from 17 June NYTimes on-line op-ed

Status
Not open for further replies.

alan

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,601
Location
sowest pa.
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
How Much Is That Uzi in the Window?
By EVAN WRIGHT

Published: June 17, 2004


United States Armament and Defense




Iraq








LOS ANGELES

To the American troops in Iraq being subjected to a daily rain of fire from roadside bombs, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades, it often seems that the insurgents have limitless stocks of munitions. In fact, in the time I spent embedded with a platoon there, I heard more than one marine joke that the insurgents must have more bullets to spare than the Americans.

But it's no joke: some military officials told me that the Iraqis have so many weapons that they are suspected of exporting them over the Syrian border. And for this bounty, they can thank the Pentagon. Of all the blunders American military leaders have made in Iraq, one of the least talked about is how they succeeded in arming the insurgents.

By the time of the coalition invasion, Iraq had one of the largest conventional arms stockpiles in the world. According to one American military estimate, this included three million tons of bombs and bullets; millions of AK-47's and other rifles, rocket launchers and mortar tubes; and thousands of more sophisticated arms like ground-to-air missiles. Much of the arsenal was stored in vast warehouse complexes, some of which occupied several square miles. As war approached, Iraqi commanders ordered these mountains of munitions to be dispersed across the country in thousands of small caches.

The marines I was embedded with — a forward reconnaissance unit at the front of the initial invasion — were stunned by the sheer amounts of weaponry they saw as we raced across some 400 miles to Baghdad. Along much of the route, Iraqi forces had dug holes every couple of hundred yards in which they'd piled grenades, mortars and other munitions. Village schools, health clinics and other government buildings had been turned into ammunition dumps. New rifles, sometimes still sealed in plastic bags, littered the roadsides like trash along a blighted American highway.

But under orders to reach Baghdad as quickly as possible, the marines rarely had a chance to remove, destroy or even mark the stockpiles. In one village, combat engineers (led by local children whom they had bribed with bags of Skittles candies) discovered an underground bunker crammed with dozens of sophisticated air-to-ground missiles. Yet higher-ups in the division insisted that there was no time to destroy them. The marines moved on, leaving the missiles unguarded.

The job of removing ordnance was complicated by the fact that many of the combat engineers in the invasion were not adequately trained for the task. Munitions are not easy to destroy. Bullets, bombs and rockets are designed to be shock-resistant. As the combat engineers often discovered, blowing up a stack of ammunition just scattered it, unexploded, in all directions.

Ordnance disposal is best carried out by specialized technicians; the entire First Marine Expeditionary Force (which was responsible for roughly half the invasion) had the services of only about 200. As one of those overworked technicians told me the day we reached Baghdad, it would have taken the experts attached to the First Division a year just to clear the munitions they discovered in the city's eastern suburbs.

And within 24 hours of the fall of the capital, the dangers posed by all those unchecked arms became obvious. The marines I was with occupied a warehouse in the Shiite slum now called Sadr City, which quickly became the center of armed insurgence in Baghdad. The moment it got dark, tracer fire lit up the sky, as gun battles erupted across the city.

The marines were told not to worry; their commanders informed them that the violence was a result of "red on red" engagements, meaning that Iraqis were shooting at other Iraqis. When American patrols entered Shiite neighborhoods starting the next day, locals begged them to get rid of the arms. They told us that semi-automatic rifles, nearly unobtainable during Saddam Hussein's rule, could now be obtained for about the cost of a pack of cigarettes. Heavier weapons were not much more expensive. Unexploded artillery shells (which are now being used to make the improvised roadside bombs) were free for the taking, scattered about backyards and alleys.

Yet several Marine commanders I spoke with at the time felt the nightly firefights were a positive development. "Mostly it's Shiites doing a lot of dirty work, taking out fedayeen and Sunni Baathists," one officer explained. A colonel told me that the armed Shiites were acting through "a sort of agreement with us to take out the bad guys." Some enlisted men even told me that their battalion commander ordered them to distribute thousands of AK-47's to Shiite militia members who pledged to take on America's enemies.

