Because the Iraqi former president Maliki destroyed what we built. We built a Shia and Sunni Iraqi army and maliki fearing Sunni revolt replaced leaders and just about kicked all Sunni out. Now that doesn't sound to bad does it? Here's where it gets bad, he replaced the former leaders with incompetent leaders with no battlefield experience whereas the ones we put in leaders were there because they wanted their place. Maliki replaced them with friends and family. So whenever they went into battle with Isis the incompetent leaders ran and their soldiers followed, and the ones that stayed had little fighting experience and therefore didn't know what to do against these battle hardened jihadis, and that is where we are at now.
Interesting question and others are likely to be more knowledgeable on the topic.I did see some interesting commentary recently that North Korea, thanks to exports to China, is not as economically struggling as many are led to believe.However. The majority of its ‘soldiers’ spend more time working as farm labourers than on military exercises.Saying that, they have 40,000 very well trained and equipped ‘special force’ soldiers. They won’t be on the same level as SAS/SEAL or let alone Commando/Marine Recon, but they have been specially trained to infiltrate and disrupt. We know that since 1953, North Korea has been excavating, tunneling and boring throughout their country for bunkers, gun positions and probably numerous tunnels across the DMZ. 40,000 men, probably wearing either civilian or South Korean uniforms committing sabotage, assassination, etc would cause absolute mayhem for frontline US and ROK units.Education isn’t as essential as many are led to believe - e.g. Taliban. Third world goat herders can shoot and scoot pretty well. It’s the manning of high tech systems that would be difficult. Artillery and AK-47s are not high tech systems. Also remember the problems we had with 3rd world bunkers around Tora Bora - well the North Koreans have been building bunkers for 50 years and their country is just as mountainous - think Cu Chi tunnels on steroids.Training may be limited but it will likely be specific.. i.e. daily exercises to roll artillery pieces in and out of caves - which will be effective for at least the first week.You can guarantee that China will provide some combat systems for real world testing much like Russia did in the Vietnam War.. AA systems may be better than planned/currently documented and will likely have Chinese ‘advisers’.They have 70 submarines.. yes most are all old clunkers, but close to shore the clunking is a little harder to detect (especially if they decide to just sit on the bottom and wait for you to pass over) and it’s also harder for US & South Korean attack boats to hide. The South Koreans lost a corvette not that long ago to such a clunker.. there’s also the issue of ammunition - so even if you find all of them quickly and sink them all, you’ll need to resupply urgently or you’ll have nothing left if the Chinese enter the fray with much more advanced submarines..Overall, we’d obviously ‘win’ but at a much higher cost than Desert Storm or Enduring Freedom.
China's military poorly trained/equipped?
by utilizing international standards, particular, they're ok. by utilizing Western standards, they're poorly experienced and equipped. endure in suggestions, there is greater to it than not uncomplicated Boot Camp. there is the daily discipline and dedication in a unit. there's a stable NCO corps. there is morale. there is group bonds outfitted by the years and the skill of the unit to function easily as a set. China's forces are actually not expert. a great number of chinese language human beings have some trouble-unfastened protection rigidity education, yet quite few have better than a three hundred and sixty 5 days's adventure in the occupation of palms and belong to stable, cohesive, nicely experienced and nicely-equipped instruments. Russia nonetheless has conscription, and conscription remains in basic terms 2 years, and conscripts spend plenty of their first three hundred and sixty 5 days getting crushed up by utilizing the 2nd three hundred and sixty 5 days adult men, and much of their 2nd three hundred and sixty 5 days beating up the recent adult men.
Lots of reasons:Significantly less armor (barely 500 mm RHAe on the heaviest armored T-72 versus well over 750 on the thinnest armored Abrams).Less capable sights. T-72 could barely see/kill out to 2500 meters. And couldn’t see at all at night. Abrams can see/kill out to 5000 meters and was just as effective at night as daytime. Invasion and most combat was at night: 100% advantage Abrams.Less powerful and WAY less accurate gun. 2A46 T-72 gun could barely reach out to 2500 meters on T-72 and could barely penetrate 250–300 mm of RHAe with a sabot round at 2000 meters. ATGM rounds could penetrate more (up to 750–800 mm of RHAe but only out to 2500 meters). First round hit probability by T-72: less than 40%. Abrams tanks can “see” and generate a ballistic solution out to AT LEAST 5000 meters. M256 Rheinmetall Abrams gun could penetrate between 500–600 mm RHAe at 2000 meters and had a first round hit probability over 90%.Autoloader on T-72 could barely load 6 rounds per minute if all conditions were perfect (1 round every 10 seconds). Barely adequate Abrams crew can load one round every 7 seconds. That is three seconds faster for the slowest Abrams crew than is even possible for the best T-72 crew…and that ignores a GOOD or GREAT Abrams loaders who can load at 3–5 seconds…up to 20 rounds per minute theoretically.MUCH Less well trained crews on Iraqi T-72s versus Abrams.Better training all around, better officers, better NCOs, better soldiers for US military.More discipline by US soldiers.Better planning, better execution of plans by US troops.MUCH better support, logistics, and repair capabilities supporting front line troops in US military.And numerous other reasons, but those are the “major” factors.
