Defense Secretary: Iraqi army has shown no will to fight against ISIS. CNN

Iraqi Troops falling back from Ramadi. CNN/AP

U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter says Ramadi was lost because the Iraqi troops defending it "showed no will to fight". CNN. Carter says that the Iraqi troops outnumbered the ISIS fighters but they failed to fight and withdrew. The statements are the strongest words from the Obama administration since the fall of the city. America has provided arms and training to the Iraqis and are speeding up more arms shipments in response to the disaster, but Carter points out they are worthless if the Iraqis won't fight. Some have recommended placing forward air controllers on the ground to help the Iraqis direct airstrikes, but that suggestion was shot down by the Obama Administration. 

My Comment:

Ash Carter telling the world what they already knew. ISIS isn't winning in Iraq because they are stronger then their enemies. They don't have anywhere the troops, weapons or support the Iraqis are getting but Ramadi was a route. Why? Because ISIS is willing to fight and die for their goals and the Iraqis, to this point, aren't. 

I've noticed something with the Iraqis in the war against ISIS. When they get support from American airstrikes they tend to fight harder and better. They may still flee in the end, but at least they put up a fight. Iraq does not seem to have much of a airstrike capability of their own so they are reliant on the Americans and other foreign powers for much of their close air support. Iraq does have a few airstrike capable planes and a few helicopters as well, but not enough to make much of a difference. 

The problem is that the Iraqis are used to fighting with close air support. I'm not exactly sure how the Iraqis are trained but if they are being trained under American doctrine, then they might have problems. Americans like to use their infantry as a holding force so their heavy weapons, tanks, airstrikes and artillery can destroy the enemy. That system breaks down when you don't have the heavy weapons or don't know how to use them properly.  

Another problem is that relying on airstrikes in cities is a bad idea. Urban warfare is brutal and close range. Finding targets in that environment is very hard, especially when civilians are running around as well. There is a very good chance of hitting your own forces or innocent civilians when you are sending in airstrikes in a city. And civilian casualties can turn your population against you.

I think deploying forward air controllers would help the situation, but politically it seems impossible. Obama is done with Iraq. He believes he was elected on a mandate to get troops out of Iraq and there is a case to be made that he was. Going back on it now would tar what remains of his legacy. I don't see forward observers being deployed until Obama is out of the White House. 

ISIS doesn't have any of these problems. They know that if they are to survive they can't wait until airstrikes come to save them because they have no air support whatsoever. They have artillery and tanks though, and every time they take one of these cities their arsenal of weapons grow.