Stephen Spruiell over at NRO has gathered quite a collection of e mails from military personnel – past and present – who dispute Obama’s assertion of ill-equipped US troops – a sample will do for here, but you should go check them all out:
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.
The only part of Obama’s story which survives some scrutiny is the part where he says a captain was in command of a platoon – platoons aren’t commanded by captains, but we give the benefit of the doubt and say that the captain was a lieutenant when he was sent to Afghanistan – other than that, Obama’s story is proving to be pure fiction, just on the practical aspects of it, especially in that no one has ever heard of a platoon being divvied up between different theaters.
The central issue here is not the story, as such, but the fact that Obama believes it – which indicates he is entirely clueless as to the composition and employment of the United States military he aspires to command. Without question, John McCain is the better man to be Commander in Chief of the United States armed forces – while qualification to be CinC should not be, in and of itself, determinative of whether a person becomes CinC, it is a very important aspect of the job, especially in the very dangerous times we live in. And while military knowledge is not vital to be President, Obama’s lack of such knowledge also brings up his general lack of executive experience, as well as real-world knowledge – in short, Obama has never really had to do anything strenuous or risky on his own part in order to obtain the position he holds, and the position he aspires to.
The question before us – if Obama secures the nomination – is whether or not we, the people of the United States of America, are willing to turn our government over to a man of such clearly substandard qualifications? There is, perhaps, a chance that a President Obama will be a quick study and become a competant President, but if he is elected he will be the first man so positioned in at least a century – even comparitively unqualified JFK had some command and real world experience in his Navy days during WWII; Obama has nothing to recommend him except a good speaking style.
Blogs For Victory 
MorrisMajor,
Its a matter of judgement – being entirely ignorant of the military, Obama should withold comment on military matters or first spend some time learning the basics.
What Obama’s story reflects is that knee-jerk contempt on the left for the United States military – as if any officer would agree to an order sending a unit out without sufficient ammunition! Obama must think the men and women who command are armed forces are idiots.
What????? What looting was dismissed?
Christ, you aren’t being serious, are you, ‘Ranty?
On the unfortunately high chance that you are, look up the context of Rummy’s infamous “freedom’s untidy” quote. HINT: He was talking about the widespread looting that took place post-invasion. The looting that has been correctly identified as something we shouldn’t have allowed. The looting that everybody but you knows about, apparently. But hey, when has ignorance ever stopped you from getting a good rant going–particularly a highly ironic one about how it’s everybody else who has it wrong?
Better luck next time.
No executive experience? If Obama’s campaign organization is an indication of how he will run the country, we’re in good shape. He looked at the challenges ahead, came up with the right strategies and executed them well.
“Many thousands of people – perhaps tens of thousands – will die in America at some future date because a President Obama surrendered in Iraq in 2009.”
Continued military occupation of Iraq will prevent terrorists from coming over here how exactly?
minordomo,
The fact that we haven’t had any attacks here since is at least one indicator that being in Iraq has had a positive effect on American national security.
And I’ll let you get away with that just once on this blog – there is no occupation of Iraq; we are there at the express invitation of the legitimate, Iraqi government.
minordomo – Libya stopped developing atomic weapons because of Iraq. You know, the guys who killed enemies all over Europe? Repeatedly shot at our planes in the Med? And who blew up a 747 over Scotland?
And though it’s debatable, Iran stopped also. What with having American troops to their south (on ships), west, north, and east. You know, Iran? The ones who seized our Embassy? Attacked their enemies all over Europe? Mined the Gulf? Those guys?
AND – there’s a good chance that our tendency to stomp our enemies played a part in North Korea’s decision to stop working on atomic weapons. You know, North Korea? The guys we’re actually technically still at war with? Who’ve killed hundreds of Americans and Koreans – SINCE the Armistice? Who counterfeit our money? Who send commandos into the South? Who kidnapped dozens (or more) of Japanese and help them for decades? Those guys?
Any of this ringing a bell?
