« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Petraeus: Give Iraq More Weapons
Something that's passed without notice in the hearings today and yesterday is that Gen. Petraeus cheered Iraq "becoming one of the U.S.'s larger foreign military sales customers." According to the general, Iraq has committed $1.6 billion already to the Pentagon's Foreign Military Sales program, and might commit another $1.8 billion before the end of the year. A few minutes ago, he told Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) that "we have to push the [foreign military sales] system" to get more weapons into Iraqi hands.
This is a pattern with Petraeus. When he commanded the training and equipping of Iraqi forces, almost 200,000 pistols and AK-47s intended for the Iraqi security forces went missing. Petraeus forthrightly said recently that he didn't think having safeguards in place to ensure the weapons were in the proper hands was as important as simply getting a slow-moving Pentagon bureaucracy to ship the weapons to Iraq. That decision, however, was one of several that has occasioned an unprecedented Pentagon Inspector General mission to Iraq to determine the extent of mismanagement and corruption -- and possibly even criminal activity -- in the sprawling logistics system.
Now, Petraeus seems to be saying that the Iraqi security forces need a surge of U.S. weaponry. It's admirable that Petraeus is trying to rapidly increase the competence and capability of the Iraqi security forces -- the lack of which makes up a large part of bipartisan criticism of the war. But what safeguards does Petraeus have in place to ensure that those guns won't end up on the black market, or in the hands of U.S. enemies?
Comments (8)
Cernig wrote on September 11, 2007 1:57 PM:Everyone keeps saying there's no suspicion of Petreaus' being involved in the corruption and weapons sales that have already implicated one of his closest aides. What investigations have been made to ensure that's actually the case?
I'm willing to believe he was utterly ignorant of the wholesale theft and larceny going on under his nose...as soon as someone tells me what has been done to find out whether he was involved or not. Faith in a general isn't enough.
Regards, C
Michael wrote on September 11, 2007 1:57 PM:I've heard that in the 1980s the army used to "lose" weapons and ammo all the time on the border with Nicarauga when they could not legally give the weapons to the Contras.
I've been wondering about "lost" weapons in Iraq for some time.
JEP wrote on September 11, 2007 2:16 PM:War profits galore!
Bush's exit strategy?
...January 20, 2009.
That is the only exit he's watching right now.
ANYONE ELSE NOTICE THE R'S ALL CO-OPTING JULY 2008 AS IF THAT REPRESENTS "BTINGING THEM HOME?"
If the entire surge strategy hinged on July 2008 since the inception of the surge, what else can that date represent but a political timeline, not a military one.
codeword "sheep" as in "being led to slaughter..."
Daniel wrote on September 11, 2007 2:38 PM:Didn't Petraeus also say we aren't arming Sunni tribesmen? How does he know that?
watercarrier4diogenes wrote on September 11, 2007 2:44 PM:Sadly JEP, as I'm sure you realize, too, these cretins won't be the ones actually slaughtered. They'll likely get slaughtered in the 2008 elections, but by then it will be too late for the families of the actual victims, US Military OR Iraqi.
Considering also that it's been widely reported that the current Iraqi army and police cadre are well salted with anti-American elements (dare I say rife?), there's little doubt we'll be arming some of them so that they can attack us.
~watercarrier
jeffgee wrote on September 11, 2007 3:55 PM:Has anyone counted how many times he has said "al Qaeda"?
J Parker wrote on September 11, 2007 4:40 PM:It seems to be the drumbeat du jour, not surprisingly, along with the Iran-as-a-threat meme.
Sell Iraq more weapons? Please, they've already "lost" hundreds of thousands of weapons and ammunition already.
And this administration wants to sell Saudi Arabia more high tech weapons, predicated on the spurrilous Iranian threat. Now Israel gets skiddish because Saudi Arabia may be getting all these weapons, which they deem a threat to their national security. Where does it end?
I got a better idea; get out of Iraq and let them settle their sectarian differences on their own, level Saudi Arabia for their continous financing and support of worldwide terrorism (remember that 9/11 and attacks prior to and after 9/11 have all been accomplished through Saudi support, involvement and complicity), then tell the Israeli's they're on their own and learn to defend themselves (without our financial support that is greatly needed here at home). This coutry has too many needs to continue this charade.
SonOfLiberty wrote on September 12, 2007 10:20 AM:It's too late, people. Russia is revving up it's military. China is threatening our economy. We've got no economic or military substance, as a nation, to fall back on. We've "shock and awe'd" ourselves into an incredibly compromised position. When we nuke Iran, and we will, all hell is going to break loose. It's just a bluff against the Russians, and they're going to call it.
Is the world going to end? I don't think so. Is our status as a superpower going to end? Most definitely.
Welcome to the sunset of the American Empire.