There were many reasons, not the least of which was their commander in chief.Sadaam was a rank amateur at strategic command, both on offense and defense. Whatever the shortcomings of his direct appointments to high command (strong political allies with limited military ability) they all pale in comparison to the Idiot in Chief who thought war with the US would mean an limited engagement or that the six month buildup was an indication of political reluctance to begin a military operaton. Allowing a first world power to build up supplies and mobile forces unhindered for six months while you build inadequate thin static defenses is a recipe for disaster of the first order.But on to the Iraqi forces.Predominantly when you have two distinct levels of forces - one showered with the best equipment and logistics and the other cobbled together with inadequate supplies it means the entire force is of questionable value. You cannot build an NCO or officer corps in separate silos or in disparate units with a variance of training. This will only mean that the leadership is already in crisis. Anyone with a lick of sense in the ranks would realize that their “non-elite” status is tantamount to being labelled ‘cannon fodder’ so that the better units can extract themselves in any danger.First contact with the secondary forces will mean mass surrenders almost as quickly. Only success will ensure cohesion and there was little chance of that in 1991 or 2003.Secondly, mobile large unit training is expensive and time consuming, meaning that the larger your force, the less likely you’ll do it. At a certain point in size, any future conflict will mean it will be a ‘come as you are’ war with essentially untrained units, officers and NCOs.This also means staffs at higher commands will be sluggish, unprepared for countering a more mobile force and will make basic errors of timing that will always be well behind the pace of battle.There was an Iraqi Major General who reported back to Baghdad personally whose command was lost before he could even return to join it. He had been gone just 8 hours and in his immediate memoirs after the war expressed that he was astounded at the pace the Americans moved.
Why are the Iraqi troops/Police trained so well?
The sheer inadequacy of the Iraqi security forces can be attributable to four things: 1. Their emulation of the sheer incompetence in which the Bush administration managed this war. Hence, they are merely mimicking their leaders. 2. The Iraq security forces don’t truly trust Americans, and why should they? After all, we are illegally occupying their land. It would seem natural that many Iraqis would use their employment under a foreign occupying force to exploit that force for money, while not truly serving it. 3. The very nature of the Iraqi security forces job is to either defend a tribal adversary, or attack someone they consider to be kin or part of their sect. Hence, there will be a natural conflict of interest; a conflict that our brilliant minds in Washington didn’t take into account when they thought up this occupation. 4. The men who constitute the Iraqi security forces aren’t professional soldiers or even professional law enforcement officials, hence the time allotted by our government to get them up to par isn’t enough, especially when you consider Saddam’s security agencies have been doing this for years.
Are the Chinese military really poorly trained/equipped?
By global standards, sure, they're okay. By Western standards, they are poorly trained and equipped. Remember, there's more to it than tough Boot Camp. There's the every day discipline and dedication in a unit. There's a strong NCO corps. There's morale. There's team bonds built over time and the ability of the unit to operate smoothly as a team. China's forces are not professional. LOADS of Chinese people have some basic military training, but relatively few have more than a year's experience in the profession of arms and belong to good, cohesive, well trained and well-equipped units. Russia still has conscription, and conscription is still only two years, and conscripts spend a lot of their first year getting beaten up by the second year guys, and a lot of their second year beating up the new guys.
Are the Iraqi forces well trained, but just not motivated to fight for a multi-sectatian, unified Iraq?
I wonder if it is possible to have a well cultured and well trained military within one or two years. I mean from the highest leadership to the lowest rank and file. It took America close to 150 years to have the kind of force it has today. Iraq is a multi-reliegious country. Each group believes it should be in control of Iraq instead of the other. Americans instituted the shiite group who are ready to fight and die, like every other typical Muslim, but are disadvantaged by their population. The Sunnis want to have the control but ignored the first and the only chance they had so far to do so, by boycotting the last general election (majority of them did not vote), but has the population to do so. The shiites are trying to enforce their laws and their own kind of Islam, which is alien to the majority of Sunni Iraqis and the very tenet of the Islamic Reliegion. Shiite was an Islamic Ideology adopted after the death of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW), and hence the rejection. What Americans need to do is to either encourage the formation of a unity government with all the waring factions agreeing to a terminal date for a proper government or the torment of the US and its allies forces would continue in Iraq.
Is the US military poorly trained?
no they're not poorly trained at all! they're quite close to the top for being the best trained hollyy chance - thats not even close to being true we have reconnaisence equipment that the US doesn't even have. so to say they're the MOST advanced and BEST trained is bull excuse me? i know more about the military than you obviously do my brother was an armoured soldier im going into infantry and what exactly have you done? oh nothing? thats right you clearly know nothing about the military's equipment if you did, you would know that the US doesnt have the best trained, and theyre not the most advanced military theyre amazing at what they do, but only someone with NO military education would make such a comment about them being the absolute best! go home and have your momma rub your back little boy i didnt say i know everything, but i do KNOW for a FACT that our reconnaisence equipment is the most advance, we have equipment that the US doesnt have. so yah im going to get defensive if you tell me im wrong when i know im right about something i never said the US isnt well trained and isnt advanced. but what you're saying is that theyre the BEST trained and the MOST advanced, which is untrue. however its true if you're talking about the US Air Force, they ARE the most advanced. but you're marine corps, army are not. ---------------------- we do not train 9 weeks BMQ is 14 weeks longs SQ is then 20 days MOC ranges then from 5 weeks to 17 so dont tell me we train for 9 weeks my MOC training is 17 weeks after 20 days of SQ which is after 14 weeks of BMQ