[CLUE-Talk] Another Bush lie

[Jed S. Baer]

On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 15:41:08 -0500
Randy Arabie <randy at arabie.org> wrote:

> The last point (3) is
> > simply not debatable -- U.S. forces are having to confiscate weapons
> > from the Iraqis due to weapons shortages and the fact that the
> > U.S.-supplied weapons do not perform well in Iraq's climate.
> 
> WRT #3 immediately above.  That's the first I've heard that.
> Care to pass a link to that on?

You know, I've read a few articles on the combat effectiveness in the
middle eastern desert environment. I suppose I should have bookmarked
them, but even then, finding them in the large pile of stuff I already
have wouldn't have been assured.

Generally speaking, desert environments have posed problems for weaponry,
primarily because of sand. You might recall the aborted hostage Iran
hostage rescue from the latter days of the Carter administration, when the
helicopters' engines had difficulties. The M16 line of rifles have been
maligned for various reasons as an infantry weapon since their
introduction, and in Vietnam, there were numerous reports of soldiers
grabbing AK47s and using them when possible -- although at times this was
likely done as a deception, to cause the enemy into concluding that your
position was occupied by their "friendlies", based on hearing the
distinctive firing signature of the Kalashnikov. Nonetheless, the AK47 was
considered to be more reliable in the field. The M16 pattern rifle has
undergone a long program of improvements, however, and has much to
recommend it (this is a contentious issue though). One of the nicknames,
IIRC, among the VC/NVA for it was "black death stick". The following is a
summary of combat effectiveness for some weaponry, in particular
mentioning the high quality of the M4, which is an M16 variant. Reports on
the Barret .50 sniper rifle are highly favorable.

http://www.streetforcesmc.com/lessons_learned_iraq.htm

There have been various reports of issue items not functioning as well as
OTC gear, and of soldiers modifying issue gear for better functionality.
Soldiers have purchased (or had sent from family/friends) commercial items
such as knives and goggles, either for personal preference or due to
functional concerns. This phenomenon is as old as war itself, I think. It
sucks that GIs are spending their own money on gear, though.

The debate over 9mm vs. the .45 is a long and well worn one. But at least
in that case, coalition troops wouldn't be likely to be able to get a 1911
model from the locals, I suspect.

Sand is tough on everything. This is not an indication of anybody
"screwing up", particulary not in the political context of justifying
military action. Yeah, it would have been better if the ordnance dept. had
issued a better firearms lube. What the hell does that have to do with
"Bush Lied"?

Issues of insufficient armor on Bradley fighting vehicles, and other
materiel problems are also irrelevant, as such would be the case no matter
how justified one thinks the war in Iraq is. The larger issue of
underpreparedness, which has been talked about, and perhaps even admitted
(I don't recall this in sufficient detail) is a viable criticism of the
prosecution of the war effort, not an indictment of the reasons for being
there in the first place.

Did I already toss this link into the mix:
http://www.donaldsensing.com/2003_10_01_archive.html#106747086158020112 ?
I've been reading Donald Sensing more lately, and I think he's definitely
worth your time.

jed
-- 
... it is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday
facilitate a police state. -- Bruce Schneier