I just don’t understand why we killed thousands of Iraqis in order to build a new Iraqi Army.
Fully armored?
Isn’t this the same Iraq where Christianity is under siege?
Seems like a bad idea, even with the downgrades. (Unless you’re a defense contractor.)
It always gets people’s pulse going, when we sell weapons abroad. A few take aways:
1. If we ever want to leave Iraq, we have to make sure a neighbor, like say Iran, can’t just invade and take over. Giving the Iraqis superior tanks does this.
2. These will not have the superior armor, will not have the commander’s auxillary site, and will not have the gps system. In short, US M1A2’s are superior, and we should never have to worry about facing these tanks in battle.
3. Future Iraqi governments will have to play nice with us, if they want to be able to purchase ammunition, or spare parts...and these vehicles eat through parts and entire power packs like crazy.
I never see a problem with selling line of site weapons systems, to whoever wants to buy them. In an odd way, it keeps other nations on our leash. Something with a long, anonymous, one shot, no repair parts needed, reach - like a missile...that would be different.
I have seen works of fiction that had nore fact than this article.
E.G.
The Strykers were canx. Iraq is getting used M113s instead.
The BTR4s are not mentioned and that is a larger order than the Strykers was.
The order for 140 M1A1s includes an option for another 140. Armor divs are ~300 tanks and Mech Divs ~200. 55 M1A1s have been delivered so far [not including the 22 loaners for training].
The IA plans 8-10 heavy combined arms divisions - not 6 Armor Divisions - 7 have already been identified.
There is no mention of the 1,026 M113 Family of Vehicles, the 120 155mm howitzers, 24 M109A5 SP 155mm howitzers, bridging/engineer equippment, etc that Iraq is actually getting.
The 2,000 T72 story was a con foisted on the MSM in 2008 by Defense Solutions. They originally tried to sell that idea in 2005. In 2008, needing investors to avoid bankruptcy, DS shotgunned a claim to have made the deal. It was denied by GoI, IMoD, and USF-I. Note: The PT-91 is just the Polish version of the T-72 introduced in 1991 and terminated by the Polish government as not cost effective after fewer than 500 were built. They are not worth 500,000 - let alone the 3 million DS wanted.
Only 18 of the planned 20 IA Divs are to be line divisions - 2 are personnel security divs guarding the President, PM, CoM, and CoR. Only 14 Divisions are in the IA ATT.
Didn’t we help another guy in Iraq arm once? His initials were S.H.
Before it’s over we’ll be fighting the enemy in tanks we gave them.
"But supplying Iraq with M1A1s opens the possiblity of its Abrams having to go up against other U.S.-built tanks in the armies of Saudi Arabia, which has more advanced M1A2s, and Turkey, which has older M-60A1s."
This makes no sense whatsoever..
It would be a shame if oine day we had to fight these tanks, and it is well within the realm of possibility.
We have given weapons to others before only to have them used against us.
Who will maintain them?
Not the Iraqi’s.
The reason they fly russian helicopters is that they cannot handle the maintenance load of the Black Hawks, 47’s and 53’s.
Someone is inline for a massive advisor/tech support contract.
Soon to be turned loose on Iraqi Christians....
When moontarder(Muqtada al-Sadr) takes over he will really like those things.
The Iraqi logistics system is still in it's infancy. They cannot maintain their HMMWV's without US assistance. These tanks will end up in Iranian hands, either by gift, or as war trophies, and with Maliki's ties to Tehran, my money is on the gifts.