Of course, American commanders long ago abandoned the wildly naïve (or cynical) view that all those arms sloshing around Iraq were somehow falling into friendly hands. But by the time occupation authorities got serious about disarming Iraq, many of the munitions that American forces bypassed in the invasion had fallen into the hands of those bent on killing Americans.

American forces have now destroyed some 300,000 tons of munitions. Yet the troops on the ground still complain that the old regime's supply depots remain woefully underguarded. Nobody knows how long it will take to dispose of known stockpiles — American military estimates range from one year to 10. And then there are the unaccounted stashes, which, based on Iraqi documents, are thought to contain hundreds of surface-to-air missiles, tens of thousands of bombs and half a million pounds of C-4 plastic explosive.

There simply aren't enough technical experts to do the job in Iraq (not to mention Afghanistan). With the handover of sovereignty fast approaching, concern is rising that today's well-armed insurgency will become all-out civil war. American authorities may not be able to eliminate simmering hatreds, but it's still within their power to reduce the numbers of bombs and bullets available to all sides.


Evan Wright is the author of "Generation Kill," about a Marine platoon in combat in Iraq.

Posters Quesdtion:

How about we send, with one way tickets, Sarah Brady and her acolytes, to Iraq. After all, they know all about Gun Control, or so they would have us believe.
 
Re:

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot....And on top of all that stupidity....we are now hearing that the coalition forces (US) are running out of ammo!!! WTFO??? Prooves the old saying is true:We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us!
 
This sounds like a problem easily remedied by common sense, if only orders were given to take the syrum.

In other words one of the higherups needs to order our boys (or actually issue orders allowing our boys) to use captured munitions.
 
In other words one of the higherups needs to order our boys (or actually issue orders allowing our boys) to use captured munitions.

Wouldn't there be squawking about potential safety issues?
 
The tone of the op-ed suggested that the author would not have been satisfied with the current situation **regardless* of how our boys in Iraq handled it.

The weapons cache are small. Their sizes are designed to be **not** worth your while to destroy one-by-one. Besides, why destroy perfectly good merchandise.

Just give permits/contracts out to our folks to pick up and export the stuff. I'm sure there're some folks who'd like a Iraqi war souvenier.

finally, why bother destroying the rifles? they are just clubs without bullets. So take a concrete truck and pour concrete over ammo. This makes the ammo and mortar harder to access by the bad guys, and just leave it to the new iraqi government to bury the concrete blocks.

C4? use 'em. they're stable. But yeah, this same author would write another piece criticizing the lack of safety precautions and stuff.



But I'd love to buy me a whole arsenal with a crate of cigarettes.:evil:
 
Mr. Kook wrote:

This sounds like a problem easily remedied by common sense, if only orders were given to take the syrum.

In other words one of the higherups needs to order our boys (or actually issue orders allowing our boys) to use captured munitions.


The U.S. "service rifle" is chambered for the 5.56 x 45mm round, while the AK-47, with which the world is virtually awash, takes the 7.62 x 39mm round. The AK-74, perhaps not quite so common as the AK-47 is chambered for the 5.45 x 39 mm round. Neither of the last two will function in the M.16.

As to U.S. troops picking up, and using captured weaponry, assuming that there was enough of it to make the proposition worthwhile, I too wonder as to what the problem might be, particularly given that the AK-47 has a reputation for ALWAYS WORKING. This is somewhat more than can be said for the M-16.
 
It was reported by the AP in August 2003 that some US troops HAD been given permission to take and use AK-47s.


The soldiers based around Baqouba are from an armor battalion, which means they have tanks, Humvees and armored personnel carriers. But they are short on rifles.

A four-man tank crew is issued two M4 assault rifles and four 9mm pistols, relying mostly on the tank's firepower for protection.

But now they are engaged in guerrilla warfare, patrolling narrow roads and goat trails where tanks are less effective. Troops often find themselves dismounting to patrol in smaller vehicles, making rifles essential.

