30 Percent of U.S. Weapons Given To Iraq Unaccounted For
So how do the insurgents get their guns?
It now seems as if one way is…from guns given to Iraq by the United States:
The Pentagon has lost track of about 190,000 AK-47 assault rifles and pistols given to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005, according to a new government report, raising fears that some of those weapons have fallen into the hands of insurgents fighting U.S. forces in Iraq.
The author of the report from the Government Accountability Office says U.S. military officials do not know what happened to 30 percent of the weapons the United States distributed to Iraqi forces from 2004 through early this year as part of an effort to train and equip the troops. The highest previous estimate of unaccounted-for weapons was 14,000, in a report issued last year by the inspector general for Iraq reconstruction.
Not a good development from a military and from a political point of view. It’s yet one more sign of a stunningly poorly-managed occupation. MORE:
The United States has spent $19.2 billion trying to develop Iraqi security forces since 2003, the GAO said, including at least $2.8 billion to buy and deliver equipment. But the GAO said weapons distribution was haphazard and rushed and failed to follow established procedures, particularly from 2004 to 2005, when security training was led by Gen. David H. Petraeus, who now commands all U.S. forces in Iraq.
The Pentagon did not dispute the GAO findings, saying it has launched its own investigation and indicating it is working to improve tracking. Although controls have been tightened since 2005, the inability of the United States to track weapons with tools such as serial numbers makes it nearly impossible for the U.S. military to know whether it is battling an enemy equipped by American taxpayers.
Is this a story with “legs?” If it sparks some follow-up stories, questions at the White House and Pentagon briefings it will further undercut support for Iraq policy on some fronts. The saying is “We have to fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here” — but does that mean we have to allow them to get our weapons so they can fight us over there?
opinions powered by SendLove.to
18 Responses to “30 Percent of U.S. Weapons Given To Iraq Unaccounted For”
Only 30 percent? That is amazing. I figured it would be closer to 50 percent.
This country is in chaos. Give a man a weapon and he was probably selling it on the black market that evening to feed his family.
This country is in mass turmoil. It is a hard situation. I can only shake my head at those who just want to throw up their hands and pull out because its HARD to figure out what to do over there.
The terrorist strategy is simplicity itself. Keep the nation in turmoil until the American Crybabies QUIT. Then let us take over the country when they leave and we will have an Afghanistan with our own oil reserve.
And the Left Wants that to happen. Amazing.
They listened well to the screams of Howard Dean. John Murtha. Harry Reid.
Its hard……So QUIT.
Its hard……So give UP.
Its hard……So let someone else deal with it.
The war is lost. Quick. Where is Appomattox?
Are you kidding me? Just look at what a huge deal was made out of the fact that we captured arms that were to determined to have originated in Iran! The fact that a third of all weapons distributed are currently unaccounted for probably means that we are the ones who are arming the insurgency to a greater degree than the Iranians. This is a no-win situation where common sense needs to overcome American machismo.
We have let the neocons operate on the basis of a flawed and now failed assumption- that we are capable of establishing democracy in a part of the world that is not suited for it- that nationalism will overcome innate tribalism and a thousand year sectarian feud. If your basic assumption is flawed, what good can come out of any change in strategy to achieve your ultimate goal?
The public needs to swallow its pride and admit that we were suckered into this war by a group of intellectual idealists who had never seen combat, and who knew very little about the part of the world they were espousing change in. There’s a limit to American power and we had better realize what that limit is before we defeat ourselves by arming the very people who are working towards our downfall.
And those who object to expanding insurance coverage for children under the “principled” guise of opposing governmental encroachment on a role the private sector, should ask themselves whether they would rather see their tax dollars spent by their government in this self-defeating fashion.
Of course, it’s an important point, but, honestly, just another one of those glowing examples of republican incompetence. Must be, what, #3386 on the list? The lethargic US public didn’t react on those 3385 prior examples, so what?
