Rogue Planet

U.S. Policy Is Fuzzy on Arms Purchases From Former Warsaw Pact Nations

By Walter Pincus
Monday, September 29, 2008; A17

What is the U.S. policy about supplying weapons to Afghanistan that come from Russia and former Warsaw Pact countries? Can the U.S. military deal directly with foreign countries that have these weapons and the ammunition that goes with them? Or must they go through private contractors, who act as middlemen and profit from such transactions?

Since 2003, the U.S. military has purchased, through private contractors, billions of dollars worth of former Warsaw Pact arms and ammunition for Iraq and Afghan security forces, rather than buying them directly or seeking donations of such equipment from countries that are coalition members. In June, Congress was told by an Army general that U.S. law and government procurement regulations required using contractors to purchase such ammunition.

Last Tuesday, however, Maj. Gen. Jay Lindell, commander of the Combined Air Power Transition Force in Afghanistan, told Pentagon bloggers during a teleconference that he was outfitting the Afghans with used, Russian-designed Mi-17 helicopters that were donated by the United Arab Emirates and purchased directly from the Czech and Slovak republics. In addition, he said, negotiations are underway to buy new ones from Russia.

He said the Afghans received Russian-made aircraft because "that's what the Afghans know how to fly and maintain so very well." Negotiations with Russia are "happening right now to determine the number of aircraft that we will purchase and the delivery dates," he said.

Did the U.S. Army Arrange a 'Sweetheart' Deal to Sell Russian Helicopters to Iraq?

By Sharon Weinberger

The Defense Deprtment quietly gave a U.S. company a contract to provide 22 new Russian-made Mi-17 troop transport helicopters to the Iraqi military in a deal worth an eyebrow-raising $325 million, DANGER ROOM has learned.

Iraq's effort to re-equip its military has been marred with corruption, including a notorious plan to buy used Mi-17s from Poland in a deal that involved accusations of shoddy equipment and was eventually scrapped. This new Mi-17 contract, which involves Iraqi money routed through the Pentagon's foreign military sales process, was designed to avoid problems that occurred in the previous sale. But in an unusual move, the U.S. Army sole sourced the contract to ARINC, a Carlyle Group-owned company.

The deal, which was consummated earlier this year, may represent the highest price ever paid for the Russian-produced helicopters, which are sold by a number of brokers, as well as directly from the manufacturers in Russia.

Fact Sheet on DOD Authority to Train and Equip Foreign Military Forces

Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY2006 provides the Department of Defense (DOD) with authority to train and equip foreign military forces. The section authorizes DOD to draw on funds appropriated for operations and maintenance for Section 1206 programs. Thus far, DOD has used Section 1206 authority primarily to provide counterterrorism support. Section 1206 obligations totaled some $106 million in FY2006 and $289 million in FY2007.  Obligations for FY2008 are in progress. Funds may only be obligated with the concurrence of the Secretary of State.

Full report can be found here

U.S. Mistakes in Iraq Weapons Transfers Could Have Been Avoided

Katarzyna Bzdak | 17 Apr 2008

Over the course of the Iraq war, a principal mission of the U.S. military effort has been to build, arm, and train Iraqi security forces capable of quelling internal violence and protecting Iraq from external threats. As with other elements of the Iraq war, this mission has not proceeded smoothly.

A number of governmental and media sources have recently highlighted the haphazard procedures and inadequate accountability standards the United States utilized to equip Iraqi soldiers and police officers with lethal firepower, shedding light on the often chaotic nature of the train-and-equip program. While most evidence remains uncorroborated or anecdotal, U.S.-supplied arms have reportedly turned up in the hands of insurgents, militia groups, private contractors, and criminals, some outside of Iraq. These lapses in accountability, particularly with regard to weapons transfers, could and should have been prevented.

A Rush to Arm

Following the end of the conventional phase of the Iraq war, the United States largely dismantled what was left of the Iraqi security apparatus. The U.S. military command initiated the train-and-equip program to rebuild military and police forces loyal to the new government of Iraq from the ground up, to eliminate loyalty to Saddam Hussein and purge security forces of the nefarious operating procedures that characterized Hussein's regime.

While the U.S. managed to rapidly recruit troops for the new Iraqi forces and begin transfers of weapons and other equipment, it quickly became apparent that the new Iraq troops were under-equipped and under-trained as the Iraqi insurgency took root and expanded from mid-2003 on. According to the Department of Defense's own "Measuring Security and Stability in Iraq" report from July 2005, the first Iraqi units thrown into battle against insurgent forces in early and mid-2004 performed poorly: Apart from dismal combat performance in general, most Iraqi forces suffered from high rates of desertion, and several battalions collapsed outright. Government officials widely cited a lack of proper equipment and training as the contributing factors that led to this bleak performance. The United States subsequently redoubled its efforts to "stand up" Iraq's security forces.

