Petraeus "Loses" 190,000 Weapons in Iraq

[skunk]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6932710.stm190,000 weapons 'missing in Iraq'

The US military cannot account for 190,000 AK-47 assault rifles and pistols given to the Iraqi security forces, an official US report says.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) says the Pentagon cannot track about 30% of the weapons distributed in Iraq over the past three years.

The Pentagon did not dispute the figures, but said it was reviewing arms deliveries procedures.

About $19.2bn has been spent by the US since 2003 on Iraqi security forces.

GAO, the investigative arm of the US Congress, said at least $2.8bn of this money was used to buy and deliver weapons and other equipment.

Correspondents say it is now feared many of the weapons are being used against US forces on the ground in Iraq.

The Iraqi interior ministry has blamed the Americans for the disappearance of the weapons.

A spokesman, Brigadier General Abd-al-Karim Khalaf, told the BBC his ministry had not been consulted over the distribution. He also said there was no evidence to suggest that insurgents might have got hold of some of the weapons.

Discrepancies

The GAO said weapons distribution was haphazard and rushed and failed to follow established procedures, particularly from 2004 to 2005.
During this period, security training was led by Gen David Petraeus, who now commands all US forces in Iraq.

The GAO reached the estimate - 111,000 missing AK-47s and 80,000 missing pistols - by comparing the property records of the Multi-National Security Transition Command for Iraq against records maintained by Gen Petraeus of the arms and equipment he ordered.



MISSING IN IRAQ
AK-47 rifles: 110,000
Pistols: 80,000
Body armour pieces: 135,000
Helmets: 115,000So that's why he was promoted...

[srobert]

Duck!

(Another "Food-for-Guns" program coming soon?)

[SMM]

Has anyone counted the tanks lately? For crissake, do NOT take any nukes over there.

[leekohler]

Wow- no wonder we're having a hard time over there.

[PlaceofDis]

incompetency at its finest.

[princealfie]

apparently lost his head too :)

[leekohler]

This is the guy who's supposed to be turning around the occupation? I'd say it's time to start polishing that resume.

[IJ Reilly]

Well alright, I wasn't going to say anything, but since this is turning out to be such a big deal. I've got them in my garage.

[skunk]

Double garage, is it?

[skunk]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6918536.stmUS admits delay to Iraqi weapons

The US-led coalition in Iraq has failed to deliver nearly two-thirds of the equipment it promised to Iraq's army, the US Defence Department has said.
The Pentagon said only 14.5m of the nearly 40m items of equipment ordered by the Iraqi army had been provided.

The US military commander in charge of training in Iraq has asked for help in speeding up the transfer of equipment.

On Wednesday, Iraq's ambassador to the US said the delays were hindering the fighting capacity of its armed forces.

Samir Sumaidaie said Iraqi troops were often "cannon fodder" for militants.

"There is general frustration in the Iraqi government at the rate at which Iraqi armed forces are being equipped and armed," he said.

"This is a collaborative effort between the Iraqi government and the government of the United States, and the process is not moving quickly enough to improve the fighting capacity of Iraqi armed forces."

"A way must be found to improve this process."

'Challenge'

The Pentagon said it was doing all it could to send out the items, with priority given to equipment that can be used for counter-insurgency.

It said some deliveries had been delayed by the export licensing process, while others had been affected by changes in orders.

"We share a common goal with the Iraqis that their forces should be equipped with the type of things that they need to include force protection equipment, mobility equipment, communications equipment," Bryan Whitman, a spokesman for the Pentagon, said.

"But it's a challenge. You can't do it overnight."You couldn't make it up.

[IJ Reilly]

Some of it's in the laundry room. Happy now?

Petraeus. Doesn't that rhyme with "betray us"?

[Dont Hurt Me]

Sounds like our own idiotic govt is arming the bad guys, Bush & Gang are running this show and it shows everyday. Only loosing 3 out of 10 weapons:rolleyes:

[skunk]

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/01/the_overrated_general_petraeus.htmlTake Petraeus, for example: There is speculation that Petraeus favors an increase in forces - a good thing given that it is a forgone conclusion that that is where the President is going - making him an amenable partner to captain the sinking ship. But is there any particular reason to applaud his earlier experience in Iraq or his achievements?

