They fomented chaos in Iraq with the overthrow, then flooded the country with U.S. weaponry

[bigtree]

They armed Iraqi police forces and army units, ignorant or indifferent to how those weapons would be used. It's really not out of hand to accuse the Bush administration of deliberately sparking Iraq's civil war, based on the way they allowed U.S. weapons to proliferate in Iraq.


here's the DNC on this: http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/08/over_30_percent.php


Over 30 Percent of Weapons Distributed to Iraqi Security Forces Not Accounted For

August 6, 2007 at 12:22 PM
Email this Print this Blog this Digg this

Due to a haphazard distribution of weapons to Iraqi security forces, the Pentagon now can't account for hundreds of millions of dollars worth of weapons. From the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/05/AR2007080501299.html?hpid=topnews

The Pentagon has lost track of about 190,000 AK-47 assault rifles and pistols given to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005, according to a new government report, raising fears that some of those weapons have fallen into the hands of insurgents fighting U.S. forces in Iraq.

The report from the Government Accountability Office indicates that U.S. military officials do not know what happened to 30 percent of the weapons the United States distributed to Iraqi forces from 2004 through early this year as part of an effort to train and equip the troops. The highest previous estimate of unaccounted-for weapons was 14,000, in a report issued last year by the inspector general for Iraq reconstruction.

The security training program at that time was led by General David Petraeus, who now commands all U.S. forces in Iraq.

According to a bipartisan report from late June (http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/06/pentagon_cant_a.php), the Pentagon has spent $19 billion overall on training and equipping Iraqi security forces--and now largely can't account for how the money was spent.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Anything to keep the war going

[bigtree]

6. paying to arm Iraqi insurgents

Those missing guns in Iraq

August 7, 2007

U.S. taxpayers are rightly prepared to pay for all the equipment American soldiers need to defend themselves in Iraq. What is harder to accept is that because of the Pentagon's scandalous mismanagement, they may have been paying to arm Iraqi insurgents who are shooting at American soldiers.

The Government Accountability Office reports that more than 100,000 AK-47 assault rifles and another 80,000 pistols that Washington thought it was providing to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005 are now unaccounted for. More than 100,000 pieces of body armor and a similar number of helmets have also gone missing.

These numbers represent the discrepancy between the equipment ordered by the American commander in charge of training Iraqi forces and the equipment actually logged into the property records of those forces. Disturbingly, that commander was General David Petraeus, now the overall commander of American forces in Iraq.

The missing weapons amount to fully 30 percent of the weapons handed out by Washington to Iraqis through the start of this year. Some were presumably diverted into black market arms bazaars. Some almost certainly ended up in the hands of insurgent militias.

In the past, the State Department has managed these train-and-equip programs. In Iraq, the Pentagon insisted on taking charge, just as it insisted on taking charge of everything else - whether or not it had the competence to do so. Remember the arrogant sidelining of the State Department's experts, who had actually spent time thinking about how to manage a post-invasion Iraq? The result is one more failed policy that has put the lives of U.S. troops at even greater risk.

Overall, the United States has spent more than $19 billion trying to develop capable Iraqi security forces, with little to show in return. Last month's benchmarks report from the White House found only six Iraqi battalions able to operate without American support, four fewer than in March.

It is bad enough that Washington is now officially backing two of the opposing armies in the multisided civil war: the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad tied to sectarian militias and the Sunni militias fighting Al Qaeda in Anbar Province. How much worse if the Pentagon's ineptitude has been funneling AK-47s to insurgent fighters killing Americans on a daily basis.


http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/07/opinion/edguns.php

[tecelote]

2. They are so good at war!

Nobody can create chaos better than this administration.

Perfectly planned to last a lifetime.

[bemildred]

3. What was it, 3 trillion dollars the Pentagon could not account for?

This is just business as usual.

[sinkingfeeling]

4. I think this says it all ...

[bigtree]

5. lol!

[Junkdrawer]

7. I posted this over a year ago:

Pacification: I think BushCo may well have a very definite plan for Iraq.

NOTE: The following is just a guess based on many, many events that seem to suggest it as a possible BushCo strategy. It is extremely brutal and I hope I'm wrong.

Pretend that you have absolutely no morals whatsoever and that your goal is to capture and exploit the world’s largest underexploited oil reserves - Iraq. You don’t want to start the pumping while your Saudi business partners still can meet demand, so let’s say your time frame to start pumping is 5 to 10 years out. Your problems are:

1.) The population of the country is 65%+ Shia, many with links to Iran and many more decidedly Anti-American.
2.) Immediate installation of a Pro-American puppet regime would be opposed, not only by Iraqis, but also by most of the world, especially Iran, Russia and China.
3.) Oil fields and pipelines are easy sabotage targets for any well-manned insurgency.

So invading with a sufficient force to bring post-invasion stability brings a Shiite regime with a pro-Iranian tilt. Joy, just what you don’t want. So what do you do? Try this little three phase plan:

Phase I:
Invade with a force sufficient to overcome Saddam’s weakened defenses, but insufficient to create stability. Leave plenty of weapon caches lying about because you want an insurgency. Why? Because an insurgency provides cover for:
1.) The expulsion of the U.N.
2.) The expulsion of unfriendly media
3.) The building of permanent military bases
The insurgency also creates the core of a brutal, professional colonial army – something you’ll need for Phase III.

Phase II:
Instigate a civil war and then retreat to the bases you built in Phase I. You can, at this point, talk about an “orderly withdrawal” because you really just need a small core of provocateurs to keep the civil war raging. This is when the real killings occur – the pacification if you will. The idea is to reduce the population of anyone who will oppose your later occupation. The magnitude of the killings during this phase will be so severe that there will actually be cries for your return, both at home and within the international community. See Bosnia.

Phase III:
Remember those military bases and the brutal, professional colonial army you built during Phase I? Now is when you use them to bring about your actual goal: a puppet government propped up by a brutal military presence. You can refer anyone who complains at this point to the atrocities of Phase II and suggest that your forced stability is the lesser of two evils. Oh, by the way, you can pump the oil now.

Well, there you have it. As I said, I hope I’m wrong.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1503947

[spanone]

8. guns ain't cheap.....gotta keep that military industrial complex happy

WAR without end, amen

:sarcasm: