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 
mark, it doesn’t matter that the story is true or not. people are going to believe what they want to believe.
the left would rather believe a politician or a news achor than the soldier who is actually doing the fighting for us.
hell, there are a lot of people who believe that bush actually said that he didn’t care about the constitution, that it was just a piece of paper. THEY BELIEVE THAT! not because it’s true, but because they want to believe it.
1/10 of 1% of Democrats have served in the military. They don’t really believe in pitching in to protect the nation. And as a result of their appalling level of participation, they are largely ignorant of the whole subject.
There will almost certainly be some cut-n-paste answer to this. Almost certainly from a non-veteral ignoramus.
Might want to read this before you knock Obama’s story.
There are tons of stories where families had to send supplies to their soldiers in Irag and Afghanistan because they were short.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/from-the-fact-3.html
“1/10 of 1% of Democrats have served in the military.”
LMAO, keep pulling stuff out of your ass!
Darva,
How many of those families sent guns, ammo, or armored Humvees? I’m guessing zero.
Are you really concerned that America will “turn our government over to a man of such clearly substandard qualifications?”
You had no trouble handing over the federal government to an obvious incompetent with a record of personal failure and family bailouts.
Yeah, that would be Bush. But you knew that.
What you are really concerned with is the real possibility that a Democrat will be president. Being that you place party over country, that is what you are really worried about.
Mark,
OK, democrat here… ready to address your issue and give you my take on it.
But I’m not sure what to say.
You first assume that Obama was wrong about his claim that you refer to. I’ve read that he was right. You claim he was wrong.
So, we can’t really go very far with that if we both agree that we disagree with each other.
Next thing you claim that McCain is the more qualified simply because and you don’t give specifics.
Then you go on to wonder if Americans “are willing to turn our government over to a man of such clearly substandard qualifications?” …. but, Mark, this is simply a matter of opinion in that you already said that you don’t think Obama is “wrong” because of many reasons but one big one is that he is “liberal” and that whole word and it’s political perspective is a “lie” and by itself is “wrong”.
So, to sum it up, Obama is “wrong” no matter what he does because being liberal is wrong.
McCain is conservative (depending on who you ask) and therefore he is right and therefore fully qualified to be CandC.
I disagree.
Barack will win. Conservatives had their chance and blew it. They got us in this and now we The People will choose our leaders and we will try something new to get us out of this mess, hopefully with some brilliant political and military work we will be able to make it a peaceful transition towards a free Iraq that is not occupied by the United States.
Eric,
I bet many of those families would have sent guns, ammo, or armored Humvees if they could. But all those items are supposed to be provided by Uncle Sugar. But a lot of them weren’t.
Why? Great questions. And when soliders asked your great military master mind Rumsfeld about such shortages they only got:
“You have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want.”
What a hero.
Good spin Darva..
I fumbled my point up there, got in a hurry.
But do you see what I am saying?
Mark, I just don’t think we can have a discussion if you are just trying to say once again that Barack Obama is not qualified because he is a liberal and liberalism in itself is a lie and wrong.
Right?
Thanks for lobbing that softball….
…and Bush’s military experience was?
Darva,
How prepared do you think we were when we entered WWII?
eric, I think there was a vast difference between WWII and the war in Iraq. The US was attacked before entering WWII – not the case with Iraq. Iraq has never set foot on the USA. Further, during WWII, American citizens were asked to help the cause by sacrificing goods – gasoline, food goods, automobiles, etc. They were asked by buy war bonds. What sacrifice has the average American made for this war? Only the families who have actually served in the military, we have not been asked to sacrafice anything. We should have never made a pre-emptive attack on Iraq unless we were fully prepared to provide everything our soldiers needed. Poor planning from day one. So, your comparison between WWII and the Iraq war is weak.
Eric:
Man, oh man, you sure as hell don’t want to compare WWII to the mess in Iraq. It took the U.S. and its allies 3 years, 8 months and 8 days to defeat TWO empires on TWO continents.
We’ve been in Iraq (and most of our allies have pulled out) 4 years, 11 months, 8 days and we’ve still not defeated the enemy nor secured that country.
Thank the Good Lord, GWB wasn’t President on Dec 7, 1941.
“The GUTTED military AFTER EIGHT years of klintoon!”
90% of the cuts Clinton made in the 1990s were the same cuts Cheney planned when he was SecDef (cutting off production of the B-2 bomber, slashing the Army to ten divisions, etc.)
Besides, not a single cut Clinton made was carried out without the approval of Congress, which you well know, was controlled by the GOP for much of the 1990s.
Did Clinton cut the Defense budget? Yes, basically following a plan laid out by a GOP SecDef who just now happens to be the VP.
And don’t forget, Bush Cheney had 18 months between 9/11 and in the invasion of Iraq to convince the GOP controlled congress they needed a bigger army or more Marines, or more armor, more planes, more whatever.
Don’t lay the problems of inadequate supplies entirely on Clinton’s lap.
Plenty of blame to slop on the GOP.
