This post was originally BLOCKED by PRWEB and was never published Thought I would share it as looking back 12 years ago I had great insight as only 3 years after I wrote this Hillary Clinton would be giving Uranium directly to Russians during Uranium one deal. Had this article gone out MAYBE just MAYBE someone in Obamas admin may of been able to prevent the formation of ISIS by controlling our gear better as I suggested.
It struck me as the editor of GunMuse Outdoors like a lighting bolt just the other day; the Democrats may finally have a point, that the U.S. is fighting the war on the cheap. Only I am sure that it’s going to cost us big in the future. What am I talking about? I am specifically talking about retiring the AK-47 as an Iraqi military and police weapon. Now some will immediately jump to the conclusion that since this is a gun magazine that I am trying to drum up business for the firearm manufactures, but my main reason for this has a far more dire result if we don’t heed the warning for the future.
(PRWEB) August 27, 2006 — http://www.gunmuse.com – The AK-47 is a very durable all weather rifle that has been found in the hands of enemies since the creation of this weapon. It hasn’t been found there by accident either. The AK-47 is produced in Communist countries and its sale is usually done by the Military itself in those countries. While the U.N. keeps bantering on about weapons dealers most of them are sitting on the Security Council. Turkey and Iran feed these weapons and many others into Iraq, Lebanon and any other would be militant wannabe’s.
In an effort to save time and money the U.S. Military learned about Iraqi weapons and allowed them to keep what they already used. Since the Army has proved to be so untrained this turned out to be a bad idea not only in the short term but will have a political fallout in the future that may guarantee further problems in Iraq.
What happens when the Communist AK-47’s, French missiles, Russian Armor and German combat gear begins to fail? That gear will have to be replaced right? Doesn’t that leave the new Iraqi government in the unique position of having to do business with the same people that Saddam did? To be very frank here Corrupt people, who have screwed us at every turn in world politics. These people want Democrats back in control, after all when a militant country demands uranium for “peaceful fuel” hell we will just drop a load right over and blame the next guy in office for the mess. So to prevent these type of problems the U.S. need to address military supply lines in whole for the new Iraqi government. So that when the Iraqi’s STOP buying from known sources it’s easier to get an idea who is doing business with who.
I am not saying convert them all over to M-16’s, in fact in my opinion these are poorly suited for the urban combat environment. The 223 Bullpup with its 16 inch barrel and much shorter overall stature would be better suited for door sweeps and stairwell climbs, while still giving it the ranged capability of the M-16.
There is an intelligence gathering aspect to this as well. By resupplying the police and army the US gains accountability of all the weapons that “walk off” when police and military switch sides. Making it impossible for them use the weapon long term without the ability to get ammunition, magazine’s and parts for it.
I don’t think we can get a handle on the Iraq problem unless we think about cutting off the Communist China supply chain both short term and long. Give the Iraqi’s a US weapon that saves their life a few times and it will be hard pressed to get them to give it up in the future. We cut “future Osama’s” out of the picture before they get a chance to become the next big arms dealer.
This article is the original work of http://www.gunmuse.com removal of this tag removes all implied permission to reproduce.