Gen. Petraeus has served two tours in Iraq, first as commander of the 101st Airborne Division during the 2003 war (later commanding the division in Mosul in northern Iraq), and then as commander of the Multinational Security Transition Command - Iraq (MNSTC-I) responsible for standing up and training Iraqi military and police forces. He is currently commander of the Combined Arms Center at Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas, the Army's training center for field-grade officers. At Leavenworth, Petraeus shepherded through the development of a new doctrine manual on counterinsurgency.

Oh the promise. On May 15, 2004, the wartime command for Iraq - Joint Task Force 7 - was disbanded and its mission was given to the Multinational Forces-Iraq (MNF-I) commanded by Gen. Casey. Lt. Gen. Petreaus commanded one of two subordinate commands, the MNSTC-I, and was charged with preparing Iraqi forces to take responsibility for security from coalition forces. (MNSTC-I additionally assumed responsibility for Iraq's Ministry of Interior and the police in October 2005 from the State Department.) According to official documents, MNSTC-I's mission was to:

"Organize, train, equip, and mentor Iraqi Security Forces, in order to support Iraq's ultimate goal of a unified, stable and democratic Iraq, which provides a representative government for the Iraqi people; is underpinned by new and protected freedoms for all Iraqis and a growing market economy; and is able to defend itself and not pose a threat to the region."
From recruit basic training to the stand-up of a War College, Petraeus' MNSTC-I was given the responsibility to create an Iraqi national force, including police, border patrol, and facilities protection. Ministries were "mentored;" procedures were established; regulations were written; training centers were created; barracks were built and renovated; equipment was procured and issued; a myriad of diverse organizations were created; divisions, brigades and battalions were stood-up; sunglasses were donned.

On March 1, 2005, Gen. Abizaid testified before Congress on the progress of MNSTC-I, saying that despite the insurgency, the command had "made steady progress in developing Iraqi security forces that can fight and win over the long haul."

By February 2006, the Defense Department's Quadrennial Defense Review report could report to Congress:

"The Multinational Security Transition Command-Iraq (MNSTC-I) has helped create more than 125 Iraqi combat battalions that are now operating with U.S. and other coalition units to find and clear out enemy forces. As more Iraqi units gain confidence and operational experience, they will increasingly take the lead in security operations. This example is a model for the future: helping others to help themselves is critical to winning the long war."
The stand-up of Iraqi forces during 2005 and much of 2006 became a pure number's game: how many officers and how many battalions there were consistently was used as the body count to prove progress. Each acronym - Ministry of Defense (MOD), Ministry of the Interior (MOI), Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), Iraqi Police Service (IPS), Iraqi Highway Patrol (IHP), Public Order Police (POP), Emergency Response Unit (ERU), Iraqi Border Police (IBP), Strategic Infrastructure Battalions (SIB), Iraqi National Guard (ING), Iraqi Special Operations Forces (ISOF), , Iraqi Army (IA), Iraqi Air Force (IAF), Iraqi Navy (IN) - suggested far more organization and capability than actually existed.

We all know what really happened, the "national" army wasn't national at all; the combat forces weren't quite what the numbers suggested; insurgents had infiltrated almost all formations; the Ministry of Interior was riddled with Shi'a militia members and spies; the Iraqis weren't battling the insurgency, they were the insurgency.

Am I missing something here? Petraeus is credited with single-minded pursuit of his mission and the intellectual brainpower to "get the job done," as if the guys commanding the effort to this point have been a bunch of idiots. An army of successful acronyms, however, does not confirm anything, and Iraq is as it was during Petraeus' two earlier tours, a disorganized and hopeless mess.

[Desertrat]

A subject resurrected. This was making the rounds some months back.

In a way, I find it somewhat amusing, from the standpoint that nothing has changed in the last 50+ years. I was a battalion-level supply clerk for some eight months of my time on occupation duty in Korea. We were supplied from a monstrously-big 8th Army QM central depot over at Yong Dong Po.

Requests for materiel go in. Some get filled. Stuff gets issued. Stuff gets lost, stolen or broken. Then the BS starts on CYA at the individual or squad level, and works its way on up. Then the inventory control people lose paperwork. Nobody knows nuttin' 'bout nuttin'. "Not me!" and "I don't know" are the two most commonly used phrases in the entire US military--and that's not really different from here in the civilian world.

And you're always trading something you have but don't need for something you need but don't have. That's all off the books.

And that doesn't even get into the incredible skills of the scroungers. :D

'Rat

[SMM]

This is really off-subject, but it should vanish quickly. I notice that many of you seem to post back-and-forth amongst yourselves, but rarely acknowledge my posts. I also notice many of you have join dates in 2002, 2003, etc. These are much older than mine. Is it an acceptance issue, which requires a few years? Or, are my posts outside of 'group think'?

[skunk]

This is really off-subject, but it should vanish quickly. I notice that many of you seem to post back-and-forth amongst yourselves, but rarely acknowledge my posts. I also notice many of you have join dates in 2002, 2003, etc. These are much older than mine. Is it an acceptance issue, which requires a few years? Or, are my posts outside of 'group think'?I recognise your posts, and generally share your point of view. Keep posting. :)

[solvs]

This is really off-subject, but it should vanish quickly. I notice that many of you seem to post back-and-forth amongst yourselves, but rarely acknowledge my posts. I also notice many of you have join dates in 2002, 2003, etc. These are much older than mine. Is it an acceptance issue, which requires a few years? Or, are my posts outside of 'group think'?
Sometimes I don't get responded to either. I usually take it as a compliment, or at least proof that I'm right if I'm not disputed. Could be worse. I've had a poster say something to the effect of "no one cares what you think" in response to a well thought out and backed up post. Must have hit a nerve, he still never disputed what I actually said. Probably didn't read it either. In my case, I rarely dispute what you say or feel the need to add anything further, so I usually don't feel the need to respond. Now if you had said something like "Clinton did it too", then we'd have a problem.

Wonder if more of our distinguished partisan hack will bother to defend this, but guessing no.

[leekohler]

This is really off-subject, but it should vanish quickly. I notice that many of you seem to post back-and-forth amongst yourselves, but rarely acknowledge my posts. I also notice many of you have join dates in 2002, 2003, etc. These are much older than mine. Is it an acceptance issue, which requires a few years? Or, are my posts outside of 'group think'?

Nope- I just usually agree with you. A lot of times you steal my thunder. :) That's OK.

[Desertrat]

SMM, I may be an old fuddy-duddy, but your Post #3 didn't seem to me to have much to do with the problem. So, no response.

What I thought might provide a bit of perspective was that this sort of problem is not at all new. The scale seems larger, of course...

I'm amazed that more generals aren't bald, from tearing their hair out. :) This sort of problem also includes the common venality of black market activities. I had an older French guy in Paris in 1957 bemoaning the glory days of 1945, post-VE Day. He'd bought an entire battalion motor pool and profited greatly thereby.

'Rat

[obeygiant]

Sometimes I don't get responded to either. I usually take it as a compliment, or at least proof that I'm right if I'm not disputed.

Even if you were disputed I doubt you'd think you were wrong. ;)


Could be worse. I've had a poster say something to the effect of "no one cares what you think" in response to a well thought out and backed up post.

lol, Probably me. :)


Wonder if more of our distinguished partisan hack will bother to defend this, but guessing no.

Consider this disputed by your fellow partisan hack. :rolleyes: :D


oh, and shame on the gereral for losing all those weapons. Its not like he's managing hell-on-earth or anything.

[SuperCompu2]

I can't wait until some GI finds his Abrams up on cinder blocks in Baghdad. :D

[megfilmworks]

Completely and totally FUBAR

[imac/cheese]

And that doesn't even get into the incredible skills of the scroungers. :D

'Rat

Aahh, the incredible skills of the scrounger. There is little better for unit morale and capabilities than the skills of a good scrounger. It always seemed to me that I would mention something like, "It would be nice if..." and the next day one would show up in the unit.

It's not what you know, but who you know...

[SMM]

SMM, I may be an old fuddy-duddy, but your Post #3 didn't seem to me to have much to do with the problem. So, no response.

What I thought might provide a bit of perspective was that this sort of problem is not at all new. The scale seems larger, of course...

I'm amazed that more generals aren't bald, from tearing their hair out. :) This sort of problem also includes the common venality of black market activities. I had an older French guy in Paris in 1957 bemoaning the glory days of 1945, post-VE Day. He'd bought an entire battalion motor pool and profited greatly thereby.

'Rat

The post was just a bit of humor. Having things 'disappear' in the military is definitely not a unique situation. > 100,000 weapons is a major issue. I am sure Petraeus had no involvement, including direct management. However, it did happen on his watch. I believe it warrants a significant external investigation (FBI field office sent over for example).

