Plan to Sell Iraqis M-16s

Status
Not open for further replies.

chieftain

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
1,264
Location
The Free State of Arizona
This should be intesting.

Fred


The Wall Street Journal

UNDER FIRE
Plan to Sell Iraqis M-16s
Triggers New Controversy
U.S. Provides the Guns,
But Training Is Lacking;
Upgrade From the AK-47

By YOCHI J. DREAZEN and GREG JAFFE
October 8, 2007

CAMP TAJI, Iraq -- In this war-ravaged country, a man is often measured by the make of his gun.

When Iraqi soldier Abbas Ali Eadan picked up his brand new, U.S.-made M-16 rifle in August at this sprawling base north of Baghdad, his pride was palpable.

1
Courtesy of U.S. Army/Staff Sgt. Jon Cupp
Iraqi soldiers practice disassembling and cleaning their newly issued M-16s.
"I can put a cigarette in an ashtray and hit it with my M-16 from far away, like a sniper," boasted the 39-year-old. "The terrorists may have rockets and grenades, but only the Iraqi army has M-16s."

This spring, after years of requests from senior Iraq politicians and generals, the U.S. began quietly converting the Iraqi army over to the M-16, the main rifle for U.S. soldiers for more than 50 years. According to the Pentagon, the Iraqis have thus far purchased about 21,000 of the rifles, worth roughly $27 million, from Colt Defense LLC. Current plans allow for the Iraqis to eventually buy 123,544 of the American-made firearms.

The shift to M-16s is stoking a debate about how the new Iraqi army should be equipped. The M-16 is a far more accurate weapon than the AK-47 assault rifle the Iraqis relied on through decades of fighting. But it's also tougher to maintain and could strain the Iraqis' supply and maintenance systems. More to the point, the Iraqi army is riven with conflicting loyalties, leading many in the U.S. military to worry that the very weapons the U.S. is supplying could be turned against them some day.

"There has been a lot of anxiety about having modern assault rifles fall into the hands of terrorists," says Col. Michael Clark, who advises the Iraqi ground command in Baghdad. "The M-16 is just a much, much better weapon…It can do real damage."

The argument over the M-16 is part of a broader issue that has dogged U.S. efforts to rebuild the Iraqi military since the beginning of the war: Should the U.S. seek to model Iraqi forces after its own -- and in the process familiarize soldiers with advanced, modern American equipment? Or should it simply teach the Iraqi army to better use the weapons and vehicles it already possesses?

During Saddam Hussein's rule, Iraq relied on Soviet-made helicopters, tanks, MiG fighter jets and artillery. Most of that equipment fell into disrepair after the first Gulf War in 1991. After U.S. forces toppled Mr. Hussein in 2003, the armaments were further destroyed or looted.

Having to rebuild the Iraqi army from scratch, the Americans initially equipped the country's forces with confiscated guns and tens of thousands of new AK-47s purchased from Eastern Europe.

Cheap, plentiful and easy to use, the Russian-designed AK-47 has been a staple for armies, warlords and militias of developing countries around the globe. It was the Iraqi army's primary firearm under the country's late deposed leader, Mr. Hussein. In a recent report, the World Bank found that the AKs are still the weapon of choice for poor armies and insurgents because of their "ease of operation, robustness to mistreatment and negligible failure rate."

The M-16, meanwhile, has become an important symbol of a modern Iraq.

"The M-16 elevates the morale of our soldiers before they fight the enemy, because they know it gives them strength," says Maj. Gen. Abdullah Mohammed Kahmees al-Dafaee, who commands all Iraqi ground forces. "It is a new Iraqi army, so we should have new weapons."

Low-ranking Iraqi soldiers in the field would eye their U.S. advisers' M-16s and complain that they would never be more than a second-rate army so long as they carried aging AK-47s. Senior Iraqi officials pressed top U.S. officials to let them buy M-16s, as well as a trove of other more modern equipment.


Throughout 2004, then-Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi urged top U.S. civilian and military officials in Iraq to provide the country's armed forces with American-made tanks, helicopters and planes that would cow insurgents and inspire Iraqi soldiers. Mr. Allawi gained some support from Pentagon officials, who feared that the lightly armed Iraqi troops were being outgunned by insurgents.

