We're the Military and Airpower Guys of Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online + a stray we found wandering around looking lost. All original material JHD, BHD, JR, WT, and KA 2003-2007 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/02/iraqi_gun_show.html Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:01:00 Z Movable Type 4.12 en Copyright 2008 http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification So, reading through DoD Blogger's Roundtable stuff I see the interview with Colonel Scott where he talks about the Iraqi's intent to replace their aging AK-47's for M16's, via the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program. The same program we're planning to use to go to the Ukraine to purchase BTR's for the Iraqis until they think their way through how they want to organize their mechanized forces. They want an initial total of 165,000 M4/M16A2s. The plan appears to be officers get M4's, NCOs and troops get M16's. On this side of the pond, I've noticed raised eyebrows, especially... http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/02/iraqi_gun_show.html http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/02/iraqi_gun_show.html Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:36:03 -0600 FMS... Hmmm, that's a funny business, init? This is really a lot simpler than all the discussion above makes it sound: the Iraqis simply have no [sensible] choice. The issue is not the quality of the weapon or its usefulness to the soldier or any of that stuff. The issues are 1) who's paying for the new weapons, and 2) how many can Iraq get. Number 1 matters more than number 2. Simply put, regardless of whether the U.S. is getting paid for its support (in cash, promissory notes, or oil futures), the U.S. *is* funding the up-armyization of Iraq, and there is just no way the U.S. is going to pay for AKs (or for any other weapon not produced by the U.S. or one of its economic partners). I can even envision a deal where the U.S. gives Iraq a grant (FMS-nonrepayable) to be used to buy the weapons, but insists Iraq buy the ammunition from U.S. companies, perhaps starting in 2010. Same basic deal as what HP offers because the money is in the ink, not the printers, and the U.S. is about nothing if its not about the money. All of which is not say I see anything wrong with this. So what if some congressman pushed for this--that's his job. And so what if it benefits the U.S.? It's not like we're screwing the Iraqis by selling them the same weapons *we* use. More to the point, so what if the AK hits harder, is sturdier, or any of that stuff. All those AK's didn't help the Iraqis (or anyone else for that matter) kick American a$$, did they? The fact is, American rifles are the weapons of the strongest army on Earth right now, and they are plentiful, and they come with support and promises of more, and they are assuredly cheap. And even more important, for all their flaws, a soldier can carry far more 5.56 bullets than 7.62 bullets, and that means the odds of actually hitting something are even greater. Shoot enough of those little buzzballs, and you're bound to hit *something.* And of course, all of this helps the U.S. in a number of ways, which is what the war is really all about, init? http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/02/iraqi_gun_show.html#comment-70233 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/02/iraqi_gun_show.html#comment-70233 Sun, 02 Mar 2008 22:26:11 -0600 If their tactical doctrine supports having two heavy riflemen in a squad, what are they going to carry? RPKs? FN-FALs? a Vorgrimmler weapon? If you define marksmanship as the ability of a troop to deliver accurate, lethal fire at 300 meters, either the AR or the AK can do it, when both weapons are maintained properly. The key is depot-level maintenance of the weapons. If we don't leave good armorers behind, nothing we give them will last or improve the lethality of their army, no matter what you call it or what it wears for a cover. If there IS good depot-level maintenance, then any standard assault carbine out there will fill the role. For my money, in 5.56 NATO, that would be the Steyr AUG and follow-ons, NOT the M16/M4 or AKM. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/02/iraqi_gun_show.html#comment-70203 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/02/iraqi_gun_show.html#comment-70203 Sat, 01 Mar 2008 11:12:47 -0600 show whether or not they're capable of performing at that level is a plus. From everything I'm hearing we are succeeding in building the new Iraqi Army as a professional Army - unlike pretty much every other Arab military.]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/02/iraqi_gun_show.html#comment-70183 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/02/iraqi_gun_show.html#comment-70183 Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:13:38 -0600 ... now if only we can wean the Iraqis away from that ridiculous, Monty Python-esque Russian goose-step they favor... http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/02/iraqi_gun_show.html#comment-70182 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/02/iraqi_gun_show.html#comment-70182 Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:52:02 -0600 I would never underestimate the power of brand differentiation and brand identification. The new Iraqi army will be new, it won't look like the old Iraqi army or arab armies in general. Good Things. I think the psychology of this is more inportant than people realize. Why do kids wear the same brand shoes Shaq does? Right, to identify with Shaq. This maneuver is one more step to wean the Iraqis away from Soviet era thinking and supply chains. Russian influence goes along with Russian weapons. It's important that influence goes away. I am way past tolerance for people who see a herd of ponies and think, "There must be a pile of manure somewhere among those ponies." http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/02/iraqi_gun_show.html#comment-70181 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/02/iraqi_gun_show.html#comment-70181 Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:37:36 -0600