Now, to be fair, there is always going to be a certain level of funding in Iraq that will end up in non-contractor hands. It's just not possible to watch every dollar and every contractor and every supplier 24 hours a day over there.

At least local contractors are getting --some-- of the work; I remember a bridge repair project in Baghdad that was estimated to cost under a million with local design/construction, that ended up costing millions when awarded to Haliburton.

Even if 100% of the work was done by US contractors, they'd still have to deal with local suppliers and labor, so the money would still end up in insurgents' hands one way or another. It's just a rotten situation over there any way you look at it.

Posted August 27, 2007 10:51 AM by John L

Steve Gilliard (RIP) had been saying that for years: the Iraqi security/police forces and the insurgents were the same people.

Posted August 27, 2007 11:37 AM by Jon Meltzer

My first question was, "They didn't write down the serial numbers? Whaaaaat? The Army didn't record the serial numbers of their weapons?"

Then the image of a black bridge floated before my eyes and all became clear.

Posted August 27, 2007 11:44 AM by James D. Macdonald

black bridge? I haven't had my caffeine yet today....

Posted August 27, 2007 11:49 AM by Greg London

Recording the serial numbers? Isn't that one of those "quality control" things that just waste corporate profits?

Posted August 27, 2007 11:51 AM by Jon Meltzer

If I were cynical I would think that those in charge were feeding the situation that would keep certain people in control instead of trying to solve the situation and have a resolution. But that would only be if I were cynical.

Posted August 27, 2007 12:05 PM by Steve Buchheit

And how many of those guns were US manufactured anyway. If I'm remembering right, they chose to buy Kalashnikov-type weapons, essentially the same weapon issued to the Iraqi Army in the old days.

Of course, if you need to issue assault rifles to the Police you're recruiting, it's not a good sign.

Posted August 27, 2007 12:06 PM by Dave Bell

What the Cheney administration always wanted in Iraq was a client government that was just strong enough to sign a binding contract (assigning development rights to oilfields, for example) but too weak to actually enforce the terms of it.

That's where the real money is. The assorted billions in war profiteering is more like the loose change in the sofa cushions.

Actions that appear irrational and disorganized make a little more sense when you realize there's several trillion dollars (at current commodity pricing) under Iraq. Lots more if we're really past the Hubbert peak.

Posted August 27, 2007 12:27 PM by BigHank53

“None of the Iraqi police are working to make their country better,” said Brig. Gen. Salah al-Ani, chief of police for the western half of Baghdad. “They’re working for the militias or to put money in their pocket.”

"Which one are you, General?"

It's bad enough when I think of my OWN Perfect Comebacks half a day late. Ah, well.

Posted August 27, 2007 12:47 PM by mjfgates

Bush also claimed that Iran was funding Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Given that Al Qaeda in Iraq is fckng at WAR with The Madhi Army (which actually is funded by the Iranians), the idea of Iran training and arming them is sort of like the the Mafia arming and training the Armenian mob.

But why should reality get in the way of propaganda?

Posted August 27, 2007 1:34 PM by Josh Jasper

he idea of Iran training and arming them [AQ Iraq] is sort of like the Mafia arming and training the Armenian mob.

Worse. It's like the Mob training and arming the ATF.

Posted August 27, 2007 1:44 PM by Keith

That middle item ("Nearly one of every 25 weapons the U.S. military bought for Iraqi security forces is missing...") doesn't particularly surprise me, under wartime conditions. When the pressure's on, the last thing you worry about is paperwork, particularly for semi-expendables like rifles. Only one in 25 missing sounds pretty good, actually. If my employer were to audit its records for PCs, I doubt 96% would turn up at their last recorded location.

Posted August 27, 2007 2:17 PM by Johan Larson

And guess what happens to americans who blow the whistle on the cash-only while-supplies-last sales of weapons.

Posted August 27, 2007 2:29 PM by mayakda

George W. Bush, redefining incompetence downward since 1946.

Posted August 27, 2007 2:45 PM by Fragano Ledgister

[Prez Bush] can start a war a little closer to home if he wants...

No! Stop helping! We need him over there, slaughtering and torturing and destroying infrastructure so that he doesn't do it here.

Granted, that doesn't appear to have worked so far.

Posted August 27, 2007 3:42 PM by Raka

#3 ::: James D. Macdonald ::: (view all by) ::: August 27, 2007, 11:44 AM:

"My first question was, "They didn't write down the serial numbers? Whaaaaat? The Army didn't record the serial numbers of their weapons?"

Then the image of a black bridge floated before my eyes and all became clear."

