Matthew Yglesias (February 22, 2008) - Platoon (Foreign Policy)

Wow, Matt, you actually subjected yourself to all those wingnuts? Well, today at least you earned your paycheck. Take the rest of the day off.

Posted by hum | February 22, 2008 2:43 PM

You have to figure this is the direction they're going to go in for the general. Obama hasn't got military experience. Problem for them is that the country isn't going to care.

Posted by Helter | February 22, 2008 2:44 PM

The 101st Fighting Keyboarders strike again! Semper Cheeto, Blood Brothers!

Posted by joejoejoe | February 22, 2008 2:44 PM

Oh sweet zombie jeebus, not another round of these wankfests from the right wing.

Posted by brent | February 22, 2008 2:45 PM

Obmama's conservative critics will, I'm sure, embark on a crusade to discredit said Captain

Sorry, I meant they'll "support the troops"

Posted by Jack | February 22, 2008 2:46 PM

Captains lead companies, not platoons.

I'm not familiar with the particular facts in question, but I think "The Political Inquirer" needs some remedial lessons on the military. Yes, Army captains usually lead companies--but before they become captains, they're lieutenants.

And, for whatever it's worth, my friends in-theater (SPC, 1LT, and CPT) have no trouble believing the story.

Somehow, I suspect most right-wing militarist bloggers don't actually have much connection to the military. If they did, maybe they'd also have some respect for the lives of the people who serve in it.

Posted by ML | February 22, 2008 2:50 PM

Of course they're not telling the truth, it gets in the way of their "narrative." It's all they've got if they hope to stand a chance of stopping him in the general election (should he make it that far).

Still, this could be a good thing as it tips off the Obama camp what to expect and what they'll need to respond to in the coming months. Let's just hope he'll learn to be as adept at rapid response to Swiftboat-type fertilizer as he is to parrying the Clinton camp.

Posted by Shawn | February 22, 2008 2:50 PM

Well, you see, it's a secular political form of transubstantiation, in which anything actually true spoken about international and military affairs magically becomes fraudulent and horrible if spoken by Democrats or, gawrsh, even liberals; similarly, falsehoods thusly become true (and glorious!) when spoken by Republicans & right wingers.

Posted by El Cid | February 22, 2008 2:51 PM

Phillip Carter of Intel-Dump, who has been to Iraq, confirms the story as well - http://www.intel-dump.com/

Posted by Paul | February 22, 2008 2:53 PM

Two important points:

1) These guys don't necessarily know much about the military.

2) If it makes the CoC or the military look bad, it must not be true.

But I'm betting Obama knew he could expect this kind of response (hell, I would be deathly afraid, at this point, as a candidate, telling stories like this), so I assume the story is very well vetted. So I'd assume it's true. Which is crazy, actually.

Posted by mpowell | February 22, 2008 2:54 PM

Them commenters over at Tapper's place are getting pretty feisty. I got through about five of them before I started banging my head on my desk.

Posted by Kraz | February 22, 2008 2:57 PM

Wow, Matt, you actually subjected yourself to all those wingnuts? Well, today at least you earned your paycheck. Take the rest of the day off.

Actually, it seems that MY got those links from Tapper's post.

Which obviously makes him a plagiarist.

Posted by Haggai | February 22, 2008 2:57 PM

I'm just surprise it's not on TalkLeft.

Posted by blindjoedeath | February 22, 2008 3:03 PM

The response at Tapper's is that he should just release the name of the Lieutenant/Captain because otherwise it's a lie. Right, I'm sure they just want the guy's name to confirm the story- and maybe to spread the rumor that he's a child molester.

Posted by SP | February 22, 2008 3:07 PM

I don't know anything about this particular story, but there was a front page article in the WSJ a year or two ago about some American troops in Iraq preferring to use captured AK-47s for close-range combat. The AK-47 is a less finicky and more durable weapon than the M-4/M-16, and has greater stopping power, since it fires a 7.62mm round instead of a 5.56mm round. The M-4/M-16 carbines/rifles are more accurate at longer ranges though and can be accessorized with scopes and lasers. According to the article, this practice was officially discouraged.

Posted by Fred | February 22, 2008 3:08 PM

Captains command companies, which are composed of platoons.

Also, as pointed out, your career progression as an officer is you start out as a platoon leader, a lieutenant, and in four years or so you are most likely promoted to captain, and your next leadership challenge is commanding a company.

