Prohibited Military Equipment for Sale on Internet

This is unsettling.

Government investigators posing as buyers were able to purchase a dozen prohibited military items on the popular online selling sites. The report notes that the items purchased could easily have been shipped overseas and “used directly against our troops and allies.”

The items include:

• Two F-14 fighter jet components. The United States has retired its fleet of F-14s. Only Iran is currently using them.

• Night vision goggles specially made to military specifications that allow the user to identify U.S. troops at night.

• Army combat uniforms. The military has prohibited the sale of uniforms to non-military personnel since January 2007, when Iraqi Insurgents used U.S. military uniforms to sneak into a base in Karbala and kill five U.S. service members.

• Special “enhanced” body armor vests used by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not available to the general public.

1. At the subcommittee hearings, Rep. Chris Shays, R-Connecticut, pressed a Defense Department official for answers on how military goods are making their way into the marketplace.

   “Do we have a serious theft problem, or do we not even know if we have the ability to know we have a serious theft problem?” Shays asked.

   “I might say the latter might be more accurate,” replied Charles Beardall, a deputy inspector general of the Department of Defense.

   And we are trying to establish a security Iraq?

   Perhaps the best quote from today’s BuShism;

   All our efforts are aimed at a clear goal: a free Iraq that can protect its people, support itself economically, and take charge of its own political affairs.

   We can’t even achieve this here without the Chinese buying our paper.

   Posted by on April 11, 2008 at 0011 hrs




2. And we are trying to establish a security Iraq?

   Before I offend Dad29 or some other nincompoop with bad grammar or spelling, it SHB,

   “And we are trying to establish a secure Iraq?”

   Posted by on April 11, 2008 at 0047 hrs




3. Another reason to blame the Democrats for something. It is likely their fault that our government can’t make sure our troops get the equipment that was made for them.

   If government investigators caught these people then who are they? They wouldn’t happen to be selling them on the black market to Iran in hopes of provoking another war?

   This misuse of our military and spending ungodly amounts of money which just may as well be flushed down the toilet than to wind up in our enemies hands. It is so common that it has become the status quo.

   I agree with pjr, why secure Iraq when we aren’t secure at home?
   Who is in charge anyway?

   Posted by on April 11, 2008 at 0136 hrs




4. Why do some of our commenters demonstrate a consistent inability to take a reasonable, objective look at an issue, and instead resort immediately to blaming Bush?  Sheer ignorance of the facts, or do you just not care?

   I’ve been in the military since 1997.  I’ve seen theft of government property and resale on eBay since day 1.  It’s not the fault of any administration.  It’s not the fault of any mid- or high-level authority.  It’s individual troops lifting stuff from their workplaces and selling it on eBay.  We catch them and we prosecute them.  There’s not a lot more that can be done. 

   And it’s got nothing to do with establishing security in Iraq.  If pilferage were such a show-stopper, we’d never have one a single military engagement in our history.

   Posted by Jed on April 11, 2008 at 0522 hrs




5. Might help if we stopped outsourcing the mfg. of a lot of these products.
   I heard that some of the SAPI plates are being made in China.
   The ebay sellers are just a small part of the problem.
   Think that Siemens selling stuff to the Iranians is not worse than someone selling a used set of BDU’s?

   Posted by on April 11, 2008 at 0657 hrs




6. What Jed said: there are light-fingered troops and they’ve been stealing stuff for resale outside the main gate since Valley Forge.  The only new angle is that the internet makes it easier to hawk the goods.

   This might even be a good thing; eliminating the middle-man that thrives outside th main gate of every military base can only be a good thing; bastards are bad enough running legal businesses.

   Posted by Brian Dunbar on April 11, 2008 at 0808 hrs




7. Jed makes a good point, although in all fairness, I don’t think pjr was trying to pin this on Bush.

   There are plenty of major blunders and a lot of Constitutionally-dubious (at best) malfeasance to lay at Bush’s doorstep without trying to make the little stuff like this his fault as well.

   Posted by on April 11, 2008 at 0853 hrs




8. Why do some of our commenters demonstrate a consistent inability to take a reasonable, objective look at an issue, and instead resort immediately to blaming Bush?  Sheer ignorance of the facts, or do you just not care?

   I clink on a link titled “This is unsettling.” and read this exchange between a Republican Congressman and a DIG @ DOD,
   

   At the subcommittee hearings, Rep. Chris Shays, R-Connecticut, pressed a Defense Department official for answers on how military goods are making their way into the marketplace.

   “Do we have a serious theft problem, or do we not even know if we have the ability to know we have a serious theft problem?” Shays asked.

   “I might say the latter might be more accurate,” replied Charles Beardall, a deputy inspector general of the Department of Defense.
   

   Now if I had read this,

   I’ve been in the military since 1997.  I’ve seen theft of government property and resale on eBay since day 1.  It’s not the fault of any administration.  It’s not the fault of any mid- or high-level authority.  It’s individual troops lifting stuff from their workplaces and selling it on eBay.  We catch them and we prosecute them.  There’s not a lot more that can be done.

   My reaction and the resultant post would have been different.

   With all due respect Jed, and I mean this without any of my characteristic snark, maybe you should have been testifying at the hearings.

   As far as blaming the Bush Administration for getting us into and keeping us in Iraq. Who would you suggest be assigned that responsibility?

   OK, I got off topic in my quip on yesterday’s speech, guilty as or if charged.

   When I first heard this I thought I must have misunderstood so last night I looked it up and read the speech again, it is a direct quote,

   All our efforts are aimed at a clear goal: a free Iraq that can protect its people, support itself economically, and take charge of its own political affairs.

   When did that economic bit get slipped in there?

   What does “support itself economically” mean?

   Why has this now become an undefined benchmark for us to achieve before we get our people out of harm’s way?

   With a projected budget surplus in the tens of billions of dollars this year,

   http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23578542/

   I don’t have any answers, do you?

   I think the President should.

   Posted by on April 11, 2008 at 1016 hrs