[UPDATE] Obama’s Mysterious Captain

February 22, 2008 By CJ
Posted in Military News

[UPDATE] The media is trying hard to help clean up Obama’s mess during the debates. MSNBC is tripping over themselves to “fact check” and prove his gaffe. The story mentions that there are “specific gaps” in Obama’s story (presumably from the point he opened his mouth), but that “in whole….largely holds up.” Isn’t that kinda like saying, “I sorta, kinda think there may have been an instance of truth to the rumor that it’s possible something similar to happened at some point in time”? Let’s compare the major point of what Obama said with the “details” MSNBC found:

Obama said: “…they didn’t have enough ammunition” in Afghanistan.
MSNBC’s facts: “Yes, they did run out of ammunition, but that was in training, not actually during combat.”

MSNBC then goes on to say that “the overall story that was being told, what it was supposed to illustrate is still the same.” I’m sorry, but lying doesn’t illustrate anything except mistrust. You can’t illustrate a legitimate point with illegitimate arguments. That’s like me arguing for more money for the poor by illustrating that our transportation system is broke. Personally, I think the “Captain”, if he/she really exists, is crapping his/her pants right now, realizing that there’s no way to back up this story with truth. Where are the other Soldiers that were with this “Captain” in Afghanistan? I wouldn’t be surprised if he were a member of IVAW or some similar organization.

ABCNews similarly talked to “with the Army captain in question” and noted that the story is “quite credible”, even though it hasn’t been backed up by any other sources. In the intel world, we don’t (or we try not to) rely on ONE source as a basis for a decision. Bad things happen when we do that. Here’s what ABCNews unwittingly found out to contradict Obama’s public story:

Obama: “15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq.”
ABCNews “facts”: “..in ones and twos — 15 members of the platoon were re-assigned to other units.”

You mean to tell me that Soldiers get reassigned in the Army? Say it isn’t so. The “Captain” says he knows “for sure” that 10 of those 15 “went to Iraq” and only speculates that the other five did as well. That’s a flawed argument. Just because someone gets reassigned to another unit and that unit happens to get deployed to Iraq doesn’t mean they were plucked from Afghanistan and sent to Iraq as Obama claims. Obama also neglected to mention that half those Soldiers were “replaced” by the fall, “but not all 15.” Welcome to the Army, Captain! We all have manning problems and have since our budget and personnel strength was cut in the 90’s.

Obama: “they didn’t have enough humvees” in Afghanistan.
ABCNews: “As for the weapons and humvees, there are two distinct periods in this, as he explains — before deployment, and afterwards.”

So….the “Captain” DID have enough humvees in Afghanistan then!! Iraq was no consequence of something that didn’t happen. Yes, despite all these glaring contradictions, ABCNews finds that “Obama’s anecdote checks out.” Isn’t the News supposed to find the TRUTH? No, instead they just fall on their sword, ending the story with this little gem: “I might suggest those on the blogosphere upset about this story would be better suited directing their ire at those responsible for this problem, which is certainly not new. That is, if they actually care about the men and women bravely serving our country at home and abroad.” I might suggest that ABCNews actually talk to the military they feign to “care about”.

Last night, I had a very difficult decision to make: watch my new favorite show, Smallville, or watch the Clinton/Obama “debate”. For some unknown reason, I chose the debate. I’m glad I did, because the following story actually made me think I’d choose Clinton over Obama. In came in response to a question about Obama’s readiness to be commander in chief:

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. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq.

OBAMA: 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.

I have so many issues with this, I don’t know where to start. So, let’s start at the beginning. I’ve discovered the identity of this mysterious Captain…


First of all, Captains don’t lead platoons. Captains lead companies. Secondly, nowhere does Army doctrine state that Rifle Platoons will have 39 troops in them. As a matter of fact, Field Manual 7-8, INFANTRY RIFLE PLATOON AND SQUAD, a standard rifle platoon consists of three rifle squads and a headquarters. Rifle squads doctrinally consist of 9 personnel (x3 squads = 27 troops in a platoon + 3 HQ personnel: Plt Leader, Plt Sergeant, and RTO = 30). Seems to me that 24 ain’t that bad! Keep in mind this is in a perfect world where every position in the military is full, which it’s not. Researching this a bit, I notice that Obama’s peeps are trying to backtrack on this saying that the Captain was Lieutenant at the time the story took place – 2003!!! So, why would Obama mess this up. After all, he’s the one that talked to this mysterious Captain, right? Wrong. Turns out that Obama never “heard from an Army Captain”. In reality, he heard from his staff who supposedly heard from this CPT. This is semantics to a degree, but what we don’t know is who this “Captain” is and what unit he was with. Knowing the unit involved would easily debunk or substantiate Obama’s story. The only unit I remember being in Afghanistan in 2003 was my alma mater unit, the 11th ACR from Fort Irwin and some Special Forces units.

