SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Many M-16s, the conventional wisdom goes, entered Syria after militants seized thousands of them from Iraq’s struggling security forces, which in turn had received the guns — along with armored vehicles, howitzers and warehouses’ worth of other equipment — from the Pentagon before American troops left the country in 2011. The militants’ abrupt possession of former American matériel was part of the battlefield turnabout last summer that led Julian E. Barnes, a Wall Street Journal correspondent, to tweet a proposed name for the Pentagon’s anti-militant bombing campaign: Operation Hey That’s My Humvee. And yet by this year, for all the attention the captured weapons had received, M-16s were seemingly uncommon in Syria. The expected large quantities had eluded researchers.
The investigator urged his host, a local security official, to rush after the Kurd and ask if he would allow the rifle to be photographed and its origins ascertained. Soon the investigator (who works for Conflict Armament Research, a private arms-tracking organization in Britain, and who asked that his name be withheld for safety reasons) found a surprise within his surprise. The rifle, which its current owner said had been captured from the Islamic State last year, was not an M-16. It was a Chinese CQ, an M-16 knockoff that resembles its predecessor but has a starkly different arms-trafficking history.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/27/magazine/where-the-islamic-state-gets-its-weapons.html
(Score: 5, Interesting) by VLM on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:18PM
Two points not discussed in the article which are interesting:
AFAIK the financial resources of IS are basically infinite. I mean they make the Saudi's look impoverished. Well, technically the Saudi's could spend more if they wanted but they don't. Anyway given a seemingly infinite supply of cash all doors open. They aren't your daddies contras in the 80s using whatever they can scrounge for free.
The other unmentioned point is where are the small arms? I mean its hard to hide a humvee and they're out there sorta. So if we left them an immense pile of small arms they're out there somewhere unless someone de-milled them on the way out (a thermite grenade on every armory rack or whatever). Its an interesting question. Even if demilled they'd at least show up in the scrapyards or something. I mean, we did leave the former Iraqi state small arms, not just tanks, right? Or did we? If we didn't, then we set them up to fail. Or, being man portable, everyone who cut and run is keeping/selling them as an army retirement bonus (LOL) but even so, they should be showing up "somewhere", shouldn't they?
I mean conservation of mass and all that shit, the point being the "physics" of the article are assuming they got no dough and existing M16 M4 whatever stocks can just disappear. The M16s, like the truth, are out there. Somewhere.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:51PM
> AFAIK the financial resources of IS are basically infinite.
Which explains why many of their soldiers fight - a regular paycheck in an area with 30% unemployment is enough to make a lot of young men mouth empty prayers.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by kadal on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:19PM
How do you know about their finances?
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:48PM
How do you know about their finances?
He works for CIA. He wrote the checks.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Snotnose on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:08PM
How do you know about their finances?
He sold cookies for them a few months ago.
Torpedoes are the only pedos Republicans are willing to fire.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:39AM
Wow, they must be selling a lot of expensive cookies. I need to start my own cookie business.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:42PM
If we're talking about the CIA selling, "cookies" is a euphamism for "cocaine and heroin".
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:24PM
> How do you know about their finances?
I dunno about VLM, but the director of the terrorism center at george mason university thinks they operate like a crime syndicate putting money ahead of ideology. [spiegel.de] She never spells it out, but it does not sound like they have anything like the kind of money VLM is claiming. They aren't destitute, but they only have so many sources of income.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:26PM
Same way everyone else knows. Follow the money trail. A clear path can be drawn from halal certification to IS through mosques.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @12:32AM
clear path can be drawn from kosher certification to IS
Corrected.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:35PM
Are you new here? VLM knows everything.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Pherenikos on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:57AM
In addition to the usual sources of funding for these types of organizations, ISIS is rumored to have acquired $1.5 billion from the capture of Mosul. This is a very informative report. http://www.newsweek.com/2014/11/14/how-does-isis-fund-its-reign-terror-282607.html [newsweek.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:25AM
Newsweek?
I can't take them seriously. 30 years ago when I was teen I figured out that they were the tigerbeat of news magazines.
I might as well get my news from kathy lee and hoda.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday April 29 2015, @11:27AM
Yes and this is the basically infinite part. Take 1500 million and divide it by the relatively small number of active boots on the ground, even if the crooks in charge embezzle half of it they have a remarkable pile of money for infantry gear.
