What makes someone willing to defend their home/land/city?

[Pointedstick]

I was reading a story this morning about the siege of Mosul in which terrorists have basically captured a city in Iraq. This section really stood out to me:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/11/world/mea ... ?hpt=hp_t1
Despite its size -- the predominantly Sunni city has a population of about 1.6 million -- Mosul's collapse was swift. After weekend clashes, hundreds of radical Islamist fighters from an al Qaeda splinter group swarmed through the west of the city overnight Monday to Tuesday.

American-trained Iraqi government forces fled in the face of the onslaught by the fighters, believed to be from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, an al Qaeda splinter group also known as ISIS and ISIL. The militants now control most, if not all, of the city.

Iraq's parliamentary speaker was scathing. "The (Iraqi) forces abandoned their weapons and the commanders fled, leaving behind weapons, armored vehicles. Their positions were easy prey for terrorists."
On Wednesday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki ordered that all military leaders who fled be court-martialed.

It reminded me of the civil war that resulted in the state of Israel. During that conflict, which when Jewish forces attacked Arab villages, the residents mostly fled, with more than 700,000 becoming refugees, but when Arab forces attacked Jewish villages, the residents fought, and as a result, fewer than 10,000 fled and the Jews actually gained territory and built a new country out of it.

What is it that makes some people willing to fight to the death when their land or homes are threatened, while other people seem to flee at the first sign of danger? What was happening here in Mosul? Why did these armed men panic and run away when danger approached? Poor training? Poor morals? Insufficient feelings of solidarity with the locals?

[MachineGhost]

What is it that makes some people willing to fight to the death when their land or homes are threatened, while other people seem to flee at the first sign of danger? What was happening here in Mosul? Why did these armed men panic and run away when danger approached? Poor training? Poor morals? Insufficient feelings of solidarity with the locals?

I think its the kamikaze effect.  These religious fvcknuts are simply willing to go to such horrible and barbaric extremes, its terrifying.  That's why they're called "terrorists"!  Their point is to terrify you out of your homes and your land and so you present no resistance.  When they don't have a problem becoming martyrs because they believe in some B.S. that they're gonna have 47 virgins waiting for them in the afterlife, what in the hell do they have to lose, especially if their physical reality is poor, nasty, brutal, violent, short and worse yet, they're occupied by "Rome"?  It's a giant game of chicken and those who actually value life and liberty are the losers if they flinch.  It seems very unfair and unjust to me.

[Pointedstick]

I think its the kamikaze effect.  These religious fvcknuts are simply willing to go to such horrible and barbaric extremes, its terrifying.  That's why they're called "terrorists"!  Their point is to terrify you out of your homes and your land and so you present no resistance.  When they don't have a problem becoming martyrs because they believe in some B.S. that they're gonna have 47 virgins waiting for them in the afterlife, what in the hell do they have to lose, especially if their physical reality is poor, nasty, brutal, violent, short and worse yet, they're occupied by "Rome"?  It's a giant game of chicken and those who actually value life and liberty are the losers if they flinch.  It seems very unfair and unjust to me.

There's no "Rome occupation" here. The USA left Iraq years ago. The stated goal of these terrorists is to create an Islamic caliphate in Iraq and Syria, not push out foreign attackers.

And wouldn't the possibility of your friends and family being oppressed or butchered by mad zealots make you want to fight harder? I dunno… I'm just having a hard time making sense of it.The obvious answer is that the soldiers who fled were simply cowards, but that seems too simplistic.

[dualstow]

1. From what I remember, many Arabs were told by their brothers that they could return to their homes after the Jews were (to be) crushed. When the Jews were attacked, there was no one to make such promises. Of course, that's not the whole story but it may account for much of the mass exodus.

2. I was thinking along the same lines as MG. What stories the Iraqis, Afghanis etc must hear about the Taliban, ISIS, etc. They play dirty. I'd be terrified.

[MachineGhost]

There's no "Rome occupation" here. The USA left Iraq years ago. The stated goal of these terrorists is to create an Islamic caliphate in Iraq and Syria, not push out foreign attackers.

I'm pretty sure they view the Iraqi government as an American puppet government.  After all, we've been doing that for decades.

