This is my personal view and comments on the issues and events that I feel a need to talk about or express my view. You don't have to agree, but lets carry on a adult, discussion and maybe you will see it the right way, mine. ;)
Give me a friggin break..
Published on June 24, 2004 By ShadowWar In International
Army Told Not to Use Israeli Bullets in Iraq
Thu Jun 24, 2004 05:56 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Israeli-made bullets bought by the U.S. Army to plug a shortfall should be used for training only, not to fight Muslim guerrillas in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. lawmakers told Army generals on Thursday.
Since the Army has other stockpiled ammunition, "by no means, under any circumstances should a round (from Israel) be utilized," said Rep. Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii, the top Democrat on a House of Representatives Armed Services subcommittee with jurisdiction over land forces.

The Army contracted with Israel Military Industries Ltd. in December for $70 million in small-caliber ammunition.

The Israeli firm was one of only two worldwide that could meet U.S. technical specifications and delivery needs, said Brig. Gen. Paul Izzo, the Army's program executive officer for ammunition. The other was East Alton, Illinois-based Winchester Ammunition, which also received a $70 million contract.

Although the Army should not have to worry about "political correctness," Abercrombie was making a valid point about the propaganda pitfalls of using Israeli rounds in the U.S.-declared war on terror, said Rep. Curt Weldon, the Pennsylvania Republican who chairs the subcommittee on tactical air and land forces.

"There's a sensitivity that I think all of us recognize," Weldon told the Army witnesses, including Maj. Gen. Buford Blount, who led the U.S. Third Infantry Division that captured Baghdad in April 2003.

Blount, now the Army's assistant deputy chief of staff, said the Army had sufficient small caliber ammunition -- 5.56mm, 7.62mm and .50 caliber -- to conduct current operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

But taken together with training needs, the United States had strained its production facilities, he testified.

"To fight a major combat operation in another theater will require the Army to impose restrictions on training expenditures and to focus current inventory and new production on combat operations," Blount said.

As a result, he said the Army hoped to stretch U.S. supplies to supplement the capacity of the government-owned Lake City plant in Independence, Missouri, that currently makes more than 90 percent of U.S. small caliber ammunition.

The Lake City factory, operated by Alliant Techsystems Inc., has nearly quadrupled its production in the past four years. This year, it will produce more than 1.2 billion rounds, Karen Davies, president of the ATK arm that runs it, told the panel. Lake City provided more than 2 billion rounds a year during World War II and Vietnam, she said.

The Army's needs will grow to about 1.5 billion to 1.7 billion rounds a year in coming years, Blount said.

"In the near-term, balancing training requirements with current operational needs is a manageable risk-mitigation strategy," he said.

The Army does not want to repeat its history of building capacity during wartime "only to dismantle it in peacetime," Blount added.


OK whats wrong with this picture, now the bullets have to be PC? Give me a break!

Comments
on Jun 24, 2004
Nothing new here. There have been international requirements for ammunition for decades. The "full metal jacket" has been standard, and was devised to prevent the mangling wounds of hollow or soft point ammunition. If the Israeli ammunition deviates from that at all we could be seen as using non-traditional, "inhumane" ammunition in the Middle East.

Two different perspectives. Someone who is in favor of harsher ammunition sees it as an opportunity to never have to shoot the same troops twice. Someone in favor of humane ammunition want wounded soldiers not to be maimed for life. Killing isn't the issue, in my opinion, it is the condition of the soldier after he is wounded. The perception of warfare as an excessive in reducing the enemy numbers isn't palatable now.

Much of this goes as far back as WW1, and even further to the US civil war. It comes from the same logic as international bans on poison gas and someday landmines. More problematic is the fact that most of the aggressors we face in the Middle East will not be traditional military, but plain-clothed civilians.

You need only look at the PR battle the Israelis face to see that regardless of the armament your opposition possesses, at the end of the day the reports will be that you killed civilians. This mandate is bent so that when we kill them, it will appear humane. In addition, killing Muslims with Israeli ammunition probably won't seem "kosher".

Anyway, the Nato round does so much tumbling once it enters the body it might as well be a hunting round.
on Jun 24, 2004
I don't see anything wrong with this. If it means less anger towards us I don't see why it should be a problem. The Army has the bullets they need now and if they need more than the factory in Illinois can produce them and that means more jobs.
on Jun 25, 2004
You guys are missing the point! The ammunition is no different than the rounds we are using now, its just made in a country the Muslims don't like. And therefore in order to be PC we shouldn't shoot a Muslim with a round that was made in Israel. Its not like the round says, "Made in Israel" on it.

Although the Army should not have to worry about "political correctness," Abercrombie was making a valid point about the propaganda pitfalls of using Israeli rounds in the U.S.-declared war on terror, said Rep. Curt Weldon, the Pennsylvania Republican who chairs the subcommittee on tactical air and land forces.

"There's a sensitivity that I think all of us recognize," Weldon told the Army witnesses, including Maj. Gen. Buford Blount, who led the U.S. Third Infantry Division that captured Baghdad in April 2003.

Now we have to be PC about what bullet we shoot someone with?? WHAT A CROCK. Think about this, its almost so stupid as to be laughable.
on Jun 25, 2004
Aside from declaring it or ending it, politicians need to stay out of war. (There's a group who didn't learn their lesson after Vietnam.)

U.S.-declared war on terror


I have a problem with that. The terrorists declared war on us first. It's bad journalism in that, to me, it expresses an opinion rather than a fact. It's like saying, "Today in the American-declared war on Japan" after Pearl Harbor. Yes we made a declaration of war, but only in response to their declaration. I think the phrase that Reuters writer used implies the opposite.

Lastly, I'm concerned about our having to import bullets to begin with. Many have suggested with America's continuing outsourcing of our manufacturing needs if another World War broke out we'd not be equipped to supply our own military, leaving us possibly vulnerable and defenseless This looks like a case in point.
on Jun 26, 2004
It does seem kind of silly, but I don't see where all the outrage is coming from here. What's the big deal?

Smartaz's point about importing bullets is well taken.