John Keegan Ace writes:
Bob Krumm writes Obama’s claims are wrong in detail but right in overall thrust — but he’s still wrong.
The link to Bob Krumm has the following gem:
The truth behind the story is far less damning–if even damning at all. The captain (he is a captain now, but was a lieutenant when all this occurred back in 2003!) didn’t have half his platoon in one theatre while the rest was deployed somewhere else. Instead his unit, as a result of normal personnel rotations, had lost soldiers who had been transferred elsewhere and hadn’t yet been replaced.
I can only state the following in response- no fucking shit. Let’s review what Obama stated:
I heard from a Army captain, who was the head of a rifle platoon, 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.
Did these military geniuses really think Obama was suggesting this guys platoon was cut in half, with first and second squad sent to Afghanistan, and third and fourth sent to Iraq? Because if that is the case, these folks have clearly OD’d on Cheeto dust and are dumber than I even thought they were.
Of course that is what happened- soldiers were moved to fill out units deploying to Iraq and elsewhere, as THAT WAS THE PRIORITY AT THE TIME. His unit, not deploying to Iraq, was given a lower priority on replacements. Which is, as you may be aware, precisely the point Obama was trying to make:
Now that’s a consequence of bad judgment, and you know, the question is on the critical issues that we face right now who’s going to show the judgment to lead. And I think that on every critical issue that we’ve seen in foreign policy over the last several years — going into Iraq originally, I didn’t just oppose it for the sake of opposing it. I said this is going to distract us from Afghanistan; this is going to fan the flames of anti- American sentiment; this is going to cost us billions of dollars and thousands of lives and overstretch our military, and I was right.
Jesus. We need some better wingnuts. I don’t want to get all syrupy about the soft bigotry of low expectations, but if they simply drool on themselves it is a step in the right direction from this kind of deep thinking.
*** Update ***
And the mind-meld continues.
Pb
Reality has a well-known liberal bias. Obviously, your insistence on being ‘reality based’ in a world where we have terrorism instead of creating your own reality to fight terrorism is the root cause of your hatred for America.
Er. Good luck with that. I thought you were reality based? Come back, John!
Bob In Pacifica
Jeralyn at TalkLeft is now relying on the Pentagon.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
If a wingnut gets something right, are they a wingnut anymore?
I thought the Wingnut Credo was to never show any respect for facts, responsibilities, or risks; and to bluff one’s local anecdotes and personal daydreams as global realities. If so, aren’t these people the best at what they do?
demkat620
These people scare the shit out of me. They have no connection to reality anymore.
The Grand Panjandrum
It always reminds me of watching a bunch of chimps picking their noses and flicking boogers at the gawkers. Gross. Silly. Sophomoric. But you just can’t stop watching.
ThymeZone
Yes, yes they are. SA2SQ.
calipygian
Bush wasn’t satisfied to have only two divisions report “Not ready for duty, sir.” He made it so the whole fucking Army isn’t ready for duty.
Next mission: break Blackwater as bad as he broke the Army.
p.lukasiak
The captain (he is a captain now, but was a lieutenant when all this occurred back in 2003!) didn’t have half his platoon in one theatre while the rest was deployed somewhere else. Instead his unit, as a result of normal personnel rotations, had lost soldiers who had been transferred elsewhere and hadn’t yet been replaced.
I keep reading this and reading this, and I still can’t figure out what distinction he’s trying to draw.
(and could someone clue him in to the fact that 15 is not half of 39.)
bootlegger
BHO’s argument on this is so parsimonious that only a complete and utter recreation of reality can be put against it.
If you open a two front war, one or both of the fronts will suffer a lack of resources. Just ask Napleon and Hitler. (Do I win the argument for mentioning Hitler first?)
ChenZhen
The Iraq Study group concluded that resources were being diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq, so it’s not like Obama’a sentiment is really breaking new ground in terms of news.
These guys are desperate for a “gotcha” moment, and nothing sets the lights blinking like an anti-war candidate (or, what they perceive is a pacifist) talking about military matters. That’s what sparked this thing. If it have been McCain delivering some wartime anecdote you never would have seen this factcheckathon, that’s for sure. They were going for the bleachers here though, and all they managed was a foul tip at best.
srv
If you haven’t read it yet, the latest from those peaceful streets by Nir Rosen at the Rolling Stone:
The Myth of the Surge
And so it goes…
p.lukasiak
True enough. The problem is that these guys can hit foul tips all day, and never “strike out” (i.e. treated as completely non-credible by everyone), and eventually they will get singles, and doubles, and triples — and occasionally a home run (see Dan Rather).
ed
Rathergate wasn’t a home run. It was more like a throwing error scored as an infield hit, with three additional errors.
kwAwk
A fireteam in the Marines has 3 squads consisting of 3 fireteams of 4 men each and a Squad leader. 13 men per Squaud. Which I believe is where the 39 comes from. So saying that 24 men were in his platoon in Afghanistan and the rest in Iraq does make it sound like 1 squad was pulled off of the Platoon and assigned to Iraq.