"We just do not have enough rifles to equip all of our soldiers. So in certain circumstances we allow soldiers to have an AK-47. They have to demonstrate some proficiency with the weapon ... demonstrate an ability to use it," said Lt. Col. Mark Young, commander of the 3rd Battalion, 67th Armor Regiment, 4th Infantry Division.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37251
 
I don't think incinerating ammunition in a 55 gallon drum is such a good plan. :eek:
I mean, I know that rounds lose a lot of their pressure and the vast majority of their power when 'sploded without a chamber or barrel, but good Lord. Tossing a few hundred rounds into a FIRE just begs for something terrible to happen. I don't know if the brass/steel of the casings would fragment, or just rip open, but throwing a hojillion little canisters made of metal that are full of stuff that burns quickly enough to be about considered an explosion seems about as smart as throwing a hand grenade in the local barbecue pit.

No offense, Frohickey, and I dunno if you were serious, but I find your idea to be highly not-sweet.

~Slam_Fire
 
Matt Payne provided the following:

"We just do not have enough rifles to equip all of our soldiers. So in certain circumstances we allow soldiers to have an AK-47. They have to demonstrate some proficiency with the weapon ... demonstrate an ability to use it," said Lt. Col. Mark Young, commander of the 3rd Battalion, 67th Armor Regiment, 4th Infantry Division.



A rifle in a tank or other vehicle might be a bit unwieldly, that's one thing, but this bit about not having enough rifles, what the hell is The Army doing with it's appropriations??

Then comes that bit about "demonstrating some proficiency with the weapon (AK-47), demonstrate an ability to use it", what a turn of phrase of phrase there.

One installs a loaded magazine, and cycles the action, by pulling to the rear, the "operating rod hook", then letting go of the thing. The AK might not be as accurate as the M-16 is, but they are simpler, much simpler.
 
Actually, what should have been done, is that in addition to embedded journalists travelling with the troops, there should be embedded THRs, whose sole purpose is to accompany the troops, and when arms caches are found, the embedded THRs will set up a range (with appropriate backstop) and proceed to use up all the ammunition found, in whatever tactical games situations that the THR range master can come up with. :p :D :D
 
There needs to be a bunch of ole' boys from the sticks to come in there. "An AK? Shoot, I have a half-dozen of these at home. Proficiency? Pfft. See that can 200yds out? *Bang-----tink*"
Errr... you just described quite a few of the soldiers and marines that ARE there.
 
Would it really be that hard to gather up all that ammo and weaponry, distribute it to troops as needed and sell the rest to americans?
:evil:
 
funny

dozens of sophisticated air-to-ground missiles. Yet higher-ups in the division insisted that there was no time to destroy them. The marines moved on, leaving the missiles unguarded.

:scrutiny:

Were they worried a squadorn of roving MIG-23/7s might just happen across these? You know, like a scavenging party taking them to their secret underground airfield where they have all of the planes? :rolleyes:

Perhaps he would like to have said Surface to Air, or just in general, the x amount of explosives in the darn things.

Oh bother, at least we aren't running out of ill informed chin waggers.
 
New rifles, sometimes still sealed in plastic bags, littered the roadsides like trash along a blighted American highway.
You know, when I read that, the first thing to pop into my head was how in videogames you can always find ammunition and weapons just laying about to take and use. Must be an instance of life imitating art.
 
.

The job of removing ordnance was complicated by the fact that many of the combat engineers in the invasion were not adequately trained for the task. Munitions are not easy to destroy. Bullets, bombs and rockets are designed to be shock-resistant. As the combat engineers often discovered, blowing up a stack of ammunition just scattered it, unexploded, in all directions.



:rolleyes:

I have to call BS on this. I was with C co, 4th Eng in Iraq and we destroyed hundreds of tons of UXO's in the first 2 months we were in Iraq. You dont need "trained specialists". Combat Engineers ARE the trained specialists. Sure, every once in a while you have a couple of munitions that get blown into the air. Properly tamping down the charges with earth and using the appropriate amount of explosives solves this problem.

Once again, people who know nothing of what they speak speaking with expertise!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top