Pentagon takes issue with Obama (Merged) (1 Viewer)

[DavidM]

Perhaps the veracity of that particular story is unknown, but given the well-publicized debates about troops being stretched thin, soldiers serving multiple tours, the vehicle armor issue after the war started, years of complaining about poor strategy and planning, there seems to at least be plausibility here. Or was all that other just convenient when challenging the Bush Administration?

Anyway, I'm not familiar with this particular organization (looks legit) nor the accuracy of the information in the report I'm quoting and linking (again, looks legit) but there are others who seem pretty concerned.

Issue Report, January 2008

Conclusion

Specialist Wilson spoke for many troops when he
questioned Secretary Rumsfeld about armor shortages.
Like many of his fellow soldiers, he was also quick to say
that lack of equipment was not going to keep him from
doing his job: “I’m a soldier, and I’ll do this on a bicycle if
I have to.”148

But no amount of bravery on the part of our troops can
compensate for the tremendous shortages of gear and
personnel caused by four years of fighting two wars. The
war in Iraq has indeed exhausted our military and left
the homeland at risk. As General Peter Schoomaker, the
former Chief of Staff of the United States Army, warns:
“While our Soldiers are responding with extraordinary
commitment, particularly in the face of adversity and
personal hardships, we cannot allow this condition to
persist.”149

Although serious questions remain about the efficiency
and effectiveness of Defense Department procurement
and acquisitions,150 fixing near-term equipment shortages
is largely a matter of time, commitment and correctly
prioritized funding. However, there are no simple
solutions to the personnel shortages we have seen result
from the Iraq War. Stop Loss, multiple and repeated tours,
and cross-leveling are ineffective as long-term strategies to
maintain troop numbers.

IAVA opposes the use of these
stop-gap measures. Instead, every effort must be made to
encourage high-quality recruits to join the military. One
crucial recruitment tool IAVA recommends is a new GI
Bill that covers the cost of college. For IAVA’s complete
recommendations on military readiness, see our Legislative
Agenda, available at www.iava.org/dc.

http://www.iava.org/documents/Military_Readiness.pdf

 

[RABDOG]

it is common knowlege that there was shortages of weapons and equipment in afganistan and iraq, especially in the early going....this is "not" new news, so i don't see what the uproar is all about.....lol....talking about making mountains out of molehills....lmao

 

[BullDawg]

David...no doubt there have been serious issues. However, it does not benefit the soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine to focus on the alleged shortcomings of one captain.

On the subject of IAVA...

Paul Rieckhoff, Executive Director and Founder
Paul is the Executive Director and Founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. He enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1998 and served a tour of duty in Iraq lasting from April 2003 to February 2004. During that time, Paul was a 1st Lieutenant, and served as an Infantry Platoon Leader in the 3rd Infantry and 1st Armored Divisions. Paul's Platoon conducted over 1,000 dismounted and mounted combat patrols, and was centered in the Adamiyah section of central Baghdad.
Prior to going to Iraq, Paul worked as a high school football coach and an Investment Banking Analyst on Wall Street. Paul received a Bachelor's degree in Political Science from Amherst College and continues to serve his country as a 1st Lieutenant and Detachment Commander in the New York Army National Guard.

A 1st Lieutenant for 4 years? I'm not a Guardsman so I won't try to speak for their promotion statistics, but on the federal side a promotion to Captain is pretty much automatic after 2 years time in grade...unless you're not a very good officer.

/readingbetweenthelines?

 

[gavinj]

Obama just lost credibility points with me under the catagory of "mountains out of molehills". If you're going to make grandiose allegations, you better come with better data than that.

Grandiose allegations? It was an anecdotal story. The grandiose allegation is asserting that Obama was lying to score points during a debate.

My state representative here in Texas is a man named Allen Vaught. He (among many others) met with Obama in Dallas the day before the debate and it was actually his story that I thought Obama was telling. Vaught was also a Captain in the Army and earned a purple heart when his back was broken in 4 places by an IED in Iraq. He came back home and in 2006 became the only Democrat to beat an incumbent Republican in a Texas House race. You should google his name and read his story. He also talks about the inadequate equipment and lack of proper armored vehicles, etc. An HBO movie called "On the Road to Fallujah" is coming out later this year about he and his men and what they had to deal with as the first guys into Fallujah. It's easy for those of us 'in the rear with the gear' to dismiss the firsthand accounts of the heroes as exaggerated or whatever, but when they come from multiple sources you have to start thinking that there is some truth to what they're saying. I'm glad Obama is listening to the men who experienced combat over there and not taking the Decider's word for it.