SteaM,
No, I won’t vote for Obama because he is a liberal, and liberalism is wrong – but even if Obama were a conservative, the plain fact of the matter is that be brings zero qualifications to the office of the President. This doesn’t rule him out as a President, but when contrasted with someone like McCain – who has a great deal of real world and/or executive experience, as well as vastly more legislative experiene than Obama – its not even a question: McCain is the more qualified man to be President.
Now, you may still choose to back Obama because his ideology is in tune with yours, and I’ve got no problem with that – its your right to use whatever criteria you choose in making your selections; but no matter how you slice it, Obama is not even close to McCain in terms of qualifications – and, most importantly for people making a choice, a record we can refer to as illustrative of how he might behave as President. You’ve got on one hand a solid quantity, on the other you’ve got an unknown quantity.
Darva & Sunny,
Where did I make the comparison? I did not. I simply asked the question about our preparation (or lack thereof) before we entered WWII. Neither of you answered my question because I make a good point. It is impossible to be fully prepared for a war. There are too many variables and too many unpredictable situations. War is not static. It is dynamic and the plans change as the conflict changes. If either of you cannot understand that basic notion, then you should not be commenting on our military or foreign policy.
Aside from SteaM, you lefties are desperately keeping off subject…rather than discuss President Bush or the state of military readiness in 2000, why don’t you discuss Obama in 2008 and why he’ll make a better President than McCain?
Wassamatter? Too chicken to actually back your guy?
Mark,
We back our guy all the time, you just don’t want to listen because our guys is liberal and liberalism is wrong and a lie according to you.
But, ok, McCain has more experience (real world? and executive?), according to you anyways, than Obama does. I think you could technically say that he has more real world experience just based on his age versus Obama.
What I want to know, Mark, what is it that you will like the most about McCain as president?
“Thanks for lobbing that softball….
…and Bush’s military experience was?”
Way to answer a questin with a question. Bush was in the air guard and was in control of the National guard in Texas. Now answer what type of military experience Obama has that would make him a good commander in chief? ….crickets chirping…..
Mark:
With all respect, YOU are the one that says
Obama’s story is proving to be pure fiction. The point I wish to make is that there have been reported many shortages in supplies and troops reported in Iraq and Afghanistan. And when said shortages of supplies have been reported we get a SecDef who just dimisses the issues out of hand to the very troops he has taken an oath to support.
Which brings me to the matter of exp. Yeah, Obama didn’t go into the military. In fact he has as many days in uniform as Cheney.
Yet people will swear that Cheney had exp for the job of VP (former SecDef, Congress, blah, blah). And his comrade, Rummy, yep plenty of exp, (former SecDef, captain of industry.)
But what has that exp gotten us? A quagmire. If the surge was so wonderful and a clear example of solid military expertise, why did Rummy fight it so hard. Why did he say month after month we have the right number of troops in Iraq?
You cannot have it both ways, Mark. Either the exp of Rumsfeld and Cheney is the way to go, or they are incompetents who needed the exp of McCain to show them the “correct” way.
So Obama has little military exp. If McCain hadn’t gotten the nomination, then your other nominees of Rudy, Mitt or Mike would have been up against the same problem. Not a one of them has served a day in the military.
So it will be up to Obama to pick a team of advisors that understand military power. It would have been the same damn thing that Rudy, Mitt or Mike would have had to do.
I suggest Obama leave Cheney and Rummy off that list of trusted advisors who understand military power.
How prepared do you think we were when we entered WWII? eric
Where did I make the comparison? eric
So, what was the point of your question then if not a comparision of our preparedness when we attacked Iarq? When a country does a pre-emptive strike on another country, it best be prepared for everything, and especially be prepared to provide all necessary arms, vehicles, ammo and any other support needed for the troops, including rotation to allow the troops to rest and regroup.
Wow, so he doesn’t know the minutae of military procedures, I’m sure neither Bush or most of you and I know it either. But that alone makes him unqualified in your totally unexpert eyes? Here’s a clue: that’s why they have Dept of Defense cabinet people and advisors for.
Mark,
Obama is not my candidate, however, he does not frighten me as much as he apparently frightens you. One of our most beloved and respected presidents, Abraham Lincoln, had little to no executive or legislative experience when he became president. And yet, he served his country well. The reason Obama does not scare me is because he is a very intelligent man. He appears to be thoughtful and intellectually curious. I doubt that he would ever attack another country without first understanding its culture. If he does become president I would hope that he is given a fair chance to show the American people of what he is capable of doing. He is a man who rose to where he is through his own sweat equity. He never had anyone to get him into an ivy league school, to make grades that allowed him to graduate magna cum laude, to become the first black Law Review president at Harvard University Law School. He has achieved everything due to his own hard work. I also believe that John McCain would make a good president – my only reservation with him is his stand on the war. Anyone who does not have a problem staying in Iraq for the next 100 years is troublesome. What I do like about him is that he is his own man and will never allow anyone like Dick Cheney make decisions for him. But I do look forward the January 2008 when we finally have a new president in power. George Bush has been a disaster.