Not exactly
We don't have the name of the captain, or a specific transcript of his response with supporting detail. Instead we have Jake Tapper saying the story checks out, and posting a few quotes from the captain but not a full statement.
And if you consider the story to be accurate and reliable (which isn't certain) it still doesn't fully back up Obama, only partially. Now if he is partially backed up, then people really shouldn't call him a liar (at least not without more evidence), but it does seem his story was partially incorrect.
At that ABC blog post page there are a number of responses which show either continued problems with the story, or how Obama spun things to make them look worse than the reality. I quoted a number of them here.
Message 24337480
Tapper's story doesn't back claims on the topic of captured ammo and equipment.
They didn't lack weapons or run out of ammo. As for not having up armored humvees they where rare back in 2003, we had just started making any serious effort to produce them.
--
Pentagon doubts Obama account of equipment problem
reuters.com
"...As for the Messiah’s essential claim that “they were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief,” that’s a little more nuanced:
“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.
Stuart Koehl acknowledged this morning that troops do, as they always have, occasionally scrounge for weapons when they’re in a spot but mooching off the enemy isn’t regular practice, and even Obama’s source doesn’t suggest that it was. We’ll chalk up the exaggeration to, shall we say, audacity.
Milbloggers, everything squared away here?
Update: I was going to let this go since Tapper did good work in following up on the story but his snide “tsk tsk, right-wing bloggers” outro warrants some static. Like Rusty says, what does this mean?
I find that Obama’s anecdote checks out.
Well, except for that very minor detail about them not actually having to capture Taliban weapons to fight, okay. But how does it “check out” merely because Obama’s source for these explosive charges is willing to repeat them to a reporter? If you’re willing to take the guy at his word, fine, but the Times applied this same standard of “checking” to the McCain/Iseman rumors. How’d that work out for them?..."
hotair.com
"The source himself denies he had to "capture" enemy weapons and equipment to fight -- he is claiming that he did in fact use such weapons on occasion, but that is different than warfare generally... how?
ace.mu.nu
news.yahoo.com
Obama's Captain Talks
The Obama campaign put ABC reporter Jake Tapper in touch with the army captain Obama referred to in last night's debate. Go read Tapper's report of what the captain says. Unfortunately, his statements don’t justify the charges Obama made last night.
Once again, Obama said half the platoon had been "sent to Iraq,"
And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition, they didn't have enough Humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.
Nothing the captain said supports Obama's accusation that soldiers in Aghanistan faced a shortage of ammunition. Nothing the captain said supports the (ridiculous) claim that American soldiers were capturing Taliban weapons "because it was easier to get Taliban weapons" than American ones.
What the captain said was that it was sometimes difficult to get parts in theater, and on occasion his soldiers used captured weapons. If Obama were running to be quartermaster in chief, this story might have some relevance. But Obama hasn't unveiled his plan to streamline the Army's logistics in Afghanistan. And his basic narrative of the commander in chief neglecting equipment needs in Aghanistan isn’t supported by this one account. Moreover, does Obama think (a distortion of) one captain’s anecdote is an appropriate basis for making broad claims about military matters in a campaign to become commander in chief?
The captain's name is withheld in Tapper's piece, but we have submitted a request to the Obama campaign for an interview.
weeklystandard.com
The Captain Tells a Different Story
The captain to whom Obama was referring presumably belongs to a battalion of the 10th Mountain Division, which is stationed at Ft. Drum, and as one of the Army's few truly light infantry units, has been deployed more than almost any other formation outside of Special Operations Command. As Jake Tapper reported earlier, the captain was in fact a lieutenant at the time, so he obviously could have been a platoon leader.
But his story isn't quite Obama's story. Obama gives the impression that these guys were about to go to Afghanistan, and then half of his platoon was detached and sent to Iraq instead. The actual story is more prosaic and typical of Army practice in most conflicts, including World War II. Over a period of some months, individuals in his platoon were transferred (not detached) to other units, probably based on immediate operational requirements; e.g., a unit about to deploy to Iraq was short of MOS-11B (Combat Infantryman), and the unit was fleshed out with drafts from other units. Happens all the time, has always happened. In World War II, it was not uncommon for units still in training, or newly arrived in a theater of operation, to be poached for troops to round out another unit about to go into battle.
On going into battle shorthanded--it's normal. If you aren't shorthanded when you hit the ground, you will be shorthanded almost immediately thereafter, as your unit takes casualties or has to detach men for other duties. All rifle squads, platoons and companies in a combat zone are generally short anywhere from 15-25 percent of their TO&E (Table of Organization and Equipment) strength, and will remain so as long as combat intensity remains high and the unit stays in the line. On being pulled out for rest and recuperation, a unit will be fleshed out with replacements, who will receive some hasty orientation and training to augment the training they received beforehand. Then it's back into the line, and the unit will be under strength again. That's why a unit's combat readiness is inversely proportional to its employment: units that never see combat always have their full complement of men and equipment, hence are (on paper) always more ready than units which have been in combat for any substantial period. Does this mean that the unit with the higher readiness is more "combat effective" than the other one? Not necessarily--a combat-proven unit at reduced strength may be much better than a rookie unit at full strength. There's a tipping point, but defining it is a very complex subject.
Regarding the HMMWVs, at the time there was a critical shortage throughout the Army in M1114 Up-Armored HMMWVs due to shortages of armor plate. This would have happened, no matter what the Bush administration had done, simply because there was no surplus capacity to produce armor in the industrial base (we have since been importing armor steel from a number of sources, including Russia and Ukraine). Only having two or three operational vehicles ought to be considered par for the course. So is complaining about it. Using other vehicles to make up the shortfall? Also par for the course. In World War II, our troops, the most lavishly equipped in history, often used captured German transport--along with captured German weapons (for instance, the 88mm Panzerschreck and the disposable Panzerfaust anti-tank rockets were considered much better than the 2.76-inch Bazooka, and were picked up wherever they could be found).
On shortages of weapons and ammunition for training at Ft. Drum, again, this is typical of any army during a surge period. It has happened to our troops in every war. Our troops were, until well into 1942, forced to train with plywood mockups of tanks and dummy rifles. Heavy weapons such as the Mk.19 Automatic Grenade Launcher and the M2 Browning .50-cal machine gun are considered support weapons, and while it is nice to be able to train with them, I wouldn't call the inability to do so a crippling disability for an infantry unit. After all, neither one is actually on the TO&E of a rifle platoon.
Mounting a 12.7mm DShK in place of an M2 Browning? Not a particularly smart move, since the Browning has much better ballistics and is more reliable, but hey, with that big muzzle brake on the end, the Dushka really looks cool.
Jake Tapper may think the captain “backs up Obama’s story.” Not really--if the “story” is the story as told by Obama. His version is misleading as a reporting of what the captain said. More fundamentally, it was intended as an indictment of our management of the war. But in this respect it’s silly. In fact, the “story” here merely shows the operation of "real war," as opposed to "war on paper." That a presidential candidate would make something of it either shows a cynical attempt to score political points, or an appalling ignorance of military realities.
weeklystandard.com |
