GAO Accounting of U.S. Funded Small Arms to Afghan Army/Security Forces 2004-16

[PT-92]

For anyone that has either a keen interests in small-arms and or "your money" AKA "Taxpayers Dime," I found this publicly available Gov. accounting of U.S. provided firearms to the Afghans essentially along the lines of what one might expect, particularly, selection of both pistol and rifle models...perhaps the only surprise might be that pump action shotguns only were allocated...then again, considering history shows us that much of our supplied weaponry winds up in the hands of the enemy, perhaps 13K spared Benelli M4's is a good thing:

[ShootistPRS]

I wonder if there is a way to get the government to provide its citizens with arms... After all we paid for them.

[ballardw]

Very interesting that we supplied RPG-7, 82mm mortars and D-30 122mm howitzers. None of those are US weapons and all are Soviet/ old Warsaw Pact designed weapons.

So are we paying someone else to actually make non-US weapons to give to Afghanistan?

[PT-92]

Quite remarkable in that the U.S. has spent $76 BILLION thus far allocated towards weaponry to arm the Afghans (*not including the Billions allocated for our Troops) and by General Mattis' own admission we now control only 60% of the Country with the Taliban increasing their percentage of terrain gained every year. The longest War in American History has resulted in a complete review of U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan including a white paper provided by former Blackwater Exec Erik Prince which advocates the use of private contractors doing much of the work currently performed by U.S. Troops.

[kraigwy]

I wonder if there is a way to get the government to provide its citizens with arms... After all we paid for them

There is, its called the CMP (Civilian Marksmanship Program). Not free but at a fair price, they do have to fund their programs because their main mission is to instruct US Citizens in marksmanship.

Its not a new program. It started in 1904 at Teddy Roosevelt's urging. Then called the DCM (Division of Civilian Marksmanship).

[44 AMP]

Very interesting that we supplied RPG-7, 82mm mortars and D-30 122mm howitzers. None of those are US weapons and all are Soviet/ old Warsaw Pact designed weapons.

Also note that the AK-47, Dragunov sniper rifle, RPK 7.62mm and NSV 12.7mm machine guns are on the list, as well.

So are we paying someone else to actually make non-US weapons to give to Afghanistan?

I doubt it, but stranger things have happened. I don't think we have gone to any of the AK factories and placed orders for new made AKs so we could give them to the Afghans.

There are three schools of thought when it comes to arming the "security forces" of nations we are rebuilding.

One is, that we shouldn't. That we should provide the needed security, until local forces are both trained and equipped by local resources. This school seems to currently be the minority opinion.

Another is that we should arm them with US weapons (only) thus "promoting a closer relationship with " (aka dependency on) the US.

The other school of thought, currently in the ascendency, is that we should provide only enough US weapons for immediate short term needs, and provide non-US weapons (Combloc designs, primarily) for the long term and bulk of local forces.

There is some sound reasoning behind this school of thought. One of them is actually the sound of the weapons!!!

#1, the Afghans fought the Soviets for many years, so soviet weaponry, and ammo stocks are already widely used in country (by the other side, primarily). If "loyal" forces are supplied with the same weaponry, anything captured will be of use.

#2, since Combloc weapons have been in use for decades, some level of familiarity is already established and therefore training time & costs are reduced, compared to a totally different set of designs (US weapons).

#3, tactical, if they use the same weapons as the other side, security forces cannot be identified by sound, alone. This may seem like a small matter, but it becomes a large one for the people on the sharp end. Yes, it is a two edged sword, meaning that it can be used by both sides, but the one thing it does for us, is to deny then enemy the ability to identify our side by sound alone.

When one side's weapons sound distinctly different from the other, the guys pulling triggers can hear it, and will know if those shots from the next block come from enemy weapons, or not. When all the rifles sound the same, this advantage goes away, and the uncertainly CAN be a tactical advantage. (can be, not "is" )

Next point, something not addressed in the GOA tables given here, is how many (what percent) of non-US weapons we supplied came from captured stocks?? How many, if any, were purchased on the world market, to make up the difference??

