Posted on 02/22/2008 10:16:27 AM PST by Republican Red
"Sent to Iraq" [Stephen Spruiell]
I've received tons of e-mail about Obama's Afghanistan anecdote, which Michael Graham was the first to flag last night. The commentary breaks down into three criticisms of Obama's story, two of which are pretty damaging to its credibility.
The first is that Obama said, "You know, I've heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon." Captains command companies; lieutenants lead platoons. However, it's possible that Obama's captain was talking about a time when he led a platoon as a lieutenant before being promoted, so this isn't that problematic.
The second, more problematic criticism concerns Obama's claim that "[He was] supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq." A number of Corner readers with military experience have pointed out that platoons aren't broken up this way. As one reader explained:
A platoon is the smallest unit deployed outside of [special forces] operations. Sending 24 men to one theater and 15 to another would destroy unit cohesion, leave one group without an officer and be a nightmare for the next higher unit's (the company) command, control and communication structure. You should take this story with a grain of salt — that grain being the size of the moon.
Another reader, an 11-year veteran currently working as a civilian for the DoD in Iraq, writes, "More likely they were just understrength due to the normal turnover of the military (people going to service schools, being promoted when there is no slot for them in that unit, being discharged, changing specialties, etc. ad infinitum)."
This reader also commented on the third aspect of Obama's anecdote that has attracted criticism: His claim that, "they didn't have enough ammunition... 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." The reader writes:
I find it inconceivable that any line combat unit would not have plenty of ammunition resupply. Special Operations forces operating in remote areas may use captured ammunition because resupply operations can reveal their location to the enemy, but otherwise this claim is laughable.
Another veteran writes, "There's also the obvious question of, if they're so short of U.S. ammunition, how are they managing to capture Taliban ammunition."
This is just a small sampling of the many e-mails I received (Corner readers, particularly the veterans who read us, are the best and most knowledgeable bunch out there), but this should give you an idea of how the story is breaking down. Over at The Weekly Standard, Stuart Koehl has some additional thoughts. Below the fold, I've posted more e-mail from Corner readers on this topic. Bottom line: This creates an opening for John McCain or Hillary Clinton to point out that a candidate who was ready to be commander-in-chief would have noticed that this story was two-thirds BS.
UPDATE: More e-mails added.
More reader e-mail:
That story sounds rather far fetched. Granted, I was in Iraq not Afghanistan, but I was in the Marines and our budget sucks so we ought to have had similar problems. There's so little fighting in both Afghanistan and Iraq compared to WWII, Korea, or Vietnam, that we have far more ammunition than we need. Maybe not as much fancy stuff like the new flashbangs or every color of smoke grenades, but I think that's probably good news for taxpayers and my knees since I didn't need to be carrying anymore useless government-issued junk. Whatever we lacked, we certainly couldn't have gotten from the enemy. Many might prefer the AK-47 to the M16 but that has nothing to do with stretching the military, funding issues, or President Bush. I'm sure plenty of guys also think the RPG-7 is "cool" and might carry it around and fire it at a tree for laughs, but that's about it. Some Marines carried around AK-47's as secondary weapons during the battle of Fallujah because they almost never jam and have great hitting power (while the lack of quality optics and long range accuracy doesn't matter inside a building)... but it wasn't because they didn't have a thousand dollar M16 with a thousand dollar optical sight affixed. — Matt B.
A former military guy here:
1) Captains don't command platoons, that is a job for lieutenants. I am sure there are some companies being commanded by 1st Lieutenants, but I cannot see vice versa (unless this is some sort of specops thing).
2) While I am fairly sure that understrength units have been / are deployed, units as small as platoons are not pulled apart like that. They could easily be short because of pers seconded to training cadres, people out sick or early enlistment ends, but I cannot see having a squad and a half ripped out of a platoon.
3) While the American Army has its faults, basic logistics are generally not one of them. If there is not enough ammo, then Congress needs to appropriate funds to buy more.
4) It is not unusual to be short of vehicles, especially if some of the ones you were issued have become hors to combat. The Taliban, to my knowledge do not have much in the way of vehicles — was this mythical captain appropriating Taliban donkeys? (They could be useful for dismounted patrols in the hills.)
5) If one is holding a defensive position, it may be advantageous to use a bunch of extra heavy weapons like machine guns — essentially to use more than your usual allotment. If the Taliban were kind enough to leave behind a supply, then why not use them? Still not an indictment of the President.
6) Does the Senator and/or this mythical Captain have a magic hat? Is it the same color as John Kerry's magic hat? I/o/w I am calling BS here.
— Michael S.
Divisions get split up, I would guess even brigades too. But splitting up a 39 riflemen platoon? Sounds like a Scott Beauchamp special.
— Mark F.
He is either so full of it or he's not smart enough to question a bogus story. I was a Captain in the USMC and a combat vet. First off, Captains are not in charge of "platoons", Lieutenants are. Captains are in command of a Company. Three platoons make up a company.
Secondly, I have no idea how a unit that size would be "chopped" and redirected to another country while sending another part to a different country. Personnel are not commodities in the way he refers to them. There is no way that would happen at the company level and even more ludicrous at the "Platoon" level. Frankly, I can't even see that happening at the Battalion level.
The third point is if we are forced to capture their weapons, how are we dong it? I mean, our guys don't have the proper equipment and weapons so we're forced to capture theirs? I guess the only assumption I can make is that an under manned unit without the proper weapons is forced to beat an enemy who is superior in both weapons and men? And, in so doing they beat them, took their weapons and lived to fight another day? One, the premise is ridiculous, but if true, our guys are kicking some serious butt with sticks and stones I guess.
Lastly, once those weapons have been "appropriated", the next issue is the ammo. Since NATO shoots 5.56 mm and the standard of our enemy is 7.62 mm for the AK-47, unless they found an unguarded ammo bunker in which to put those weapons to use, they're right back at square one. The NATO M-60 does shoot 7.62 mm but that's belted (machine gun) and the vast amount of NATO ammo is 5.56 mm which is mostly loose.
In short, this story is so full of holes and I've never seen or even heard of a story like this in my years in the Marine Corps or after. If this was the actual case, there are some very senior officers who would be relived of duty ASAP. Someone should call BS, get this Captains name and unit, and start an investigation. How can he deny that if he's so concerned for those that are taking the fight to the enemy?
— Pete L.
I am an Infantry Captain. I have deployed to Afghanistan twice, OEF 4 (2003-2004) and OEF 7-8 (2006-2007). In the army, we don't split up units like that; the quote about 15 guys from a rifle platoon bound for Afghanistan getting sent to Iraq is utter nonsense. Not enough ammunition? are you nuts? No soldier leaves Bagram Airfield without a Basic Load, 210 rds of 5.56 (7 full magazines).
As to the statement about humvees, early in OEF there was a shortage of vehicles, specifically up-armored ones — the IED threat was still relatively new at that time. During my last deployment with 2-87 Infantry (3D BCT, 10th MTN DIV) that took place from January 2006 until May of 2007, every soldier in our task force was equipped with state of the art equipment, and plentiful amounts of it. We fired veritable mountains of ammunition during combat operations, and always had more on hand. Vehicles were plentiful, as were the resources required to maintain (the REAL challenge!) them.
US Soldiers do not use enemy weapons or equipment under most circumstances (Special Forces and assorted secret squirrel guys sometimes do). Think about it: why would I train up on a weapon system, zero the optic so that I hit what I aim at, maintain it etc. and then trade it in for an AK47?
What do we do with captured Taliban/Al-Qaeda/Haqqani/Waziri equipment? We turn some of it over to the Afghan police (what is serviceable, which usually isn't much) and Afghan army units, but the majority is destroyed.
I seriously question the veracity of the "Army Captain" referred to. Most disturbing to me about this incident is it illustrates how clueless Obama and his staff are when it comes to the military. Prepared to be the CIC indeed.
— JDT
How about get the name of the Captain and get him to tell his story, then you have the actual facts instead of just speculation
Dem’s lie — who knew.
Agreed. Also, this would give McCain an excuse to haul out his military experience to make Obama present the facts behind the quotes.
it was meant to work on hillary not mccain.
-bflr-
Because that captain does not exist. The whole story is bravo sierra.
Ping
Ooops. Looks like somebody’s busted.
Obviously, the military personnel do not know what they are talking about. Obama got his information from the NY Times, the final word in truth and credibility /sar
Obama needs to double check his military sources before believing all this crap much less spouting it in public.
Facts mean little to the Saint. Remember back in the Summer of 2007, a tornando hit a Kansas small town. The Saint blasted Bush for inaction which left thousands and thousands of people homeless. Only a few hundred people were hit by the tornando.
***Seems that a guy wanting to be Commander-in-Chief would know more about the military.***
Maybe he’ll choose Wesley Clark as VP and it won’t matter.
You realize Obama doesn’t actually need a military - he has magical powers...all enemies of the US will vaporize or be appointed to his cabinet.
And remember, Obama carries crowds that are hoodwinked only because they want to be deceived (some to the point of hysteria). Being premature for McCain would only allow Obama to "graciously" ignore him - to the approval of the uproarious crowds, of course...
We need McCain be able to campaign effectively when general election campaign starts to overcome demagoguery and pc-gagfest. It will be no small feat, but the the majority of the country, who are not into “glorious leader” soviet-type lunacy, would greatly benefit from this.
Obama hopes things are going bad in Afghanistan and Iraq. He hopes the things he hopes for will give him hope.
Maybe someone needs to follow what Obama says, create a hope for change towards truth website, then post the truth against his lies.
Maybe his wife can dress the Marines in aprons to serve tea and crumpets..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.