The Companies Will Be Very Pleased

As our government rebuilds the Iraqi armed forces, there are all sorts of opportunities for the US military-industrial complex to profit from foreign military sales. While I understand the need to ensure Iraq has a military capability to protect itself from adversaries, this particular case just seems wrong.

Iraq's Ministry of Defense is aiming to upgrade its tank fleet, which is composed largely of run-down Soviet tanks from the 1970s.

It is considering buying 140 of the United States' most advanced tanks, at approximately $4 million to $5 million per tank, plus hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of support equipment to go along with the tanks.

Feting one of its biggest customers, the U.S. arranged for a tank platoon to put on a demonstration of the vehicles' capabilities last Sunday for senior Iraqi generals.

With the generals watching from a tower, a pair of M-1 Abrams tanks shot forward from their "hide" position a kilometer away and tore toward the watchtower at 45 mph, kicking up plumes of dust in their wake.

They buzzed either side of the tower, then let their mighty guns roar with deafening booms, sending a half-dozen high-explosive 120mm rounds downrange toward an imaginary enemy.

When the tanks pulled to a stop, the generals came down for a closer inspection.

"The American tanks are very modern and capable, but we still don't know if this tank is in the best interests of the Iraqi army," said al-Furayji, like a shopper in a Baghdad bazaar feigning a lack of interest to get a better price.

The delegation of U.S. and Iraqi generals, now playing salesmen and customers, climbed atop the tank.

You can sell a lot of different weapon systems to foreign militaries, but where exactly do we get off in selling the Iraqi army our top military weapon systems? Do they rank with the Saudis now? We just got done beating these guys a few years ago. Do we want to come back some day and stare down the 120mm tubes of our own "used tanks"? And as we're growing our Army's end-strength, is there such a situation where we sell "used tanks" instead of refurbing them and using them ourselves?

This isn't a smart decision. Give the Iraqis some old APCs or let some other countries sell them tanks. Nothing good will come of this other than profits for the military-industrial complex.

Comments

[Don Bacon]

"Nothing good will come of this other than profits for the military-industrial complex."

You just don't get it.

[sglover]

Nothing good will come of this other than profits for the military-industrial complex.

Echoing Don Bacon. Our Iraq adventure is paying off **exactly** as intended.

[Sock Puppet of the Great Satan]

"The Companies Will Be Very Pleased"

Is that a Dead Kennedys reference?

[Accountant]

We have lots of used M-60 tanks around. Clean them up, upgrade them to M60A-3 standards and send them over there. They will take on just about anything below the M-1 and are good, solid machines. There have to be a couple of hundred sitting in a depot somewhere just waiting to be used.

M-113's are also out there. Give them a few hundred of those, along with some used Hummers and they have what they need.

Lots of towed artillery around too, as well as trucks. They don't need advanced stuff.

Why, indeed? Oh... and NO F-16's.

[FDChief]

And lost in the rush to cram profit into our arms manufacturers is the fact that Iraq is barely a Second World society. We keep our Abrams fleet running with the advantages of an immense technological economic base backed by the world's wealthiest defense budget. These guys were strained to keep Saddam's 1970's Soviet-era armored formations running and, from what we know now, they mostly didn't.

It's not just the tanks. It's the PMCS that the Iraqi tankers won't pull, the DS and depot maintentance that don't have, and the enemy they won't be fighting. Accountant is dead-on target here; these guys don't need 2008 weapons. They need good, solid weapons from the 1960s through 80s that they operate and maintain on their budget at their level of competence.

Y'know what this reminds me of? The way we armed the ARVN. I'll bet the NVA appreciated the hell out of all those M-16's. What was the old saying? Oh, yeah: "Never fired and only dropped once."

[Michael]

Eisenhower warned us about the MIlitary Industrial complex but nobody paid attention. They are now draining the average American taxpayer.

[sglover]

And lost in the rush to cram profit into our arms manufacturers is the fact that Iraq is barely a Second World society. We keep our Abrams fleet running with the advantages of an immense technological economic base backed by the world's wealthiest defense budget. These guys were strained to keep Saddam's 1970's Soviet-era armored formations running and, from what we know now, they mostly didn't.

Sounds like another business opportunity for SAIC/LockMart/BoozAllen!

[Obsydean]

I think it is funny that senior Iraqi generals needed another demonstration of the tanks capabilities. Haven't they already seen that real good in 1991 and then again in 2003?

Oh and so lets say we decide Iraq can't buy our tanks, so they instead they go buy from Europe? At least they would be buying from us.

[CSI]

Many of these tanks would have seen a lot of hard miles, getting into the expensive stage of their lifecycle. And soon they'll have to shipped back to America (or Germany, Sth K or wherever) at the cost of several $100k each. If America can con(vince) Iraqi to take them off their hands for hard cash before then, thats a win-win situation (for America, that is).

[SMSgt Mac]

Ahhhh....a Sorities paradox. One man's military-industrial complex is another's insufficient defense budget and industrial base.