And wouldn't the possibility of your friends and family being oppressed or butchered by mad zealots make you want to fight harder? I dunno… I'm just having a hard time making sense of it.The obvious answer is that the soldiers who fled were simply cowards, but that seems too simplistic.

Remember how Saddam's elite Republican Guard immediately gave up during the Gulf War?  Maybe its cultural or its draftees.  However, there's nothing cowardly about wanting to save your life.  Sheesh.

[Pointedstick]

Princeton just added this class to Coursera titled 'The Paradoxes of War'. The professor's aim is to answer these very questions.
https://www.coursera.org/course/warparadoxes

Totally awesome! I've signed up.

Remember how Saddam's elite Republican Guard immediately gave up during the Gulf War?  Maybe its cultural or its draftees.  However, there's nothing cowardly about wanting to save your life.  Sheesh.

No, but it sort of seems cowardly to save your own life potentially in exchange for those you've sworn to protect by virtue of becoming a soldier or police officer. When you go into those occupations, fleeing from battle is basically quitting your job when its crunch time.

All bets are off if they're draftees, of course.

[Reub]

PS, I think this article is related to the topic you brought up:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... oblem.html

When the jihadis took over the city of Mosul and began their march towards Baghdad, Washington was of course shocked. But officials, legislators, and policy experts in that fair city should not have been shocked. What happened in Iraq was history as usual. The U.S. fights in Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya and Vietnam and other places (maybe next in Syria), provides billions of dollars in arms, trains the friendly soldiers, then begins to pull out—and what happens? Our good allies on whom we’ve squandered our sacred lives and our wealth fall apart. That’s what’s happening in Iraq now.

As usual, Desert, your logic is impeccably wrong. Each of those 4 wars was entirely different. We didn't fight in Libya...we lead from behind. Can you remember that far back?  We left Vietnam with our tail between our legs. We are still fighting in Afghanistan as you would know if you ever turned on Fox News. The war in Iraq was basically over....with us in control. It wasn't that long ago so why is your memory so cloudy? Obama released the leader of ISIS in 2009 and handed victory to the terrorists after we had vanquished them by just abandoning the place. Now he is releasing 5 mini-Bin Ladens back into the field in Afghanistan, insuring a similar outcome.

[MachineGhost]

so why is your memory so cloudy? Obama released the leader of ISIS in 2009 and handed victory to the terrorists after we had vanquished them by just abandoning the place. Now he is releasing 5 mini-Bin Ladens back into the field in Afghanistan, insuring a similar outcome.

I had to Google what ISIS is.  Man, I am seriously hating on Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld again right now.  !@#$%^  I hope these war criminals can live with themselves.  I note with some glee that Cheney's a fat boobus with a lesbian daughter who's been having a multitude of heart attacks since 1978, even had a heart transplant in 2012, and Bush just had one last year despite jogging, taking a multivitamin, aspirin and fish oil...  justice is perhaps being dispensed after all!

[Pointedstick]

From the department of "gee, how could this have possibly been predicted!?!?!", ISIS has released a video of Iraqi soldiers who surrendered being executed.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/15/world/mea ... ?hpt=hp_t1

If any of the idiots who surrendered or fled didn't think this was going to be their fate, they were living in la-la land. Making yourself helpless before a known-brutal attacker actively attempting to hurt you seems to rarely work out...

[Kshartle]

Do you really think they are executing rank and file soldiers?

I highly doubt it. That would be EXTREMELY counter-productive.

I also doubly doubt they would release a video of it if they were dumb enough to do it.

All that would do is convince other troops to not surrender.

I had written a reply on this thread earlier in the week where I explained that the "leaders" of military forces always try to convince their troops that if they surrender the "enemy" will torture and execute them. I deleted it before submitting. I should have posted it since it basically predicted this psy-op.

If anything you want to treat surrendering forces with the utmost care and respect in order to gain new recruits and convince the enemies still in the field that it's in their best interest to lay down their arms.

[MachineGhost]

Do you really think they are executing rank and file soldiers?

So what, you rather them be executing women and children?  Because they aren't off the table either.

I think you're a little ignorant of Middle East history and politics.  Sunni and Shiite extremists literally hate each other; its a take no prisoners religious war.  Rationality and common sense do not apply.

[img width=800]http://static.theglobalmail.org/cache/9 ... 91a64d.jpg[/img]