Apparently Obama's story could possibly have some distant connection to the truth, but even if it does he gets critical points wrong.
If the reports are to be believe it wasn't a captain who was in charge of a rifle platoon, it was a captain who used to be in charge of a rifle platoon when he was a LT. They apparently used some captured heavy machine guns, not AKs (although I don't think Obama actually said they used AKs). Most importantly the platoon may have been understrenght but it wasn't "split to send soldier to Iraq". And also it wasn't something that happened recently but back around 2003.
inteldump.powerblogs.com
This is the post supposedly confirming the story -
blogs.abcnews.com
But as one commenter points out -
"I might suggest that the characterization of your conversation with the captain, you chose not to include a full transcript, does not match the claim made by Sen. Barack Obama.
Easier to capture Taliban weapons than receive appropriate spare parts is not the same as sometimes picking up an AK47 or once fixing a DShK to a truck."
And of course the implication is that this is supposed to be some sort of typical things with units at 60% strength and such, when its a story about ONE platoon from years ago.
And that's not even considering the possibility that ABC's blog post is itself bad reporting.
--
More comments to the ABC blog post
So this "unnamed LT" now CPT was in Afghanistan FIVE YEARS AGO? Why in the world would Obama be spinning this as if it were a current issue? And he wants to be Commander in Chief? Holy Cow.
Posted by: Amy Proctor | Feb 22, 2008 4:48:46 PM
All we have so far is heresay. Obama and his anonymous source would be laughed out of court with these alleged "facts". ABC can do better can you?
Posted by: Bryan Shuy | Feb 22, 2008 4:47:04 PM
Nice place you got here. First time to comment.
Thanks for the background and clarification. I'd still like the captain's name.
And your info, and the way it is presented here, sounds like a normal occurrence in a war being fought at the far end of a five thousand mile pipeline.
Disclaimer: I doubt that Obama has the "chops" for being chief executive; if matters had been left to his party, the Captain in question would have been operating out of jeeps, without GPS, and without JDAM's in support.
What your account does not sound like is a systemic failure of the supply system, which is what I think brought most conservative critics (myself included) out of the tall grass.
Carry on.
Posted by: TmjUtah | Feb 22, 2008 4:30:47 PM
10th Mountain was in Afghanistan from May to roughly August of 2003, and while portions of the 1 CCT conducted combat ops, most of the members of the 10th deployed made from 2nd BCT to train Afghan Army and provide admin/logisitcs support for other deployed forces.
I could see if this Lt. was deployed with a short platoon in an administrative role, that would make sense, but not a platoon that was to see any serious combat or do patroling on a day to day basis. No CO in his right mind sends a platoon out to patrol at less than 50% staffing.
As for uparmored HMMWV's, they were probably in short supply in Afghanistan, because most if not all of them were in Iraq. Given that summer of 2003 was the start of the first rounds of IED deployments en masse it would make sense for them to be there and not in Afghanistan where IED attacks were rare.
Posted by: gabriel | Feb 22, 2008 4:13:02 PM
Speaking as a Canadian, I can say our servicemen and women in Afghanistan do not have attack helicopters, nor heavy lift helicopters, we use American helicopters is those cases. Nor do we have our fighter jets stationed over there, we use American attack aircraft to assist when needed. However, as part of the NATO support we have the only tanks over there, 20 Leopard 2 A6M which is often times used to support American servicemen and women in their duties, just as our new long range heavy artillery is also used to support Americans when the need arises. Afghanistan is supposed to be a NATO effort and neither country has it all, however, it is only the American, British, and Canadians who do the fighting over there. The Europeans have refused to do any of the fighting or dying. Yet I find something wrong with this story. Why? Because our media, and I'm sure yours, are over there dying to report on a story just like this. They're right there with the troops and yet why didn't one of those guys over there hear those whispers from the troops themselves? It just doesn't add up for me.
Posted by: Willy | Feb 22, 2008 4:12:59 PM
We DON'T know if the actual story is true or not. The facts were not confirmed only that there is a story (which may be BS)
Posted by: Brian Shuy | Feb 22, 2008 4:10:01 PM
Jack Tapper ended his "Fact Check" by saying:
"I might suggest those on the blogosphere upset about this story would be better suited directing their ire at those responsible for this problem, which is certainly not new. That is, if they actually care about the men and women bravely serving our country at home and abroad."
