supreme Leader says so and shits when he does. Under such a atmosphere the Iraqi Sunni Arabs who form 25-30% of the population will never fully trust the regime.

In 2006 and 2007 the locals with American help defeated the Islamic State in Al-Anbar, Western parts of Baghdad and elsewhere. What happened a few years after the fatal rule of Al-Maliki? They rose up from within because the climate that they need to rise up in was there. If nothing changes when Daesh gets defaeted the same thing can potentially happen in the upcoming years again. In fact I predict that it will happen. No powerful military can prevent 25-30% of your population (potentially) to cause huge trouble as seen in Iraq for the past 1.5 years. It only takes 2-3% actually and a few more percent of silent supporters.

You failed to address the points that I was trying to make and just stated what we all know namely that Daesh are retards and a problem for all and that the Iraqi Sunni Arabs should quit supporting it. Those that do.

Iraq is a strong and proud country on its own. It does not need to be a satellite state of anyone.
 
Last edited:
Iraq's Military Is Getting Hundreds Of American Vehicles - Business Insider
Jan. 6, 2015, 3:41 PM

Iraq is getting a lot more American armor.

According to Defense News, the US donated $300 million in military equipment to Iraq in 2014, and will deliver 6 M1 Abrams tanks and 50 humvees to the Baghdad government at no cost.

And in late December, Defense News also reported that the US State Department authorized Iraq to purchase 175 M1 Abrams tanks and other vehicles from the United States, stocking up on an asset that has already proven useful for US allies across the region.

The State Department approved the $2.4 billion deal in late December "to facilitate progress towards increasing [Iraq's] ability to quickly mobilize and defend its border."

Over the past two weeks, the US has also delivered 250 MRAPs to Iraq, the mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles that replaced the under-protected humvee during the course of the American-led war in Iraq last decade.

The Iraqi army has a poor recent record of allowing US-supplied weaponry to fall into the wrong hands. US-supplied firearms and vehicles were seized from the Iraqi military when ISIS blitzed through northern and western Iraq in June.

And at least 40 units of the M1 Abrams have been lost "to enemy action or panic" in Iraq intelligence commentator Matthew Aid wrote, likely referring to the wave of desertion that swept the Iraqi army as ISIS swept through the country. Indeed, four of the country's fourteen army divisions — representing roughly 30,000 troops — disbanded during the ISIS offensive last June.

That month, an unnamed member of the Obama Administration told The New York Times that 28 Abrams tanks were damaged and five "sustained full armor penetration by antitank guided missiles" in the first half of 2014, which culminated in ISIS's capture of Mosul.

At the height of the US-led war in 2008, Iraq ordered 140 such tanks, 60 tank transporters, and 21 armored recovery vehicles capable of towing large military vehicles. They received the order in 2010.

In 2009, the year between order and delivery, the US-based Abrams factory was operating at its peak, putting out two or three refurbished tanks daily. Today the military is doubtful of the need to keep producing or fixing up battle tanks suited for conventional warfare, according to The Washington Post. This time last year, the Abrams factory was down to 500 employees, from a peak of 1,220.

But aid wrote that other American allies operating the tank — Egypt, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia — are "quietly pleased" with the tank's abilities. "Iraqi army officers have spoken to fellow Arab officers who have used the M-1, and were told this was the way to go."


Read more: Iraq's Military Is Getting Hundreds Of American Vehicles - Business Insider
 
Is it possible for Iraq to set up a defense industry and manufacture Abrams tanks like Egypt does?
 
Is it possible for Iraq to set up a defense industry and manufacture Abrams tanks like Egypt does?

They're far from looking for such deals, they're currently looking to build local ammo production facilities. It takes time to rebuild the industry and it'll be delayed with an ongoing war.

In the 90's Iraq and Russia had a deal for joint production of about 80 Mi-28's locally.

https://books.google.nl/books?id=6sI7BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=iraq russia mi-28 1990&source=bl&ots=TL7WV5h_kU&sig=9_4WQDQTmzY1CFj0IAPVSzUAM5o&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=U9StVOx1hKw85f6AmAs&ved=0CFgQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=iraq russia mi-28 1990&f=false

mi28.png
 
You really are supporting Shi'a militias? The ones saying that Iraq's killed in Iran-Iraq war are not martyrs and will go to hell only Iranians are going to heaven? The one's saying that they would support the protected from wrong Khamenie against even Iraq if he requested it? The ones who are going town to town killing hundreds of Sunnis extra-judicially saying they are "ISIS supporters" and if you asked them for proof they will say "They are Wahabis" effectively making them an ISIS the same but only one's Sunni the other Shi'a? Really disappointed in you.

I really am shocked to see so many people promoting genocide so openly today. Has ethnic cleansing really become the norm now?

If you dare step in and protect Sunni brothers .. we did what needed to protect our Shia brothers against ISIL thugs and terrorists ...
The martyr is the one who's killed in the way of God , and as it stated in Quran God doesn't like aggressors .. and it's pretty clear who started the war.
 
Everything depends on the Sunnis, if they side with Iraq than the state will be strong and Kurds will be dealt with, if they side with ISIS / revolution against 'Safavids' than it benefits the enemies ( kurds ). What good does ISIS bring to Sunnis though ? It makes their life's shit, the only good thing is bombings will stop. Now already their life's are shit, prices of products are high, there's no freedom, aerial attacks daily, massacres daily not to mention what will happen when IA/militia's retake cities.. ISIS puts IED's in every home and road before they leave indicating how much they care about those Sunnis.

So it depends on them, if they're really with the state than ISIS will be defeated with ease for the same reason why there is no ISIS in Southern Iraq.


Truth is Iraqi Sunnis have to choose, either being massacred by ISIS, or being massacred by Shia militias.
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom