Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More AK-47's For Iraq

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • More AK-47's For Iraq

    Los Angeles Times
    August 8, 2003
    Pg. 1

    Arms Plan For Iraqi Forces Is Questioned

    By Mark Fineman, Times Staff Writer

    WASHINGTON — In a nation awash with hundreds of thousands of AK-47 assault rifles, the U.S.-led occupation authority is planning to buy and import 34,000 more of the ubiquitous weapons to equip a new Iraqi army.

    The plan has baffled some observers, not only because U.S. forces in Iraq have already seized and stockpiled thousands of the rifles since April, but because defense analysts have strongly recommended that the new Iraqi army be equipped with more modern, U.S.-made weapons.

    The AK-47, designed by Russians shortly after World War II, is manufactured almost exclusively in former Soviet Bloc countries and China. Among the possible beneficiaries of such an unlikely U.S. order: Poland, where the assault rifles are made and support for the war in Iraq has been strong.

    With a bidding deadline today, the Coalition Provisional Authority now running Iraq is quietly seeking the best deal on the arsenal from U.S.-licensed arms dealers, asking that they deliver the assault weapons to the Taji military base north of Baghdad by Sept. 3. The plans were spelled out on its official Web site this week.

    A spokesman for the Coalition Joint Task Force, which commands the military occupation in Iraq, was unaware of the request for bids and questioned it.

    "That's surprising," said Army Capt. Jeff Fitzgibbons, a task force spokesman in Baghdad. "It would seem to me odd that we're out there looking to buy more weapons for a place where we've already captured and set aside so many of them. It would raise a red flag for me, that's for sure."

    But an official with the occupation authority in Baghdad, who asked not to be named, confirmed the plans and said the AK-47s would be used to equip a new Iraqi army being formed to replace the 400,000-strong military that was formally disbanded in May.

    The U.S. Army and private American defense contractors, led by Los Angeles-based Northrop Grumman, have begun to train the first Iraqi army recruits in Kirkuk under a $48-million Pentagon contract, and the Taji base is the supply point for that northern Iraqi city. The new force is expected to number 12,000 at the end of this year and 40,000 in three years.

    In its Internet solicitation for the 34,000 weapons and accessories, technically called a request for proposals, the occupation authority specified that it wanted to buy "brand-new, never-fired, fixed-stock AK-47 assault rifles with certified manufacture dates not earlier than 1987."

    The authority wants a new shipment of the weapons from a single source "so that they're all of the same standard, and they're all new and ready to use," the official said. He declined to speculate on the cost of the weapons or the source of the funds that will be used to buy them, adding, "We're looking for a product that works, and we're looking for value."

    Individual AK-47s are advertised on the Internet for several hundred dollars apiece. Although it was unclear what the per-rifle cost would be under such a large purchase, the total order would presumably exceed $1 million.

    But the U.S. forces who seized control of Iraq in April have since discovered vast stockpiles of new, never-fired AK-47s, which U.S. military officials said have been deliberately warehoused for a future Iraqi army.

    At one compound of eight concrete warehouses that a company of the 10th Engineer Battalion found in central Baghdad in mid-April, Times reporters watched soldiers form a human chain to fill a truck bed with AK-47s so new the soldiers' hands turned orange from the packing grease.

    One officer on the scene at the time called the arms cache a "mother lode." Another said there were so many weapons he'd lost count. First Lt. Matt Miletich, who was in charge of the company, said then that the weapons would be held and guarded until a new Iraqi government and army were ready to receive them.

    The following day, U.S. Marines who were securing the city of Tikrit north of Baghdad announced that they had found 100,000 AK-47s there, 80,000 of them in a hospital. And in the months that have followed, there have been almost daily reports of U.S. military units seizing quantities of AK-47s both large and small, new and used.

    "We've been designating a lot of these captured weapons specifically for the new Iraqi army and police organizations we're setting up," Fitzgibbons said, although he acknowledged that many of the weapons were old.

    The civil authority official, however, asserted that the makes and models of the new weapons seized have "slight differences" depending on the nation where they were made, and that the goal of the agency's AK-47 purchase is to standardize the arms.

    He added that the agency decided to order AK-47s rather than another weapon made in the U.S. or another Western country not only because the Iraqi recruits are familiar with it but because "the AK-47 is the easiest weapon to teach, and it's the easiest to use."

    Designed by Mikhail Kalashnikov in 1947, the AK-47 is manufactured largely in former Soviet Bloc nations. It was standard issue for the Iraqi army and security services under the Saddam Hussein regime, which handed out well over a million of them to soldiers and civilians and warehoused tens of thousands more.

    To some U.S. defense analysts, that is scant justification.

    "Basically, they would be equipping the new and improved Iraqi military with un-American weapons. If you've decided to start all over again from the beginning, it would make sense to equip the new Iraqi military with American equipment," said John Pike, who heads the Virginia-based, nonprofit GlobalSecurity.org defense policy group.

    "It raises a lot of interesting questions that will continue to be raised as they rebuild the Iraqi military If played right, this could be a real bonanza for American armament companies."

    Pike and his group say that the purchase, presumably the first of many for the new Iraqi army, potentially has multibillion-dollar implications.

    "What about tanks? How many tanks does Iraq need?" Pike asked. "Does Iraq need fighter planes? Are they going to buy Swedish fighter planes?"

    A recent study by Global- Security.org on rebuilding the Iraqi military said: "It is important for the United States to monitor and supervise Iraq's military reconstruction, as the U.S. has an interest in reequipping Iraq with U.S. military equipment. The use of U.S. systems would require significant training and allow the U.S. to have continued military influence in the country long after significant U.S. units had departed.

    "Likewise, if left to its own accord, Iraq would likely turn to other available systems on the open arms sales market, most likely Russian or Russian- derivative arms that the Iraqi military already has experience in using."

    The coalition authority's request for the rifles does specify that its supplier have "required licenses and credentials" that include an official registration with the State Department as a "broker" of defense products and a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Class III "license for U.S. companies," which permits the manufacture or sale of fully automatic assault weapons.

    Such a license permits a U.S. company to sell the weapons only to U.S. law enforcement agencies. But if the company also is registered with the State Department's Defense Trade Controls Office, it can broker the sale of those weapons from a foreign manufacturer to another foreign buyer.

    Independent analysts added that, given those specifications, the coalition's winning bidder probably would be a licensed U.S. arms broker or dealer who arranges the shipment to Iraq from a former Soviet Bloc country that makes AK-47s.
    I can't give a link cause I got it off the Army AKO site.

    But what do you all think? Should we train them with American stuff or foreign stuff...
    Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We are evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that. --Saul Tigh

  • #2
    Sprayber, Opinion from foreigner himself, I don't think it matters where the guns are developed in this case. I think AKs might even be the choice of weapons for this.

    Other systems are different thing, but assault rifles.. I think it doesn't matter where they are from, if they are good work.........
    In da butt.
    "Do not worry if others do not understand you. Instead worry if you do not understand others." - Confucius
    THE UNDEFEATED SUPERCITIZEN w:4 t:2 l:1 (DON'T ASK!)
    "God is dead" - Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" - God.

    Comment


    • #3
      The thing is, should we or shouldn't we supply.
      I don't think Sprayber's intent was to debate the choice of weapon.

      And frankly, I don't know.
      Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
      "Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
      He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead

      Comment


      • #4
        AAaaaah ok.. naturally I didnt' read the whole post .
        I thought I had it.. I guess I didn't.

        To supply or not to supply.. I don't know.
        I have no opinion at this moment.
        In da butt.
        "Do not worry if others do not understand you. Instead worry if you do not understand others." - Confucius
        THE UNDEFEATED SUPERCITIZEN w:4 t:2 l:1 (DON'T ASK!)
        "God is dead" - Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" - God.

        Comment


        • #5
          It would be nice to see an Iraqi army, but I don't know how this would turn out...provide more stability, or just give guns to looters?

          Comment


          • #6
            If anyone answers this, they should be held accountable.

            Say no? Fine. When it gets Husseinesque again, remember what you said,
            Say yes? When they turn the weapons against our interest, remember what you said.


            That said, don't bash Bush so quickly.
            A president answers questions like this every day, and has to live with it.
            Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
            "Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
            He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead

            Comment


            • #7
              Just from the economic point - why buy more weapons? Why not use those from Saddam´s army? I mean, when there so much weapons in the country, why buying new?

              About the morale implications I´m too lazy to think now
              Blah

              Comment


              • #8
                For most observers it would seem as a better idea to use found weapons instead of buying more of the same. Nothing strange about that.

                "Basically, they would be equipping the new and improved Iraqi military with un-American weapons. If you've decided to start all over again from the beginning, it would make sense to equip the new Iraqi military with American equipment,"
                The quote above is, however, another issue. Obviously someone with limitied ability for rational thought or vested interests. It doesn't make sense that it ought to be an american assualt gun. It should be one that works well for the need of the new army. I'm sure a AK-47 is good enough.

                Comment


                • #9
                  And it helps the Russian economy .
                  “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                  - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    What I don't understand is why the Occupation authority doesn't try a gun "Buy-back" program like most major cities have...
                    Today, you are the waves of the Pacific, pushing ever eastward. You are the sequoias rising from the Sierra Nevada, defiant and enduring.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Probably because buy-back programs, to the best of my knowledge, don't really work as well as advertised. I could be wrong though.
                      John Brown did nothing wrong.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        They are.
                        I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Arming an Iraqi army is a no-brainer.

                          Buying new weapons of the same type as tens of thousands of existing weapons being seized and stored is just corporate pork, whether domestic corporate pork or foreign corporate pork. No more, no less.

                          It's no big deal at all to have armorers developed a field standard, inspect, and pass or fail weapons from the stock we have.
                          When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I think this is obvious. Why would the Army and Marines keep the weapons, otherwise? Who else is more qualified in acquiring and maintaining an arsenal?
                            I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by BeBro
                              Just from the economic point - why buy more weapons? Why not use those from Saddam´s army? I mean, when there so much weapons in the country, why buying new?

                              About the morale implications I´m too lazy to think now
                              The argument used by those wanting to purchase more is that the existing weapons are of varying type and they want to standardize their weapons. But like MTG stated it wouldnt be that hard to make due with what they already have.

                              I think they should use the weapons that are available and not introduce any more than is necessary. The statement below bothers me a lot. It seems like there are two different groups here getting in each other's way.


                              A spokesman for the Coalition Joint Task Force, which commands the military occupation in Iraq, was unaware of the request for bids and questioned it.

                              "That's surprising," said Army Capt. Jeff Fitzgibbons, a task force spokesman in Baghdad. "It would seem to me odd that we're out there looking to buy more weapons for a place where we've already captured and set aside so many of them. It would raise a red flag for me, that's for sure."
                              Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We are evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that. --Saul Tigh

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X