200,000 Ak-47 Assault Rifles Missing In Iraq? - It’s Business As Usual - Thanks Rummy
How can it happen that four planeloads of Kalashnikov assault rifles vanish from Bosnia and apparently wind up in Iraq? Put it another way 200,000 AK-47s have gone missing and there’s very good grounds to believe that the US government paid handsomely to have them delivered to person or persons unknown in Iraq, and by person or persons unkown I do not mean the Iraqi government.
HAVE 200,000 AK47S FALLEN INTO THE HANDS OF IRAQ TERRORISTS?
FEARS OVER SECRET U.S. ARMS SHIPMENT
SOME 200,000 guns the US sent to Iraqi security forces may have been smuggled to terrorists, it was feared yesterday.The 99-tonne cache of AK47s was to have been secretly flown out from a US base in Bosnia. But the four planeloads of arms have vanished.
Orders for the deal to go ahead were given by the US Department of Defense. But the work was contracted out via a complex web of private arms traders.
And the Moldovan airline used to transport the shipment was blasted by the UN in 2003 for smuggling arms to Liberia, human rights group Amnesty has discovered.
It follows a separate probe claiming that thousands of guns meant for Iraq’s police and army instead went to al-Qaeda
[snip]
A Nato spokesman said: “There’s no tracking mechanism to ensure they don’t fall into the wrong hands. There are concerns that some may have been siphoned off.”
[snip]
Meanwhile, Aerocom, the Moldovan air firm at the centre of the 200,000 missing AK47s, was stripped of its licence by its national authorities a day before the first shipment.
Two other companies in the complicated sale claim to have papers proving the guns were delivered in Iraq but refuse to show them.”
Full report here [This link and all exterior links open in new windows - markfromireland].
US in secret gun deal
Small arms shipped from Bosnia to Iraq ‘go missing’ as Pentagon uses dealers
Ian Traynor in Zagreb
Friday May 12, 2006
The GuardianThe Pentagon has secretly shipped tens of thousands of small arms from Bosnia to Iraq in the past two years, using a web of private companies, at least one of which is a noted arms smuggler blacklisted by Washington and the UN.
According to a report by Amnesty International, which investigated the sales, the US government arranged for the delivery of at least 200,000 Kalashnikov machine guns from Bosnia to Iraq in 2004-05. But though the weaponry was said to be for arming the fledgling Iraqi military, there is no evidence of the guns reaching their recipient.
Full story here
The AK-47 is a superbly well-designed weapon:
- It’s simple and cheap to manufacture.
- It’s very easy to clean and maintain.
- It’s very rugged.
- It’s very reliable.
It has these desirable characteristics because of several features of its design. It has a large gas piston, lots of clearance between its moving parts, and a tapered cartridge case. All of which mean that it can take a lot of abuse and a lot of foreign matter and fouling and still cycle properly. - The down side of this reliability is that it’s not the most accurate weapon in the world.
Depending on where it’s made the factory cost of a new AK-47 is in the region of US$75.00 [seventy five US dollars]. AKs are in heavy demand and the demand is rising for example:
Last year [2005] the US bought the following to equip the new “Iraqi” army:
- 100,000 Kalashnikov rifles,
- 100,000 flak jackets,
- 110,000 pistols,
- 6,000 cars and pickup trucks,
- 230 million rounds of ammunition.
- That was before the program to build an “Iraqi” army really began to get off the ground, and was also at the time when the desertion rate was very high nor does that figure include supplies for the various militias and “security agencies.”
Nor is Iraq the sole source of demand. Venezuela is building up its defenses against an American attack and it’s not just interested in high tech weaponry of the sort it can acquire from Spain or of the deal that Israel was forced to drop or their recent deal with Russia. For obvious reasons the Venezuelan is interested in asymetric warfare defense and is actively acquiring expertise in that field:
“Instructors made comparisons to Viet Cong guerrilla attacks on U.S troops, including the use of secret tunnels, poisons and home-made weapons.
Venezuelan officers have also been sent to Havana to learn civilian-military cooperation from the Cubans as part of the training, said National Guard Gen. Juan Alberto Hernandez
[snip]
“They will guarantee resistance against an invading force in their areas. They’ll be trained in weapons and other home-made artifacts,” said instructor Benavides. “They can be confused with the populace and that is part of asymmetric war.”
Reuters via Herald-Sun 06 Mar 06 “Venezuelans prepare for invasion”
That’s just one source of the rise in demand, there are lots of promising little wars brewing in Africa as well.
However back to Iraq. Quite aside from “official demand” and the demand from various militias there’s a further source of demand, ordinary householders. Under a “law” passed by Bremer every Iraqi household is entitled to one weapon. American troops do NOT confiscate them during searches. By no means all households have a weapon yet, but as the American occupiers continue to engage in policies that actively encourage the break up of Iraq, that’s an oversight that many Iraqis are rushing to correct. After the Samarra bombing the average price of a Russian-made AK-47 went from from US$112 to US$290 literally overnight while bullets jumped to 33 cents up from 24 cents again literally overnight. It’s continuing to climb somewhat and even a large influx of AKs aimed purely at this civilian market will not depress the price enough for arms dealers to make windfall profits.
