The ISIS offensive in Iraq

[Simon]

 

[gourimoko]

Interesting.. Will be curious to see what vector of attack they use...

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Also, how much do you know about Geller? I'll give you some brief descriptions:

I don't understand the point you are making. Geller clearly believes that radical Islam is prevalent, and constitutes a major threat to both the U.S. and Israel. She engages in a variety of actions to try to convince the public of that. One of the things she does is to engage in provocative actions so as to bait radicals into proving that her thesis is correct. I think that's obviously what she just did in Texas. Another thing she did is to print quotes from Hamas on busses so as to -- in her mind -- expose the mindset of Hamas to people who might otherwise be aware of it. She's clearly trying to affect American public opinion to be more aggressive about radical Islam. And she apparently also believes that mainstream Islam is at least complicit in some of this. That's all controversial stuff, but I don't think anyone disputes that is what she is trying to do.

Now, if you think her ultimate purpose is not to convince people of the existence/dangers of radical Islam, but that she engages in those actions solely for the end result of giving offense, I disagree with that. But nothing you've posted proves that anyway.

So why do you support the contest? Geller was out on the street asking people to draw Muhammad before the contest began.

Please don't make statements offending my education again. I know you didn't mean it to come out that way but this is stuff I take really seriously. If you want to throw insults then we can stop debating. I apologize if I've ever done that to you but I think it will benefit both of us if we can mutually agree to that.

I wasn't insulting your education. Actually, the opposite -- I'm quite confident that your schooling wouldn't teach that ISIS is "insane". I was criticizing your particular claim that they were "insane," which struck me as a non-scholarly claim.

Secondly, I never said every individual of ISIS is insane. I said, as a group, they are insane.

And I still think that is a very non-scholarly, and inaccurate statement. It's like you've wandered off the scholarly reservation into bogus colloquialisms.

As a group, ISIS is not engaging in mentally stable actions. Unless you think waging genocide, enslaving women, and creating child soldiers is evidence of a group's rational thinking than it is pretty clear to me ISIS is irrational, cannot think rationally, and therefore, as a holistic organization, is insane.

Just because a group doesn't share your moral values does not make them insane or mentally unstable. Things like human sacrifice, torture, ritualistic killing, etc., have been fairly common in human history. Burning at the stake, etc., Those people were raised with a different moral and cultural code, often in a more brutal time/place, so their standards are different from yours and mine. But that doesn't make them insane or mentally unstable.

No but -- and you'll have to trust me on this because for obvious reasons I cannot go into too much detail -- when events like this happen the number of terrorist threats spikes significantly for a short period of time. It serves to mobilize the violent base.

I'm sure it does. But that violent base is also perfectly willing to kill us even without such provocations, and has done so in the past without blinking.

And in a weird way, I think your point here stumbles on why this contest is important. My point -- and I think at least a part of Geller's -- is that this mindset of "let's not make them mad" is both morally wrong, and dangerous. It lulls us into a false sense of security that we can be safer if we just don't piss them off. Instead, I think we're better off recognizing that this is an ongoing, very dangerous problem that is simply not going to go away on its own. The contest, in short, is a wakeup call for the barbarism that threatens us every day, and is simply waiting for the most convenient time to strike.

To a certain extent I agree. But I also do think the opinions of an Islamic scholar should be weighed slightly heavier than that of you or me who have not studied the history of ISlam or read the Qur'ran/Hadiths nearly as much.

And I think this is a red herring. First, because there is no unanimity of opinion within Islam itself. You can easily find threats, and horrible statements from actual Imams, etc., who have more "authority" than anyone else posting here. And you can also find other religious scholars who disagree. And they all claim they are right.

So ultimately, there is absolutely no basis for us to value one opinion over the other here, just because some poster claims to have the "correct" interpretation. They all claim to have the correct interpretation.

But second, it's a red herring because the label ultimately doesn't matter anyway, at least in the context of this discussion. I don't like any group telling us that Americans can't draw pictures of Muhammad, or of anyone else. I don't like any group saying "you must show greater respect to our beliefs than to others, and that while you may tolerate the mocking of other beliefs, do not mock these particular beliefs." And I really don't like the idea that while filmmakers feel safe to make a movie like "Life of Brian", they are not safe if they want to make a movie about individuals who may appear in the Koran. Or even if they just want to draw a cartoon.

