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 
Obama has a clear vision as to where he wants to take this country. Visit his web site if you have doubts. It is the very lack of old time political baggage that makes him so appealing to most Americans. America is feeling an Obama not beholding to anyone gives this nation the best chance of getting back on the right track. Should Obama get the nod, this election could be another Freshman Senator Kennedy vs Washington baggage laden VP Nixon. The American people were proven right back then and the American people will shine once again this November. 1/20/2009
You know what experience Obama has?
Constitutional law.
Sunny,
Did you even read my entire post #20? Or did you simply ignore the part where I was making a valid point? Apparently, you completely missed the point that it is nearly impossible to be completely prepared for any war – preemptive or not. Again, it is a dynamic situation subject to constant change.
Eric:
Never can be prepared for war? What sort of nonsense is that. In the first Gulf War (you might have remembered that one, the one we won) we were so prepared and our goals were so clear that we destroyed them from the air for weeks and then kicked their asses out of Kuwait in 100 hours. We were totally prepared for that war.
What about the Cold War? For over three decades our nuke subs plus the bombers and ICBMs of SAC were completely prepared to rain death down on the USSR if they attacked us. The USSR knew that and backed down in Berlin, in Cuba, and during the Yom Kipper War.
Being completely prepared for an all out counter attack is what kept the Soviets from attacking us all those years.
Just because war is dynamic doesn’t absolve you of the responsibility to be prepared. Hell, and you call Dems defeatists.
In the Gulf War we outflanked the Iraqi preparations in Kuwait. In the Cold War we built tons of high level bombers. When they built up their air defense, we trained to fly at low level. When bombers became to vulnerable, we built ICBMs. When ICBMs became targets, we went to SLBMs on subs. Bombers stopped carrying on gravity nuke bombs and when to air launched cruise missiles and so forth.
It was Cheney and Rummy, your heroes that failed to appreciate the dynamic situation of war. They are the ones that said the war would be over in weeks. They are the ones that dismissed the looting. They are the ones that told General Shenseki he was off the mark when he said more troops were needed in Iraq.
You can be completely ready for war. The first Gulf War and the Cold War proved that. But even in a changing environment, it doesn’t help if you have “experts” like Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rummy discounting wise counsel from Army generals.
Darva,
Are you serious? The cold war was not even a war. It was a standoff with neither side willing to pull the trigger and launch a holocaust of epic proportions. There is no way to say whether we were prepared for an all out conflict with the former Soviet Union because it did not happen.
In the first Gulf war, I would argue that the Iraqis were ill-prepared (at least not as prepared as our intel had projected) and that led to the lopside, quick defeat. If they were as prepared as we thought, things might not have been so “easy”. Of note, the Iraqis failed to engage in urban warfare in Kuwait city, which could have dramatically altered the course of that war.
see, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
By the way, there is no need to condescend me. I have only treated you with civility and I expect the same.
What about McCain’s little lying problem?
Eric:
I am very serious. I don’t agree with you that the Cold War was not a war. There were times (and I listed them for you, Berlin, Cuba, Yom Kipper War) where the US NOT being prepared, NOT being adaptable to changing strategies would have led to a nuclear exchange.
I do not agree with you when you say “there is no way to say whether we were prepared for an all out conflict with the former Soviet Union because it did not happen.” That fact that it did not happen is testament to the fact that we were prepared and flexible
Now this is really strange. You members of the GOP claim that us Dems denigrate our military, but here you are saying the we won the First Gulf War because the Iraqis were simply “ill-prepared.” Wow. Our defeat of the Iraqis had nothing to do with the brilliant air war we waged against them for weeks and weeks. Had nothing to do with the Left Hook Schwarzkopf engineered that surrounded them from the west? Had nothing to do with the blood sweat and scarified of our soldiers and Marines?
We won simply because the Iraqis were “ill-prepared?” OK. I’ll just have to disagree with you on that one. I’ll just submit that the reason the Iraqis failed to engage in urban warfare is because WE DECIDED not to fight them house to house. Coalition forces decided when to engage, who to engage. We decided to decimate them from the air, to engage them as they retreated back into Iraq. That is what smart commanders do. But to you we won in Kuwait because the Iraqis were a worthless foe and American commanders failed to fight them in an urban setting.