Posted by Apprentice to Darth Holden | February 22, 2008 3:10 PM

Let the Goreing begin!!!

Huzzah!

Posted by ed | February 22, 2008 3:10 PM

A side note: I've heard that some Americans in Afghanistan (private security and regular military) have used Taliban weapons (like AK-47s), largely because other Taliban and Taliban sympathetic people recognize the sound of M4s and come out of the woodwork with their rocket launchers and mortars when they hear one fired. So the Americans will use the AKs everyone else is using if they're trying to keep a low profile.

Posted by Colatina | February 22, 2008 3:12 PM

Don't forget so Michelle Malkin can go peek in his windows and report on his kitchen countertops.

Posted by Jeff | February 22, 2008 3:12 PM

Re: "here and here" etc. Matt, that's change you can xerox.

Posted by mark | February 22, 2008 3:13 PM

Whatever the facts of this story are, the right wing blogosphere ought to ascertain them before jumping to ideologically-motivated conclusions, like the left wing blogosphere did with the Scott Beauchamp situation.

Posted by Fred | February 22, 2008 3:14 PM

This is all wingnuts have left.

On a slightly unrelated matter, anyone know who Obama has as his military guy on the campaign team?

Posted by Go for Broke | February 22, 2008 3:17 PM

I think this calls for a crack team of right wing "citizen journalists" to track down how much this Army captain's house is worth and what his cabinets are made of.

Posted by El Cid | February 22, 2008 3:18 PM

I'm sure they just want the guy's name to confirm the story- and maybe to spread the rumor that he's a child molester.

Don't be silly.

They'll just have Blackhawk murder him.

Posted by dave™© | February 22, 2008 3:18 PM

I assume that accompanying their attack is some explanation of how our efforts in Afghanistan have been well-funded, well-staffed, well-thought out and incredibly successful. Because that's what this is about, not scoring cheap political points, right?

Posted by clb72 | February 22, 2008 3:25 PM

Matt....you were able to subject yourself to THAT much STOOPID and not want to cut your wrists?

THAT's taking one for the team.

Posted by Terry C - NO MORE REPUGS | February 22, 2008 3:28 PM

who Obama has as his military guy on the campaign team?

TPM had a link to a NY Sun piece naming Clinton Navy Secretary Richard Danzig as a chief military affairs advisor, as well as a retired AF officer who served in Iraq. He's also got former NSA Tony Lake.

Posted by UN Plaza | February 22, 2008 3:28 PM

I don't think this story will get Obama Gored. It's just not the type of thing the MSM are willing to latch onto the way the fighting keyboardists will.

Posted by mpowell | February 22, 2008 3:30 PM

The flying monkeys are already out in force over at Tapper's place. They'll do all they can to destroy him and the captain as well. Malkin's probably upside down sniffing through Tapper's garbage cans as I type. West Point grads who don't toe the GOP line on the GWOT are the worst kinds of thought criminals and must be made to publicly recant and confess. Or the republic is doomed!

Posted by pinson | February 22, 2008 3:33 PM

"I'm sure they just want the guy's name to confirm the story- and maybe to spread the rumor that he's a child molester."

Has anyone over there actually suggested this or are you just making this up?

Posted by rmark | February 22, 2008 3:34 PM

It's typical fubar
I have an uncle who picked up German weapons in the Bulge
I have a cousin who says they had to buy defected/rejected British Ammo during Eisenhower's time
I advised a arvin tank unit which had 3 rounds per tank - combat load 28, I think long time ago
Nothing new for our army

Posted by Harlan Noel | February 22, 2008 3:37 PM

"The response at Tapper's is that he should just release the name of the Lieutenant/Captain because otherwise it's a lie."

Right, because as we know from the constant shouting about the "nuclear threat" from Iran, anonymous sources are never, ever, ever to be believed.

Just as obviously, the wingnuts know from their vast military experience that absolutely nothing in the military goes off anything other than exactly as planned.

Posted by Rick Massimo | February 22, 2008 3:41 PM

"I have a cousin who says they had to buy defected/rejected British Ammo during Eisenhower's time"

Probably the reason NATO moved to a standard ammo size (5.56mm) so it could be used by the different infantry rifles of the various member forces.

Posted by Fred | February 22, 2008 3:42 PM

The error was noted and the ABC blog link posted in The Political Inquirer's post.