Ultimately, that's what's going on here, and whether you label those beliefs "Islam" or not doesn't matter.


Fair.[/QUOTE]

 

[gourimoko]

I don't understand the point you are making. Geller clearly believes that radical Islam is prevalent, and constitutes a major threat to both the U.S. and Israel. She engages in a variety of actions to try to convince the public of that. One of the things she does is to engage in provocative actions so as to bait radicals into proving that her thesis is correct. I think that's obviously what she just did in Texas. Another thing she did is to print quotes from Hamas on busses so as to -- in her mind -- expose the mindset of Hamas to people who might otherwise be aware of it. She's clearly trying to affect American public opinion to be more aggressive about radical Islam. And she apparently also believes that mainstream Islam is at least complicit in some of this. That's all controversial stuff, but I don't think anyone disputes that is what she is trying to do.

Now, if you think her ultimate purpose is not to convince people of the existence/dangers of radical Islam, but that she engages in those actions solely for the end result of giving offense, I disagree with that. But nothing you've posted proves that anyway.

Wow...

I wasn't insulting your education. Actually, the opposite -- I'm quite confident that your schooling wouldn't teach that ISIS is "insane". I was criticizing your particular claim that they were "insane," which struck me as a non-scholarly claim.

And I still think that is a very non-scholarly, and inaccurate statement. It's like you've wandered off the scholarly reservation into bogus colloquialisms.

This is just an odd thing to say. Muslims across the world feel that ISIS followers are categorically "insane."

Their interpretations of Islam are self-contradictory, their actions are clearly based on irrational and illogical approaches to their fundamentalist beliefs.

ISIS is not following Islam by any major interpretation, and is quite literally a cult.

So to say it is "non-scholarly," whatever the fuck that means, to call followers of a cult who would risk their lives and admittedly pray for death even over victory "insane" means you simply do not understand the subject matter.

 

[Jordan]

I don't understand the point you are making. Geller clearly believes that radical Islam is prevalent, and constitutes a major threat to both the U.S. and Israel. She engages in a variety of actions to try to convince the public of that. One of the things she does is to engage in provocative actions so as to bait radicals into proving that her thesis is correct. I think that's obviously what she just did in Texas. Another thing she did is to print quotes from Hamas on busses so as to -- in her mind -- expose the mindset of Hamas to people who might otherwise be aware of it. She's clearly trying to affect American public opinion to be more aggressive about radical Islam. And she apparently also believes that mainstream Islam is at least complicit in some of this. That's all controversial stuff, but I don't think anyone disputes that is what she is trying to do.

Now, if you think her ultimate purpose is not to convince people of the existence/dangers of radical Islam, but that she engages in those actions solely for the end result of giving offense, I disagree with that. But nothing you've posted proves that anyway.

Okay, but the people who are bothered by Muhammad drawings are not just radicals. Now, radicals are those who are willing to take violent actions, but it offends normal Muslims.

I wasn't insulting your education. Actually, the opposite -- I'm quite confident that your schooling wouldn't teach that ISIS is "insane". I was criticizing your particular claim that they were "insane," which struck me as a non-scholarly claim.



And I still think that is a very non-scholarly, and inaccurate statement. It's like you've wandered off the scholarly reservation into bogus colloquialisms.



Just because a group doesn't share your moral values does not make them insane or mentally unstable. Things like human sacrifice, torture, ritualistic killing, etc., have been fairly common in human history. Burning at the stake, etc., Those people were raised with a different moral and cultural code, often in a more brutal time/place, so their standards are different from yours and mine. But that doesn't make them insane or mentally unstable.

@gourimoko's post addresses this almost entirely but I want to add one more point. Let's examine three definitions for insanity. First, "Characterized or caused by madness." This definition applies specifically to the individual, and I believe it is what you are referring to. ISIS, as any group, cannot be considered medically insane just as members of Hitler's Nazi party or the old KKK that killed people cannot be considered medically insane. However, I think you are viewing the first definition of insanity as the definition of insanity. Here are two more: "Of an action or a policy that is extremely foolish; irrational; or illogical;" or "chiefly shocking and/or outrageous." The latter two definitions are more applicable to group dynamics. The similarity between ISIS, the Nazi Party, and the KKK is that their actions are "chiefly shocking" and "extremely foolish, irrational, and illogical."