The temptation to “mislay” a large consignment and make a hefty profit is clear. But how could it have happened? The answer lies here:
“And the Moldovan airline used to transport the shipment was blasted by the UN in 2003 for smuggling arms to Liberia, human rights group Amnesty has discovered.”
Moldova has the unenviable distinction of being the second poorest country in Europe (some say it’s the poorest.) Its bureaucracy is notoriously corrupt and the airline in question is owned by Victor Bout. Bout whose links to blood diamond trade and willingness to supply arms to everybody and anybody are notorious was designated by the US Treasury under Executive Order 13348 [PDF] on April 26th last year. Bout who is a fugitive from justice in two countries is also strongly suspected of smuggling arms to the Taleban. But has been selling to the US PX in Iraq since at least 2004 (he’s cheap) as well as ammunition (same reason.)
By now my readers won’t be surprised to learn that the main contractors who carried out the deal on behalf of the US Government be said to be above reproach:
“The Pentagon commissioned the US security firms Taos and CACI - which is known for its involvement in the Abu Ghraib prison controversy in Iraq - to orchestrate the arms purchases and shipments. They, in turn, subcontracted to a welter of firms, brokers, and shippers, involving businesses based in Britain, Switzerland, Croatia, Moldova, and Bosnia” [Guardian report cited above - mfi]
Nor will I suppose will my readers be surprised to learn that people have been writing about and reporting on for a long time now. Nothing seems to be have done.
How could it happen? Greed, corruption, cronyism, the Bush administration’s omnipresent incompetence, and of course a government not overly concerned with what happens to the country they invaded and are now occupying. The fact that Rumsfeld’s “reforms” meant the decimation of US logistical capacity to make room for contractors made this sort of scandal inevitable. Who could all those weapons have gone to? Everybody and anybody, and that includes householders, assorted militants, and of course all the assorted variations on a peshmerga theme.
Heck of a job Rummy, heck of a job, I’m surprised that US casualties are as low as they are.
markfromireland
PS: The cost of an Ak-47 in Beirut has still not dropped.

So, instead of an Iran/Contra type of an affair, where we sold arms to finance contra rebels without congressional oversite, we just pay contractors to vanish weaponry who make money on both ends of the deal? Is your belief that this is a plan of the administration designed to further undermine stability in Iraq and create further sectarian strife, leading to the ultimate goal of permanently breaking apart Iraq?
I make room for the possibility that you could be correct. And I’ve thought about this alot since we last swapped views on this topic. I believe you are assuming facts not in evidence. There is no evidence that this President has any intelligence whatsoever, IMHO. I feel they are just lurching about. They wanted to go to war with Iraq, even before Bush was selected for President in 2000. They just don’t know what they are doing, as they would have never invaded at all if they had any sense whatsoever.
Having said that, I feel there are numerous nefarious characters who are able to operate within this intelligence vacuum to carry out their evil agendas. Now this I can really buy, even understand a tacit endorsement by the WH for their deeds if presented in a coherent fashion. “We don’t have a plan, but this guys got something. Let’s do it.” Bush is the casual effect but I feel he lacks the wherewithal to control and direct much of anything. He is a fucking idiot.
Comment by Oilfieldguy — May 14, 2006 @ 6:49 pm
There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the policy of the Bush administration is now and always has been the deliberate breakup of Iraq. Or failing that its cantonisation. Every single step they’ve taken from the moment they’ve got their has tended to that result and it’s in line with policy documents produced by senior members of the administration before they took office.
Comment by markfromireland — May 14, 2006 @ 7:18 pm
Well, if the goal is “to make little ones out of big ones” maybe we should insist.
Comment by Oilfieldguy — May 14, 2006 @ 7:46 pm
But as far as Iraq goes, I have never heard an administration official advocate a Kurd, Sunni and Shia states in place of Iraq. Biden was shouted down for saying as much. To do a “regime change” and in the effort destroy a nation and replace it with three “mini-states” would be a failure in the eyes of the administration, no? As of yet they have never adnitted to failing at anything. The “policy documents” you refer to, would that include the PNAC?
Comment by Oilfieldguy — May 14, 2006 @ 7:52 pm
Oilfieldguy - the standard procedure in politics to introduce a measure which will be unpopular and against everybody’s interests is to create a problem for which the unpopular measure will be presented, and seen, as the only viable solution i.e. “it’s not ideal but we don’t live in an ideal world” kinda thing.
The unpopular measure will only be put forward by the ruling party after everyone is wringing their hands as to what to do. The official announcement will be proceeded by “unofficial” proponents to prepare the ground.
Joe Biden is the unofficial scout in this instance. Before him there were some “pundits” I believe. And after will follow officials who are perceived to be closer to the centre of power than Biden and finally it will be announced as policy with a welter of publicity and support from “independent pundits”. It’s all well orchestrated.
In the meantime, the proposed measure will have done the circuit through the various service organisations such as Rotary and fraternities such as the Masons to provide the critical community support when it’s officially announced.