Due the demanding conditions on the ground, and perhaps because U.S. security assistance programs were not configured for wartime conditions, the train-and-equip program operated outside of traditional, established security assistance programs. Officials administering the program focused on rapidly dispersing equipment using ad-hoc funds, and often did not follow standard U.S. procedures -- procedures codified by law in established security assistance programs -- for weapons accountability. Gen. David Petraeus, who administered the train-and-equip program at the time, admitted that rapidly equipping the Iraqi forces fighting the burgeoning insurgency was considered more important than keeping thorough records of equipment distribution. According to Petraeus, "[U.S. commanders] occasionally likened it to building the world's largest aircraft while in flight and while being shot at. . . . But we gradually started putting those procedures into place."

Allegations Lead Army to Review Arms Policy

By C. J. CHIVERS

MOSCOW — The United States Army has begun a broad review of procedures used to supply security forces in Afghanistan and Iraq with foreign arms, prompted by an allegation of fraud and questions about the competence of the main private supplier of ammunition to Afghanistan.

The company, AEY Inc. of Miami Beach, was suspended last month after Army investigators accused it of shipping aged Chinese rifle cartridges and claiming they were Hungarian.

The Army decided to review its contracting procedures as several arms-industry officials said that long before the suspension, it was clear the Army had erred by not recognizing risk factors in AEY’s history and activities, and by being lured by a very low bid.

Problems with the contract, they said, were evident again early this year when AEY’s president was seen shopping for foreign munitions, including shoulder-fired rockets, at an American gun show. The money he was offering, the officials said, was too little to buy quality ammunition.

Lt. Gen. William E. Mortensen, deputy commanding general of the Army Materiel Command, and Jeffrey P. Parsons, executive director of the Army Contracting Command, said last week that based on questions about AEY’s performance and initial inquiries into the contract’s history, the Army had undertaken an extensive review of its arms-contracting standards and procedures and planned to overhaul several.

The contract has drawn the attention of three Congressional committees, which are expected to hold hearings in the next few weeks.

Afghan Troops Told To Lay Down Trusty AK47s

Following Iraq's lead, it looks like the U.S. intends to outfit the Afghan security forces with M16s. While the maintenance of the weapon may be a challenge to the Afghans, the move allows for more streamlined acquisition of weapons via the FMS/Excess Defense Article system, as well as logistics support for spares - not to mention the boost to the U.S. industrial base.

Michael Evans in Helmand

For a country with a fighting history such as Afghanistan, where invading forces have so often been humbled, there could be no greater indignity than to be told to hand over your guns and fight with the weapon of the infidel.

Yet the new recruits to the Afghan National Army (ANA) are being asked to swap their beloved Kalashnikov AK47, probably the most famous weapon in the world, for the American M16.

To judge from the bewildered and disapproving faces of the Afghan soldiers yesterday at Camp Tombstone, the training facility in the middle of Helmand province where the Americans and British train the ANA, the decision to scrap the AK47s for the M16 was not going down too well.

The reason for this dramatic change in the fighting culture of the average Afghan soldier is not to boost the coffers of the American manufacturer of the M16 —- although it undoubtedly will.

Rather, it is designed to improve the efficiency of the ANA and teach its soldiers how to preserve ammunition to ensure that, when a battle is fought, the enemy is defeated before the bullets run out.

Traditionally, the Afghan will fire his Kalashnikov from the hip as he advances, spraying the enemy in all directions on automatic mode until every bullet has been expended.

But that is not the way of the British or American soldier who uses his ammunition stocks with greater husbandry and fires to kill, rather than to deluge the enemy with a wall of bullets.

Iraq increases security equipment spending

BAGHDAD, April 3 (UPI) -- Iraqi government officials say they have invested more than $181 million to supply newly minted security forces in the country with equipment and munitions.

The Iraq Ministry of Interior says it has invested more than $181 million in the Foreign Military Sales Program operated by the U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency. The program is designed to provide purchasing power for the Iraqi government to sustain and supply Iraqi security forces with quality weaponry, ammunition and vehicles. Officials say investment in the program is expected to grow to more than $590 million as more contracts are approved.

"Officials in the Iraqi Ministry of Interior are serious about getting the best quality products from the Foreign Military Sales Program," said U.S. Lt. Col. Dan Gilewitch, program manager for the Foreign Military Sales program.

"Both MG Abdulameer (Iraqi assistant deputy ministry for infrastructure) and MG Jassim, (head of the Ministry Of Interior Contracting Directorate) are adamant about receiving timely deliveries of quality Foreign Military Sales equipment so they can issue it to the Provincial Police forces throughout Iraq. They are constantly asking us questions and forcing the issue when it comes to Foreign Military Sales deliveries and pricing."

Foreign Military Sales orders over the past year from the Iraqi Ministry of Interior have included 2,600 police vehicles and thousands of AK-47 rifles and other weapons. Officials say there are currently nine Foreign Military Sales approved cases pending that total $272.4 million supporting border enforcement and police initiatives. Between the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior and Ministry of Defense there are more than $1.3 billion worth of Foreign Military Sales purchases on order.