Also, your argument about "human sacrifice, torture, ritualistic killing, etc., have been fairly common in human history" is fallacious. By that logic, mentally insane people have also been incredibly common in human history. That does not make them non-existent.

I'm sure it does. But that violent base is also perfectly willing to kill us even without such provocations, and has done so in the past without blinking.

Your impact calculus is wrong here. Just because likelihood already exists does not make increased likelihood any less important. Let's use nuclear terrorism as an example. First, let us assume that a nuclear terrorist attack will kill 50,000 people in total. In addition, let's say that the chance of a nuclear terrorist attack is 1/100,000,000,000. Then, let's say Obama comes out and says "nuclear terrorism is laughable." Suppose this increases the chance of a nuclear terrorist attack by .005. So now the chance of a terrorist attack is 1.005/100,000,000,000. Obama's standing up to terrorism had no empirical benefit but made the impact calculation significantly worse. The same logic applies to Geller's event.

And in a weird way, I think your point here stumbles on why this contest is important. My point -- and I think at least a part of Geller's -- is that this mindset of "let's not make them mad" is both morally wrong, and dangerous. It lulls us into a false sense of security that we can be safer if we just don't piss them off. Instead, I think we're better off recognizing that this is an ongoing, very dangerous problem that is simply not going to go away on its own. The contest, in short, is a wakeup call for the barbarism that threatens us every day, and is simply waiting for the most convenient time to strike.

You are assuming that Geller's event, and events like it, will stop terrorist attacks. All I have seen is they frustrate normal Muslims and, in a separate addition, make terrorist attacks more likely.

And I think this is a red herring. First, because there is no unanimity of opinion within Islam itself. You can easily find threats, and horrible statements from actual Imams, etc., who have more "authority" than anyone else posting here. And you can also find other religious scholars who disagree. And they all claim they are right.

So ultimately, there is absolutely no basis for us to value one opinion over the other here, just because some poster claims to have the "correct" interpretation. They all claim to have the correct interpretation.

But second, it's a red herring because the label ultimately doesn't matter anyway, at least in the context of this discussion. I don't like any group telling us that Americans can't draw pictures of Muhammad, or of anyone else. I don't like any group saying "you must show greater respect to our beliefs than to others, and that while you may tolerate the mocking of other beliefs, do not mock these particular beliefs." And I really don't like the idea that while filmmakers feel safe to make a movie like "Life of Brian", they are not safe if they want to make a movie about individuals who may appear in the Koran. Or even if they just want to draw a cartoon.

Ultimately, that's what's going on here, and whether you label those beliefs "Islam" or not doesn't matter.

Here's my issue: We do need to avoid appeals to authority because that's how we ended up going to Iraq, etc. But, at the same time, acceptance of nobody having more authority than anyone else is how we ended up with Muslim scholars saying killing takfirs is okay. Essentially, Bin Laden, Said Qutb, and other Salafi Islamists argued for the "opening of the gates of ijtihad". This is important, because before this, the gates of ijtihad were closed meaning that only the most learned of scholars could rule on Islam. This did lead to a lack of modernization, yet, also prevented people from saying "killing is legal in Islam." The "death to takfiri" rationale began when Qutb "opened the Gates of Ijtihad" and allowed any random Muslim, with limited training, to make Islamic epithets.

Thus, I think religious scholars should have opinions that way above an average citizen. Same with any expert. Experts have access to more information than your average citizen. If it takes people six years to get a PhD, I think it is a little bit harder than wikipedia-ing any random subject. Do I think al-Baghdadi (who I guess is now dead/injured) claims that all Americans should die should be listened to? No, I don't. That's why expertise should never be accepted unitarily over a member of the general public. But, if a PhD in Islamic studies uses thousands of sources to make an argument why drawing Muhammad is offensive to Muslims, and Pam Geller says "I know Muslims and it is not," I am believe the PhD.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

@gourimoko's post addresses this almost entirely.....

Well, obviously, I don't read gourimoko's posts, but I can understand it if you don't just want to repeat what he said.

but I want to add one more point. Let's examine three definitions for insanity....However, I think you are viewing the first definition of insanity as the definition of insanity. Here are two more: "Of an action or a policy that is extremely foolish; irrational; or illogical;" or "chiefly shocking and/or outrageous."