A platoon is part of a company, which consists of 3 line platoons and a weapons platoon. This may be different in the Army than the Marines, but it is possible that given the duties of this particular platoon all of the vacant positions in the company were assigned to this platoon in order to maximize manpower elsewhere.
It doesn’t make sense, even in terms of the Iraq and Afghan War that the Army would send a company staffed at 60% into a Combat Zone. More likely the Company Commander assigned all of the vacancies to this platoon and gave them a mission which reflected their manpower level.
John Cole
That is great and everything, but Obama said the following:
Notice an important detail there?
Seriously, there are all sorts of ways you can twist what he said and imagine things and make Obama look dumb. If you examine what he actually said and approach this honestly, not so much.
AkaDad
I’m glad we’re discussing important issues like this and not fluff, like how Obama sponsored a bill to secure loose nukes.
kwAwk
I did notice, but I question if Army infantry tactics differ all that much from Marine infantry tactics. As far as I know the Army uses the 4 man fireteam structure the same as the Marines do.
Read Obama’s quote again: “I heard from a Army captain, who was the head of a rifle platoon, 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.”
This captain’s rifle platoon which was supposed to be 39 was sent with 24 ‘because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq’. It does make it sound like 15 men were pulled from his Platoon and sent to Iraq.
I’m not argueing with you or with Obama that Iraq did distract from Afghan. I’m just saying that this particular example from Obama isn’t the greatest of illustrations and sounds fishy.
TenguPhule
“Democrats didn’t give me what I wanted so we lost information on terrorists!”
You were saying?
John Cole
The wingnuts are. That is why they are raising a fuss. That is why all of a sudden, yet another soldier who is serving the country honorably, is, sight unseen, declared to be a liar and part of the “anti-war” machine.
It is disgraceful. What Obama said was neither controversial nor, as it turns out, inaccurate. All that is going on now is the wingnuts are digging for one minor fact they can proclaim as wrong, and sieze upon that as proof they were right all along. If they have to ruin this soldier in the process, well, it is just collateral damage.
Martin
What part of ‘been sourced and verified’ are we still not getting. And Obama didn’t set out to prove the government inept, he ran with the piece of evidence that landed in his lap.
Who cares if it isn’t the greatest illustration or sounds fishy. It is, by all accounts, completely true. Stop. That’s it. Any other words used to describe it are attempts to spin it away from the reality that it appears to be true.
Darkness
And the downside of that would be?
And I can’t figure out why no one here knows about google yet:
Darkness
Left-tenant, plus sargent, plus (4*9)= 38! OMG Obama exaggerated!
I can worship Dougj, but I cannot follow in his footsteps. Dang.
Zuzu
Lesson for Obama:
Stick with platitudes. They will nibble you to death if you use facts.
jake
Yeah, but, at this point it only sets the lights blinking for people who wouldn’t vote for a Democrat if you threatened to throw them to the Islamofascists.
This is 40% bobble-head reflex: “OMG, A DemoNcrat said something, ATTACK!” 30% whistling in the dark and 20% setting up for a chorus of Told ya sos, when 01 21 09 dawns and they suddenly realize all is not well in The War Against Terror.
Seth
The Iraq Study group didn’t have any real military people on it. Just a bunch of politicos looking to pad their resumes.
If you haven’t been there, or at least visited, you don’t know what you are talking about.
The Grand Panjandrum
Here’s a little war story for all the dead enders. THIS is how our guys are being supported because that fucking former cheerleader in the White House had to have Saddam as a trophy.
I suggest anyone who has a beef with what Obama had to say read the above linked story. Its a real eye opener. You think the former cheerleader gives a fuck about anything other than his legacy?
tBone
What I find inexplicable about this whole thing is that no one has stepped forward with a sandbox scale model to prove Obama wrong. Maybe they’re having trouble getting enough sets of Army Men to construct a full rifle platoon?
tBone
Like most of the dipshits frothing at the mouth over Obama’s comment, you mean?
And hey, Obama’s visited Iraq, so I guess he knows what he’s talking about! Thanks for stopping by to agree with us, Seth.