I find those who belive Obama’s rhetoric which is steeped in fantasy as not only amusing, but also pathetic. The DEMS are so fractured they will believe in fairy dust and accept someone who has done NOTHING in the US Senate. A man so unsuitable for the job that he wants to talk to the enemy and bomb allies. A man who refuses to speak about specifics and says “go to my website”. McCain is going to crucify him.
Nothing is more entertaining than some dumbass who can’t spell “competent.”
Wait a minute — “competent” is misspelled in Mark Noonan’s post.
In for a penny, in for a pound, but I’m sure you’re right on target with the whole Obama’s-not-“competant” thing.
“The DEMS are so fractured they will believe in fairy dust and accept someone who has done NOTHING in the US Senate.”
Looks like you didn’t spend too much time trying to find out and just bought into the first soundbite somebody ran by you.
Here’s a bit more info about Obama:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/obama-actually.html
And if you really want to know what Obama has done in the Senate, there are also government websites that may be helpful to you.
“A man so unsuitable for the job that he wants to talk to the enemy and bomb allies.”
What is wrong with opening up a dialogue? And which ally do you think he wants to bomb? Source?
“A man who refuses to speak about specifics and says “go to my website”.”
And the website is where you’ll find the specifics… duh. Telling you where to find the specifics is not “refusing to speak about specifics”, it’s the opposite.
Hemlock – thanks. We needed a proofreader. Because finding a spelling mistake makes everything else wrong.
What an asshole. (Did I spell that right?)
minordomo: Way to dodge the specifics. You certainly bought into Obama’s “air speak” for airheads. Grow up!
So, basically the drift in this post is that we should elect people that the military approves of or we are all traitors?
God, the contortions needed here to justify trashing Obama: he has little “legislative experience” – well how much legislative experience did George Bush have? Uh, none (ditto for Reagan). But he doesn’t have any “executive experience” Well, how much does John McCain have? None (and Bush’s executive experience, all six years worth, was in a largely ceremonial position). Well, he doesn’t have any military experience. Do you guys really want to go there? See Bush and Reagan above. This is taking the IOIYAR argument to absurd extremes.
“The question before us…. is whether or not we, the people of the United States of America, are willing to turn our government over to a man of such clearly substandard qualifications?”
George………W………Bush………twice!
Hey Alm:
It is a silly argument to use our continued presence of troops in Germany, Japan and Korea as justification for us being in Iraq. In none of those nations were we losing 30 – 100 soldiers a month trying to keep warring factions of Germans, Japanese or Koreans from blowing themselves up five years after we defeated them
Believe me if we had been losing 30 – 100 soldiers per month in Japan in 1949 just to keep the peace between factions in Japan MacArthur would have stern measures to quell the violence (and he could have done it since the Army had hundreds of thousands of occupation troops) or the American people would have demanded we pull out.
Since Bush/Cheney has not equipped the force with adequate numbers to do the job, the American people will just say pull out.
General Senseki was not just some officer who had an opinion, he was the Chief of Staff of the Army. And you know what the “big whoop” is? He was right. Rummy was wrong. We needed a bigger force than Rummy thought we needed. Wow, imagine that. A career army officer who knows something about the army. So for all your dismissive blather about “entrenched” Pentagon types not embracing this new military of Rummy, it was the PROFESSIONAL SOLDIERS who knew what we needed in Iraq not Bush buddies appointed to civilian offices.
And your comments about the “non-looting” were very effectively shot down by Tractatus, so I will leave it at that.
Lets see this guy get trashed.
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20080226/D8V289BG1.html
Former is the operative word Marine, wouldn’t you agree? Why don’t you conflate the number of clothing stores, fire stations and dog houses to the topic of this thread. Unless of course, dead American soldiers mean nothing to you because they are expendable. Just another number to be exploited and used as a comparison to your the rest of your inane contentions.
Take a hint from the first act of Full Metal Jacket.
Felix, no, no, no. Clearly General Casey is just desk sitting Army toad like Alm said above without real combat time and therefore doesn’t know about the transformational nature of what this new war is all about. Oh wait, he is the Chief of Staff of the Army. Oh, wait, he was leading our troops in Iraq before the surge.
