The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old August 12, 2017, 10:03 AM   #1
PT-92
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 20, 2007
Location: "Undisclosed Bunker"
Posts: 1,463
GAO Accounting of U.S. Funded Small Arms to Afghan Army/Security Forces 2004-16

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:



__________________
NRA Life Member
“A free people ought...to be armed..."
George Washington
PT-92 is offline  
Old August 12, 2017, 02:59 PM   #2
ShootistPRS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2017
Posts: 1,567
I wonder if there is a way to get the government to provide its citizens with arms... After all we paid for them.
ShootistPRS is offline  
Old August 13, 2017, 12:06 AM   #3
ballardw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 19, 2008
Posts: 495
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?
__________________
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
All data is flawed, some just less so.
ballardw is offline  
Old August 13, 2017, 08:05 AM   #4
PT-92
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 20, 2007
Location: "Undisclosed Bunker"
Posts: 1,463
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.
__________________
NRA Life Member
“A free people ought...to be armed..."
George Washington
PT-92 is offline  
Old August 13, 2017, 08:11 AM   #5
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 10,876
Quote:
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).
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old August 13, 2017, 11:32 AM   #6
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 17,432
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old August 15, 2017, 08:18 PM   #7
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,357
Quote:
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.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old August 15, 2017, 11:05 PM   #8
JoeSixpack
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2017
Location: Ohio
Posts: 953
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.
JoeSixpack is offline  
Old August 15, 2017, 11:45 PM   #9
Cirdan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Location: Tahoe
Posts: 206
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
Cirdan is offline  
Old August 16, 2017, 10:57 AM   #10
JoeSixpack
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2017
Location: Ohio
Posts: 953
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?
JoeSixpack is offline  
Old August 16, 2017, 12:44 PM   #11
T. O'Heir
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,662
"...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.
__________________
Spelling and grammar count!
T. O'Heir is offline  
Old August 17, 2017, 10:30 AM   #12
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 17,432
Quote:
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.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2017 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07968 seconds with 10 queries