Halteclere
A miniscule quibble of a minor quibble (for wingnuts love to miss the forest for the squirrels kicking them in the junk):
An Army squad generally is
And an Army platoon generally is
If the attempt to cry false Obama’s statement revolves around the nano quibble of the exact number of Army infantry units sent to Afghanistan in 2003 under a waxing (or was it waning) moon, then the wingnuts have far more problems to worry about than forest squirrels anywhere near their junk.
kwAwk
Darkness – Okay, digging into this a little deeper, following John’s links I came across this: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/from-the-fact-3.html
The commander complains about not have ammunition to adequitely train on the 50 cals and MK 19 prior to going to Afghanistan. However, I deployed to Iraq in Sept 04 in the Marine infantry and at no point in my military carrer did I ever fire a 50 cal or a MK 19. It isn’t part of the standard training as the ammunition is so expensive. We were taught immediate action drills and loading and firing proceedures in our training but no live fire drills were conducted.
The commander also complains about not having up armored humvees in Afghanistan, but as we know from the Rumsfeld questioning by soldiers in Iraq, they didn’t have them in Iraq either. This is becuase up armored Humvees weren’t readily available in the military, especially in 2003. They are very heavy to ship and maneuver and very expensive purchase and lend themselves more to a defensive, let me stay inside posture, than a lets get out and attack posture. During my time in Iraq we didn’t have many of them, we spent most of our time riding around in Humvees which had the aftermarket armor on the sides and kevlar blankets draped on the floors where there was no armor, and in highback Humvees which I think is what he calls flat bed humvees.
He does talk about moving his men around in Toyota trucks, which I guess could be a legitimate complaint, but hey, it beats the hell out of walking.
I’m not saying that this particular Captain is lying about his experiences in Afghanistan, or lieing about his experiences in the military, I’m only saying that his experiences could be more common and mundane than it sounds.
The worst thing we on the left could do is to take on the characteristics of our friends on the right and always take the words of our political leaders as golden and assume that in every case we have to fight to defend everything they say. To me in this case I wouldn’t invest too much in this particular micro-example of the Iraq War distracting us from the Afghan War. There are so many better Macro-examples to use that easily proves the case.
Martin
Man, you never learn. That’s the NYTimes. Bin Laden himself probably wrote that story to demoralize you, and you walked right into it. You can’t trust anything you get from the media. The only honest source of spin-free military info is Rush or Bush. I mean, those guys have been there, you know…
Birdzilla
More from the dummycratic party of dummies what a bunch of twits
jake
Birdzilla must be moulting. Her posts have lacked a certain je ne ‘zilla quoi of late.
Or maybe she finally broke the Caps Lock key.
DougJ
Amen. Better that we spend our time looking into what kind of countertops these so-called officers have.
kwAwk
I have to admit, I’m at a loss as to what all the countertops references are about.
Buck
John Cole asks: Are They Really That Dumb?
Yes. Want proof? Here ya go…
Buck
kwAwk, I think it all started with SCHIP.
Martin
Yep, Malkin stalking a 12 year old boy to determine whether children deserve health insurance or not based on how nice his countertops were. A real high point for journalism, no doubt.
I think more than almost any other incident, it demonstrates the lengths to which the I-reject-your-reality-and-substitute-my-own crowd will go to find some way, no matter how depraved, to prove themselves somehow right.
Actually, I take that back – there is one step they didn’t cover – just dismissing the 6th grader as a traitor. That’s always a game-ender.
SpotWeld
Any act of construction a logical and well thought argument means entertaining the possibility that any number of assumptions could be wrong.
Right now the core right-wing bloggers are lacking for people who can do this because anyone who attempts to question any of their basic assumptions is cast out for lacking in ideological purity. (Maybe we shouldn’t have gone to war in Iraq = Traitor!)
There is nothing to say this can’t happen on the left-wing side of things, (And the certainly the opportunity for it to happen with the currently Dem primaries)… but so far the leaders on that side of the political spectrum are much for tolerant of diverse ideas. It can happen… it just hasn’t to the same extent… probably because there aren’t the same level of rewards for being a “good an loyal Bushie”
Martin
Oh, and speaking of the NYTimes, Hillary takes one in the teeth from Rich. Time to go trolling…
Darkness
Obama’s quote/source was specifically rifle platoon which was what my addition addressed. It seemed important to find exactly that kind since quibbling was how this all started given how many different kinds of platoons there are. (I found out, for example, how Thai platoons are organized. Fascinating stuff.)