 

[Sabine]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080223/ap_on_el_pr/obama_fact_check_5
Fact check: Obama's platoon story
THE SPIN:
"You know, I've heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon — supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon," Obama said. "Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq,"
"And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition, they didn't have enough Humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.

THE FACTS:
Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to release the name of the captain, citing the soldier's privacy, and pointed to an ABC News account as verification of the story. Obama learned about the captain's allegation from a staffer who had spoken with the captain, according to Vietor. (So, does that mean Obama never actually heard what he said he "heard from an army captain"? 'Cause that just looks a bit slimy to me if he is trying to give the impression that he actually talked to this guy if really he didn't. )

ABC News said it talked to the unidentified captain, whose account of shortages in Afghanistan was for the most part accurately summarized by Obama, although not verified. (What part was not accurate? Was it the shortage of ammunition and Humvees placed in the middle of a story of Afghanistan when it should have been in a story about training in NY?)
The captain said, however, that the unit did not go after the Taliban for the purpose of getting their weapons, but sometimes used those weapons when some were captured. (Well, I am glad to know that. I had images of our soldiers overtaking Taliban by chunking rocks at them.)
...............

Obama said the platoon was supposed to have 39 soldiers. A platoon does not have to consist of 39, but can have between 16 to 40 soldiers, according to standard Army unit organization. (So, the platoon wasn't understaffed by nearly 40%?)
................

In response to the Warner letter, Vietor said, "Senator Obama is glad that this issue is getting the attention it deserves, and looks forward to working on a bipartisan basis to ensure that our troops have the training and resources they need." (Slick .....)

 

[Sabine]

Grandiose allegations? It was an anecdotal story. The grandiose allegation is asserting that Obama was lying to score points during a debate.

My state representative here in Texas is a man named Allen Vaught. He (among many others) met with Obama in Dallas the day before the debate and it was actually his story that I thought Obama was telling. Vaught was also a Captain in the Army and earned a purple heart when his back was broken in 4 places by an IED in Iraq. He came back home and in 2006 became the only Democrat to beat an incumbent Republican in a Texas House race. You should google his name and read his story. He also talks about the inadequate equipment and lack of proper armored vehicles, etc. An HBO movie called "On the Road to Fallujah" is coming out later this year about he and his men and what they had to deal with as the first guys into Fallujah. It's easy for those of us 'in the rear with the gear' to dismiss the firsthand accounts of the heroes as exaggerated or whatever, but when they come from multiple sources you have to start thinking that there is some truth to what they're saying. I'm glad Obama is listening to the men who experienced combat over there and not taking the Decider's word for it.

I think Obama was trying to make you and everyone else think he's doing just that. The disappointing thing is that he could have done that without .....humm..... how shall I say ..... coloring the true, but he chose not to.

 

[SoonerJim]

The moderators questioning these candidates don't have the requisite background to ask followups, nor does the format allow for such activities. Unless the answer is an outright howler such as Gerald Ford's free Eastern Europe, Obama's statement "seems" true, and fits his greater point vis weapons supply.

Debates are where exaggerations and falsehoods are told. They are most prevalent in the arcane fields as well as those involving statistical manipulation. The economy, healthcare, science, education, you name it.

 

[NCSaint]

About time someone took the kid gloves off with this guy.

 

[stunpals]

Not really, the media still loves him. Imagine if Clinton, Paul, Guilliani, Huckabee made the same claim during a debate. They'd be headlines the following day. Obama is getting the free pass.

 

[cruize]

I can't imagine he'd make up a story like that. It's too easy to disprove if it's not true. At worst someone lied to him about it.

That may be his story and he might stick with it.

I like the man. He gives a good speech. But, he's not ready to be President.

 

[DadsDream]

The story is somewhat true and somewhat twisted.

