IIRC the most of the ISAF has already bailed out.

No-one’s waiting until the snows of October.

Those who’d better hurry up: NGOs and infidel contractors.

IIRC, the last of the British Army has just left.

There should be no non-American ISAF forces past August — just 75 days away.

By that time the ISAF will have devolved back to Bagram (mostly) and Kabul. Most of Afghanistan is already infidel-free.

How American forces will get out of land locked Afghanistan… that’s still undecided.

You’d want atomics too if your main source of line manpower was composed of the hated enemy: Shi’ites and Kurds.

And he was up against a nation that had (largely) religious unity. (Iran) that had a centuries long tradition of kicking Arab tush.

And he discovered that virtually ALL of his Soviet military gear was third rate. (The Soviets NEVER permitted their true war-fighting gear to be exported, just “monkey models.”)

Certainly his generals informed him that French aircraft were second rate.

He’d never be able to buy the first rate stuff: American.

[(Famously (4) F-4 Phantom IIs flown by Persian pilots destroyed entire squadrons early in the war. They caught the Iraqi Air Force on the tarmac — Israeli style — and shot them up. Saddam had them lined up like they were Egyptian Migs.]

Atomics and biologicals even nerve agents seemed to solve the matter.

%%%

ISIL has solved Tehran’s military impasse: how to get serious strength past the Shatt al Arab. Now they’ll get it by invitation.

Perfect. Rump Iraq + Iran = the anti-NATO.

Is it any wonder Barry wants to get the heck out of Afghanistan?

The Shia death squads were sent because the siege of Fallujah failed, and the Sunni vs Shia divide widened due to that, and no US forces to mediate.

Saddam constructed his military the way America fielded segregated Black military formations in WWII: White officers, Black non-coms.

In the case of Saddam, the officers were Sunnis — and the general officers were pretty much exclusively ‘Tikritis’ — and the top tier were cousins.

Such a segregated military has been the cultural norm for tens of thousands of years… right on back to tribalism.

In the case of the Americanized Iraqi Army, we insisted on slotting Shi’ites (of far less experience) to the highest ranks.

The result was that fission occurred at the command rank levels. Unlike line troops, these gentlemen but rarely interact on a daily basis — except by telephone.

When jihad erupts, the cleavage faults along regimental and battalion levels.

This situation occurred in Antebellum America: Winter 1861 — immediately after it was apparent that Lincoln was elected.

Sherman left his post (at LSU — he basically founded it — though it was not so named at the time) to head north. Many another officer left their posts, both Unionist and Southerners.

Something like this is actively under way in Iraq at this time. Sistani triggered it by (Shi’ite) declaration.

One should expect to see the next phase of their civil war being fought by segregated formations. The old ‘regular army’ of the central government will be entirely replaced by such units. Whether this change is codified by name changes or not.

This reformation will take the bulk of the Summer-Autumn season.

Then a grinder — anabasis — will occur as the Shia move to entirely displace the Sunnis from the general Baghdad area — probably moving to regain the entire Tigris corridor. ( Figure on a multi-year campaign.)

One should expect the Persians to have a decisive impact on all military action going forward.

BTW, ISIL sure looks like an al Quds tool. The action – counter-action – success gambit is classically Persian. (Soviet, too.)

You are absolutely correct about my reaction to this. It has harmonic vibrations with some of the reasons for my original change experience.

Also, I have been dreading the left doing this ever since the war in Iraq began. I knew this was the plan. We managed to stave it off—barely—all this time. The election of Obama made it clear the abandonment would happen. I had still retained a very small hope that somehow Iraq was strong enough to withstand the effects of that, although I really didn’t see how it could be.

It’s like watching a Greek tragedy play out—again.

Horrible.

vanderleun quoting Drew: “They were given a chance to build a decent country after Saddam’s removal and they squandered it.”

I don’t agree with this at all. Remember, the COIN “Surge” only works with the Anbar Awakening.

First of all, 8 years would be an insufficient post-war nation-building project for Western Europe, let alone the Middle East. 10 years is about what it takes for step 1 of a nation-building project under placid conditions. Second, Iraq’s civil society was corrupted internally before we invaded, contrary to the Left’s revisionist history of a functional civil society under Saddam – in part due to damage from our ‘containment’. Third, Iraq suffered from a vicious post-war invasion by AQI that combined explosively with the Iran-sponsored Sadrists.

Given all of its challenges, Iraq had made tremendous strides in a short time at the point we cut off our security guarantee prematurely in a region whose dangerous volatility was spiking where Iraq was an immensely valuable target.

It’s not like we’re new at this. If we had left our European and Asia post-WW2 charges to the tender mercies of our regional competitors, they would have “squandered” the chance we gave them, too.

It’s been proven on our watch that a nascent, vulnerable nation that starts dysfunctional can work out its internal issues (Korea), but it’s also been proven on our watch that security is absolutely necessary to do so (Vietnam).

blert,

How diverse was the military under Saddam? If it was diverse under Saddam, then it was following precedent rather than a novel American creation. (Which isn’t to suggest that an Iraqi military unable to defeat an Iranian military being purged was great shakes under Saddam, not to mention Iraq’s other military defeats. His consistently failing military is a reason Saddam believed he needed WMD in the 1st place.)