Without having been in a rifle platoon it isn’t clear how short “15 short” is, but if wikipedia is to be believed, it is different from a marine platoon.
On the issue of expensive ammo… and expensive other things… where the heck is all the money going? On the scale of 2 billion a week: ammo, body armor, all this stuff should be pennies, relatively. The soldiers should get first priority, really. Or is that just my landlubber thinking here? yeah, someone’s laughing, I can hear them now.
Martin
They just indicted a bunch of KBR people for war profiteering. $45 for a can of soda on the DOD invoices, shit like that. Bush has obliged them by cutting back on the accountants, so this stuff can keep getting through, but basically all of those no-bid contracts are just raping the treasury. Oh, and because all of this is emergency spending and not part of the budget cycle, Congress doesn’t get oversight. Sweet, huh?
Almost makes you wonder if a bunch of corporatists didn’t get together one day over lunch and decide that the best way to make money wasn’t to just take over the government and hand it all out to their friends. Be a patriot and be proud of them.
Sirkowski
What’s with all the dissing of the Lt. rank over Captain from the nuts?
Does it have something to do with the reason why AlQaeda lieutenants keep dying so easily??
fbg46
Every combat arms unit in the Army has a “Table of Organization and Equipment”. The TO&E states how many soldiers make up the unit and what kind of equipment it’s supposed to have. The TO&E exists for every unit from the squad on up.
If you Google long enough (30 seconds), you will find the TO&E for Army infantry platoons — you will learn that there are five types of infantry platoons — infantry, light infantry, airborne infantry, air assault infantry and ranger infantry — and that there is one TO&E for light infantry platoons, another for infantry, airborne and air assualt platoons and a third for ranger platoons.
This reflects the fact that these units basically fight in (slightly) different ways. For example, the TO&E for a light infantry platoon doesn’t have a weapons squad, whereas the TO&Es for the other four platoons do (and the TO&E for the weapons squad in a ranger platoon has more hardware than the weapon squads in infantry, airborne and air assault platoons).
So, first question: what was the TO&E for the platoon that the Captain was referring to when he said as a Platoon Leader he had 24 instead of 39?
Oh, and by the way, how about a show of hands from active – duty and veteran Army and USMC types: if you ever served in a combat arms unit at the platoon or company level which was fully up to strength in terms of personnel, correct MOSs and equipment, i.e., conformed to the unit’s TO&E, and remained that way for more than a month, raise your hands. Yeah, me neither.
Is the Captain telling the truth? Yes. Can the wingers deal with the truth? Of course not.
Incertus (Brian)
Read Naomi Klein’s book. That’s precisely what they did, and have been doing all around the world.
TR
As the Weakly Standard has shown, facts don’t matter. A reason to be outraged will always be found.
Lee
Are things really that bad now?
When I went thru ITS way back in the dark ages (’84) we all got to fam fire both weapons. I fell in love with the MK19, I still want to mount one on my house but the stupid HOA won’t let me ;)
spaniel
He may have said this, but I find it really hard to believe. And that is because of the following reasons:
1. He is part of the wing-nut fringe of the blogosphere that seems to get his talking points from elsewhere. When Sen. Kerry ran for the 2004 POTUS, Kerry was run roughshod for his suggestion to increase the military to meet requirements on two fronts of the GWOT. Now we are in a phase to “Grow the Force” — what a freaking novel concept that was years too late.
2. As for costing us billions of dollars to prosecute this war, was it in the low billions in which former White House administrator Lawerence Lindsey was fired for? Or was it billions in which now make up the trillions we have spent so far? Lindsey was fired for making a public comment in 2003 or so saying the cost of the war in Iraq would exceed $200B, whereas the talking points by the administration was saying the cost would have been at $100B. Turns out both grossly underestimated the cost!
3. Finally, if he truly believed that the focus of the war was being lost by invading Iraq, he should have stood up and been accounted for. I debated this topic on my alumni blog after I had gotten back from Afghanistan in 2002 — I too was marginalized for my remarks, but at least I had the balls to stand-up for my opinions at the time!
SteveinSC
Great, but sad story. What worries me is that it seems to me is we heard this stuff before. Then it was the Soviets sliding down this slope into hell. All one has to do is go back and read the stories of the hideousness of the Soviet war. Some of it was captured in television documentaries. It is being played out again. The it was the gangster CIA revelling in the bloodbath. Whatever the truth of robbing Afghanistan to pay Iraq, the United States is in grave danger of following in the footsteps of the Britsh, the Soviets, the Persians, Greeks. A clean termination of this is needed. It is a sad truth that for these people squabbles, violence, atavism, are ways of life. We need to pull out of here, too. We have punished the Taliban for 9-11 and need to go away. If they come back, we can come back and beat the hell out of them again. These goat-fuckers will never go anywhere or endanger anyone. They were just hosts for bin Laden and little else.
jcricket
They (wingnuts) are already starting the smears on Obama’s patriotism. Read the article, especially the tone. It presents these ridiculous comments as basically reasonable opinions, not spewings of a enraged fringe group of morons.