[skunk]

I am sure Petraeus had no involvementIf he was in charge, he was involved.

[hulugu]

This is really off-subject, but it should vanish quickly. I notice that many of you seem to post back-and-forth amongst yourselves, but rarely acknowledge my posts. I also notice many of you have join dates in 2002, 2003, etc. These are much older than mine. Is it an acceptance issue, which requires a few years? Or, are my posts outside of 'group think'?

Nah', I like you and agree with your well-written posts. I just haven't found anything I wanted to comment on specifically.

[hulugu]

What I thought might provide a bit of perspective was that this sort of problem is not at all new. The scale seems larger, of course...

'Rat

I guess the real question is, where did all this crap go? Is this just a serious of paperwork failures and miscounts or are these weapons out in the streets of Iraq being used by insurgents? I can see losing canteens, the good MREs, HUMMVEE parts, but 190,000 weapons? Apparently this represents nearly a third of the total.

[solvs]

Even if you were disputed I doubt you'd think you were wrong. ;)
You would be wrong. Per usual. Prove me wrong, and I will admit it. As I have many times here. Unlike some of you.

lol, Probably me. :)
It was. Twice. But you had nothing else to dispute my argument, so you had to make a flippant joke at my expense.

Guess that's the difference between us. I actually do care what you think. Especially if you're basing your opinion on a fallacy. Which you tend to do. I prefer to correct you. Not my fault if you don't want to hear it.

Consider this disputed by your fellow partisan hack. :rolleyes: :D
Yes, because I never criticize the Dems. I constantly ignore reality for my unflinching support of them. I'm always defending their wrong doings and attacking the other side for no reason what so ever.

Except, you know, I do criticize Dems. I care more about reality than either party. I've defended both sides and attacked both sides, sometimes with valid criticism, sometimes with a flippant comment. Usually I prefer the valid ones though, more than the rhetoric I'd get from some talking head.

oh, and shame on the gereral for losing all those weapons. Its not like he's managing hell-on-earth or anything.
You wonder why we think you guys are partisan hacks with comments like this.

I guess the real question is, where did all this crap go?
Is this just a serious of paperwork failures and miscounts or are these weapons out in the streets of Iraq being used by insurgents?
You just answered your own question, the answer being yes.

[mactastic]

So why is the government stealing money from me at the point of a gun just so terrorists can have weapons too? WTF?
[/hyperbole]

Just another reason war was not the answer in Iraq. Gee whiz, we're arming both sides of a conflict that we had no idea was going to erupt once Saddam was gone? Surely no one could have forseen such a thing. It's not like we made that mistake in Afghanistan a generation ago and are still paying for it...

[Desertrat]

Where'd they go? Can only guess: Possibly some went directly from US supply trucks to Iraqi police units or military-in-training units, with incomplete or no paperwork. Some are in storage in unknown locations; a paperwork problem. Some were probably diverted into the black market. Others were probably stolen in transit from a port to a QM depot.

'Rat

[skunk]

Where'd they go? Can only guess: Possibly some went directly from US supply trucks to Iraqi police units or military-in-training units, with incomplete or no paperwork. Some are in storage in unknown locations; a paperwork problem. Some were probably diverted into the black market. Others were probably stolen in transit from a port to a QM depot.All sounds hunky dory, then. What's the fuss about, eh? 190,000 firearms lost without trace is nothing to worry about: happens every day. Y'all should toughen up a bit. Damfino.

[mactastic]

Sounds like 'Rat is volunteering to 'splain the paperwork problem to the families of US soldiers killed by US-supplied weapons...

[dswoodley]

In recent centuries if a soldier was derelict in duty and misplaced his weapon, he could expect to be publicly flogged. You can get away with anything today. I wouldn't be surprised if he gets promoted for this fiasco.

[Killyp]

At least there are actually some weapons of mass destruction to look for.... :rolleyes:

Idiots. How can 190,000 weapons just walk out under their noses?

[skunk]

In recent centuries if a soldier was derelict in duty and misplaced his weapon, he could expect to be publicly flogged. You can get away with anything today. I wouldn't be surprised if he gets promoted for this fiasco.I like the irony, which I assume is intentional.

[dswoodley]

I like the irony, which I assume is intentional.

Let the punishment fit the crime...Seriously, of course that's cruel and inhumane. But not even a slap on the wrist? A public rebuke? A rasberry? If I lost 190,000 of anything, i'd expect to fired.

