Iraq and missing weapons.

Associate
Joined
22 Jun 2007
Posts
242
An official US report has documented over 190,000 AK47s, 80,000 pistols, 135,000 body armour pieces and 115,000 helmets missing.

BBC News said:
AK-47 assault rifles might have ended up in insurgents' hands
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.

Discrepancies

The GAO said weapons distribution was haphazard and rushed and failed to follow established procedures, particularly from 2004 to 2005.

MISSING IRAQ WEAPONS
AK-47 rifles: 110,000
Pistols: 80,000
Body armour pieces: 135,000
Helmets: 115,000

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.

Deputy Assistant Defence Secretary Mark Kimmitt told AFP the Pentagon was "reviewing policies and procedures to ensure US-funded equipment reaches the intended Iraqi security forces under the Iraq program".

Weapons delay

The report comes as a political battle rages in Washington over the progress of the war in Iraq.

Gen Petraeus and US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker are scheduled to report to Congress by mid-September on the success of efforts to halt sectarian violence and return Iraq to viable self-governance.

Meanwhile, at the end of July, the US Defence Department admitted that the US-led coalition in Iraq had failed to deliver nearly two-thirds of the equipment it promised to Iraq's army.

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.

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

That makes disturbing reading ..... one missing AK would be bad enough but 190,000 is worrying. In the wrong hands ... you can no doubt work the rest out.

Any thoughts?
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Nov 2005
Posts
7,091
Location
Rotherham.
Hope it is investigated and if need be criminal proceedings brought, 190,000 is just a scary amount of weapons to go missing.
 
Suspended
Joined
4 Aug 2003
Posts
3,054
The US military cannot account for 110,000 AK-47 assault rifles given to the Iraqi security forces
What is the US military doing handing out Russian manufactured weapons, where did they all come from :confused:

Is this because the US manufactured M16 is a piece of junk?
 
Soldato
Joined
20 Mar 2006
Posts
8,214
This is just incredibly frightning and incredibly ironic, yet again the Americans have managed to arm the enemy.
 
Soldato
Joined
23 Apr 2004
Posts
8,410
Location
In the Gym
I think its utterly disgusting. With reference to the M16 not being distributed its basically that the M16 is far more expensive to manufacture than an AK47.

It is shocking how 100,000 of these things can just go "missing" and no doubt they will be in the hands of the wrong people probably being handed out right now in Iran to extremists wanting to face the "great satan".

I don't believe that America for one should be handing out weaponry in those numbers mentioned its despicable, least of all because of all the attacks that security agencies there come under and lets face it the AK will stand up to bomb blasts and all.

The sooner we all both American and British pull out of Iraq the better, leave them to it and let the country tear itself apart.

Or better yet relocate the troops to Afghanistan where the death toll is vastly lower and we are seeing more results (not that we aren't in Iraq of course just that Afghanistan is "seemingly" more stable)
 
Suspended
Joined
4 Aug 2003
Posts
3,054
RaohNS said:
I think its utterly disgusting. With reference to the M16 not being distributed its basically that the M16 is far more expensive to manufacture than an AK47.
So are the Americans now manufacturing the "less expensive to manufacture" AK47 or buying them from Russia :confused:

RaohNS said:
Or better yet relocate the troops to Afghanistan where the death toll is vastly lower and we are seeing more results (not that we aren't in Iraq of course just that Afghanistan is "seemingly" more stable)
Or even better yet, relocate the troops to the USA & UK where the death toll is even lower than in Afghanistan and which are "seemingly" more stable - except in Nottingham and Manchester and South London - Hhmmm, perhaps they are better off in Afghanistan after all :D
 
Soldato
Joined
23 Apr 2004
Posts
8,410
Location
In the Gym
Shackley said:
So are the Americans now manufacturing the "less expensive to manufacture" AK47 or buying them from Russia :confused:

Or even better yet, relocate the troops to the USA & UK where the death toll is even lower than in Afghanistan and which are "seemingly" more stable - except in Nottingham and Manchester and South London - Hhmmm, perhaps they are better off in Afghanistan after all :D

Either, tbh i cant see America buying them from Russia maybe they do maybe they don't, maybe they manufacture them, maybe they don't. They may not need to because there are more AK's out there than pretty much any other assault rifle.

In an ideal world i would believe me, just keep a ship parked off the coast to launch cruise missiles over at enemy implacements that would no doubt spring up in Iraq and Afghanistan, its still maintaining a presence. Its just there are people if we did pull out would be baying for more Allied blood to be spilled with the "we've caused this problem so we need to end it" crap. I'd send them over tbh to try and "talk" to explain the process... needless to say like those Not in Our Name idiots who took the London Bus's to Iraq thought they'd be stopping at "peoples" houses... LOL we'll send you to this power station, you to that power station!!! LOL that was the funniest thing EVER!
 
Associate
Joined
22 Jun 2007
Posts
242
Shackley said:
What is the US military doing handing out Russian manufactured weapons, where did they all come from :confused:

Is this because the US manufactured M16 is a piece of junk?

The original M16 from the Vietnam era was prone to jamming but later models and the current variants such as the M4 are a good piece of kit but significantly more expensive that the Kalashnikov and when it comes to arming the Iraqi army, they are not going to issue them with the latest Gucci kit.