Second part is, of course, not true (it’s about as true as the Muslim smear). The first part – Seriously?
How about writing the article as “conservatives attempt to pin lack of patriotism on Obama. They claim that … ”
As it’s presented, in classic media fashion, it makes it seem like the wingnuts have something important to say.
The Other Steve
If we do not move the goalposts, the terrorists will win!
I think these guys are in trouble. It’s only February and they’ve already jumped the shark. What happens during sweeps week in October? They ain’t going to have nothing to attack Obama with, except accusations that he drools while sleeping.
RTO Trainer
Odds are, that it has nothing to do with TOE or replacements and everything to do with task organization and the deployment Unit Manning Roster. Things that a Captain or Lieutenant shoud know about. Especailly if he was genuinely concerned about the situation and went to his Major or Lieutenant Colonel, who would have corrected the young officer. My thought is that, if this individual is what he claims (and there’s been no check of that) he’s deliberatly taking advantage of the military ignorance of the general population.
Even Soliders with years of experience, but who may never have deployed, may not know how this works.
Other problems: In 2003-2004 Afghanistan, NO ONE had uparmored HMMWVs. They were only just starting to arrive in Iraq, where conditions warranted them, but the IED threat in Afghanistan then was virtually nil (This was the time frame of my first deployment there). The bulk of M-1113s and M-1114s in the entire US military were still in Bosnia.
The only HMMWVs (stillnot up armored but thinskinned M-998s) we had at all in Afghanistan were for our Security Force element (1 battalion) and the rest of the Brigade got around, like virtually every other military unit, in white Ford Ranger pickups. That does square with the “Captain’s” statements, however, he implies that the pickups were the exception rather than the other way around.
In addition, I’d like to point out that our committments of troops, time, money and effort have only grown through today from 2001. Not one troop, truck, bean or bullet ever went to Iraq from Afghanistan (except one battalion of the 82nd Airborne and their rotation in A’stan was finished and they were replaced) and not for even one day has the number of troops employed there ever diminished.
Perhaps the “Captain” is what and who he says he is, but the facts he offers either displays ignorance on his part or an assumption of ignorance on the part of his audience.
spaniel
1. Was that true even when the military went into hyper-drive to support the ‘surge’ in Iraq?
2. After years of complaints that the level of committment to a higher number of troops in Afghanistan, the comment back is that ‘we never diminished troop levels because they were so low in the first place’? GEN McNeill is quoted for this article in the NYT.
In that article, GEN McNeill says,
So I am not sure what ‘diminishment’ you speak of.
RTO Trainer
1. Yes. It has not changed.
2. The number of troops in Afghanistan on any given day has never been less than on the day prior, wither US troops or NATO troops as a whole. Is that sufficient for the mission? It was at one time. It has not increased as it probably should. Is that because we are also engaged in Iraq? Yes. And that’s because the leadeship decided to abandon the 2 major contingencies standard for readiness, formally (actually it had been impossible for almost two years by then), in 1998.
I notice that you do not address any of the points I raised against the Obama anecdote.
John Cole
Because the sum total of your points is to assert the Captain is either stupid or lying. I can read. I can also detect when there is no argument. then you threw in your own anecdotes about what YOUR unit had.
Real helpful.
RTO Trainer
John, if you know otherwise somehow, please present the argument.
Otherwise, I have to question the point of the original post which can be boiled down to those who diagree with you are either lying or stupid.
You reject my point that ther is a difference between TO&E and how we actually deploy? That units get task organized, in mob planning and on station?
How do you square that there were no M-1113s or M-1114s in Afghanistan in ’03 and ’04 with what the Captain said? Apprently you can, so please let me know.
I reject your characterization of my argument. There’s far more here that’s possible other than Captian is stupid or lying. In fact, I don’t beleive either to be the case, though they are possibilities.
It’s possible that the Captian is a fake. No one has checked. But I don’t think that’s the case either.
