Thousands of guns suplied by the US lost in Iraq

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by PLATER, Aug 7, 2007.



    This will be good for morale!

    Almost 200,000 guns given to Iraqi troops 'lost'
    Page 1 of 2 View as a single page 7:50AM Tuesday August 07, 2007
    By Rupert Cornwell

    Body armour and helmets have gone missing as well as weapons.

    Iraq war
    More ministers pull out of crumbling Iraq cabinet
    Al Qaeda threatens envoys, embassies
    WASHINGTON - Some 190,000 AK-47 assault rifles and pistols supplied by the US to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005 have gone missing, according to an official report.

    This embarrassing disclosure, by the watchdog Government Accountability office (GAO), means that the Pentagon does not know what happened to roughly a third of the arms it has provided to train and equip Iraqi forces.

    The 'lost' arms include 80,000 pistols as well as an estimated 110,000 of the Soviet-made AK-47s, many of them originating in Eastern Europe, especially the former Yugoslavia.

    A recent Amnesty International report claims that in 2004 and 2005 over 350,000 AK-47s and similar weapons were removed from Bosnia and Serbia by private contractors working for the Pentagon and sent to Iraq, with the approval of local Nato and European commanders.

    In addition, some 135,000 pieces of body armour and 115,000 helmets have also vanished, again perhaps to end up in the hands of insurgents.

    Thus far, the US has spent over US$19bn on developing Iraqi security forces, including almost US$3bn on weapons.


    AdvertisementAccording to the GAO, the distribution of the weaponry was "haphazard and rushed," and failed to follow established procedures - accusations which the Pentagon does not dispute.

    But the affair could be even more problematic for the White House, given that during the two years under scrutiny, the programme was headed by General David Petraeus, now the top US commander in Iraq, in charge of the current troop 'surge.'

    President Bush now lauds his talents on an almost daily basis, as the man who will finally give the US the upper hand against the insurgents.

    The GAO arrived at its figures by comparing the property records of the Multi-National Security Transition Command for Iraq against records kept by Gen.

    Petraeus of the arms and equipment he ordered.

    The Pentagon says it is now reviewing procedures "to ensure US-funded equipment reaches the intended Iraqi security forces."

    But the controversy fits into a now familiar pattern of mistakes made by the US in Iraq, dating back to the initial failure to secure arms caches found in Iraq immediately after the 2003 invasion, and which merely fuel the insurgency the Americans are trying to stamp out.

    In this case, says the GAO, the military was "consistently unable" to collect supporting documents showing that the weapons had been sent to and received by the intended parties.

    There were also "numerous mistakes due to incorrect manual entries." The military however argues that the situation on the ground was so urgent, and the agency responsible for recording the transfers of arms so short staffed, that field commanders had little choice in the matter.


    We could have held on to them until every bit of a logistical and property accountability system was in place," one unidentified officer told the Washington Post, which first reported on the missing arms yesterday.

    Or, he continued, "we could issue them in bulk on some occasions, to the US elements supporting Iraqi units who were needed in the battles of Najah, Fallujah, Mosul, Samarra et cetera."

    In Fallujah, scene of fierce fighting in late 2004, one recently created Iraqi brigade dissolved and used its weapons against US forces.

    The GAO findings will be grist for the mill of opponents of the war, less than six weeks before the scheduled report to Congress by General Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, Washington's envoy in Baghdad, on whether the 'surge' is succeeding in reducing sectarian violence and defeating the insurgents.

    That report may be a watershed moment for Iraq policy here.

    With public patience with the war all but exhausted, and elections barely a year away, many Republicans long loyal to Mr Bush have hinted that barring cast iron evidence the 'surge' is working, they will no longer support the war.
  3. It seems to me these weapons are probably in the hands of the forces we are fighting over there. Arming your enemy is one good way to keep the perpetual war alive.
  4. djxput


    You know whats going to probably to happen ... bush will put off the pulling of our troops out of iraq ... least till the new president takes over

    then the new president wil pull out and a civil war will break out (as if it isnt going on already) but more deaths will occur and bush will say "see ..." as if us troops could stay indefinately.

    I'm sorrry but my brothers and sisters in the US military arnt there to be peace keepers forever. They need to sort stuff out on their own.

    Also Im not sure if you noticed but when you look at the number of US deaths; they dont have to inlcude the deaths of the private peace keeping forces there (like black water). So its alot greater then what is listed.

    The worst problems are what comes after the war when the soldiers come home and they are messed up from being injured with limbs torn off (post tramatic stress) and from all the deadly 'vaccines' they are forced to recieve.
  5. "bush will say "see ..." as if us troops could stay indefinately"

    Bush doesn't strike me as the type of guy like Carter or Clinton who'll trashtalk the next President. Secondly, re the lost guns, no biggee, just don't "lose" any ammo.
  6. the bush neocons are already admitting to joining forces with certain al qaeda groups to fight the "other terrist." beam me up.

  7. Ouch, Carter or Clinton? Er, didnt pappy bush and Clinton satand (that was a legitmate spelling mistake, but it seemed appropriate, no edit) 'stand' on either side of shrub, during a significant keynote speech?

    Whose daddy was ex de-erector of da CIA, was his surname clinton? Hmm, nope.

    Astonishingly, there are still various tools on this board who actually DONT beleive iraq is, or was , in a civil war-these same boneheads, also , strangely think, afghanistan is an emerging democracy, despite vast bucketloads of evidence to the contrary.
  8. some of them love pancakes.
  9. LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.... you just made my day!!! :D
  10. My only point was, it shows no class and is disrespectful to critize the current office holder when you have held the same position yourself. You might be qualified that's a given but accomplishes nothing. You had your chance, lead, follow or get out of the way.
    #10     Aug 7, 2007