Slavery is "shocking and/or outrageous". So is virulent racism, or almost any ideology that most people would consider "evil." But "slavery" (or more accurately "the Confederacy") is insane" really doesn't advance the ball, and I don't think is a usage with which most people would agree.

Also, your argument about "human sacrifice, torture, ritualistic killing, etc., have been fairly common in human history" is fallacious. By that logic, mentally insane people have also been incredibly common in human history. That does not make them non-existent.

No, I'm saying that your "insanity" tag demonstrates a cultural/moral bias and blindness.

Frankly, I think your definitions of "insanity"-- "extremely foolish; irrational; or illogical" could probably be applied to almost any religion, period. Couldn't someone rather easily claim that believing that cows house the spirits of your ancestors is "extremely foolish, irrational, or illogical?" Isn't Hinduism "insanity", by your definition? And heck, you could do the same thing to the three Abrahamaic religions.

So fine. Christianity, Judaism, Islam , Hinduism, and progressivism (heh) are all "insanity". Which pretty much renders the word both useless and misleading in this discussion.

Your impact calculus is wrong here. Just because likelihood already exists does not make increased likelihood any less important.

I agree in the abstract, but I don't see it as applying here.

First, I see events like Geller's as affecting the timing/locus of such attacks, but probably not the fact that the same people likely would have attacked something else at some point.

Second, I think there is an affirmative harm done even if there is no attack. That harm is the chilling effect that such threats have on lawful actions that should not only be legal but protected in this country. That doesn't apply to nuclear threats.

And third, I think such actions, by helping to raise public awareness of the threat, help to combat the threat long-term.

You are assuming that Geller's event, and events like it, will stop terrorist attacks.

I think they are one thing that can help defeat that ideology, which is not something that is going to happen easily or overnight.. And in support, I'd cite the example cited earlier -- and not by me -- that such incidents have caused more discussion within mosques as to how Muslims should deal with such offenses. I see that as a positive, good thing, and would like to see a lot more of it.

Here's my issue: We do need to avoid appeals to authority because that's how we ended up going to Iraq, etc. But, at the same time, acceptance of nobody having more authority than anyone else is how we ended up with Muslim scholars saying killing takfirs is okay. Essentially, Bin Laden, Said Qutb, and other Salafi Islamists argued for the "opening of the gates of ijtihad". This is important, because before this, the gates of ijtihad were closed meaning that only the most learned of scholars could rule on Islam. This did lead to a lack of modernization, yet, also prevented people from saying "killing is legal in Islam." The "death to takfiri" rationale began when Qutb "opened the Gates of Ijtihad" and allowed any random Muslim, with limited training, to make Islamic epithets.

I hate to be snarky, but one broad societal argument in this debate has been that the kind of terrorism/extremism we're discussing really doesn't have anything to do with Islam. Now, you're talking about "Muslim scholars" justifying it.

But, if a PhD in Islamic studies uses thousands of sources to make an argument why drawing Muhammad is offensive to Muslims....

Well, that's an interesting point. Is there a valid basis in Islam for saying that the drawing of Muhammad is offensive? And if so, very briefly, what is that basis? And just to be clear, I'm not claiming it is or it isn't, nor do I consider myself to have enough knowledge even to argue the point. It is an honest question.

And to be clear, I honestly think the answer to that question shouldn't matter at all in this discussion, because I do not think we should respect at all the religious beliefs of one group that apply to the private actions of non-believers.

 

[gourimoko]

Well, obviously, I don't read gourimoko's posts, but I can understand it if you don't just want to repeat what he said.

 

[Jordan]

Well, obviously, I don't read gourimoko's posts, but I can understand it if you don't just want to repeat what he said.

Lol, I didn't realize you guys ignored each other. Here it is for info sake

"Muslims across the world feel that ISIS followers are categorically "insane."

Their interpretations of Islam are self-contradictory, their actions are clearly based on irrational and illogical approaches to their fundamentalist beliefs.

ISIS is not following Islam by any major interpretation, and is quite literally a cult.

So to say it is "non-scholarly," whatever the fuck that means, to call followers of a cult who would risk their lives and admittedly pray for death even over victory "insane" means you simply do not understand the subject matter."

Slavery is "shocking and/or outrageous". So is virulent racism, or almost any ideology that most people would consider "evil." But "slavery" (or more accurately "the Confederacy") is insane" really doesn't advance the ball, and I don't think is a usage with which most people would agree.