You’re going to have to use better sources than Wikipedia. Schwarzkopf wrote a book about the war you might want to read.
You’ve treated me with civility? You told me I had no experience to write about this subject. But then again, you’re the one quoting Wikipedia.
Darva,
Again, you hurl insults. I like how you created an insult from thin air to justify your behavior. Typical lib. Plus, you did a nice spin on my post to make it seem as if I was denigrating our military. I have nothing but the utmost respect for our military. Plus, I really like the attack on my source instead of the facts. Another typical liberal tactic.
I stand by my assertion that the Iraqis were not as prepared as we expected. Was that not in General Schwarzkopf’s book? Or, did not you only read the dust cover. You are an ignorant, condescending (ed. profanity removed by the author). I am through arguing with you. Clearly, you cannot handle a civilized debate without resorting to insults. I bet you are probably a last-worder as well. Stupid (ed. profanity removed by the author) liberal.
meow, hiss
About all you have done is spread rumors and gossip Darva.
“tons” of people send stuff to APO boxes, EVERY DAY.
That does nothing to reality. All youve done is prove that if there is a crack, someone will smoke it……
Eric:
My mother-in-law got me the Schwarzkopf’s book at a store in Denver shortly after it came out. Has his signature inside and everything. I read it cover to cover. My brother in law served on his staff in Saudi Arabia during the First Gulf War.
It’s all I can do to slog through the misery and negativity and anger permeating Darva’s posts, not to mention her inaccuracy.
Take this paragraph:
“It was Cheney and Rummy, your heroes that failed to appreciate the dynamic situation of war. They are the ones that said the war would be over in weeks. They are the ones that dismissed the looting. They are the ones that told General Shenseki he was off the mark when he said more troops were needed in Iraq”
OK—First, the SecDef was Donald Rumsfeld, not your sneering “Rummy”. Second, it is your assertion that he and the Vice President “failed to appreciate the dynamic situation of war.” That is a simply goofy statement, as well as the injection of your personal opinion of what either or both of them did or did not “appreciate”. And what the heck is “the dynamic situation of war”? Talk about gibberish…
You want to talk about “dynamic”? OK. For the entire history of mankind, war was pretty much the same, changing only in the manner in which people were killed. But war was a situation in which one country attacked another country, with the goal of defeating that country’s army so it could assume control over something in or about that country that was deemed to be desirable. Even in the Crusades, which were more about the dominance of a philosophy than mere conquest, the rules were pretty cut and dried. An army won, an army lost, and the winner was evident.
But the “dynamic” of this new kind of war is entirely different than anything we have ever had to deal with, and yes, Cheney and Rumsfeld DID “appreciate” this “dynamic”. If you could be bothered to actually learn anything about the Department of Defense from 2001 on, about the new parameters established within the Pentagon to deal with the new face of conflict, of the drastic need to totally revamp our entire military establishment, of the changes implemented by people who studied under military strategists such as Thomas Barnett, you might actually have a clue as to what Cheney and Rumsfeld were faced with as the Bush Adminstration took over in January of 2001.
At that time, the new administration understood—yes, even APPRECIATED—the fact that our military, our models for dealing with international conflict, had to be drastically revamped.
No longer were our enemies trying to conquer us. War had changed from wars of conquest to wars of perturbation—our enemies were far more likely to want to just injure us, harrass us, “perturb” us, than to try to take over our land or our resources. This was a new model of warfare, and it required an entirely new approach to warfare, which included the ability and willingness to make drastic changes, sometimes on the fly.
These efforts were just starting to be put in place when 9/11 struck. While you declaim that it is “nonsense” to say we can never be prepared for war, it is abundantly obvious that there was no way to be totally prepared for a war which would, according to all expert predictions, be unlike any war ever fought.
No desire for conquest. No nation declaring war. No army. No uniforms. No national identity of the enemy. No defined battlefield. Nothing whatsoever in the way of rules—women and children to be equal, or even desired, target, for example.
And you claim it would be possible to be completely prepared for such a war? And, evidently, that it would be possible to prepare for such a new and unknown model of warfare with the antiquated military inherited by George W. Bush?