What I think is much more likely, is that the basic things the Captian said are completely true in themselves, but stripped of context. “We had no uparmored HMMWVs” True. But no one else did either. “We only deployed with 24 men.” True, but that’s all the mob plan called for. “We used captured Taliban weapons.” True, but not because the issued weapons were unavailable. And all done for the purpose of fitting into the preconcieved notions of a candidate who thus won’t check if these things square with how the military works. Yeah, it’s still lying, for a purist.
But somehow you know better, but you aren’t going to share how you come by that knowledge?
John Cole
You. a few hours ago:
You, a second ago:
Next. BTW- There have been checks he is who he is. Both ABC and NBC news have contacted him.
RTO Trainer
How do you accept that he complains of not having uparmored HMMWVs when there were none for anyone?
How do you accept that he complains of not deploying with his full TO&E when that was common practice?
John Cole
Bullshit. Yes, it is rare that a unit has a completely full roster, but in order for us to believe their undermanned roster was acceptable for their mission, we have to believe it is according to some plan which, for all I can see, is the complete product of your own mind.
As to the armor on HMMWV’s- where did Obama mention that?
It is this simple- it is undeniable that Iraq did distract us from Afghanistan. It is undeniable that parts, personnel, and attention that otherwise would have been directed to Afghanistan got directed to our glorious adventure in Iraq. That is the sum total of the message from Obama, yet for some reason, you want to try to nitpick, without any fucking information but your own conjecture, that everything is all a lie or bullshit.
Have fun with that.
RTO Trainer
No. That’s not it.
Task organization for mobilizing units is very common. Even routine. Almost no unit leaves homestation with its TO&E organization. If the mission had required 39 infantry men in that platoon, that’s what they’d have had. Hd the decision been that they need, 49, that’s what they’d have had.
My own element was first plussed way up, from 4 to 15. Eventaully we deployed with 5. That was my first deployment. Second deployment, they took a 6 man Commo platoon, and plussed it up to 10. They decided on teh ground that they didn’t need all of us for the mission as it was and split us up with 4 of use beeing sent as individuals to support Infantry platoons in other places. It didn’t work as expected and 6 months later thay pulled us all back. It’s normal practice.
No product of my mind, it’s how things were and are done and I’ve now lived it twice.
Obama didn’t mention the HMMWVs. The reporters checking the story did.
It is deniable that Iraq distracted us from Afghanistan. It is undeniable that Iraq detracted from Afghanistan, in that as the environment there changed we were and are unable to respond with a commensurate build up, but those things didn’t happen until after we’d committed in Iraq. Your crystal ball must work better than mine if you wish to argue that those chages were forseeable.
As a maintainer, who had to order supplies on a regular basis, I’ve got to tell you you don’t know what you’re talking about. We never lacked for parts unless it was our shortsightedness a the unit level for not ordering it or orgering enough. We were nver denied anything. As a normal matter things requested would arrive in less than two weeks. Often much less.
Tell me I’m wrong if you like, but I’ve been there and done that. Twice.
I’ve been civil. I’ve only had the temerity to disagree with you. I guess I was acceptable when I agreed with you about the use of phosphorus in Fallujah, but now that I’m not towing your line, it’s okay to be abusive? I begin to see where this blog’s reputation is coming from.
John Cole
The VERY first thing you did was to question the Captain’s intelligence and integrity (and when I pointed it out to you, you said nothing to deny that was precisely what you did), and then you have the balls to claim it is my reputation on the line?
Then what on earth are you fussing about? That was precisely Obama’s point, precisely what the anecdote stated, and you are agreeing with it. You apparently want to agree with Obama’s overall point, but whine that you, in your experience, just don’t agree with all the details of the anecdote. And because you don’t agree with all the details of the anecdote, Obama is somehow unfit to be CINC, and the Captain is either wrong or lying or both.
Iraq distracted us from Afghanistan. That is what Obama said. That is what the military officer that relayed the anecdote to Obama’s staff said. Why are we arguing?
RTO Trainer
Iraq did not distract us from Afghanistan. It just made us less agile for changing our posture there, something that was not forseeable in any detail.
The military officer made material omissions from his anecdote and it raises at least the appearance of an intent to mislead.
John Cole
You are on your own with that one.
And you have nothing to verify that, either.
RTO Trainer
Of course I don’t have verification. I have questions. You’re the one who dismisses them with certitude that comes from….who knows where.
fbg46
Has anyone ever stated that the Cpt who is the subject of all this ever “complained” about what his situation was a couple of years ago?
There are alot of us who have been sent to Far Away Places With Strange Sounding Names,only to arrive and be informed we were performing “Conservation of Forces” missions or some other euphimism for the fact that we were under strength and still expected to carry out our various missions. Kinda like what’s going on in Afghanistan today. We did the best we could with what we had. Did we grouse about it? You bet, to each other. But that was part of the fun.