[upi.com]

U.S. Foreign Military Sales Program Builds Momentum in Iraq

(PressMediaWire) WASHINGTON, Feb. 28, 2008 - The U.S. Foreign Military Sales Program continues to grow in Iraq, where the Defense Ministry is buying vehicles, equipment, and other goods and services for its military, a senior military official said today. In a conference call with online journalists and "bloggers," U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Keith Muschalek, security assistance program manager for Iraq's Defense Ministry, said the Foreign Military Sales program in Iraq is large and is maturing quickly.

Muschalek attributed the program's growth and success to its invulnerability to corruption. "All the procurement is done by the U.S government," he explained. "They have no contracts, (and) they do not negotiate; the FMS does that for them, and so this precludes any corruption whatsoever."

Security assurance officers ensure merchandise is transferred to the appropriate Iraqi official and is signed for on a receipt form, said Muschalek, noting that in a recent sale of tens of thousands of M-16 rifles, 100 percent of the rifles were accounted for.

"With FMS, there is no chance of corruption, and this is precisely why they have chosen to put all this money into the FMS program," he added.

Muschalek said that the Foreign Military Sales procurement process time is extremely fast, which makes it highly attractive to the Iraqis.

"If I receive a signed letter of request, I can expect a letter of offer acceptance ... in about 120 days," Muschalek said.

Then, depending on the product and the urgency of the request, it can take from two weeks to eight months to get a signature accepting the offer from the Iraqi defense minister. Muschalek added that, on average, it takes about a year after the letter offer of acceptance is signed to receive the merchandise.

FY 2009 Security Assistance to Africa

U.S. Security Assistance Programs - The FY 2009 DoS and DoD Budget Request
African Security Research Project (Washington, DC)

ANALYSIS
13 March 2008
Posted to the web 13 March 2008

By Daniel Volman

For Fiscal Year 2009 (which begins on 1 October 2008), the Bush administration is asking Congress to approve the delivery of some $500 million worth of military equipment and training to Africa (including both sub-Saharan Africa and north Africa) in the budget request for the State Department for Fiscal Year (FY) 2009.

The administration is also asking for up to $400 million for deliveries of equipment and training for Africa funded through the Defense Department budget and another $400 million to establish the headquarters for the Pentagon's new Africa Command (Africom).

The State Department budget request includes funding for major new arms deliveries and increased military training to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Botswana, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Guinea Bissau, Kenya, Liberia, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, and Uganda. It will be channeled through a variety of programs, including a number of new programs initiated by the Bush administration as part of the "Global War on Terrorism." These include the Trans-Saharan Counter-Terrorism Partnership, the East African Regional Security Initiative, and the Anti-Terrorism Assistance program. The U.S. government is also expected to license up to $100 million worth of private commercial sales of military and police equipment through the State Department's Direct Commercial Sales program in FY 2009.

The following description is based on information contained in the State Department Budget Justification for Foreign Operations for FY 2009 (released by the State Department in March 2008) and the Defense Department Summary Justification for the Budget Request for FY 2009 (released in February 2008).

Questionable Reward: Arms Sales and the War on Terrorism

Rachel Stohl

In November 2007, Pakistan’s president, General Pervez Musharraf, invoked emergency rule, suspended the constitution, and arrested thousands of opponents and human rights advocates. As other countries, such as the Netherlands and Switzerland, immediately suspended military aid and weapons deals, the United States, which has given Pakistan more than $10 billion in military assistance since September 11, 2001, decided it would review U.S. arms transfers to Pakistan. Washington also indicated it would likely not prevent any weapons transfers, asserting such a decision could undermine counterterrorism efforts.[1]

U.S. policy toward Pakistan is part of a larger trend of U.S. arms export policy since the September 11 attacks, whereby the United States has made the “global war on terror” its priority in determining arms transfers and military assistance. In the last six years, Washington has stepped up its sales and transfers of high-technology weapons, military training, and other military assistance to governments regardless of their respect for human rights, democratic principles, or nonproliferation. All that matters is that they have pledged their assistance in the global war on terrorism.

U.S. Arms Sales and Export Policy Before and After September 11

To be sure, the United States traditionally has used arms sales to “reward” those countries willing to support its policies. The claimed motivations of such policies have changed over time from anti-communism to democracy building to anti-terrorism. The basic notion of using arms sales as a means of promoting loyalty to U.S. goals has been consistent.

Throughout this period, the United States has dominated the global arms market and continues to do so today. In 2006, Washington concluded the largest number of new arms deals ($16.9 billion worth in 2006, 41.9 percent of the global total) and made the most actual arms deliveries ($14 billion, nearly 52 percent of global arms deliveries).[2] The United States’ closest competitors were Russia and the United Kingdom, which made $8.7 billion and $3.1 billion in new deals, respectively, and delivered $5.8 billion and $3.3 billion worth of weapons. The United States has also regained its position atop exporters to the developing world, the largest purchasers of arms. Although the total global value of arms agreements fell in 2006, the United States saw multibillion-dollar increases in the value of its arms transfer agreements worldwide and with the developing world.