Also, the AK has few moving parts and is fairly idiot proof and in terms of reliability the AK has few equals as it is no myth that you can bury one in the sand, dig it up months later, strip it, clean it's a damn good bet it will work like new. Couple that with the fact that AKs are made under licence in many countries ( including the USA, chambered for the NATO 5.56mm round ) and you have an abundance of sources and parts. They are not as accurate as the M16 or SA80 families but price would have been the major factor.
 
Soldato
Joined
19 Oct 2002
Posts
3,244
RaohNS said:
It is shocking how 100,000 of these things can just go "missing" and no doubt they will be in the hands of the wrong people probably being handed out right now in Iran to extremists wanting to face the "great satan".

I don't believe that America for one should be handing out weaponry in those numbers mentioned its despicable, least of all because of all the attacks that security agencies there come under and lets face it the AK will stand up to bomb blasts and all.

The sooner we all both American and British pull out of Iraq the better, leave them to it and let the country tear itself apart.

I could be laughing at this, but its all too sad really - on every level.

The first days of the invasion set the pattern, with US troops allowing weapons caches to be looted by Iraqis. The bungling continues.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Jan 2006
Posts
5,593
Location
UK
RaohNS said:
I think its utterly disgusting. With reference to the M16 not being distributed its basically that the M16 is far more expensive to manufacture than an AK47.

It is shocking how 100,000 of these things can just go "missing" and no doubt they will be in the hands of the wrong people probably being handed out right now in Iran to extremists wanting to face the "great satan".

I don't believe that America for one should be handing out weaponry in those numbers mentioned its despicable, least of all because of all the attacks that security agencies there come under and lets face it the AK will stand up to bomb blasts and all.

The sooner we all both American and British pull out of Iraq the better, leave them to it and let the country tear itself apart.

Or better yet relocate the troops to Afghanistan where the death toll is vastly lower and we are seeing more results (not that we aren't in Iraq of course just that Afghanistan is "seemingly" more stable)

Yeah pull out of iraq and leave all that oil there. Sure why not
 
Soldato
Joined
23 Apr 2004
Posts
8,410
Location
In the Gym
teaboy5 said:
Yeah pull out of iraq and leave all that oil there. Sure why not

Fine by me, let the "insurgents" (terrorists) kill most of the country as they are doing every day... must be coming up to 1million now with all the car bombs they set off... then go back kill the remainder and snatch all the oil :rolleyes:
 
Soldato
Joined
3 May 2003
Posts
6,077
RaohNS said:
Fine by me, let the "insurgents" (terrorists) kill most of the country as they are doing every day... must be coming up to 1million now with all the car bombs they set off... then go back kill the remainder and snatch all the oil :rolleyes:

Maybe you should read the facts before you post your rubbish! Have a read of the (then descredited, but now acknowleged) Lancet report for starters.
 
Soldato
Joined
23 Apr 2004
Posts
8,410
Location
In the Gym
@if ®afiq said:
Maybe you should read the facts before you post your rubbish! Have a read of the (then descredited, but now acknowleged) Lancet report for starters.

I've read all the facts. Pity you can't accept some of the facts that its insurgents who are causing more deaths through 1 or 2 car bombs a day that are maiming and killing double figures. These same insurgents who make up part of the Ummah.
 
Permabanned
Joined
2 Dec 2004
Posts
9,702
Location
Midlands
RaohNS said:
Fine by me, let the "insurgents" (terrorists) kill most of the country as they are doing every day
It's still the case that the vast majority of attacks are targetted against coalition forces.
 
Soldato
Joined
3 May 2003
Posts
6,077
RaohNS said:
I've read all the facts. Pity you can't accept some of the facts that its insurgents who are causing more deaths through 1 or 2 car bombs a day that are maiming and killing double figures. These same insurgents who make up part of the Ummah.

Maybe you can present me with these facts?
 
Suspended
Joined
4 Aug 2003
Posts
3,054
RaohNS said:
I've read all the facts. Pity you can't accept some of the facts that its insurgents who are causing more deaths through 1 or 2 car bombs a day that are maiming and killing double figures. These same insurgents who make up part of the Ummah.
I don't remember there being such a huge problem with insurgents before the illegal invasion of Iraq :confused:

Perhaps if the US hadn't spent so many years supporting Saddam Hussein, had tried to build a strong, independent administration and had concentrated on the infrastructure before rushing off to grab the oil after deposing him, they would have had a better chance of being seen as liberators in Iraq.
 

RDM

RDM

Soldato
Joined
1 Feb 2007
Posts
20,612
anarchist said:
It's still the case that the vast majority of attacks are targetted against coalition forces.

Not wanting to be pedantic but...he did say kill, not attack and the insurgents are killing an awful lot more of the Iraqis that they are meant to be liberating than the coalition forces.
 
Soldato
Joined
3 May 2003
Posts
6,077
RDM said:
Not wanting to be pedantic but...he did say kill, not attack and the insurgents are killing an awful lot more of the Iraqis that they are meant to be liberating than the coalition forces.

Once again anything to back this up? Last I read the killing of civilians was by a combination of the coalition forces, the insurgents (most Al-Q) and government sponsored death squads.

If you care to look at the number and kind of attacks you will see that it is pretty much just the tiny group Al-Q in Iraq that is mostly killing civilians on the "insurgents side". The vast majority of the groups are busy trying to attack the coalition. Don't fall into the trap of thinking all insurgent groups are the same and employ the same tactics! This is just another great propaganda coup.
 
Top