My suspicion is that the Cpt did the same thing: as a 2LT Platoon Leader he did the best he could to carry out the missions he was assigned with what he had to hand. Three years he wasn’t “complaining”; he was asked a question about events which happened a couple of years ago and he answered them. Truthfully.
As for the meta – point, Iraq maybe being a distraction for Afghanistan? Please. If there had been an additional 60,000 straight leg/air assault soldiers in there since Day One, among other things, Afghanistan wouldn’t be the heroin capital of the world, the proceeds of which go to the Taliban, there would probably be a democratically – elected government worthy of the name, and OBL and his minions — sometimes referred to as The Enemy — would be killed and/or captured.
Just sayin’
RTO Trainer
That’s not how it’s been reported–From Tapper’s ABC story:
TenguPhule
Shorter RTO Trainer: I’m so full of shit I can’t help contradicting myself in the same paragraph.
TenguPhule
And when you wish for ponies, they appear in clouds of butterflies and pixie dust.
Some units have priority, some don’t.
You’ll know when you’re in the second camp.
TenguPhule
And brave RTO trainer volunteers to inspect his countertops, risking life and limb in this dangerous assignment to dig up dirt even if it requires making shit up on the fly as long as somehow it paints Obama in a bad light.
RTO Trainer
What I volunteered for was Afghanistan, twice.
fbg46
“What I volunteered for was Afghanistan, twice.”
RTOT, you miss the point.
Glad you did two tours, glad you’re home in one piece. That’s not the point.
You’ve made a couple of arguments:
1. You’ve questioned the Cpt’s story while implying, but not stating, that he’s wrong and/or lying;
2. You’ve implied, but not stated, that our invasion of Iraq has had little, if any, impact on what’s taken place in Afghanistan.
You’ve gotten push back from the readership re: the merits of your arguments; in other words, the readership has challenged you both with respect to the factual premises of your arguments as well as the inferences you’ve drawn from those premises.
Your response to date has been depressingly familiar: You haven’t responded on the merits, rather you’ve attacked the motives of those who have pushed back while claiming superior knowledge and therefore claiming that your responses should be accepted without question. We’ve seen this pattern from the Right since 2002 and now the wheels are coming off it.
You’re going to have to do a lot better if you want to keep playing in this sandbox.
John Cole
RTO- Another lying liar for you to question:
Here is the video.
Of course, RTO would have you believe he is just lying or foisting falsehoods on an ignorant populace.
RTO Trainer
Yep. I can’t make such a statement because I don’t know. I have questions (that no one wants to address), hence the implications.
Not quite. I’ve stated, not implied, that Iraq’s impact on Afghanistan is a matter of the environment in Afghanistan changing in ways that were not easily or widely forecast and required a change in our posture that was no longer easily achievable, because of Iraq (and a decade long drawdown of the military).
Jonh is still playing at distractions–trying to lead me into a discussion (on rifles now) that is not part of the points I raised.
To recap those: 1) No uparmored HMMWVs in A’stan in 03-04, so no surprise that they weren’t there. 2) Task organization and the UMR for deployment often (even usually) superceeds the training/peacetime TOE.
And I’ll have to ask where those have been addressed on their merits, as I’ve missed it, if it was.
John Cole
No, you didn’t. You had more of the typical foaming out the mouth snotty accusations and assertions that have become the standard among right-wing types lately. Look how you came out swinging:
You didn’t have questions. You had your own little facts, and just like everyone else on the right, no matter what, god damnit, and this captain was wrong or lying. If you had just had questions, I might have reacted differently. I know you aren’t an asshole, you and I did a great bunch of pushback on the bullshit about chemical weapons/WP a few years ago. If you had started out with something like “In my experiences in afghansitan, this just was not the case, and right now I find his assertions hard to believe until I see more evidence,” that would have been one thing.
But in this case, you joined right in with the wingnuts who first refused the believe the captain existed, then claimed captains don’t run platoons so he must be lying (he was an LT. at the time), and then merely resigned to the fact that he did exist, chose to accuse him of lying or not knowing what he was talking about. It was the typical formula, and it is disgraceful.
RTO Trainer
I thought I was laying out my reasons for my questions. If you think I came on too strong, I’ll apologize.
Any chance anyone would like to address my questions? Maybe even tell me why they aren’t the problems I think they are? I’ve got GI Joes to line up in formation (Pot, this is Kettle. You are black. Over).