This is before you get into the sectarian support issues. They're not pirates or mercenaries. They got friends. Friends with oil money.
They're not poor by any stretch of the imagination. Under those conditions it would be surprising if shipping containers from China were NOT falling from the sky.
It would be interesting to compile some kind of list of rebellions by inflation adjusted $ per rebel. They are the wealthiest rebel force I can think of. Usually the rich guys buy their way into power without all this messy beheading stuff, but, hey, if it works they're not gonna fix it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:37PM
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday April 29 2015, @03:22PM
Its a bizarre situation. They control the land and population a $400M bank sits on in Mosul, and everyone without an axe to grind sees that as "they got themselves a bank full of cash and gold" yet like two Iraqi officials in an "iraqi information minister" style rant will insist they technically have no money at all and don't look into our branches finances because that would be really bad for me and a couple agitprop pieces in the mass media trying to stir the pot.
True the bank continues to operate and supposedly is physically undamaged. Also true the when the army walks up to a teller and asks for their "tax" payment if the bank doesn't just open the door the bankers probably get the "strap to chair and ignite" treatment that ISIS likes so much.
What can't be debated is there's no logical reason to think they would be hurting for money by any interpretation of mental gymnastics and rationalization and no evidence they're actually hurting for money observationally, and the point being that plenty of revolutions have been great successes without much money anyway. So other than socking money away in Switzerland, they're spending it on food and stuff, so where's the brand new name brand stuff instead of chicom ripoffs?
I mean I've looked into revolutions involving extreme poverty and this ain't it, and I've seen revolutions where they got no friends, and again this ain't it, so where's the shiny? Maybe they're hyper disciplined or something like warriors out of the Dune books traveling the desert on sandworms. Probably not, but ?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 29 2015, @09:20PM
What can't be debated is there's no logical reason to think they would be hurting for money by any interpretation of mental gymnastics and rationalization and no evidence they're actually hurting for money observationally, and the point being that plenty of revolutions have been great successes without much money anyway. So other than socking money away in Switzerland, they're spending it on food and stuff, so where's the brand new name brand stuff instead of chicom ripoffs?
Aside from the natural expense of waging war, which is by any measure the most efficient way of squandering wealth man has yet devised.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:44PM
Intriguing. Care to offer some arguments?
(not saying that's not so, I'm just curious what reasoning/info support to this assertion)
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:19AM
The other unmentioned point is where are the small arms? I mean its hard to hide a humvee
The whole story is about small arms, Chinese knockoffs.
Also, remember that the US equipped the Iraqi army mostly with AKxx derivatives (about 300,000), and only about 80,000 M16s.
7.62 ammo is far more plentiful in that part of the world than is 5.56.
Also Semi trained troops do better with a more dirt tolerant weapon.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by jmorris on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:20PM
Fairly easy to figure out why they aren't using much of the captured gear. You always hear military types speak of 'weapon systems' for a reason. Even the M16 is a weapon system. They require a lot more than just the weapon itself, you must have a long tail of supplies and trained personnel to keep one functioning and ISIS has none of that. So they hotrodded around in captured vehicles for a few weeks until they broke down and then what? Even if they captured the depots intact and had spare parts they had no trained people to perform repairs or even routine maintenance. And good luck ordering additional spare parts.
As for using anything larger than man portable on a battlefield, not likely very well and certainly not for long. It requires a pretty good amount of training, including practice, to use most of the more interesting items they captured and they didn't have the skills. And once we started an air campaign it is safe to assume they figured out that without air superiority most of that captured US equipment was a death trap.
What they do have is a fair amount of cash seized when they took those Iraqi towns and the banks therein and they are selling oil on the black market when they can. What I'd worry about is them selling off the captured equipment to raise yet more cash. There are nation state actors who could figure out how to use it. Or if ISIS stays put long enough and actually becomes a nation state itself.....
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Fauxlosopher on Wednesday April 29 2015, @12:37AM
Humans are smart. If entire "weapon systems" can be fabricated in caves [dailymail.co.uk] or in backyards [everydaynodaysoff.com], then having access to even "destroyed" war materiel will typically allow the de-milled materiel to be repurposed or repaired far more easily than starting from scratch. True, sometimes the discovery process to safe restoration of de-milled materiel can involve hazards to humans, but that probably isn't much of a barrier to a people-group that regularly finds individuals willing to blow themselves up.
In short, if humans find de-milled materiel to be of use, they will find a way to use it. Not every human in the world has the option to lazily lounge in front of the cable TV with a beer.
On a related note, there are claims [breitbart.com] that indigineous forces in the region had been given weapons and training directly by the US government, then later pledged allegiance to Islamic State.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:06AM
Yes, but they aren't building American weapons in caves or outlaw machine shops. There is a reason the AK-47 is so popular in revolutionary and insurgent settings, because it is a simple to manufacture design and an uneducated, even illiterate, third worlder can quickly be taught to maintain and use it. Yes they build rockets but they aren't too accurate. Even the Iranian built ones that Hamas rains down on Israel every few years are just terror weapons, even less accurate that the original 'terror weapon', the German V-1. American arms are on a completely different level. The downside of course is they require a completely different level of support and don't make much sense without the totally insane U.S. Defense budget and the American aversion to casualties.
Now compare a lowly American Humvee to the typical ISIS vehicle. Theirs is the better choice for their warfighting methods.
Lets look at the disadvantages: The recently added heavy armor is designed to protect the valuable American soldier from IEDs. They do not value the lives of their individual soldiers and none of their enemies even use IEDs or any other sort of road mines. The extensive electronics are far too dangerous to leave operational once they leave US friendly hands. The extra weight kills fuel economy and while ISIS sells crude oil it must buy refined products and transport it, neither of which they have excess capacity for.
No, better to have some fun joyriding around a bit, upload some video to Youtube to get a propaganda victory out of it and just as soon as it breaks down leave it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:54AM
Umm, the Humvee is a typical ISIS vehicle. Multicam is typical cammo. M-16s, M-4s, and so on are typical ISIS weaponry. They all came from Iraq and Afghanistan. We practically gave them their supplies. What is surprising is to find Chinese knockoffs on the battlefield, thus why this is news.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:44AM
History repeats itself. It reminds me of the U.S. efforts to support Chiang Kai-shek as the main opposition against the Red Chinese. The Chinese lobby was the largest and most effective foreign lobby in Washington, backed solidly by the Republicans (mostly because they were against whatever Truman was for or for whatever he was against). Massive amounts of money was given. What was spent on weapons went to troops who, if they didn't cross over and join the Reds, surrendered quickly to them or were slaughtered in battle. In any case, far too many of the weapons donated ended up quickly in the hands of the Red Chinese and was used against those the U.S. supported. Of course, most of the money just disappeared into the bank accounts of Chiang Kai-shek and his staff, long before any was lost to troops.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:55AM
(reply made here to keep the thread intact)
My post about humans being smart and making precision parts in caves was made to highlight the fact that after a point it doesn't much matter how specific war materiel is de-militarized. Since the same part(s) are destroyed within a weapons system to prevent assembling complete weapons systems out of the intact parts on others, if there is enough materiel around to bother with, fabricating replacement parts from scratch quickly becomes feasible. Ten thousand M-16s de-milled by broken firing pins (and/or cut barrels) becomes ten thousand potential M-16s for the low cost of setting up production of only one (or two) parts.
De-milling is fine if your threat timetable is short term, the threat does not possess basic maching capability, and/or the potential victims have comparable equipment to rely upon for defense. None of those situations apply in general in regards to the Islamic State.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Yog-Yogguth on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:52AM
Sort of interesting. Are the writers of TFNYTA (gesundheit!) trying to argue that Iraq isn't awash with US weapons and that the border between Iraq and Syria isn't sort of non-existent now? Are they trying to imply that China makes Humvee copies too or that all the US weapons disappeared mysteriously? Did they mention Novorussian forces have at least one Humvee captured during battle from those the US gave it to in Kiev? Did they mention the billions the US has officially spent on giving away both lethal and “non-lethal” equipment during the last years (like night scopes)? No I refuse to RTFA, the NYT is garbage and I'm pretty sure I'm being rhetorical :D
So I guess this is another one of those deliberately stupid propaganda pieces from the US government since the argument goes: “I can't see it so it doesn't exist”. My brother had fun with that concept …when he was four years old :|
NYT tomorrow: ‘Learn How to Walk in Three Easy Steps, Shocking Top Ten List of Crawling and Walking Super Bowl Hollywood Celebrity Expert Advice’.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))