Using its own funds -- primarily from oil revenues -- Baghdad last year agreed to buy more than $3 billion in American equipment by the end of 2007. By law, Iraq or any other foreign government wishing to purchase U.S.-made weapons must first get approvals from Congress, the Pentagon and the State Department. The U.S. cleared the way for Iraq to buy armored Humvees, cargo trucks, and communications gear directly from U.S. military contractors. It refused Iraqi requests for more-advanced weapons like M-1 tanks and Apache attack helicopters, citing fears that the weaponry could fall into the hands of insurgents or be used to menace Iraq's neighbors.

More than anything else, the Iraqis wanted M-16s. The Iraqis received their first shipment, of 20,000 guns, earlier this year. Another 21,000 are due to arrive this fall. So far, the U.S. has distributed about 2,400 of the firearms, issuing them only after Iraqis have completed a short training course on the weapon's use and maintenance.

One sweltering afternoon this month, a few dozen Iraqi soldiers in T-shirts and mismatched uniforms made their way to a bustling warehouse here to swap their AK-47s for shrink-wrapped M-16s. The guns were so new they still had "Colt Defense LLC" stickers on their stocks.

After picking up the guns and ammunition magazines, the Iraqi soldiers ambled over to a plastic table and put their fingers on a small glass scanner connected to a Panasonic laptop, which took digital copies of their fingerprints. Iraqi attendants digitally scanned each soldier's iris, took digital recordings of his voice and photographed each soldier with his new rifle.

"My name is Wadih Mohammed. I was born in 1971," one stocky Iraqi lieutenant said into a microphone. The biometric information was burnt onto compact disks and then given to Iraqi authorities as a way of safekeeping the weapons. If one goes missing, the solider assigned the weapon will be held accountable.

The Iraqis spent a total of just three days learning how to fire the weapons, instead of the almost two weeks of training that U.S. soldiers undertake. "In a perfect world, they would get more than three days of training," says Master Sgt. Varon Martinez, a senior member of a military training team here. "But nothing in Iraq is perfect."

The classes were taught by instructors from Military Professionals Resources Inc., a subsidiary of defense contractor L-3 Communications Corp. The company received a $3 million contract to train the Iraqis at Taji through the end of 2007.

"Gentlemen, let's talk about the characteristics of the M-16, from top to bottom," MPRI instructor Jeffrey Goodman said to the Iraqi soldiers gathered around him on a dusty firing range here early one morning.

Mr. Goodman, clad in olive-green pants and suspenders, told the troops that an AK round is narrow so that it typically goes straight through the enemy, limiting damage to tissue. An M-16 round spins much faster and tumbles when it makes contact with the enemy so that "it causes mass casualty in the body."

An Army retiree with 20-odd years in the military, Mr. Goodman demonstrated how to disassemble the weapon and clean it piece by piece, removing any rust and dirt. By the end of the second day, the Iraqis were able to take the weapon apart and reassemble it when they followed along Mr. Goodman's step-by-step demonstration. But many struggled with taking apart the M-16's firing mechanism, which contains numerous small parts.

There were other snafus. The Iraqi supply depot failed to order enough ammunition for the M-16s for all the classes. The first two groups of soldier-students also faced significant shortages of cleaning kits, essential to making the M-16s work. The M-16 is a far more complex weapon than the AK-47 -- with its many springs and pins -- and requires regular upkeep and cleaning or it will cease firing. A stockpile of spare parts must be kept on hand, adding to the strain on the Iraqi army's troubled supply system.

On the third day of training, Mr. Goodman told the Iraqis to lie flat on their stomachs, balance their M-16s on a short stack of sand bags and prepare to fire at paper targets stapled to wooden backstops a short distance away.


When he asked the Iraqi troops where they should shoot, they jubilantly yelled, "B'nose," Arabic for "in the center." Mr. Goodman directed them to open fire.

Mr. Goodman shook his head as several Iraqis gripped the M-16s as if they were AK-47s, causing their bullets to miss their targets by a long shot. "This is not a Kalashnikov!" he shouted, using the nickname for an AK-47. "You're using a precision weapon."

Some U.S. trainers say the switch to the M-16 will help improve the professionalism of the Iraqi force and its performance on the battlefield. Sgt. Martinez has noticed that Iraqi soldiers behave differently in firefights when they have the more-precise M-16. "I saw them crouch on one knee and aim the weapon rather than just spraying," he said. "It was like, 'Wait. If I aim I can actually hit something. I don't need to just spray.' "

When the Iraqi troops at Camp Taji finished test firing their M-16s at the rifle range, they gingerly laid down their rifles and began comparing their bullet-ridden paper targets. Slightly more than half of the Iraqi soldiers met the basic marksmanship standards needed to pass the course.