Cheney and Rumsfeld started to ruffle feathers long before 9/11, long before the invasion of Afghanistan, long before the invasion of Iraq. Before we knew how quickly we would be thrust into international conflict, in this new model of warfare, there were a lot of noses out of joint in the Pentagon, and battle lines being drawn between those who understood and supported the drastic revisions Cheney and Rumsfeld had in mind and the old-timers who were fighting for the status quo and the status that quo provided them.
OF COURSE these latter types would be ready to jump in and criticize when anything at all happened which they could use to back their opposition to the modernization of the United States military.
This is an odd kind of war, in which really the best we can do when perturbed is to engage in counter-perurbation ( a phrase of Barnett’s which I really like) and to just perturb the hell out of them. We can’t “win” a “battle” because there are no real battles, and no way to tell if we have “won” whatever passes for a battle at any given time. All we can do is make the perturbation efforts of the bad guys so costly to them that it is counter-productive to keep attacking us—and that can always only work for a short time, till one of them comes up with a new way to harass us.
“Dismiss looting”? What????? What looting was dismissed? Are you talking about the bogus and hysterical claims of the national treasures of Iraq being looted and lost forever, while the callous/ignorant/lazy (fill in the blanks..) Americans stood by and watched? Because that never happened. That has been dealt with. Now, if you think that the Vice President of the United States and its Secretary of Defense were supposed to be frantic about something they knew to be a bogus story, say so. I can’t imagine what other looting could or should have possibly concerned these men.
And by the way, the actual war in Iraq was over in weeks. Just as we kept troops in Germany, for example, or Korea, long after those wars themselves ended, we are stil in Iraq. How long did we find it beneficial to keep troops in Germany, or Korea, or even Japan?
The war going on now is not a war FOR Iraq, or WITH Iraq. It is exactly the kind of undifferentiated, previously unknown, free-form conflict discussed by Dr. Barnett, and some of it happens to be taking place in Iraq.
Not only was it impossible to be truly prepared for such a war, it is still impossible, as the enemy, by definition, by its very structure and lack of structure, can and does morph quickly from one form to another. No established military force in the world can keep up with such a fluid foe. All we can possibly do is be as nimble as possible, learn as much as possible from each exchange, and try to create, as we go, a workable model.
There will be mistakes. Gee, what a concept—mistakes in war. Who woulda thunk it?
Thanks to the courage, foresight, and determination of men like Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, and those in the Pentagon not totally entrenched in the old ways that formed their comfort zones, and the analysis of people like Thomas Barnett, the American military has changed so dramatically, in such a very short span of time, that it is far far more able to deal with the challenges of this new type of warfare than it ever could have in the past.
And citing a disgruntled officer whose nose is out of joint because, when all the opinions had been discussed and weighed and his was not the one accepted, is merely an excuse to find something to carp about.
The Pentagon is made up of individuals, human beings, some of whom will always disagree to some extent with any decision. If you are so educated about warfare, you have to know the opposition Eisenhower met when he was planning D-Day. Ever hear of General Patton? He was not exactly the epitome of universal admiration. So Shinsecki had an opinion, which was not shared by those making the decisions. Big whoop.
And of course you know that no decision was just made, unilaterally, by either Cheney or Rumsfeld, or even by both of them overriding the advice of the Pentagon. It’s a convenient fiction, cherished by the Left, but in fact every decision was recommended by experienced military men. Military men, by the way, equipped with full knowledge and information about the events taking place, either in the field or working with those in the field, as opposed to those sitting at desks somewhere second-guessing the decisions. It’s part of leadership, to get all the opinions and advice, to consider it all, and to—in the end—make a decision about which to follow. Which means, naturally, that some will be rejected. And all you can do, after weighing all the expert—and conflicting—advice is hope you made the right decision about which path to take.
It is just too easy to sit back and take potshots at those people, from comfort and safety—-and ignorance—-of a computer terminal somewhere. And it is easy to see the direction you, Darva, have decided your conclusions will lead you, from your snide and sneering tone regarding those who have served this country so unselfishly.
InDa | February 25th, 2008 at 11:37 am
“1/10 of 1% of Democrats have served in the military.”
LMAO, keep pulling stuff out of your ass!