In my mind, virulent racism and slavery are insane.

No, I'm saying that your "insanity" tag demonstrates a cultural/moral bias and blindness.

Frankly, I think your definitions of "insanity"-- "extremely foolish; irrational; or illogical" could probably be applied to almost any religion, period. Couldn't someone rather easily claim that believing that cows house the spirits of your ancestors is "extremely foolish, irrational, or illogical?" Isn't Hinduism "insanity", by your definition? And heck, you could do the same thing to the three Abrahamaic religions.

Okay, so rather than making defensive arguments about my definitions of insanity (which, duly noted, are coming from people's whose job it is to define words), could you give me some of your definitions?

So fine. Christianity, Judaism, Islam , Hinduism, and progressivism (heh) are all "insanity". Which pretty much renders the word both useless and misleading in this discussion.

I mean, I think organized religion is foolish and a lot of practices stemming from it are insane.

I agree in the abstract, but I don't see it as applying here.

First, I see events like Geller's as affecting the timing/locus of such attacks, but probably not the fact that the same people likely would have attacked something else at some point.

But it isn't just the timing. We can agree that an attack on American soil, occurring from someone related to ISIS, AQ, etc. will be attempted in the future. But, US intel agencies can prepare and tease out information to protect the attack from causing harm. An event like Geller's serves to increase the timeline so significantly that intel agencies cannot gather info fast enough to effectively stop it.

Second, I think there is an affirmative harm done even if there is no attack. That harm is the chilling effect that such threats have on lawful actions that should not only be legal but protected in this country. That doesn't apply to nuclear threats.

I agree with the first part but not the second. At least, not in an instance of nuclear terrorism. I don't understand the difference?

And third, I think such actions, by helping to raise public awareness of the threat, help to combat the threat long-term.

Do you have empirical evidence to support this? This seems to be no more than conjecture.

I think they are one thing that can help defeat that ideology, which is not something that is going to happen easily or overnight.. And in support, I'd cite the example cited earlier -- and not by me -- that such incidents have caused more discussion within mosques as to how Muslims should deal with such offenses. I see that as a positive, good thing, and would like to see a lot more of it.

Fair enough. I'd be interested to see whether Geller's events that attack Islam, and events like it, are spurring discussions in Mosques. I'm not saying you are wrong but, in my estimation, I find it far more likely that terrorist attacks in the name of Islam and their aftermath is what is predominantly spurring the conversations in the Mosques. No way to know which of our opinion's are right without an extensive survey though.

I hate to be snarky, but one broad societal argument in this debate has been that the kind of terrorism/extremism we're discussing really doesn't have anything to do with Islam. Now, you're talking about "Muslim scholars" justifying it.

Sorry I need to be more clear. The opening of the gates of ijtihad resulted in a bunch of Muslim scholars who really were not scholars. It's the idea that anyone can be a scholar and write Islamic doctrine.

Well, that's an interesting point. Is there a valid basis in Islam for saying that the drawing of Muhammad is offensive? And if so, very briefly, what is that basis? And just to be clear, I'm not claiming it is or it isn't, nor do I consider myself to have enough knowledge even to argue the point. It is an honest question.

And to be clear, I honestly think the answer to that question shouldn't matter at all in this discussion, because I do not think we should respect at all the religious beliefs of one group that apply to the private actions of non-believers.

To be honest with you I do not know. I am concerned and focused on the political and economic history of the Middle East. I have not read a scholarly article about why drawings of Muhammad are not offensive. Nor have I read one saying the opposite. My point is that we should not automatically value a layperson's opinion equally to that of an academic because the layperson "did his/her own research." In my mind that slights academics who entire livelihood is focused on knowing the primary sources, staying up to date with current literature on subjects, and fusing the two in order to publish and teach.

 

[Sebastian]

The Iraqis are so worthless as fighters.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32773780

 

[The Oi]

Why are they so incompetent?

Low volume? Poor training? Don't believe in the cause?

It seems like this happens with them constantly.

 

[Jordan]

Why are they so incompetent?

Low volume? Poor training? Don't believe in the cause?

It seems like this happens with them constantly.

In my reading it is a combination of poor training and not believing in the cause. First, countries like Russia, China, Israel, and the US have institutionalized training of military officers. Iraq does not have this and that is why the training is so flaky. Secondly, in the Middle East, the military is an access to power and influence. So a lot of people that join don't really care about the cause as much as the influence they gain from joining.