Yet another point, and one outside the scope of the GAO report is what, if anything did, or will the Afghans pay for what we "give" them. Good will, now, (from SOME of them) and a promise of actual payment later??? Some kind of actual payment now?? I don't know, and tis the kind of thing that even if it happens (and we do get paid back some) its not over reported.

The US has a long history of buying good will (and at least temporary peace) by pouring our money down the rathole. This is justified by saying it's cheaper than blood. and it is., and usually works, to a degree. It makes some of the rats very happy (until it stops, at which time they go right back to hating us), and ticks off the rats who aren't getting a cut.

has the aid to the "sandbox" been mis-managed? Have we lined the pockets of numerous indviduals, and paid well over market rate for what we got? Absolutely. Was/will it all have been for naught in the log run, I think mostly yes, but only time will tell.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Next point, something not addressed in the GOA tables given here, is how many (what percent) of non-US weapons we supplied came from captured stocks?? How many, if any, were purchased on the world market, to make up the difference??

I wonder if these weapons mainly came from arms depots in former Warsaw Pact countries that are now part of NATO, i.e. Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, former Yugoslav republics, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and the Baltic states.

I've met some people who dealt with the Bulgarian military to buy some surplus equipment (aircraft parts FWIW), and the country reportedly still has vast warehouses full of former Soviet equipment that they basically seized and kept for themselves when the USSR fell in 1991. The Russian Federation has reportedly never seriously attempted to reclaim most of it except for the really high-tech and/or expensive stuff such as current-generation combat aircraft and warships. (This is not surprising considering that Russia's shrunken defense budget prevents them from properly maintaining what they already have.) I assume that similar scenarios occurred in the other countries I named.

Since these countries' NATO membership presumably prevents them from dumping the stuff on the black market (at least on a large scale ), I'd bet they would jump at the chance to "help" the mighty USA by disposing of weapons stockpiles that they don't realistically expect to ever use again.

[JoeSixpack]

Im sure instead of giving them our used gear they gave them new m4's and m9's

Probably walking around with better stuff then our guys.

[Cirdan]

There are two very good reasons for equipping them with AK's. First, they've been fighting each other for decades with AK-47's, so they're already familiar with the weapon. Secondly, the AK was designed for illiterate troops with limited mechanical skills who don't have the ability or interest in maintaining sophisticated machinery. Robust as the M16 is, I'll bet a significant number of the ones we gave them are no longer functional.

I worked for a PMC for a while, that had contracts in Afghanistan. We did purchase AKs and PKMs from Serbia to outfit our Afghan employees, under US and ISAF contracts. For handguns, we used CZs. Western contract employees got M4's and Berettas

[JoeSixpack]

Wait your company gave AK's to the Afgan employee's because that's what they was use to or because they was to lazy to clean their weapons?

[T. O'Heir]

"...way to get the government to..." Join the Army, Marines, Reserves or National Guard. The latter 2 are really good ways of recouping your tax money.
That list indicates a logistical nightmare. Four rifles using three different cartridges. Two different pistols, 2 MG's in 2 different chamberings, 2 different grenade launchers using different ammo, etc, etc. Whoever made that decision should be fired as a minimum.

[44 AMP]

That list indicates a logistical nightmare. Four rifles using three different cartridges. Two different pistols, 2 MG's in 2 different chamberings, 2 different grenade launchers using different ammo, etc, etc. Whoever made that decision should be fired as a minimum.

I don't know if that guy should be fired, or promoted!

It depends on what the REAL mission statement was, not what the public mission statement was...

Perhaps the idea was that while it is a logistical nightmare, from one point of view, it is a boon from another.

The diversity of ammo used pretty much ensures that what ever is 'found" can be used by at least some of their weapons, no matter which side it originally came from.

IS there any significant ammo manufacture in the country? Going by what I see on the news, the only thing Afghanistan seems to produce in quantity is opium, dust, and violent religious fanatics.