Lee
Your question of the Capt is either stupid or lying?
What other points have you brought up that you did not contradict yourself on?
e.g.
fbg46
RTOT:
More than happy to address your questions, but let’s do that by going to the source — the ABC article you kindly attached upstream which quotes the Captain at issue:
1. Your claim that there were no uparmored Humvees in Afghanistan in 2003-4:
“We should have had four uparmored Humvees,” [the Captain at issue] said. “We were supposed to. But at most it was three operable humvees, and it was usually just two.”
Do you dispute the Captain’s statement that his unit was supposed to have uparmored humvees (which is different than your point that there weren’t any at all in country)?
If so, based on what? What specific knowledge do you have of his unit and what equipment it was supposed to have in 2003 -4?
Your generalized knowledge is interesting, but may not be too relevant: Again, what matters is what that particular unit was supposed to have.
2. Your claim that task organizations, i.e., the realities of combat, take precedence over peacetime TO&Es (a point which in the abstract is undisputed):
“We should have deployed with 39 men” [the Captain at issue] told me, “we should have gotten replacements. But we didn’t. And that was pretty consistent across the Battalion.”
What do you know about the Captain’s unit, its mission and how it functioned during his tour that he doesn’t know?
Because if the answer is “Gosh, I guess I don’t really know what the Captain’s unit was supposed to have in terms of personnel and equipment and what it was doing in country other than my generalized knowledge based on my time there.” , then you’re really not bringing too much to the party, are you?
RTO Trainer
Yes. I disput that the Captain was supposed to have uparmored HMMWVs. Such an expectation would have been unreasonable. No one in A’stan had them, I was there at the same time. The first uparmoreds didn’t arrive in A’stan until Fall 2004.
The realities of deployment, not combat, take precedence over TOE. It it entirely possible that tht UMR under sich the Captain’s unit called for 39 men. If that were the case, however, he would have deployed with 39 men. That he did not deploy with 39 indicates that the UMR was edited. The UMR, for a deployed unit, is what describes what he “should” have.
In neither case is it about the Captain’s unit, rather its about (Re:UMR/TOE) how the larger Army and DoD function, or (Re:HMMWVs) what was physically present on the ground.
RTO Trainer
fbg46,
Thank you, BTW, for actually discussing the questions I raised.
fbg46
RTOT:
Sorry, man, but your response translates to: “Gosh, I guess I don’t really know what the Captain’s unit was supposed to have in terms of personnel and equipment and what it was doing in country other than my generalized knowledge based on my time there” and that just doesn’t work.
As the lawyers who read this blog will recognize, you’re claiming to be an expert witness and for us to accept your opinion without questioning it because of your superior knowledge. As the lawyer also know, while you might qualify as an expert on general conditions in Afghanistan in 2003 which were within your knowledge, you don’t qualify as an expert re: the Captain’s particular unit/mission/equipment/personnel/etc. while it was in Afghanistan unless you can show you have percipient knowledge of his unit.
And so far you’ve done everything but.
RTO Trainer
No. That’s not what I said at all.
If you don’t know how a Unit Manning Roster works, there’s no need to take my word for it, military admin specialists abound who can explain it. I am an MOSQ 42A, Human Resources Specialist in addition to my Signal MOS, but by all means feel free to seek a separate opinion.
You can also look up the development of the uparmored HMMWV and see when and why the various models were made and when, as well as where they were sent. (In 2003 and 2004, with the minimal IED threat in Afghanistan, it was Iraq.)
When the first ones arrived in Afghanistan it was a big deal, it was just before I left, and presumably about the time, or just after, the Captain left.
But I don’t have to know anything about the Captian’s unit mission equipment or personnel–I’ll stipulate that I do not and cannot, in particular because I do not and cannot know who he is, or what unit he is or was with. That knowledge is simply not required.
The UMR works the same for everyone regardless of unit or mission. And no one can have possession of something that doesn’t exist in that time or place. And I require no special status or to know this and the information bearing me out is readily available.
fbg46
RTOT:
Your argument has now come full circle, which is no surprise because it is circular in nature. By the bye, the implication of your argument is that the Cpt has to be lying. I suggest you try telling that to him, preferably face to face. Be warned: besides probably being an Airborne Ranger, the Cpt may not be as bemused by your claims as many of the rest of us are.
To paraphrase the Bard: There are more things under heaven and earth that take place at the sharp end of the spear out in the field than are dreamt of by soldiers with HR/Signal MOSes back at support bases.
And now, since there is no further useful purpose in continuing this, I bid you adieu.