Sry, of course the count should go on, I’m just totally pessimistic on the chances that US voters will actually call for consequences. If they don’t do anything against this joke of an administration, they deserve to suffer under it.
This reminds me – in yet another way – of the Soviet experience in Afghanistan. I remember seeing an interview with Z. Brezinski (sp?) who thought it ironic that a large percentage of the weapons used by the Mujahaden in the 1980′s came from a black market operated out of the occupying Red Army and other Communist nations around the world.
And Somebody remember the lesson Bin Laden learned from the Afghan experience? Draw a super-power into a quagmire in the ME for a pro-longed period and – voila – you increase your “holy warrrior” recruitment, weaken the super-power regionally and pump your finances and organizational experience immeasurably. In 1992, Zawahiri (one of OBL’s lieutenants) said the next goal of Al Qaeda was to draw the US into the same situation as the USSR in the previous decade. It’s a shame Bush didn’t pay any attention to this – but it’s what I’ve come to expect from this administration.
There is nothing more frightening than ignorance in action. – Goethe
ejoiner- I have made the very same point about al queda capitalizing on America’s quagmire, and their desire to see us go down the way the Soviet Union did, but you made it more eloquently. I couldn’t agree more.
Bush, through a combination of arrogance and ignorance played into the terrorists’ hands by bogging us down in an unwinnable war, that’s a worse foreign policy boondoggle for the US than Vietnam was. Our allies who make up “the coalition of the willing” have seen the handwriting on the wall and are deserting the Iraqi battlefields in droves. When we are the last ones left will we still believe we are winning solely because we won’t admit to the limitations of American power abroad?
Nice job conflating terrorism with sectarian violence in Iraq.
The U.S. military is in the middle of a sectarian war for control over Iraq. For the most part it isn’t about Al Qaeda, that’s the President’s propaganda. Good job falling for it.
The situation is really quite simple. We are an illegal occupying power with no international mandate. We have two options. 1) Get an international mandate to continue the occupation 2) Take to heart the wishes of the vast majority of Iraqis and get the hell out
Somebody
always good to hear from the 25-30% crowd. Gives us something to chew on.
Barring Reid, Murtha and those on the FAR left, there are those of us who would rather see our troops withdraw in a far more orderly fashion- we know what war is about- but this war has been ill-conceived, ill-defined and ill-managed. Is this even a war now? Iraq has a governemnt ( such as it is, being based on our “democracy” so to speak ). The over-simplistic “fight them over there..” rhetoric is both naive and thuggish. It’s old. And Americans are tired of supporting yet another incompetent, unorganized administration beyond our own.
Draw a super-power into a quagmire in the ME for a pro-longed period
I don’t disagree with this assessment. I just disagree with the Left/antiwar/Democrats way of solving it.
Run screaming for home with their tails between their legs while:
Harry Reid pumps his fist in the air shouting Hallelujahs and asking his staff “Why are we against the war again? Quick someone call Dean or Murtha or Michael Moore and get a clarification.”
“I just disagree with the Left/antiwar/Democrats way of solving it.”
And the solution you’re preferring is…?
More of the same???
:-/
And the solution you’re preferring is…?
More of the same???
I have stated a 100 times on these boards my solution.
I agree with Hillary’s plan of containment. Bill Clinton used it effectively for 8years. We need to use it in Iraq for the next 20 or 30 years.
We need to contain the chaos in Iraq until they can work it out for themselves. I have stated many times I believe that we need to pull back, redeploy and reestablish a different use of forces in Iraq.
I am against pulling out. I am for staying in a more limited capacity………say 80,000 to 100,000 troops in a more passive less hostile situation. As the situation improves we can reduce the number of US forces back more and more until there is no longer a need to be in Iraq.
Not more of the same………..Just not running for home. On this Hillary is the only candidate in the democratic party that has a clue how to deal with Iraq in a RATIONAL and workable manner.
Her approach is Moderate and it is pragmatic and it tends to meet both sides of this angry debate……..not leaving and yet not fighting either.
