February 28, 2008
Who Benefits? Iraqis to Trade AKs for M16s
An iffy idea in the making, as published in Military.com:
In a move that could be the most enduring imprint of U.S. influence in the Arab world, American military officials in Baghdad have begun a crash program to outfit the entire Iraqi army with M-16 rifles.
The initiative marks a sharp break for a culture steeped in the traditions of the Soviet-era AK-47 Kalashnikov assault rifle, a symbol of revolutionary zeal and third-world simplicity that is ubiquitous among the militaries of the Middle East.
"We in the U.S. know that the M-16 is superior to the AK ... it's more durable," said Army Col. Stephen Scott, who's in charge of helping the Iraqi army get all the equipment it needs to outfit its forces.
"The Iraqis have embraced that ... and the fact that it is U.S. manufactured and supplied. They are very big on U.S.-produced [foreign military sales] materials," he said in an interview with military bloggers this month.
So far, the U.S. military has helped the Iraqi army purchase 43,000 rifles - a mix of full-stock M-16A2s and compact M-4 carbines. Another 50,000 rifles are currently on order, and the objective is to outfit the entire Iraqi army with 165,000 American rifles in a one-for-one replacement of the AK-47.
"Our goal is to give every Iraqi soldier an M-16A2 or an M-4," Scott said. "And as the Iraqi army grows, we will adjust."
My immediate response upon reading this is simple: which defense contractor most benefits from this deal, and how much did they pay to make it happen?
I don't know if that is a fair question to ask, but I'm being as honest as I know how: transitioning the Iraqi military to the M16/M4 family of weapons has all the hallmarks of creating or exacerbating a problem, not solving one.
Why?
While I hate to disagree with Col. Scott, stating that the M16 is a more "durable" weapons system than the AK verges upon being an outright lie.
As a matter of fact, the M4 variant of the M16 finished dead last in a recent U.S. Army Small Arms reliability test in an environment that was designed to test the weapons in a heavy dust environment... an environment very much like Iraq. The M4 finished behind the XM8, Mk16 SCAR-L, and HK416?weapons systems developed precisely because the U.S. military want a more reliable weapons system than the M16/M4.
The M16/M4 that the military is passing on to the Iraqis has a hard time functioning even when in the hands of American soldiers who are trained to practice rigorous weapons maintenance. The Iraqi military and police forces, which have come to trust the AK's ability to function in almost any environment and despite shoddy maintenance, are going to be in for a rude, and for some, unfortunately fatal learning experience as a result.
While the M16/M4 has some benefits over the AK, such as accuracy, and weapons commonality between U.S. and Iraqi forces would ease logistical concerns, this sounds like a political move as much as anything, which brings me back to my initial question?who benefits from this, financially?
Did Colt or FN (our primary M16/M4 suppliers) do any lobbying for this arrangement?
I hate to be suspicious over motivations, but the pros of going for shared small arms commonality and logistics doesn't quite seem to be as strong or stronger than staying with a weapons system that the Iraqis already know and understand, and is proven to work in their environment.
If aging AKs are the issue, it would seem to make far more sense to simply supply them with new AKs... would it not?
Tell me I'm wrong, folks. I want to believe this is more than a backroom deal.
Update: Uh-oh:
Colt had relied on a series of lobbyists in Washington, but now Keys, a decorated veteran who played an important role in the 1991 Gulf War, has taken on more of those responsibilities himself.
"I knew a lot of guys up on the Hill," he said, referring to Congress. Among those is Rep. John Murtha, the powerful Pennsylvanian who is the highest-ranking Democrat on the House defense appropriations subcommittee.
Keys' uncle, Thomas Morgan, also represented western Pennsylvania in the House and served as mentor to Murtha when he first arrived in Congress in 1974.
"You couldn't have a better guy than him, with his experience," Murtha said of Keys. "When he tells you something, you can take it to the bank. No matter how good a lobbyist is, talking to the president of the company means more."
Rep. John B. Larson, D-1st District, recently brought Murtha to the Hartford area to meet with local defense contractors. Keys and Murtha clearly had a strong rapport, he said.
Since 1994, Colt Defense has had a series of contracts with the U.S. military for its M4 carbine rifle, a version of the venerable M16 with a shorter barrel that advocates say has proven useful in urban fighting in Iraq.
Colt has been pushing to supply more for American troops at war, homeland security operations and U.S. allies around the globe.
"Right now, Colt is in a better position that they were a year or two ago," said Dean Lockwood, an industry analyst with Forecast International in Newtown. "They seem a lot more focused on what their goals are."
A "smoking gun" by no means, this relationship between M16/M4 manufacturer Colt's President and John Murtha is at least enough to raise eyebrows.
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/256653.php
