Out With The AK - Entire Iraqi Army Being Re-Outfitted With U.S. Rifles
And not everone’s happy about it…
BESMAYA RANGE, IRAQ — The company of Iraqi soldiers pressed together for the dance of valor, singing of their bravery, stomping in the desert sand, thrusting their weapons skyward, just as they might have done not so many years ago to honor Saddam Hussein.
But what were those sleek silhouettes they jabbed into the air? Not AK-47s. The iconic Soviet bloc assault rifle that has been synonymous for decades with America’s adversaries and the developing world is being phased out of the Iraqi army.
Its replacement? The M-16, a rifle that first saw service in the jungles of Vietnam and has since, over a sometimes difficult evolution, become the dominant symbol of the Western soldier.
Over the next year or two, the 190,000 projected members of the Iraqi army will be issued M-16s or related weapons, to the consternation of some military aficionados and pundits, with some saying the U.S. is tempting fate by offering the world’s premier assault rifle to a country with an unstable government and a healthy black market.
Others see a stroke of genius in giving the Iraqis a weapon renowned for its temperamental nature.
“Having an insurgent pick up and use an M-16? Possibly detrimental to their efforts in the long run,” one blogger wrote sarcastically.
The controversy reflects the two weapons’ remarkably different characteristics and their competing roles in global power struggles over the last five decades.
The AK, bred in the Soviet assembly lines of 1947, is easy to mass-produce and renowned for its indestructibility. A large round and big kick give it a “spray and pray” shooting style that fits the needs of ill-trained armies, rebel groups and warlords.
Though developed only about a decade later, the M-16 was conceived as a precision instrument, and it can be as cranky as a sewing machine. Jamming problems in the early models were resolved partly through refinements but also by strict maintenance regimes.
Already, about 10,000 of the Colt-manufactured assault rifles have been distributed to Iraqi soldiers in Baghdad and other parts of the country. The Iraqi Defense Ministry has ordered about 41,000 of the weapons, which sell for about $800 apiece, and the U.S. Army has authorized the sale of 80,000 others, plus 50,000 of the related M-4.
Now, at this training base in the desert east of Baghdad, the 3rd Brigade of the 11th Iraqi Infantry is becoming the first all-new brigade to be formed with the standard NATO weapon as its firearm.
Each day a new batch of soldiers receives the weapons, factory-wrapped in blue plastic and cardboard. At the same time, each man is scanned for biometric information to help build a database of army personnel and also make each soldier responsible for his rifle.
They spend the next three days on the range, zeroing in their sights and qualifying. About 92% make it the first time, their instructor said. They then graduate to live-fire tactical training, learning how to enter a house, identify a target and shoot to kill.
The rifle swap is part of a gradual Americanization of the Iraqi forces since the 2003 invasion. With their Soviet-made vehicles destroyed, Iraqi soldiers early on were equipped with American Humvees, on which they mounted Eastern guns. In September 2006, Congress approved $3 billion in sales of military hardware to Iraq.
But Iraqi defense officials were especially eager for the U.S. rifle to modernize their forces, Defense Ministry spokesman Mohammed Askari said.
“These weapons possess high quality and the most recent specifications that will help us in upgrading the work of our ministry,” Askari said.
After some resistance, U.S. commanders now embrace the swap as a symbol of change for what they call the new Iraqi army.
“The M-16 is a sign of the Iraqi army being a modern army,” said Brig. Gen. Robin Swan, who is in charge of the U.S.-led forces’ Iraqi training command.
Base commander Col. Abbas Fadhil, who made headlines this fall by collecting donations from his men for California fire victims, had a more graphic rationale.
“They make better to kill by being very short rounds, not big,” Abbas said.
His imperfect English left some doubt whether he was referring to the M-16’s smaller caliber or its reputedly tight firing pattern, but his intent was clear.
“One shot, one kill,” he said.
Most weapons experts agree that the M-16, with its lighter punch, high-tech sights and accurate three-shot firing burst, is most effective in the hands of disciplined soldiers in highly trained tactical units.
Not everyone is convinced that soldiers who still do the valor dance that puffed Hussein’s ego can be raised to that caliber.
“Without a wholesale change in military culture and training, the Iraqi army will not embrace the fundamentals of precision rifle marksmanship necessary to successfully employ the M-16,” commentator Philip Carter, a former Army captain and now associate in McKenna Long & Aldridge law firm, wrote on his Internet blog.
Brig. Gen. Swan contends that the weapon itself will inculcate discipline in soldiers who are eager to emulate the Americans.
“They see what our soldiers do every day,” Swan said. “There is a desire to be equipped the same.”
They’ll quickly learn that the rifle won’t work if it isn’t cleaned, he said.
Anthony Cordesman, a military analyst for the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, sees the switch as a purely strategic step necessitated by the U.S. military’s realization that it is going to have a long association with the Iraqi army.
“It’s become very obvious you can’t run a major network and supply system in Iraq without the Iraqi army becoming dependent on the U.S.,” Cordesman said. “You’re going to have to equip people with the weapon the U.S. equips, supports and trains with.”
But, no matter what its strategic or tactical merits, the Iraqi army’s adoption of the M-16 is indisputably symbolic, a choice of composite over wood and iron and West over East.
The meaning was impossible to miss in the smile on the face of a 3rd Brigade recruit who had just unwrapped his new weapon and declared it “the best,” without having fired a shot.
Nothing is closer to a soldier’s soul than his rifle, said Brig. Gen. Stephen Gledhill, a Briton who is Swan’s second in command. “A soldier should love his rifle.”
And the problem with the AK-47?