Oh wait, hmmmmm, the GOP will figure out someway to trash General Casey for backing Obama’s story.
Former Marine:
Wow. If a liberal brushed off the deaths of 4000 brave American soldiers and Marines you guys would demand he be burned at the stake. But we’re just Marxists because we care about how many have died in a war in Iraq that has zero with finding Osama bin Forgotten.
Amazing. I do know there are probably 4000 families who have their hair on fire about losing their son or daughter. Man, I cannot believe your hard heart.
I for one support our actions in Afghanistan 100%. If I was in charge, I’d redeploy the 130K we have in Iraq to Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban.
But then again, Afghanistan sits on no ocean of oil.
Deleted – off topic.
Kahn | February 26th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Hemlock – thanks. We needed a proofreader. Because finding a spelling mistake makes everything else wrong.
What an asshole. (Did I spell that right?)
Kahn,
Why have you never chastised Keefer for that same behavior?
I’m just curious about the dichotomy. Or perhaps I am mistaken and you think Keefer is an A-hole also.
uffy at comment 64,
“Way to dodge the specifics. You certainly bought into Obama’s “air speak” for airheads. Grow up!”
You weren’t asking about any specific issue, you were pretending there were no specifics to be had. I pointed you to boatloads of specifics.
If there’s something specific that you want specifics on, then please be specific.
77 posts. I went back to examine the original thread post and found it was actually about Obama making allegations based on what he said he was told by an army captain. Most of the conservative posts have focused on the general themes of how the military function and how likely the story is to be factual. There are of course side trips into more general military-oriented fields.
The Liberal responses seem to be pretty much insult-oriented, with the mandatory Bush-bashing, with the anticipated hysteria of Obama-worship from his adoring groupies.
I am personally attacked because I tried to figure out what some Lib was referencing and guessed at the wrong looting incident—sorry, the crystal ball was in the shop. But it seemed to justify, at least to the always-intractable Tract, a full-out attack on my intelligence and honor. I don’t take it personally—everything of his I have read indicates a generally surly and sneering personality, so when it is directed at me instead of the Bush Administration or religion or whatever else chaps his donkey, it’s no big deal.
Again, par for the course.
And again, and par for the course, the actual question of whether or not Obama was truthful, as well as the corollary question of whether he truly believed an untruthful source, is buried under the avalanche of distractions mounted by the Usual Suspects.
Who are, as we have noted, even more vicious in their attacks, even more organized, even more prepared to mount full-scale battle over the most minute of details, ready to rumble over every single word, comma, or inflection in their obsessive need to destroy their enemies.
Why? Is the actual issue too threatening to address, or are you all just so addicted to using any compilation of any words posted by any conservative as a stimulus to snap into attack mode?
On our side, we just want to view interesting news items, discuss them, feel the freedom to offer what we might think we have to contribute regarding any bit of information or insight—you know, engage in civil discourse.
This is not very compatible with the scorched-earth take no prisoners mentality of the increasingly rabid Lefties who infest this site like fleas. It is an apt comparison, as they are annoying as hell, relatively harmless, and can pick up some very nasty elements when feeding on diseased hosts.
I suggest that, again as usual, the Lefties have offered nothing more than a lot of emotion, none of it pleasant, in their determination that this is really just a place where they can deposit thier nasty little insults and attacks at will.
Some of us have an off-blog discussion group going, nothing formal, but a place where people can have a reasonable and adult discussion of various topics without the constant shrieking for attention we have to put up with here, regarding the ongoing temper tantrums of the rowdy radicals. Sometimes it’s politics, sometimes not, but it is a welcome change from the sheer nastiness exhibited here by the Libs who then bleat that they just don’t understand why they get no respect.
So. Marky gets to make claims about how Bush deserves credit for the US not having another terrorist attack since 9-11. When I point out his hypocricy with regards to Bill Clinton, he deletes it.
You’ve learned from your authoritarian heroes it seems.
You, brought it up Marky. I was responding to your statements. But I guess trying to stifle dissent, and disagreement is pretty much par for the course.