This the f*cking Army - they'd record the serial numbers of t-shirts, if they had them. When (IIRC) 200K weapons go missing without serial numbers being recorded, it isn't an accident.

and what's with the bridge?

Johan, the figures that I had heard were ~200K rifles and pistols (plus a *lot* of body armor). I don't think that it's 4%.

Posted August 27, 2007 3:54 PM by Barry

Given that Al Qaeda in Iraq is fckng at WAR with The Madhi Army (which actually is funded by the Iranians)...

Posted August 27, 2007 4:54 PM by Gag Halfrunt

There actually is a good reason for the Army not to have the serial numbers -- but it is little comfort.

The weapons given out were AK-47's or derivatives from existing stocks, and some of these arms were diverted to bad actors such as Charles Taylor in Liberia, long before they got to Iraq. These weapons were from Bosnia and Serbia and were transported (with NATO approval) to Iraq by -- wait for it -- private contractors. (In some cases they may have come from stocks that we gave to the Bosnian federation in the first place.) To get or check the serial numbers the Army would have to open each crate and check the weapons individually, even if they had the proper documentation. A job like that, if it was done at all, would have been handed to still yet another private contractor.

These weapons were handed out as quickly as possible, and there are stories of these weapons being handed out in large numbers to Iraqi troops as they headed into battle. It is quite possible that significant numbers of these weapons never actually were in the physical custody of the Army, but were passed on from one contractor to another from Bosnia directly to Iraqis, contractors which would have been compensated for how quickly they could move them. I'm not sure if any documentation on these weapons would have meant much.

Posted August 27, 2007 7:21 PM by Claude Muncey

Of course documentation would mean a lot.

One traceable serial number found in the hands of an insurgent would be far better data than you could get from waterboarding a hundred taxi drivers.

But getting useful intelligence isn't our priority.

Posted August 27, 2007 8:02 PM by James D. Macdonald

Jim @ 19:

I think I managed to make myself obscure. You are quite right that accurate documentation on these weapons would supply important intelligence. The problem is that, in my opinion, the process by which they arrived in Iraq, already proved to be leaky and outside the control of the Army, can not be trusted to produce documentation that actually matches the arms delivered. This is one of those cases where bad information is worse than no information -- in the latter case you know you are ignorant.

Posted August 27, 2007 10:53 PM by Claude Muncey

I just posted this with a really bogus URL that google conjured up for me (yes, I should know better, my head hangs in shame), and as a result it's in mediation purgatory. So here's the same post with a useful URL. If the gnomes in the high tower could just toss that other post, I'd appreciate it.

According to a GAO report some stocks of munitions stored by the Iraqi army have never (as of late 2006) been checked or secured since the massive looting of munitions in 2003. Considering that there were certainly hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of tons of munitions that went missing then, it's not surprising that the insurgents and the militias have access to such quantities of arms and explosives. Does anyone know if the Iraqi Army had EFP rounds before the invasion? I wonder if some of those armor-piercing bombs Bush and Cheney are trying to blame on the Iranians were actually stolen out from under the noses of the US occupying forces.

Posted August 28, 2007 2:51 AM by Bruce Cohen (SpeakerToManagers)

I'm reminded of The Dogs of War--the book rather than the film--which explored the general murkiness of the arms trade, some time in the early Seventies, during the setup for a coup in Africa, sponsored by a mineral extraction company,

Some of the weapons used were illicit WW2-surplus, of German manufacture. Others were acquired, with a veneer of legality, from munitions manufacturers.

And nobody in reality ever seems to bother to trace serial numbers to discover just who armed the rebels.

But Iraq is too big a mess to be the intended result of a conspiracy. Something like Nigeria might be what people were trying for, but that's sliding slowly towards chaos, after all the tears of exploitation. If it isn't incompetence; if chaos was the plan; all we can do is spoeculate as to why the Bushistas want to keep Iraqi oil of the market.

Peak oil?

Posted August 28, 2007 3:16 AM by Dave Bell

Dave Bell @ 22

the tears of exploitation

I don't care if you intended it or not, that is one fine phrase.

Posted August 28, 2007 9:42 AM by Bruce Cohen (SpeakerToManagers)

Greg H at # 17

The Mahdi Army is a nationalist Shia movement opposed to Iranian influence over Iraq.

Sadr has ties to groups in Iran. Not the leading political groups, but he's getting funding from some of the clergy there.

It is a lot more complicated then him being on the payroll of the Iranian government.

Posted August 28, 2007 2:39 PM by Josh Jasper

Al-Sadr has spent a lot of time in Iran. He ran over and hid when he thought we going to crack down on him personally...

Posted September 6, 2007 12:33 AM by Robert Glaub