This scenario is repeated ad infinitum because it works. And it works because most people won’t believe their leaders are that cynical and they don’t see the various forward scouts and public voices as part of the “team”. In America, anybody who belongs to the CFR is “on the team”.
Comment by Griffon — May 14, 2006 @ 11:11 pm
OFG you raise a good point and I’ll come back to you on it - too tired tonight, but at the risk of quoting myself I did a very relevant posting on my other blog about this trial baloon floated by Biden and Gelb about a month ago:
http://gorillasguides.blogspot.com/2006/05/barefaced-and-stupid-lie.html
You might find it a handy starting point.
g’night folks - need to get some shut eye.
Comment by markfromireland — May 15, 2006 @ 12:00 am
I truly want understanding of this issue. As I see it, Bush ran out of gas in Afghanistan with no boogeymen left to scare up votes for his pending re-election. Saddam, who after all tried to kill his Pa,was ripe to get punked. Plans were already drawn up with the “fixing of intel” (Downing Street Memo) a brief “shock and awe” campaign, ending with the most powerful photo op in the world (Mission accomplished). All indications are piss poor planning by the administration for phase II. They sincerely believed we would have a pro-American secular democracy located in the heart of the middle-east by now. Those who brought up the possibility of a civil war or sectarian strife were shouted down or shown the door. An echo chamber was created in the halls of power. This outcome is a disaster for this administration as poll after poll concludes that Iraq is the tar-baby of the Republican party. So to say that this was the plan is a real hard sell to me. What has occured is that Saddam was the only barrier between Shia in Iran from linking up with their breathren in Iraq, Syria, the Gulf Emirates and Saudia Arabia and gaining control of vast swatches of oil reserves. The Kurds are looking for a greater Kurdistan. The looming war on Iran looks like the only move on the board left for Bushco. Deeper and deeper towards WWIII we move. I feel this is a case of a brat unleashing the dogs of war and profiteers sustaining their bloated vulture like bellies. Yes mfi, your previous post was what started all this.
Comment by Oilfieldguy — May 15, 2006 @ 1:36 am
Nature fights back!
http://www.scooter-club.ru/members/small/c2e234953f017c59734e6.jpg
Comment by Griffon — May 15, 2006 @ 10:12 am
OK I’ll make the time @ weekend to do a posting addressing your questions. But I’ll answer one very important point now. “Saddam barrier …. ”
What you’re talking about there is the idea of “the Shia crescent” almost as though to be Shia is to be a member of an ethnic group. That’s very much not the case. The difference is between two schools of legal thought on the nature of the legitimacy of leadership of the community. There’s a further difference in that they differ as to the nature of that leadership. To illustrate: You’ll find Shia communities in Pakistan and Kenya. For historical reasons (the Saffavid dynasty) Iran is Shia but Iranians aren’t Arabs they’re Persians very distinctly not Arabic. The idea of a link up or that Arabs would even remotely consider subjugating themselves - just isn’t going to happen. It’d be like suggesting that Brazilians want Brazil to become the next state in the Union because most Americans are descended from Europeans.
Comment by markfromireland — May 15, 2006 @ 4:25 pm
You really know how to leave the punchline right ’til last don’t you?
I suppose you saw the report about Dayr az-Zawr, Al Hajar, and Dubaya? if you haven’t you should, I loved how its all the Russians and the Chinese fault. I’ll bet that went down well.Comment by Declan — May 15, 2006 @ 8:15 pm
I knew you’d appreciate my efforts Deco :-) Yes I saw it. Remind me again how do you spell “encirclement?”
Comment by markfromireland — May 15, 2006 @ 9:32 pm
Oilfieldguy … I think one thing that makes this all confusing here in the States is the the central meme of the media and political analysis on all sides (including progressive) is the incompetence of W. But that misses the role of the forces who “manage” W. And we are constantly distracted from those forces by W’s stupidity or extraneous crises and issues that they hype for a few days then shift to the next - hence the current immigration hoopla.
As I’ve been reading Robert Fisk’s Great War for Civilization (which MFI suggested and which I cannot recommend highly enough - before reading it, I feel like I was illiterate even if a news junkie) the sense that has grown for me is that today’s war in Iraq is simply another stage of a colonialization process (or re-colonialization) begun long ago - Reagan? the imposition of the Shah? I don’t know where I would put the start date but I no longer can view today’s war as distinct from a continuum of attacks and policies that are designed to control the resources of the middle east - and while W’s administration may flail about a bit on actual steps, the forces behind W are aiming for total control. They’ve tried various forms of “containment” but that didn’t get them the level of access they want - they are now going for full-blown permanent occupation. And if they now feel that a divided Iraq would be easier for them to manage with permanent bases near assets they want and too chaotic a situation in other areas to present a serious threat to those bases, that’s what they will go for. Of course, like JFK and LBJ before them, they are forgetting that people tend to fight back … still, I think Cheney, Hadley and their friends have a very clear goal in mind and Iraq has been in the way.
Comment by siun — May 16, 2006 @ 5:34 am
Mark, dont know if this is old news to you or not but some interesting connections in the Bosnian arms shipments are mentioned here-
http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=4262.topic
Comment by Griffon — May 16, 2006 @ 7:15 am