That Obama Military Story
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Barack, MilitaryIt keeps going.
The right wing bloggers continue to accuse him of being wrong and even moderate bloggers suggest some level of naivete.
But let’s get the facts straight. Obama’s story checks out on the details. The troops were sent to Iraq instead of Afghanistan. Check. The Army captain (he was a lieutenant then) captured weapons and ammo because it was easier and quicker to get than through the military’s supply chain. Check.
Because remember, this is what he said…
You know, I’ve heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon—supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon,†he said. “Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers 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.
To this, Jason over at PoliGazette says this…
Thus, Obama’s correct to highlight a long-standing problem in the U.S. system of acquisition (I can state from personal experience that inefficiencies in military parts acquisition long predate 2003 or 2001), but his implication of a crippled U.S. military is misleading.
If Obama had suggested our military was crippled, I would agree. But he didn’t say that, nor did he even come close to implying it. All he said was “As a consequence.” That’s it. “As a consequence,” does not mean that he thinks the Army was crippled. What it does suggest is exactly what he said and has always said, that Iraq was a strategic mistake and diverted resources from Afghanistan. And that’s a fact, not hyperbole.
Again, Obama’s story checks out and does nothing to demonstrate inexperience on his part.
Now, am I suggesting that Obama is a military expert? No. He very well may be horribly inexperienced on military matters, but nothing I’ve heard from him yet proves that. In fact, when I check this stuff it always turns out in his favor, including his judgement pre-Iraq war when he basically predicted what would happen both in Afghanistan and Iraq.
So take that for what it is. We can call Obama inexperienced if we choose, but I haven’t seen any facts to back that up yet.
This entry was posted on Sunday, February 24th, 2008 and is filed under Barack, Military. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 24th, 2008 at 11:43 am
[...] …STFU already to the Pajamas-hotair-wingnut crowd. Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]
February 24th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Sorry, but the army says troop members may have been deployed to Iraq, but not as an company.
Obama’s a disaster for national security. This issue’s really been neutralized, and just the talk about it at the debate made the Dems look even weaker.
February 24th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Okay, so it has nothing to do with: 1) the military supply system or 2) adaptation causing an actual tactical advantage on the batatlefield? It is solely the “consequence” of diverting resources to Iraq and that was a “strategic mistake”.
Yes, it is a hallmark of an experienced statesmen to declare our military’s weakness to the world while we are in war. That is not inexperience, that is being the Jimmy Carter of the 21st century. If Jesus 2.0 believes so heartily (and has since the beginning) that the war in Iraq was not simply a strategic mistake, but morally wrong, then why doesn’t he sponsor a resolution that apologizes to the Iraqi people for the invasion. That would be leadership. But he should really refain from using battlefield anedotes to score cheap political points. Maybe he’d feel differently if McCain hauled out the family of an infant mustard gassed by Sadam – which would be another cheap political trick.
I am in agreement though, “inexperience” is not the issue with Obama — his problem is a McGovernite pacificism that will result in capitulation to a tumorous misoginsic death-cult. And no absurdly bombastic rhetoric about his willingness to invade an ally to get terrorist is going to change his stripes.
Oh, I feel faint…
February 24th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Why does Obama get a by on this? Obama gave the impression that 15 of soldiers were pulled from this unit and sent to Iraq. If you read the ABC report 15 men were transferred out, happens all the time and the captain later found out that ten of them ended up in Iraq. People are transferred out of units all the time and the level of personnel in a command will very over time. Since we assume this is an infantry unit it is hardly surprising that some of those men ended up in Iraq, that hardly proves Obama’s claim that they were pulled and sent to Iraq and it does nothing to support the claim that this had any effect on their ability to get parts and ammo.
Obama also claims that Bush was responsible for the lack of ammo and parts. Well the army supply system has been slow for over 200 years so blaming Bush is a stretch and exactly the sort of spin Obama is supposedly above. . These soldiers were fighting in some of the most remote areas of the world with no easy supply route, could that be why it was at times slow to get parts for his weapons?
Obama send one reporter to talk to his secret captain, the reporter comes back with a story that only partially matches Obama’s claim, does not even verify the guy was actually in war and the press declares Obama’s claim proven. How sad that our press is so biased by their personnel politics that they unable to give the country objective coverage.
February 24th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
No, the Republican Party is a disaster for American security. McCain’s “I’ll keep George Bush’s policies going.” attitude is a disaster for national security. The stupidity that the modern conservative operation of ideological lobotomy encourages is a disaster for far more than “national security”. See the first two comments on this post for an example.
February 24th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
[...] the Army Captain Told Obama Jump to Comments Justin Gardner checks in on the kerfuffle over the story of What the Army Captain Told Obama: It keeps [...]
February 25th, 2008 at 11:20 am
I fail to understand why an anonymous source providing four year old information that is unsupported by anything other that that source should be considered valid. I have 30 years service in the Army and was involved in the planning surrounding this movement to Afghanistan and I say this is “horse puckyâ€.
H. Evers
February 25th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
No difference between the Ron Paul afficionados who until recently filled this blog and made their man out to be a god; and the now-crowd of Obama devotees that jumps at every legit criticism leveled at Obama’s. Just because they are sold lock, stock and barrell on whatever the guy predicates.
Obama’s remarks were irresponsible and not correct. Half a truth is still a lie.
Justin, how do you figure that Obama didn’t make our military out to be crippled?
He disinformed the public by sharing a story that happened 4-5 yrs ago, sprinkled with wrong info.
First, our soldiers have never been without ammunition. Not enough Humvees, but not lacking ammo.
Secondly, he failed to mention the situation had been corrected and doesn’t reflect today’s conditions.
The exaggeration and half-truths can be traced back to Obama, not those rectifying his blunders.
February 25th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Hillary E. – With all due respect, no one cares about your 30 years of experience. This isn’t about the truth at ground level or military history or analysis. This about politics and Jesus 2.0 can do nothing wrong — otherwise, he wouldn’t be Jesus 2.0. He can not simply be a good candidate, in order to win, he must be the immaculate sending of the divine and the slightest tarnish will forever rupture this theological campaign. So go try to sell your “truth” to someone who is buying it — we are with the Church of Obama.