[Sven Ortmann]

A lot of M1A were worn out in the Iraq Civil War, but there were made so many of them that the few sales to Arab countries didn't reduce the U.S. inventory much.
The Abrams lost in all European trials as well as some others (UAE, for example) - thousands are left.
The chance that the U.S. armed services might sometime have a lack of MBTs because they sold few hundreds to Iraq is very remote.

The problem that Iraqi M1's might be turned against their makers could be minimized by selling them
- the old 105mm version
- mid-80's APFSDS ammunition
- a small spare parts supply

Anyway; it's most likely a sale of old tanks, so accusations at the military-industrial complex miss.

[charliebrownsteacher]

1) They need something, J. Stories I've heard tell, on NPR even, is of the 20mm Bushmaster on the Brad doing a thru-and-thru on a T-72(with a berm in front of it too). What they bought from Russia during the Soviet era was a joke.
2) You're right, this is a bit of risk taking. But it's also an oppurtunity. Remember how we cosied up to the Egyptians and Iranians(pre-revolution) back in the 70s? Arms sales are great way of getting these people to believe you care. Is it profitable? Sure. Would it be smart to do if we sold them junk(ala Taiwan) so we'd have to save them anyways, or to lose money in the process?
Yes, people are going to make mega on it. Same would happen if we let our allies buy the F-22 like many of them want(AUS and JAP being two I know for sure want some), and we're castigated for being a bad friend for *not* selling. I'm not seeing the basis for castigation over profits being well explained here.
3) J does get it. He just likes to ignore other reasons when he can get a slam on The Usual Suspects. ;)
4) Does it really matter if they bought M-1's or Leopards or.... Any first tier tank is going to cost. It's going to be a logistical problem, but that's why we've taken the lessons of COL deAtkine and worked on developing a corporate culture to go along with the rebuild of the army that gets away from the problems of being 'second world' where the officer makes damn sure his enlisted know jack shit about the gear to maintain his own position of privelage and power. Will it be a problem? Sure. Will it mean that half are deadlined in ten years? I doubt it. we're building the NCO corps and professional culture that'll mitigate this. And, hey, look at how the military education helped Prussia/Germany go from a backwater to a major economic power. This is smart. Ortman saw the solution to mitigating the risk here too. It's what we did with the F-14s we sold the Shah too. That's why we haven't eaten a AIM-54 during that whole dust up over the airliner.
5) Sum: it is a risk because you cannot be sure that Iraq will remain a US friendly nation, but it's also a chance to win them over to our side by offering them a seat 'at the big man's table'. Condition of the tanks in question seems irrelevant to the major political objective of securing Iraq as a pro-West/Pro-US nation capable of interoperability.

[Karl Jones]

Interesting article, interesting comments.

I posted excerpts to my blog:

http://www.karljones.com/index.php/2008/08/24/selling-tanks-to-iraq/.

[J.]

thanks for all the comments. Sven, I agree with your suggestions, limit them to the 105mm versions, lower grade of electronics, etc etc. Yes, CBteacher, I overreacted and shot out about MIC, and all of you are correct that this isn't the big deal I'm making it. I just shoot out without much analytics sometimes. In my gut, which Steven Colbert says all great leaders use first, it just feels wrong to give the Iraqi army these tanks that also paved a way into their capital. Just a gut thing.

[CSI]

The American Empire is going to have complete air superiority over the region for the next 100+ years, so if Iraq gets feisty with its M1s the US AF can just swoop down any time it pleases and turn them into burning scrap metal. Gulf Wars I&II have shown that MBTs are defenseless in the face of modern airpower.

[Trent Telenko]

>We have lots of used M-60 tanks around.
>Clean them up, upgrade them to M60A-3
>standards and send them over there.

Those M60A3 tanks we haven't already given to allies like Israel, Turkey or Spain have been dumped into the ocean to make coral reefs.

Upgrading existing 105mm armed M-1 Basic or Improved armor M-1 tanks that are in sitting in storage at depots as excess for "National Guard needs" to reconditioned 120mm armed M-1A1 tanks is both straight forward and relatively cheap.

We did that to arm the Australian Army with M-1A1 Abrams.

[Trent Telenko]

>They need good, solid weapons from the >1960s through 80s that they operate and
>maintain on their budget at their level of
>competence.

The first M-1 105mm Abrams was fielded in 1980.

The M-1A1 Abrams was fielded in 1985.

The M-1A2 was fielded in the 1990s.

Selling the Iraqis reconditioned M-1A1 Abrams is in fact selling them a "1980's class weapon."

[sheerahkahn]

Ya know, the Russians experienced this in Afghanistan during the 80's...didn't work out to well for them if I recall.
Now we want to give Iraq our nifty new weapon systems?
Uh-huh...and how soon do you think those same weapons systems end up being scrapped because of poor upkeep, or even worse...sold to another country?
:::cough::: russia ::::cough:::
Another example of us taking out the pistol, cocking it, and purposefully shooting ourselves in the foot.