Let’s see. With 160,000 troops we can’t contain the violence.
So Somebody suggests we do it with roughly half that number.
This is the disconnect that makes the 25%’ers so hilarious, yet so sad.
Guess we should ship the troops a hundred thousand Wii’s to keep them occupied during their 20 year mission of doing nothing.
“I have stated a 100 times on these boards my solution.”
Sry, I really can’t memorize every single comment that somebody has posted here in the past. My bad…
“We need to contain the chaos in Iraq until they can work it out for themselves. I have stated many times I believe that we need to pull back, redeploy and reestablish a different use of forces in Iraq.”
Sounds reasonable. But how is this totally different from what Obama is saying?
“Senator Obama introduced legislation in January 2007 to offer a responsible alternative to President Bush’s failed escalation policy. The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 — a date consistent with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group’s expectations. The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces.”
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
Back in 2006 the Freeper’s said the 14,000 missing weapons were no big deal. Probably just bad accounting. This came from IG Stuart Bowen, the Whitehouse or Congress then tried to quietly end his inspections. Now Bowen comes out with a number 10 times higher.
This administration has no credibility left. Now we hear that because of BAD reports on the Iraqis electric grip all further reports will be a national average, never mind about local situations in Bahgdada, just spin the numbers.
Guess we should ship the troops a hundred thousand Wii’s to keep them occupied during their 20 year mission of doing nothing.
Might send some to the troops in Germany, Italy, Japan and Korea some too.
“Senator Obama introduced legislation in January 2007
There is a huge difference. His plan is inflexible. It prevents any sort of interdiction and it puts in jeopardy those forces that are left behind. This is a Vietnam Syndrome plan. It guarantees defeat. It puts it in writing and binds it in a bill signed by the president.
Given the supposed goal of a friendly and democratic Iraq, we’ve already been defeated.
And who was in charge when we lost most of these weapons? Saint David Petraeus. How are you feeling about that surge leadership now?
While I agree that withdrawal should be first on our agenda, the comments here favoring it, once again, fail to seriously address the crucial question of how that withdrawal should be orchestrated.
Instead of just repeateing the reasons for withdrawing, Somebody’s warning about precipitous withdrawal should be taken seriously, even though I don’t agree with Somebody on anything else. We don’t want to repeat the inglorious exit from Viet Nam!!!
As Hillary tried to point out during the debate, it is tactically impossible to bring all the troops home in a few months. In addition, beginning the withdrawal will inevitably give rise to changes in local politics and the posotioning of local groups, from insurgents to AQ, most of them impossible to foresee. To prevent as much of chaos as possible, any withdrawal has to be carefully planned and executed, always looking over our shoulder to see what new dangers threaten our troops.
I think the surge will fail to bring about political change, because it isn’t accompanied by any diplomatic effort to shake awake the Iraki governement. The only thing that could help there is an absent, and largely unsought, international involvement.
That leaves only two chocies, stay to do policing for decades on end or plan a withdrawal. Those of you serious about withdrawal should also get serious about choosing and backing a plan for withdrawing. JUst chanting ‘withdraw’ isn’t going to do the trick,
Obama’s plan is a possiblitliy, but in my view, it is too optimistic and too vague.
Hillary’s is more cautious, and I’m drawn to caution in what will inevitably be a vey difficult process. I don’t see any possibility that a withdrawal of any meningful size could run completely smoothly. Remember that Iraq and the region will not be standing still while we do our thing; there will be new developments and new challenges during the process, as a reaction to the withdrawal.
One of the new challenges arising during withdrawal might very well involve those missing weapons. Which way will they be pointing?
So, They Lost Thousands of Weapons in Iraq (Updated)
Are we taxpayers arming the very people we’re fighting in Iraq? No one knows, but we do know this:The Pentagon has lost track of about 190,000 AK-47 assault rifles and pistols given to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005, according to a new governm…