[skunk]

But not even a slap on the wrist? A public rebuke? A rasberry? If I lost 190,000 of anything, i'd expect to fired.Maybe promotion to being in charge of "defeating" the insurgency he has armed so well will be punishment enough?

[mactastic]

Maybe promotion to being in charge of "defeating" the insurgency he has armed so well will be punishment enough?

And perhaps a Medal of Freedom, since he did such a good job of liberating those weapons from captivity? :p

All snark aside, this is hardly Petraus's fault. Logistics are handled below his pay grade. This kind of thing happens with regularity, particularly in the midst of a chaotic combat theater. However, it is one of those things you should expect as a Decider when you order troops into the field for "the long war". Stuff's gonna turn up missing, and often winds up in the hands of the enemy. If you don't have a plan to get the job done quick-like, you're gonna wind up facing some of your own weapons eventually.

[obeygiant]

Maybe promotion to being in charge of "defeating" the insurgency he has armed so well will be punishment enough?

Thats the best post all day. :)

[SMM]

At least there are actually some weapons of mass destruction to look for.... :rolleyes:

Idiots. How can 190,000 weapons just walk out under their noses?

They cannot. I can only go by Vietnam AK-47 caches, which are circa 1963-1971. The AK had a wooden stalk and grip. It also had a fold-out bayonet and gas/piston apparatus (reduced kickback). It was not a 'light' weapon. The Chi-com models were packed in grease (cosmaline). As I recall, there were 10 rifles per wooden case. It might have been a dozen.

Times have changed, and I do not know how AKs are constructed (although the pictures I usually see are showing wooden stalk weapons). One hundred thousand AKs will be a significant cargo. If they weighed 20 lbs, that would be 2,000,000 lbs. At 10 weapons per case, that would be 200,000 cases. Even if they were repackaged at 20 per case, that would still be 100,000 cases.

To steal at this volume, you are talking about an ongoing effort over a long period of time. Anyone doing asset management analysis is going to spot this. It would stick-out like a reef-marker. I would expect to see a serious investigation within the quartermaster corp.

A conspiracy theorist could certainly find viable grist in this revelation.

[SMM]

Something just occurred to me as I was editing my previous post. Why are we giving these guys AK-47s? This is the same weapon used by extremists throughout the world. It has been for years.

The enemy can use your ammunition in his rifle
The enemy can use his ammunition in the rifle he got from you

We have many different weapons we could provide them. I wonder why we chose this one? There may be a good reason, it just escapes me.

[hulugu]

Something just occurred to me as I was editing my previous post. Why are we giving these guys AK-47s? This is the same weapon used by extremists throughout the world. It has been for years.

The enemy can use your ammunition in his rifle
The enemy can use his ammunition in the rifle he got from you

We have many different weapons we could provide them. I wonder why we chose this one? There may be a good reason, it just escapes me.

That's an interesting question. It may be as simple as a training issue as more Iraqis are likely to have already handled the AK and thus be familiar with its workings. It may also have to do with its reliability against Iraq's scouring dust.

I'm sure our resident weapons experts can give a better explanation.

Edit: According to this article (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/26/2789/), the Iraqis want to buy M-16s, but have been stymied by the US government.

[solvs]

Where'd they go? Can only guess: Possibly some went directly from US supply trucks to Iraqi police units or military-in-training units, with incomplete or no paperwork. Some are in storage in unknown locations; a paperwork problem. Some were probably diverted into the black market. Others were probably stolen in transit from a port to a QM depot.
From your post it seems you're ok with it. Or at least apathetic. That's an awful lot of weapons in an already awful mess, just another in a long line of screw ups, to not be pissed about.

[takao]

Where'd they go? Can only guess: Possibly some went directly from US supply trucks to Iraqi police units or military-in-training units, with incomplete or no paperwork. Some are in storage in unknown locations; a paperwork problem. Some were probably diverted into the black market. Others were probably stolen in transit from a port to a QM depot.

if we were talking about a few hundreds or perhaps 1-2 thousands of guns i would have believed that ...

seriously army logistics are always picky on the paper trail for their guns _around the world in every single army_
so the US army was simply handing out the guns without somebody signing for them, ignoring all regulations and common sense on the way ? (i remember signing 3 papers for a single replacement glove in the austrian army)

190.000 is a lot ... heck it's more than there are US forces in iraq and more than 4 times as many as austria has soldiers combined

funny fact:
to top it off the AKs47 for the iraqy army were produced by an bulgarian company ignoring the fact that no company outside of russia currently holds an official license (most have run out) to produce them ...
oh and the ammunitions deals went to US arms companies despite being more expensive

[imac/cheese]

Something just occurred to me as I was editing my previous post. Why are we giving these guys AK-47s? This is the same weapon used by extremists throughout the world. It has been for years.