But it is the brave men and women and their families who live and breathe the military life every day who are raising these serious questions about the reality of the story. It isn't political, we just don't want to be misrepresented, or our commander in chief.
It is the Congress who attaches the earmarks making a Denfese Spending bill anything but...as an Army wife I don't blame the Pres for passing what is not truly troop funding but rather the Congress and politicians for playing games.
Earmarks have no place in a Defense Spending Bill.
Also,Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said today of Obama's assertion:
"I find that account pretty hard to imagine.
"Despite the stress that we readily acknowledge on the force, one of the things that we do is make sure that all of our units and service members that are going into harm's way are properly trained, equipped and with the leadership to be successful."
Posted by: Amy Proctor | Feb 22, 2008 4:03:44 PM
"I might suggest those on the blogosphere upset about this story would be better suited directing their ire at those responsible for this problem..."
You mean people like Barack Obama who voted against funding the troops?
And btw, who confirms a story by talking to the exact same source, the National Enquirer? Ever heard of corroboration? Did you, for example, consider talking to someone else in the 10th Mountain Division who participated in the Task Force Warrior deployment? No? Journalism 101, baby.
Posted by: Bluto | Feb 22, 2008 4:00:16 PM
Ok, Obama's story mostly checks out.
1, talk to anyone in any military branch at any time and you'll hear stories like this all the time. Wartime, peacetime, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines. It's wrong, but it's not the stinging indictment of W that Obama makes it out to be. I've heard it from my dad and uncle in the 50's, pilots from the 90's, Army soldiers in the 80's, Navymen in the 90's...
2, if Obama wins the presidency, does ANYONE think that he'll increase the defense budget?? Anyone? Anyone at all? Bueller? Bueller?
Posted by: Mark B | Feb 22, 2008 3:38:25 PM
(My response to that comment "mostly checks out" is a big streach because we don't know if the story "confirming" it is real, and even if it is Obama's story has innacuricies and spin that makes things look worse)
Yes, the CPT's unit was short of ammo -- but only for range fire at Fort Drum in the US during mobilization training. That's a far cry from the intimation that troops were lacking ammo in combat, and thus had to salvage from the Taliban.
Yes, some of the soldiers pulled from the Rifle Platoon were reassigned to units that then were sent to Iraq -- some but not all. Glossing it all over as if the Army robbed Peter to pay Paul is misleading at best. Did the soldiers fill vacancies in units leaving immediately, whereas the Afghan bound Platoon left 6 months later?
Then, the belated acknowledgement that the CPT did his Afghan tour in 2003. With two big deployments just underway, it took 1-2 more years before vehcile shortages caught up. Yet, Obama's anecdote certainly conveyed the impression of negigent under-equipping of our soldiers. Ask any of us whether we had too little, or too much equipment.
And read closely this account of WHY the CPT's soldiers captured or confiscated enemy weapons. He states clearly the reason WAS NOT that they didn't have enough of their own.
Obama's use of this anecdote was rhetorical flourish, to be sure, and such always contains more gas than solid. But in this case, he exaggerates an anecdote from 5 years ago, twists it to fit his political purposes, and conveys all manner of impression not supported by facts.
Posted by: dadmanly | Feb 22, 2008 3:32:54 PM
Not enough ammo for training?
Too few vehicles?
Not enough small arms in the field?
Clearly, the solution to this is increased funding for the military. No amount of retreat from Iraq is going to solve problems such as these: The Clintons advised for years that the military was capable of fighting two major wars at the same time. What went wrong?
I'm glad to see Obama throw his support behind this, and hope to see the military restored to it's pre-Clinton glory.
Posted by: ExUrbanKevin | Feb 22, 2008 3:31:49 PM
Thank you for actually speaking to the Captain. He is illustrating a problem the military has always had to face. I was a division officer on a destroyer from 1995 to 1997. A division officer is the Navy equivalent of a platoon leader in the Army or Marine Corps. I can only respond based on my experiences and in the interest of full disclosure, I never saw combat.
1) It is not uncommon to have sailors rotate in and out of your division. Sometimes you are undermanned and sometimes you are overmanned (rarely). That is a challenge of the position, and one of the reasons you are commissioned and trusted with responsiblity at an early age. My department head would have had no time or interest to listen to me complain about this. It is a part of the job that you must deal with, period. If you don't believe me, call a flag officer and ask him/her to verify.