Sorry InDa – it’s true. You have a different number, produce it.
300 Million Americans. 35.9% of Americans consider themselves Democrats. 8 million veterans. Last several years the percentage of military identifying as Democrat has been below 15% (actually, 13-14%) Looks basic to me. The numbers are the numbers.
If you try to find out more, I’ll help. Otherwise I’m afraid you’ll have to accept my numbers.
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2003/cb03-ff04se.html
According the above source there were 26.4 million vets as of 2003. Your 15% doesn’t include vets that are 65 or older (37 % of the total). If you have percentages on them, let me know.
Active-duty military personnel preferred President Bush to Kerry by about 73 percent to 18 percent. Sixty percent describe themselves as Republican and less than 10 percent call themselves Democrat . Even among the veterans, Republicans outnumber Democrats 46 percent to 22 percent.–Military Times article.
22% of 8 million is 1.76 million Democrat veterans.
35.9%. of (about) 230 million adult Americans is 82.57 million Democrats.
2.13% Of Democrats have served. My mistake. Not 1/10th of 1 percent. 2%. Assuming the estimates are correct.
2% of Democrats have served in the military.
That number made up about 13% of U. S. voters (18 or older). Since your figure includes all Americans including those under 18 (non voters), I”m not sure how valid it is.
Kahn,
OT. In the last two months, I’ve lost two uncles. One a WW II Vet. The other a Korean War Vet. Both stanch Democrats.
My Uncle Van, who I helped lay to rest this morning, aways identified himself as a Democrat (in a very Republican state). Both will be missed.
Kahn | February 25th, 2008 at 11:13 am
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.
Kahn,
There is a big discussion within the corp about the lack of military service in all politicians…both Republican and Democrat.
Alot of felt that if there had been more vets serving in congress, then congress would have listened to Gen. Shinseki and not Paul Wolfowitz.
To this day I will never understand why congress believed Wolfowitz’s testimony over a combat vet’s testimony.
Do you know why?
You are ex-military too right?
Deleted – off topic
Deleted – off topic
Casper. Sorry to hear it. The WW2 Vets are getting slim. The Korea vets are right behind them.
Brett, The Army is doing these awfully long deployments. The Marines, Navy, and Air Force are not as bad. Though the Marine area is much better now. And the Army area is getting there. One real reason for leaving them in place for a longer period is from what they learned in Viet Nam. There, they swapped out battalion commanders every six months to get their promotion tickets punched.
In Iraq, there is consistency. Also, units to a slow transition in and out of an area. Actually, though the time away from home must suck – this technique makes sense.
The military think tanks had been developing this “Network Centric Warfare” concept of which shock and awe was a major part. The military told the DoD how many troops they needed for Afghanistan. But with a handful of Special Ops people, the Northern Alliance took that place back in a hurry. Rumsfeld saw this and applied it to Iraq.
Unfortunately – Afghanistan was an illusion. We won, yes. But we did not destroy Al Queda and the Taliban. We killed a bunch. But not all of them. Or at least not enough to get their actual mental surrender. THIS was the lesson of Afghanistan and it was missed. But it also wasn’t that apparent either. It’s easy to look back and see it. But not so then.
As to military? Yes. Semper Fi.
Grandfather – WW1, survived a gas attack that messed up his lungs.
Uncles – WW2, USMC, USA Infantry (killed in Normandy), and USA paratrooper – actually, that one was one of the guys portrayed in “Band of Brothers”.
Dad – Korea, USA, forward artillery observer (during two HUGE Chinese attacks)
Me and my Brother – Marines
My sister – Army Guard (and Smith and Harvard)
My nephew – Iraq, two tours Army Intelligence
My niece – Kuwait, one tour, Air Force
My sister-in-law (wifes sister) their mom, Afghanistan – NOW, Navy Intelligence
Deleted – off topic.
Sunny,
What would lead you to think that Obama frightens me? A political non-entity with little legislative experience: if I’ve got to put up with a Democratic President, that’s the one I want. We’ll run rings around him. My only large concern – not fear, concern – is that Obama is pledged to defeat in the War on Terrorism…this might buy us a decade of “peace” here in the US, but it would lay up for us quite a cup of bitterness for the future. 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.