The enemy can use your ammunition in his rifle
The enemy can use his ammunition in the rifle he got from you

We have many different weapons we could provide them. I wonder why we chose this one? There may be a good reason, it just escapes me.

We are giving them AK47s for several reasons with the main reason being exactly what you state above. We do not want to give the Iraqi Army M-16s because then they can use our ammunition with their weapons and vice versa. In arming an ally government from which the insurgency is often gaining forces, the last thing we would want to use is the same weapon our troops use. Also AK47s are cheaper than some other choices while still providing good reliablity.

Several posters in this thead have made it sound like the guns were lost or stolen. I do not think this is the case. The original article stated that proper procedures were not followed in distribution of the weapons to the Iraqi army. I have no doubt that many of the weapons have ended up in the hands of the enemy just like we have seen many of the iraqi soldiers receive training and then switch sides to the insurgency.

[Desertrat]

Just because I tried to point out that this sort of thing is not unusual doesn't mean I'm "okay" with it. If anything, I'm more bent out of shape because it still seems to be a big unknown, when the problem has been publicly known for a good length of time. As I said above, I'm just guessing, along with anybody else not directly in the flow of information--or misinformation.

A good while back (a year? more?) I saw TV clips of Iraqis training with AKs that we had provided. IIRC, thousands of Iraqis were supposed to be in this new military program. I don't know if the AKs issued to them are among the missing, or what...SFAIK, we've issued AKs to the police forces we've tried to help develop. Who knows? Maybe it's Iraqi paperwork that's the problem. I dunno.

As far as "Why AK47s?": They're simple weapons for people who are not used to guns needing a high level of maintenance. They're very reliable and the cartridges are reasonably effective with their medium-power performance. Accuracy is quite adequate for military uses. Odds are, those to whom they've been issued probably already had some familiarity. And they cost maybe one-third as much as an M16.

'Rat

[SMM]

We are giving them AK47s for several reasons with the main reason being exactly what you state above. We do not want to give the Iraqi Army M-16s because then they can use our ammunition with their weapons and vice versa. In arming an ally government from which the insurgency is often gaining forces, the last thing we would want to use is the same weapon our troops use. Also AK47s are cheaper than some other choices while still providing good reliablity.

Several posters in this thead have made it sound like the guns were lost or stolen. I do not think this is the case. The original article stated that proper procedures were not followed in distribution of the weapons to the Iraqi army. I have no doubt that many of the weapons have ended up in the hands of the enemy just like we have seen many of the iraqi soldiers receive training and then switch sides to the insurgency.

Hard to fathom that America would be handing out AKs. Times certainly change. I had a lot of respect for that weapon in Vietnam. In fact, I would rather had it, instead of my M14, and later M16. I also humped an M60A for awhile. That will make for a long day!

Toward the end of the war, we were providing M16s to the Vietnamese Marines and some ARVN forces. But before that, we were giving them WWII stuff, 30 cal machine guns, M1 and M2 carbines. I felt sorry for the guys getting those. You could get shot by one and not notice it until you went to wash your clothes (kidding). I guess the AK would be a logical choice. It is certainly cheap to make. But, cost has not seemed to be too much of a concern in this war.

Your last word, 'insurgency' - When the armed resistance began, I said to myself, "I bet they are going to call them 'insurgents'". Sure enough, I was not disappointed. This war is not an insurgency. But, I guess they would have even more problems selling this mess, if the headlines read, "US Soldiers killed 50 Iraqi freedom fighters today, in action around Kaput".

[skunk]

Your last word, 'insurgency' - When the armed resistance began, I said to myself, "I bet they are going to call them 'insurgents'". Sure enough, I was not disappointed. This war is not an insurgency. But, I guess they would have even more problems selling this mess, if the headlines read, "US Soldiers killed 50 Iraqi freedom fighters today, in action around Kaput"."Insurgency" actually means a "rising up against", which is exactly right. I believe the WH likes to use it so much because they can't be faulted on the actual meaning, but it's also a good fit with the propaganda, because it's so easy to make people think "insurgents" are foreigners who are "surging in", i.e. across the borders, whereas of course nothing could be further from the truth. In Latin, "in" can mean "against" as well as "in".