The second issue is the one of separating a platoon for combat in multiple theaters. It simply doesn’t happen. At worst, Companies would be separated from Battalions, but not squads from platoons or even platoons from companies. It simply doesn’t happen. Even supposing that it were true that 15 bubbas got sent to Iraq, how exactly does that translate into a deficit of ammunition. Wouldn’t that mean there were be more ammunition for the remaining troops in that platoon? The reason we were capturing Taliban weapons was because we didn’t want them to have them – not because we wanted their ammo. Though, I’ll admit, AK’s don’t misfire as much as our inferior M16s do in desert environs.

When I was in Iraq the first time during ground combat, I’ll admit I ended up using an AK more than my M16. I did this for two reasons: the AK didn’t jam and there was more ammo. We were moving so fast north, that the ammo supply couldn’t keep up. But, guess what? That had nothing to do with President Bush or even Congress. That had to do with a superior fighting force (us) defeating an inferior fighting force (Saddam’s military) with overwhelming precision and speed. The president does not stamp our ammo requests and make sure they get pushed up the lines of communication to us. He doesn’t even tell us how much we can have. The Secretary of Defense doesn’t even do that. That’s a Brigade and Division issue! Wouldn’t that be funny if I had to go and sign for my ammo from the Commander in Chief?

Vets For Freedom, my brothers from other mothers, released a statement today about Obama’s comments which I hope every Obama supporter that clapped for him that day reads:

Vets for Freedom questions the recent comments by Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill) in the Democratic debate last night, in which he stated that American troops were “capturing Taliban weapons because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than get equipped by our current Commander in Chief”.

“Yet again Senator Obama has demonstrated the loose grip he holds on the reality of these conflicts,” said Vets for Freedom State Captain, and Afghanistan Army veteran Daniel Bell. “Senator Obama’s comments are insulting not only to those who have served and are still serving in Afghanistan but to all who serve in the armed forces. I can attest from my first hand experience that these comments are incredulous and that we were supplied all the tools necessary to complete our missions.”

He continued “His statements last night assert that he lacks the necessary knowledge to make serious judgments on military matters, that he is prone to dangerous exaggeration, and that he is grossly unaware of the facts on the ground. I call on other veterans of Afghanistan to respond to these ridiculous allegations and to remind Senator Obama that it is the sacrifice of those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan that allows him to so freely speak in this manner.”

I’m surprised the media isn’t calling Obama on all his lies and blatant misrepresentations. He truly is the media’s darling. The interesting thing is that I had mentioned to my wife how I could vote for Obama a few weeks ago – as a last resort of course. Now, I would vote for Clinton over Obama in a heartbeat. Honestly, and I don’t say this in jest – if Obama became Commander In Chief I would SERIOUSLY rethink my military service. I would rather endure another 4-8 years of Clinton degradation that that. Not only would he be a TERRIBLE Commander in Chief, he wants the UN to tax us to help pay for global poverty. That’s right, Obama is a co-sponsor of the “Global Poverty Act” legislation circulating through Congress right now. The Global Poverty Act:

* Declares it official U.S. policy to promote the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme global poverty in half by 2015.

* Requires the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to carry out that policy.

* Includes guidelines for what the strategy should include – from aid, trade, and debt relief, to working with the international community, businesses and NGOs, to ensuring environmental sustainability.

* Requires that the President’s strategy include specific and measurable goals, efforts to be undertaken, benchmarks, and timetables.

* Requires the President to report back to Congress on progress made in the implementation of the global poverty strategy.

There’s no way in hell I’d ever vote for this man!! I’ve already written the following letter to each of my Congresspeople and Senators:

I read with extreme fear and frustration that Sen. Obama had sponsored legislation for a “Global Poverty Tax” that would impose international taxes on Americans to pay for GLOBAL poverty. I am completely against this!! We have enough taxes imposed on us from our own government; we don’t need the U.N. taxing us further.

I am an American citizen, not a citizen of the United Nations. They have no authority over me and no right to tax my person, my property, or anything else belonging to this great nation.

I don’t have a bill number, but here is a link to the story I read:
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate-vote

Please vote against this bill and do everything in your power to inform the American people what is being proposed by the Socialists in our government. Thank you.

Feel free to use this as a template for your letters to your Senators if you feel the same way.

2 Comments »