The remainder were ordered to show up the following day for a second chance -- although there were no real consequences for those who failed at both attempts. Starved for recruits, the Iraqi military rarely expels soldiers for technical lapses or ethical infractions.

Senior U.S. commanders like Lt. Gen. James Dubik say they are confident that the Iraqis will eventually learn to operate the M-16s effectively. But training them to use the new weapon will take time that the U.S. may not have.

A recent Government Accountability Office report found that the number of Iraqi army brigades capable of operating independently of U.S. forces had declined to six in July from 10 in March.

After the initial enthusiasm of getting the M-16 rifles wore off, some Iraqi soldiers began to complain that they missed their old AK-47s.

Ali Jassim, an Iraqi soldier who received his M-16 in August, worried that the gun's bullets, lighter than those used in AK-47s, won't be strong enough to quickly kill combatants. "To tell you the truth, I would prefer my old AK," Mr. Jassim said. "The M-16s may be better for Americans, but the AKs are better for Iraqis."

Write to Yochi J. Dreazen at [email protected]2 and Greg Jaffe at [email protected]3

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119180608991151863.html
 
told the troops that an AK round is narrow so that it typically goes straight through the enemy, limiting damage to tissue.

hhmmm im not mathmatician, but .30 is definatly "widder" than .223
 
"The M-16s may be better for Americans, but the AKs are better for Iraqis."

He may be right. For me, I'll take an M4 over an AK any day. But I'm not an Iraqi. I haven't grown up in a place where every family has an AK. I didn't start shooting AKs when I was 8 like most Iraqis. They know the ins and outs of the AK far better than they will ever know the M16. They also know how their desert environment affects their weapons. And the M16, as you may have heard ;), takes a lot of cleaning to operate well. Even American troops, who are trained to be precise and disciplined, sometimes are lax in cleaning their weapons. I've heard stores from my Drill Sergeants and Basic about coming up to Iraqi Police posts and finding all of the personnel asleep. Are they really going to have the disciple to maintain the M16s to the degree they need?

All things being equal, I do believe the M16 platform is a far better weapon than the AK. But things are not equal, and Iraqi troops are wholly different than Americans. Maybe they should stick to AKs.
 
Col. Michael Clark said:
The M-16 is just a much, much better weapon…It can do real damage.

And the AK platform isn't capable of real damage? Someone alert the Brady Bunch! :rolleyes:
 
Are they getting our old A2's or is someone making a bundle selling unneeded weapons to Iraq?

I think and updated version of the AK would be a better choice than an AR.
 
leading many in the U.S. military to worry that the very weapons the U.S. is supplying could be turned against them some day.

Yep, this is going to bite us in the butt in like 2 months...

The biometric information was burnt onto compact disks and then given to Iraqi authorities as a way of safekeeping the weapons. If one goes missing, the solider assigned the weapon will be held accountable.

How do you say, "BS" in farsi?

Sgt. Martinez has noticed that Iraqi soldiers behave differently in firefights when they have the more-precise M-16. "I saw them crouch on one knee and aim the weapon rather than just spraying," he said. "It was like, 'Wait. If I aim I can actually hit something. I don't need to just spray.' "

How much of that is just the fact that they're training as opposed to haphazardly shooting. An AK-47 can shoot straight too if you AIM it.

I think half of this article is typical American bravado: "Our weapons, cars, whatever are better because they're American" Why are we giving their army guns that are high-maintenance and that they're not wholly familiar with? How much more is it going to cost to give them m-16s and parts? This is lovely, spend another couple billion so that they'll be left with malfunctioning rifles when we leave...

I'll love to see how this pans out in a couple months when we are either 1) killed with our own weapons or 2) killed by insurgents during join operations because an Iraqi Army battalion failed to clean their M-16s.
 
And the AK platform isn't capable of real damage? Someone alert the Brady Bunch!
Well comparing properly selected 5.56 ammo to some of the junk that gets run through 7.62x39 weapons I think its somewhat safe to say that the wound profile from the AK very well might have been smaller.

I'm not sure what to think of this. It certainly sounds like a morale booster, I'm sure that soldiers who have faith in their weapon to do its job are more effective than those who think its substandard. It does seem like a way to give better weapons to our enemies eventually but really they're just rifles...we've handed out far scarier things I'm sure. Finally I hope these people are getting the training and maintenance issues drilled into their heads effectively. It would be a shame for these men to think they've got a real super weapon and not change their maintenance to match its need and have a failure that might cost them their lives.
 