[SMM]

"Insurgency" actually means a "rising up against", which is exactly right. I believe the WH likes to use it so much because they can't be faulted on the actual meaning, but it's also a good fit with the propaganda, because it's so easy to make people think "insurgents" are foreigners who are "surging in", i.e. across the borders, whereas of course nothing could be further from the truth. In Latin, "in" can mean "against" as well as "in".

It is associated with rising up against a sovereign state. That effectively ended when we invaded Iraq and over-through the current regime of SH. It then became a war to liberate the country from the American occupational force. Even after the American puppet government was established, you could make a compelling case that it was not made through self-determination.

There is a somewhat contradictory way the US labels things like this. In Nicaragua, the despotic government of Santanista was overthrown. The people installed Daniel Ortega's leftist government. The Santinistas attempted to overthrow the lawful government. The US illegally supplied them with troops (advisors, intel) and weapons. Ollie North called them 'freedom fighters'. These WERE insurgents.

BSCS Political Science

[solvs]

When my best friend was getting on a plane to Iraq when this whole mess started, he and his AF buddy guarded the crate of guns they had with their lives. I just can't imagine loosing that many. And worse knowing they could be out there doing harm to people like him (though he himself is back now).

I'm sorry I got the impression you were ok with this 'rat, but honestly I was expecting a little more outrage.

[imac/cheese]

When my best friend was getting on a plane to Iraq when this whole mess started, he and his AF buddy guarded the crate of guns they had with their lives. I just can't imagine loosing that many. And worse knowing they could be out there doing harm to people like him (though he himself is back now).

I'm sorry I got the impression you were ok with this 'rat, but honestly I was expecting a little more outrage.

The crate of weapons your buddy were guarding were probably weapons for our troops. When you are at war, your weapon is your life and it becomes part of you. We did not lose 190,000 of our own weapons. From what I understand, the US does not have a record of what happened to 190,000 weapons that we were distributing to the Iraqi Army. I am sure that the process when we first started distributing weapons was mismanaged, probaby at a midrange level and the proper procedures for paperwork were not followed in the distribution of those weapons. It is poor management and probably poor direction from the leaders about what we were trying to do and how quickly we were trying to accomplish it.

[mactastic]

I'm sorry I got the impression you were ok with this 'rat, but honestly I was expecting a little more outrage.
Only if a Democratic POTUS was in charge...

[ErikCLDR]

hey, before you know it, battalions will start disappearing. Maybe like the weapon's they'll be used against the US.

[mactastic]

hey, before you know it, battalions will start disappearing. Maybe like the weapon's they'll be used against the US.
'Tis already happening. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249403,00.html) At least according to the stellar news team over at the FOXNutwork. And of course they fall all over themselves to implicate Iran. My favorite part is this:Those concerns would be compounded if it's determined that Iran had a hand in the attack.
IOW we got nothing except what our gut tells us, but we find that a credible enough source to put the accusation against Iran in the second paragraph, and then say there really is no evidence in the second-to-last paragragh.

Talk about Truthiness...

[Desertrat]

Frowsing around this morning, I ran across this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20226447/site/newsweek/

"In May of last year, another Muslim fanatic, guns blazing, attacked Turkey's supreme court in Ankara. Four justices were wounded and one was killed. The assassin's weapons of choice were a pair of Glock pistols.

The attacks were no mystery. What puzzled Turkish police was the weapons' origin. Glocks are high-quality sidearms, but by last year they had practically become common street weapons in Turkey. More than 1,000 had been taken from criminals, guerrillas, terrorists and assassins all over the country, and authorities believed tens of thousands more had found their way onto the black market—but from where? The Austrian government repeatedly checked the serial numbers of the murder weapons. The manufacturer informed Ankara that the pistols were consigned originally to " 'US Mission Iraq' [formerly the Coalition Provisional Authority], address: Republican Presidential Compound, Ministry of the Interior, Baghdad, Iraq."

And

"At retail prices in the United States, a Glock 19 costs about $500. On the black market in Turkey, it can fetch up to $3,500, according to the national police. A senior Turkish security official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities, said his government estimates some 20,000 U.S.-bought Glock 9mm pistols have been brought from Iraq into his country over the last three years. "The problem on our side is that this corruption is so big they [the Iraqi and U.S. governments] cannot stop it," said the official."