Omitting that he was speaking of 2003 in order to make a point is misleading. The situation has changed grreatly in five years. Also, we've had an election since then. This incident was an issue for that election, not this one.

Taking a spare parts issue and turning it into an allegation that soldiers were being sent into combat having to capture enemy weapons to fight is a melodrmatic twist of the facts.

Senator John Warner is as crusty as they come and he's got long tenure in the Senate, specifically in miliary affairs. If he says he's going to bring this up in Senate hearings, he will.

If a senator was contacted about this incident and it wasn't brought to his attention in 2003 - 2004 when he was Armed Services Committee chairman, he can raise a number of issues.

Oh, the captain could face a Congressional investigation about whether he followed regulations regarding the use of captured enemy equipment as well.

THE NEW YORK TIMES
Warner to Obama: Bring Me Your Captain
By Leslie Wayne

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/warner-to-obama-bring-me-your-captain/

 

[SoonerJim]

Jake Tapper was Salon.com's political reporter for five years, and has a point of view. His archive is on their website.

That aside, I got the impression the weapons were saved as war booty, much as my father kept pieces of Japanese Zeros which crashed into ships at Okinawa. What's the current rule on that?

 

[BullDawg]

If Obama wants to make a point, he should do so with cold hard data. It's out there if he wants to take the time to study up on the subject. Of course, to do so would open up the fact that the underfunded, undermanned, and underequipped military dates back to GHW Bush and exasperated by Clinton and Dubya. Of course, it would also bring to light the fact that Congress is implicit in that it controls the money and manning.

Will he bring out those facts? If he does, good on him. He'll have earned back those credibility points and then some. But I ain't holding my breath.

It's the same ole smoke being blown up our collective rears that politicians have been doing for years. The more he talks, the more he's proving (to me at least) to be nothing but more of the same...just in a younger more eloquently speaking package. Personally, I'm tired of empty words. It's time for some substance.

To boot...he's paying lip service to the military. That in itself is personally insulting. You want to witness the operational readiness of the military? Hop a flight on over to Iraq or Afghanistan and put your boots on the ground. Don't have time because you're "politicing"? Yeah...that's what I thought.

Oh...as far as being 'in the rear with the gear' I'll assume you're talking about folks stateside because those friggin' daily mortar/rocket attacks I'm becoming so accustomed to seem pretty damn real to me. I even got to see a C-RAM take out two attacks today. Pretty cool stuff.

Well...I'm outta here on another quick jaunt to help some Marines out. I'll be somewhere between Baghdad and Fallujah the best I can tell. I'll know more when I get there.

Peace.

 

[DadsDream]

Jake Tapper was Salon.com's political reporter for five years, and has a point of view. His archive is on their website.

That aside, I got the impression the weapons were saved as war booty, much as my father kept pieces of Japanese Zeros which crashed into ships at Okinawa. What's the current rule on that?

Jim, the days when individual soldiers could bring back weapons as war prizes are long gone.

By regulation, those weapons have to be turned in though supply channels for disposal.

The regulations also take a very, very dim view of using any captured weapons in any manner whatsoever. They may have been booby trapped or otherwise sabotaged by the enemy. Given the lethality of modern weapons, the policy is that you don't use them unless you have absolutely nothing else. Even then, an order has to be issued allowing it and a colonel or higher has to sign it.

Sure, individual soldiers still try to sneak captured weapons through, but if they get caught, they're facing time in Levenworth.

A caputured weapon presented as a war trophy to an officer or commnder is a bit different, but it still has to pass through the supply chain. It gets decommissioned, rendered inoperable, cataloged and reissued with a stack of documentation proving that it was issued by the Army to the commander or person recieving it as a trophy.

Normally, these trophies are issued to the unit and the commander accepts them as the symbolic representative of the unit.

 

[BullDawg]

Jake Tapper was Salon.com's political reporter for five years, and has a point of view. His archive is on their website.

That aside, I got the impression the weapons were saved as war booty, much as my father kept pieces of Japanese Zeros which crashed into ships at Okinawa. What's the current rule on that?

General Order 1b prohibits the taking of war trophies and specifies weapons and ammunition in it's on subsection. Violation of GO-1B is at a minimum automatic punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ and will result in a reduction in grade and a fine.