 

[gourimoko]

@King Stannis , you would probably be able to share some valuable insight on this I would think.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Lol, I didn't realize you guys ignored each other.

Evidently, only one of us ignores the other because he's apparently responding to my posts. I figured it was both ways because when I mentioned that we perhaps shouldn't engage with each other anymore, he said great, and that he'd said exactly that 2-3 months before.

In any case, I'm not going to get into an indirect argument with him (or anyone else) through a third party. Don't think it's necessary to our discussion, either.

So to say it is "non-scholarly," whatever the fuck that means, to call followers of a cult who would risk their lives and admittedly pray for death even over victory "insane" means you simply do not understand the subject matter."

If you're going to call those particular members of ISIS who actually pray for death over even victory -- and actually follow through on it -- "insane", I think that's at least a reasonable usage of the term. Maybe the members of the Judean People's Front Suicide Squad would qualify.

But the vast majority of the members of ISIS, including most of the leadership, are not doing that. Crap, if they were all just offing themselves like that, they wouldn't be a threat at all. But somehow, ISIS is perfectly capable of fighting an intelligent, rational military campaign without blindly charging into opposition fire to martyr themselves.

They have a different vision of what constitutes a perfect society, which includes extreme male dominance, rigid adherence to religious dogma, etc.. But I think describing that as "insane" destroys the utility of the word.

In my mind, virulent racism and slavery are insane.

And in my mind, they're not. So since we're not going to agree on that semantic point, I guess we'll just note our disagreement and move on.

Okay, so rather than making defensive arguments about my definitions of insanity (which, duly noted, are coming from people's whose job it is to define words), could you give me some of your definitions? I mean, I think organized religion is foolish and a lot of practices stemming from it are insane.

Again, I'd go with the first definition cited by you earlier in the thread. And the last sentence kind of illustrates the point. Taking your usage of "irrational" as "insane", Islam (and Christianity, etc.), and any any faith-based system is "irrational". So ISIS is insane, and Islam is insane, and Christianity is insane, and Hinduism is insane. Great. But if they're all irrational and therefore insane, how does that distinguish ISIS, or make the term "insane" of any utility in this conversation?

An event like Geller's serves to increase the timeline so significantly that intel agencies cannot gather info fast enough to effectively stop it.

The Tsarnaev brothers (were they "insane", btw?) proved that home-grown terrorists acting without specific instructions from overseas can and will strike anywhere, at any time, even at events that have no religious significance at all. And stopping things like that is incredibly difficult because there is no reason to believe that non-religious events are likely targets. Such attacks are almost impossible to predict because they are happening hundreds of times every day.

The cartoon event, in contrast, essentially acts as bait to draw out such attackers, which alone emphasizes the need for a higher standard of alert. That's why there was a security guard there, and I'm sure the cops and others in the area were aware of it to give heightened response. That's better than being a sitting duck with no hint of threat at a mall, or movie theater, or sporting event.

I agree with the first part but not the second. At least, not in an instance of nuclear terrorism. I don't understand the difference?

Because the generic threat of nuclear Armageddon doesn't "chill" any particular actions or behaviors the way that this threat does.

Fair enough. I'd be interested to see whether Geller's events that attack Islam, and events like it, are spurring discussions in Mosques.

One of the posters in this thread who I believe is Muslim made that point.

I'm not saying you are wrong but, in my estimation, I find it far more likely that terrorist attacks in the name of Islam and their aftermath is what is predominantly spurring the conversations in the Mosques.

I think both are true, and certainly, they're linked.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Why are they so incompetent?

Low volume? Poor training? Don't believe in the cause?

It seems like this happens with them constantly.

I spent a couple of years training Marine officers, and we had a fair number of FMO's (Foreign Military Officers) coming through. My experience was that they had to either come from a country with a professional military culture/esprit de corps, or a military family, or believe in whatever their cause was. Absent that, most tended to just go through the motions. Of the officers from the ME we trained, the Egyptians tended to be the best, probably because they had a more professional military culture.

Doesn't seem to me there would be many who qualify in Iraq, and that's just the officers. If your officers are for shit, then troops have almost no chance even if they're committed. But I'd be interested in King Stannis' comments on that.

 

[The Oi]

Why does this asshole @King Stannis know so much about this topic?