The article goes on to speak of the Westhusing investigation, and his (apparent) suicide.

My suspicious mind wonders at the hazard to somebody investigating a corruption deal worth tens of millions of dollars...

IOW, the whole deal is a lot worse than anybody will admit to. This is beyond sloppy or careless paperwork; it's out-and-out theft for resale. It's corruption within the mid- and lower-echelon people who have both records-responsibility and hands-on access. And it seems to be well-organized.

'Rat

[mactastic]

IOW, the whole deal is a lot worse than anybody will admit to. This is beyond sloppy or careless paperwork; it's out-and-out theft for resale. It's corruption within the mid- and lower-echelon people who have both records-responsibility and hands-on access. And it seems to be well-organized.

'Rat
And something that is an almost guaranteed certainty for a deployment of this length.

And it ain't just weapons. The US taxpayer is being bled for way more than just weapons.

[Desertrat]

mac, I doubt that the length of the deployment has much to do with it. This is different than the black market of Vietnam, and we were there longer.

Again, just guessing: We have the pretense that everybody in the Iraqi government is allied to our goals. We have various entities procuring all manner of gear and equipment, some for our use, some for Iraqi use. It looks like too many chains of command with disparate interests and little or no coordinated control. Just too many factions...

'Rat

[mactastic]

mac, I doubt that the length of the deployment has much to do with it. This is different than the black market of Vietnam, and we were there longer.

'Rat
Sorry 'Rat, but these things take time to develop into something this large. We weren't losing weapons at this rate for the first several years, but give organizations time enough to develop around our logistics structure, and you'll see this kind of thing take place.

It's a foreseeable consequence of a protracted military deployment. And the longer the soldiers are in the field, the worse this will get. Particularly in an arms-hungry region like the middle east.

Hell, I know people who write software code to track the stuff that went missing in Gulf War I. In a few years, I'll probably know people who are writing code to help keep this kind of thing in check as much as possible.

[Desertrat]

What comes across as different, this go-'round, is the incredible amount of money available to suborn "the system" or systems. It's much like what goes on along the US border with Mexico, with the narcotrafficantes. Given enough money, you can get whatever you want.

'Rat

[SMM]

Doesn't it strike you as odd, SH was suppose to be able to wage war, and threaten his neighbors, and he did not have any guns??? Arming some new recruits is one thing, but many hundreds of thousands of rifles, pistols, squad vehicles, heavy machine guns, and Gods know what else.

If you want to know whether there is black marketing, and to what level, count how many Indian 'shopkeepers' are in the area.

[Desertrat]

??? SH had plenty of guns of all sorts. What condition the small arms were in, I dunno. The mideastern peoples are notorious for poor maintenance, for one thing, and the particular type of sand in the Iraqi desert is exceptionally hard on moving parts. There is a lot of commentary on the firearms websites about maintenance there, from our GIs.

Anyhow, just to show another part of the problem, some of the comments in this news article are interesting:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QVIQN80&show_article=1

"The Associated Press has learned that Iraqi government officials were involved in the deal, apparently without the knowledge of the U.S. Baghdad command—a departure from the usual pattern of U.S.-overseen arms purchases."

And


"Investigators say the prospect of an Iraq deal was raised last November, when an Iraqi-owned trading firm e-mailed Massimo Bettinotti, 39, owner of the Malta-based MIR Ltd., about whether MIR could supply 100,000 AK-47 assault rifles and 10,000 machine guns "to the Iraqi Interior Ministry," adding that "this deal is approved by America and Iraq."

The go-between—the Al-Handal General Trading Co. in Dubai—apparently had communicated with Bettinotti earlier about buying night visors and had been told MIR could also procure weapons.

Al-Handal has figured in questionable dealings before, having been identified by U.S. investigators three years ago as a "front company" in Iraq's Oil-for-Food scandal."

More to the original point of this thread:

"The Interior Ministry's need at that point for such a massive weapons shipment is unclear. The U.S. training command had already reported it would arm all Interior Ministry police by the end of 2006 through its own three-year-old program, which as of July 26 has bought 701,000 weapons for the Iraqi army and police with $237 million in U.S. government funds."

Nuff for now; gotta go do honest labor for a change...

'Rat