The Pentagon Is Spending Up To $2.2 Billion on Soviet-Style Arms for Syrian Rebels

The Pentagon has relied on an army of contractors and sub-contractors – from blue-chip military giants to firms linked to organized crime – to supply up to US$ 2.2 billion worth of Soviet-style arms and ammunition to Syrian rebels fighting a sprawling war against the Islamic State (ISIS).

Arms factories across the Balkans and Eastern Europe – already working at capacity to supply the Syrian war – are unable to meet the demand. In response, the US Department of Defense (DoD) has turned to new suppliers like Kazakhstan, Georgia, and Ukraine for additional munitions while relaxing standards on the material it’s willing to accept, according to an investigation by the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN) and the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).

Reporters have pieced together the Pentagon’s complex supply line to Syria using procurement records, ship-tracking data, official reports, leaked emails, and interviews with insiders. This program is separate from a now-defunct CIA effort to arm rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad.

The Pentagon is buying the arms through two channels: the Special Operations Command (SOCOM), which oversees special operations across all services of the US military, and the Picatinny Arsenal, a little-known US Army weapons facility in New Jersey.

The munitions are being transported by both sea and air from Europe to Turkey, Jordan and Kuwait. They are then distributed to US allies in northern and southern Syria by plane and truck. (See: Black Sea Route)

Reporters discovered that the US is using vaguely worded legal documents which obscure Syria as the weapons’ final destination – a practice experts say threatens global efforts to combat arms trafficking and puts the Eastern European governments who sell the weapons and ammunition at risk of breaching international law. Others raise the issue of who, exactly, is using the arms and what will happen to them once ISIS has been defeated.

The Pentagon started the major buy-up in September 2015 under President Obama. By May this year, it had already spent more than $700 million on AK-47s, rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) launchers, mortars, and other weapons and ammunition.

More than $900 million has been contracted to be spent by 2022, and nearly $600 million more has been budgeted or requested by the Trump administration. This brings the grand total of the Pentagon’s intended spending on its Syrian allies to $2.2 billion.

by Ivan Angelovski and Lawrence Marzouk
12 September 2017


archive.is/ScwSs
occrp.org/en/makingakilling/the-pentagon-is-spending-2-billion-on-soviet-style-arms-for-syrian-rebels
i have no opinion regarding this, just posting for posterity. please read full text without jumping around like a nigger before saying stupid shit like "but trump already ended the cia program doing this"

Other urls found in this thread:

theguardian.com/world/2004/jun/21/iraq.syria
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

The military-industrial complex carries on as usual. This should impress on all of us that it truly doesn't matter who we elect to office, the deep state owns this fucking thing, and the only way to stop it is to destroy all of it, from the fucking "picatinny arsenal" to arms manufacturers headquarters.

not that I'm advocating violence though, FBI no bully

FUGGIN BAZED

I'm sorry but that's way too much money. We don't have enough for the wall.

It's almost has if the power that be had other priorities.

Your tax dollars go to killing innocents for oil, opium, and kikes.

...

So, when is the rest of the world going to impose sanctions on the rogue, criminal state of USA for supporting arms trafficking and terrorism?

Still waiting on my Manpads…

...

GEE I WONDER

Watch me give a shit.

The irony is bretty gud here.

Googled a little and YPG (Kurdish commies) are starting to look pretty well equipped.

Are Kurds even intelligent enough to use NVG's and lasers?

they're gearing up for the incoming war with Iraq

Stay mad.

Yeah but I doubt they can use their stuff. Remember what happened in Georgia in 2008? And Georgians are geniuses on every level compared to Kurds.

I think it'll depend on just how deep is America going to support them. It'd mean complete collapse of any sort of relations with Iraq so one would hope burgers would just pack up and leave, but Israel's been doubling down on Kurdistan lately so who knows

...

I agree :^)
Report is still true, though.

DHS can build the wall as they see fit once they actually get money approved for it.

...

Yes actually it is, the Fence Act and the amendment to it the following year already gives DHS all the authorization and authority they need to build whatever barrier they wish.

...

Yes, but Georgia got wrecked by Russians. Kurds are fighting more or less equivalent of their mental capacity with Arabs and Turks being their enemies. They won't last as a state. Any conflict against Syria will immediately put Russia in the tow and Iraq will jump to regain Kurdistan immediately. Turks will use that to attack kurds as well, they are very vocal about that for the past year or so. Iran has its own kurdish problem and will do anything to prevent a Kurdish state from popping up nextdoor to prevent their own kurds from rebelling. Basically Kurdistan is surrounded by 4 countries much more powerful and united than they are and no amount of equipment will prevent them from getting surrounded, flanked and generally wrecked. Their equipment might allow them to hold out in couple zones, though.

I can't use twitberg right now but if anyone wants this to get more exposure within Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt & Russia you might want to send it to the following accounts:

IvanSidorenko1
WithinSyriaBlog
TheArabSource
MIG29_
Muraselon_ar
Muraselon
southfronteng
WaelHussaini
MmaGreen
Souria4Syrians
miladvisor
sashakots
russiainsider
annanews_info

Could have added more but I think that's enough.

>kikes are arming (((rebels))) to fight other (((rebels)))

...

That's our fucking wall money.

Good find.


As per Lynn in IQ and the wealth of nations, Georgians and Russians have a similar average IQ. Georgia 93 and Russia 96.

What you wrote is completely correct in theory but keep in mind that both the US and Israel absolutely want an independent Kurdistan and will not shy away from propping it up like they have done many times around the world in the past.

Old but interesting article on why Israel supports Kurds: theguardian.com/world/2004/jun/21/iraq.syria

Georgia actually didn't do too badly, all things considered. They used their equipment fairly well, prevented the Russians from achieving air supremacy despite the Russians having the ONLY aircraft in the air (the Russians shot down more of their own planes than the Georgians did, ironically). They made fairly good use of what they had, and their constant withdrawal was the only viable tactic they had since they were MASSIVELY outnumbered; they stretched the Russian logistics train as far as it could go by drawing them in deeper and deeper, and the Russians eventually had to halt the advance and retreat themselves because they couldn't supply their troops.

Then the troops Georgia had had stationed in Afghanistan arrived home, along with rumors that they were armed with American Stinger missiles, and the Russians suddenly wanted to make peace.

You'll also note that the Russians never faced Georgian tanks (upgraded with Czech, Ukrainian, and Israeli tech) in direct combat; every Georgian tank they blew up was killed via air strike. The Russians were using older model tanks in the invasion, probably to avoid the sort of embarrassment they had in Chechnya where their top-of-the-line tanks got raped in urban combat, and refused to go tank-vs-tank.

There were also a number of friendly-fire incidents between Russian troops because they were looting superior equipment (including boots, helmets, body armor) off the captured or dead Georgian soldiers they encountered.

Over all, the Georgians actually performed fairly impressively considering how massively outnumbered they were and how they had zero air support, and the Russians did pretty poorly, with shitty inter-service cooperation (resulting in ground forces shooting at aircraft thinking they were being attacked by non-existent Georgian air force), shitty communication, and shitty logistics. Russian troops were looting everything they could get their hands on, including toilets, because their barracks sucked.

Russia basically used Georgia as a practice run for Ukraine and later operations, and the improvement in performance and shoring up of weaknesses in their operations definitely shows. Had Georgia had a larger, better-equipped army, Russia might have even lost.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2614559/Russian-troops-accused-of-selling-loot-from-Georgia.html
www.jrtelegraph.com/2008/11/who-is-going-to-bury-whom-dmitry.html

www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubid=1069

fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/Rusn_leslrn.htm

You'll notice that Russia has since been making improvements in both its military hardware and its training/logistics/command structure as a result of its poor performance in Georgia and Chechnya. It really shows in the improved performance in Crimea, and the push to become a professionalized army rather than a conscript army, and the push for programs like Ratnik so their troops can be properly equipped instead of going into battle wearing Reeboks and Soviet leftovers.

Article pic with archive link for all autistic lads keeping info on this.