This strikes me as pretty damned typical of our country lol

Big brother does it's best to disarm our own people.. and then turns around and gives as many guns as it can to our enemies, so they can shoot at us with'em.. but not before teaching them how to do it better.

Why is it I find this a little bit... wrong?
 
the Iraqis have thus far purchased about 21,000 of the rifles, worth roughly $27 million
If we are charging them almost $1300 a gun I'm thinking they are getting a bad deal. The thing that bothers me is that the government doesn't trust it's own citizens to buy these guns, and yet they sell them to anyone that wants to kill us in twenty years or sooner. Remember how Bin Ladin got stingers? We gave them to him so he could fight the Russians.
 
So, after reading the article... The only conclusion I can reach is that the AKs weren't the problem, the Iraqis never being taught marksmanship was the problem. 7.62x39mm or 5.56 to the torso, neither is a happy prospect.
 
looks alot to me like just more war profitiering (sp).... THE BOTTOM LINE IS THE DOLLAR SIGN..... $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
 
Mr. Goodman shook his head as several Iraqis gripped the M-16s as if they were AK-47s, causing their bullets to miss their targets by a long shot. "This is not a Kalashnikov!" he shouted, using the nickname for an AK-47. "You're using a precision weapon."
Umm...whenever I hold an AK or a AR it is usually about the same, I also hit my targets. I think they just need to be TRAINED. An army of well trained men with single shot .22 rifles is going to be much better than untrained people with m16s, m4s, and AT4s.
 
According to the Pentagon, the Iraqis have thus far purchased about 21,000 of the rifles, worth roughly $27 million, from Colt Defense LLC.

That's $1285 each by the way. HELL of a nice profit for Colt at that price!!!!
 
There was an article the other day... forget which paper... about a deal that Iraq has just signed with China to deliver a boatload more AK-47s.

It seems that the US supplied an initial 180,000 AK-47s, and some 110,000 have gone missing. Now, they are purchasing another couple hundred thousand AKs from China.

Its no wonder that 7.62 ammo prices have shot through the roof.
 
Why are we giving their army guns that are high-maintenance and that they're not wholly familiar with?

Actually, this is not a bad idea. It means that equipment that is stolen or otherwise obtained by our enemies will have a shorter effective life, as parts and ammunition will be more difficult to obtain through illicit channels.

The problem is that we are giving the Iraqis the wrong weapons. We should be issuing them something in a nearly unique cartridge, that only we can supply. Or something that doesn't have the effective range of .223, like .45 subguns or something of the like.
 
Maybe the shortage is because our government has been buying it all up to give to them.:cuss: First they ban importation of the Norinco stuff, then they buy up everything here and ship it to the sandbox. It's almost like its a plan to disarm or render ineffective Americans with AR15s and 7.62mm weapons:uhoh:
 
If I was an Iraqi, I'd take a precise, expensive, imported rifle over a beat to sh$% soviet holdout gun any day. A fine rifle helps make a proud soldier, a proud soldier does his job, also, I think the service rifle of the most powerful country in the world is a fine choice.
 
It's almost like its a plan to disarm or render ineffective Americans with AR15s and 7.62mm weapons

It would make sense if I thought our trainwreck of a beauracracy could make something like that happen.

In the meantime that same government continues to sell us all the Garands and cheap 30-06 ammo we want.
 
Mr. Goodman shook his head as several Iraqis gripped the M-16s as if they were AK-47s, causing their bullets to miss their targets by a long shot. "This is not a Kalashnikov!" he shouted, using the nickname for an AK-47. "You're using a precision weapon."

Now I am not an expert but is not AK-47 the Nickname for a Kalashnikov Model 1947
 
"The terrorists may have rockets and grenades, but only the Iraqi army has M-16s."

Yeah, for about a week. :rolleyes: Bad guys drop IAs, IAs drop M16s, bad guys get M16s with which to drop more IAs.

By the way, where'd those rockets and grenades come from in the first place, again? Oh yeah, from the Russians and from us. History is doomed to repeat itself, etc., etc.

I don't think the IA is ready for this. We're still in the process of teaching them tactics and procedures - this is a heck of a lot more vital to their successes than the weapons they are carrying. They aren't yet well-trained enough to maintain a tight-fitting weapon like the M16 as it needs to be in that environment.

Then again, if it'll bring the prices of 7.62x39 down to a reasonable price on civilian shores... :neener:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top