“It does represent the old regime,” he said with practiced dryness.
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
Will we be putting them through “background checks”?
~blahh~
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:37 amI love my M4, but at times would rather have the firepowwer of an M1A Scout.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:44 am“They’ll quickly learn that the rifle won’t work if it isn’t cleaned, he said.”
And with that they will be back to the AK in no time. My biggest concern (and that of many others here) as the foot print begins to disappear, how much of our weapons will be used against us. Leap of faith on our part (big leap). Hope for the best / expect the worst!
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:46 amJoe, with ya buddy. It’s all about the M1A or a Fal, as far as my humble opinion goes.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:46 amI dont know if Iraqi military can handle the rigorous discipline and maintenance of the M16. Then again, maybe that will help keep them more disciplined. Any field grade officer knows there is a direct correlation between garrison duties (cleaning rifle, shining boots, ironing uniforms, saluting sharply at every opportunity) and discipline in combat. A tricky rifle to maintain properly, like the M16 might provide increases in discipline as a side benefit. Only god knows, how many hundreds of hours of my life I spent cleaning that weapon.
I think the symbolism is the most important aspect of this. It will also be crucial for positive ID of the enemy on the battlefield - a good way to differentiate bad guys from good guys. It is unlikely jihadis will take up Americas weapon to wage war, although they have an unusual penchant for adidas, and tri-color camo. Bin Laden wears a US field jacket in those videos for allahs sake!
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:38 amI see two things with this.
#1. It keeps arm’s money from going to china or iran or syria.
#2. As far as I know few foreign countries produce bulk .223 ammo used in the M4/16.
#3. You will never mistake a AK47 shot for an M16. This means that pop you heard wasn’t friendly fire.
As for round itself.. I’m not a fan at all. Two great world wars showed that the 30-06 round is about as perfect as you can get for dropping people.
We have stories (Michael Yon) of insurgents getting shot 5-6 times with an M4 and still have enough go to continue fighting. Nobody shot with an 30-06 round is doing anything but eating dirt.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:56 amI’m with you guys. They’ll switch back to the AK in time. In a desert environment, the AK stands up better w/o much cleaning than does the M-16.
December 2nd, 2007 at 1:00 pmWhy not bring back the Garand and the BAR? Because they are HEAVY clunky weapons in comparison to the M-4/16. Alot of those guys we are giving M-16s were smart enough to give our guys a hard time on the battlefield. It isn’t smart to underestimate the enemy because he has weapons a generation behind, they still kill. Furthermore it isn’t good to undermine these guys by questioning their intelligence in being able to maintain their weapons. The rest of the complaints sound like rehashes of the debates about the weapon when it replaced the M-14. If they don’t get properly trained in how to maintain them, then that is our fault.
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:13 amNot happy with the airsoft picture Pat.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:03 amThe fact is the AK-47 is a vastly inferior weapon compared to the M-16, and now even so much more given the M-4. The reason the gun is so “reliable” is because the tolerances in a AK-47 are so loose it’s name would be “Paris Hilton”. That huge failure in technical design alone causes the AK-47 to be one of the most inaccurate combat rifles in the world. Also, balistics of the 7.62×39mm just don’t match up to the 5.56×54mm. The round is too heavy with not enough energy behind it, therefore its effective range is less than the 5.56×54mm.
For all practical purposes the AK-47 is the gun of the past and doesn’t represent a modern day army combat rifle.
JS
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:16 pm@JS:
Agreed. The AK-47 is basically a pumped up submachine gun. Even the Russians don’t use it anymore. I also hope that the Iraqi troops feel pride in themselves that they’re considered capable of maintaining a US weapon. Maybe pride in themselves will make them a little more healty, mental-wise, than their neighbors. God knows the Mid-East has a sanity shortage.
The M-4/16 would be much more effective if the military was allowed to use more lethal ammunition. What morons decided that bullets should be less likely to kill?
This’ll get a chuckle: A few years back, some human rights group in, if I remember correctly, Sweden, put out a study condemning the US because it’s ammo caused nasty wounds. Especially at close range, the 5.56 mm tends to fragment or tumble around inside the body instead of going straight through.
Then, it turns out their military’s ammo did the same thing, only worse. You’d think they’d check before mau-mauing us, but self-examination has never been a strong leftist trait.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:23 pm@ticticboom
I think it was Switzerland that did that study but I didn’t hear about their ammo being just as “bad”.
Actually the newer 5.56×45mm round doesn’t tumble anymore when it hits flesh. The older round actually was slightly unstable in flight. It was found out that it had a slight wobble that didn’t effect accuracy so it was never noticed. But because of that wobble when the bullet made initial contact with a human target it would spin and tumble widly out of control causing tramatic damage.
With the new 5.56×45mm M855 Penetrator “green tip” round it has a new lead alloy topped with a steel pentrator. This round is incredibly stable in flight and because of the steel penetrator it punches straight through a human target. Ask any Iraq War infantry man that has been in combat and shot at human targets and they will confirm that even though they know they shot the guy he keeps on going, unles they hit the heart, spine, neck, or head. I have a close friend who is a former Ranger, now a Longbow Pilot, who shot an Iraq soldier 7 times at close range. He swears that guy didn’t even know what had happened to him until he saw the muzzle flashes and my buddy aiming straight at him.
While most of these people will die later from bleeding out or infection, shooting a bad guy and still seeing him shoot back is very disconcerting.
What the army needs to do is abandon the Hague’s laws on war and start issuing frangible 5.56mmx45mm rounds to our US soldiders. There is no excuse as to why we could not or should not.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:04 pm