2) Sailors are assigned to other ships, schools, or their enlistment ends. This happens weekly. It would be a logistical nightmare to time every sailor's stay in the division to the same date so that you would always be fully manned.
3) We trained for over a year before we deployed to the Persian Gulf as part of a carrier battlegroup. We were told we may be part of a response to the Khobar Tower bombings - that would be considered combat by many. We trained during that year without our Harpoons, periods of time without our Sea Sparrows, limited 5 inch rounds and .50 calibre rounds. We didn't use our CIWS and our most of time trained without our two helicoptors on board. In fact, we sat idle at sea for long periods of time to save fuel but keep our optemp up. Did our gunnersmates, fire controlmen, operations specialists, etc. suffer from a lack of ammunition for training? Doubtful and they would have known exactly how to use them if needed in the Persian Gulf after we got our deployment upload and went operational. Senator Obama made it seem as though they didn't have ammunition in Afghanistan. That is misleading.
4) As for the Humvees I will defer to the captain's judgement. I will say some parts for equipment are always scarce, and again, a management problem for the division officer. Procurement is something all junior officers must learn, and their NCO is an excellent source for that training. He was supposed to have four, he got three and one was down. I would be on maintenance night and day to get the down one up. I commend the captain for improvising and getting the Toyota. That is what he is supposed to do and he should receive a commendation for that action.
My concern is that Senator Obama's first instinct is to use this anecdote to condemn President Bush and score political points. As a sitting Senator, he should have notified the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee and attempted to determine if this is anecdotal or systemic. They should have contacted the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of the Army to determine if this is a legitimate problem that must be addressed immediately. The Senate is designed to provide oversight and why is Senator Obama doing this? Use your current position to investigate Senator not make accusations in a debate.
Additionally, it concerns me that his first instinct is to accept this story as fact without any curiosity. As a former division officer I was immediately skeptical and started asking questions in my mind. We need to resolve this now and not play politics.
It is easy to criticize decisions when you don't have the responsibility or accountability for those decisions. Don't complain Senator and don't wait until you become President. You have the ability right now to do something about this. What are you waiting for?
Posted by: Bryan Dietze | Feb 22, 2008 3:10:32 PM
Perhaps you could ask the good Senator what having 15 guys sent to Iraq has to do with the unit "not having enough ammunition and equipment"?! If there are only 24 out of 39 troopers in the platoon- what does that have to do with the ammunition load which would accompany every platoon?!! If anything, there would be MORE ammunition for each one since if anything they would ship over the equipment for THE UNIT and not just for 24 guys!! You really need to get someone who has been deployed to Afghanistan to help you with the appropriate questions to ask this Captain- starting with his SITREPS which obviously should have noted this "lack of equipment and ammo" for his unit. Ever thought of checking into that?
Posted by: 1LT JAF | Feb 22, 2008 3:08:48 PM
Doug,
How is Obama going to ensure that our soldiers have sufficient training prior to going to battle? If, heaven forbids, a war starts, is Obama going to wait to do anything until troops have been trained? Basically calling a timeout.
Obama will give our troops new equipment, aromor, etc? So you mean he's going to fix all the red tape associated with the DoD's complex procurement process?
It's amazing how you Obama supporters think this man can magially snap his fingers and everything is fixed. He offers nothing new, unless you think higher taxes and more government control of your life is new. Not sure how a tried and true 1960's liberal is going to fix things in Washington.
Posted by: JD | Feb 22, 2008 3:07:47 PM
"I find that Obama's anecdote checks out."
Based on reality is not the same as checking out. Obama's main point was that in theater they "it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief." He makes it seem that our armed forces are so badly equipped that they have to resort to scavenging bullets from the Taliban.
In fact the unnamed "Captain" says just the opposite.
""The purpose of going after the Taliban was not to get their weapons," he said, but on occasion they used Taliban weapons. Sometimes AK-47s, and they also mounted a Soviet-model DShK (or "Dishka") on one of their humvees instead of their 50 cal."
They can spin this any way they want to, just like Obama spun the Captain's original remarks about logistic SNAFUs during a two theater war into an indictment of Bush.
Also, there's something a bit of old news about this. The Captain was in Afghanistan in 2003 and 2004. Obama is making it sound like it's current news by saying that the Taliban are stronger now than at any time since 2001.
Posted by: Bozoer Rebbe | Feb 22, 2008 3:05:34 PM |