Posted by The Political Inquirer | February 22, 2008 3:49 PM

Thanks UN Plaza

I was thinking more on the level of "outreach" and boots on the ground view than grand strategy. Someone along the lines of a Phil Carter or Bob Bateman who was with the campaign. I will see what I can find on the Zoomie.

Posted by Go For Broke | February 22, 2008 3:53 PM

So now the argument is:

"Well, OK, maybe Obama didn't pass on a Beauchamp, but, but, but

IT'S CLINTON'S FAULT!"

Posted by Trevor J | February 22, 2008 3:53 PM

FROM THE ABC BLOG:

"I called the Obama campaign this morning to chat about this story, and was put in touch with the Army captain in question.

He told me his story, which I found quite credible, though for obvious reasons he asked that I not mention his name or certain identifying information."

When a soldier, ESPECIALLY an officer, contacts an anti-war political campaign but refuses to be publicly identified I think there's a reason for that.

The DOD, my husband in Baghdad, who is a subject matter expert in the GWOT, and every other soldier I've talked to said the story is incredibly suspect.

But the left is banking on this one statement being true from an "unnamed source." That's good journalism for you!

My husband went to war in Iraq with former CPT Patrick Murphy, who is now an anti-war Congressman representing PA. CPT Murphy also misrepresented the equipment issue accusing the Bush administration of sending troops into harms way unprepared and underequipped... "our humvees didn't have doors", he said, either knowing full well or completely ignorant that in the 82nd humvees AREN'T SUPPOSED TO HAVE DOORS. Murphy told Stars and Stripes:

“We were absolutely shorthanded,” said Murphy, a former West Point professor. “My Humvee didn’t have doors. And I knew in the back of my mind what was going on. We weren’t given enough to do the job, and there weren’t enough boots on the ground.”

The 82nd is a rapid response unit, deployable within 48 hours. THEIR HUMVEES HAVE NO DOORS. They aren't supposed to. It is SOP (standard operating procedure) for the 82nd ABN DIV to leave doors off of tactical vehicles to facilitate rapid dismount of ground troops. The mission of the 82nd is to conduct forced entry operation by parachute assault, not ride around in tanks and Humvees. When IEDs became the primary threat, the 82nd contracted to have iron doors bolted onto the Humvees.

Bottom Line, the handful of anti-war soldiers who perpetuate this "we are short handed" myth do so because they know the general public can't really fact check. The ABC News "fact check" won't even name its source... that's not fact checking, that's asking the rest of us to have faith in a media that the media hasn't earned.

When this guy steps up and identifies himself like the Baghdad Diarist, we'll all listen. Until then, there's probably a reason why he's remaining anonymous.

Posted by Amy Proctor | February 22, 2008 3:56 PM

FROM THE ABC BLOG:

"I called the Obama campaign this morning to chat about this story, and was put in touch with the Army captain in question.

He told me his story, which I found quite credible, though for obvious reasons he asked that I not mention his name or certain identifying information."

When a soldier, ESPECIALLY an officer, contacts an anti-war political campaign but refuses to be publicly identified I think there's a reason for that.

The DOD, my husband in Baghdad, who is a subject matter expert in the GWOT, and every other soldier I've talked to said the story is incredibly suspect.

But the left is banking on this one statement being true from an "unnamed source." That's good journalism for you!

My husband went to war in Iraq with former CPT Patrick Murphy, who is now an anti-war Congressman representing PA. CPT Murphy also misrepresented the equipment issue accusing the Bush administration of sending troops into harms way unprepared and underequipped... "our humvees didn't have doors", he said, either knowing full well or completely ignorant that in the 82nd humvees AREN'T SUPPOSED TO HAVE DOORS. Murphy told Stars and Stripes:

“We were absolutely shorthanded,” said Murphy, a former West Point professor. “My Humvee didn’t have doors. And I knew in the back of my mind what was going on. We weren’t given enough to do the job, and there weren’t enough boots on the ground.”

The 82nd is a rapid response unit, deployable within 48 hours. THEIR HUMVEES HAVE NO DOORS. They aren't supposed to. It is SOP (standard operating procedure) for the 82nd ABN DIV to leave doors off of tactical vehicles to facilitate rapid dismount of ground troops. The mission of the 82nd is to conduct forced entry operation by parachute assault, not ride around in tanks and Humvees. When IEDs became the primary threat, the 82nd contracted to have iron doors bolted onto the Humvees.

Bottom Line, the handful of anti-war soldiers who perpetuate this "we are short handed" myth do so because they know the general public can't really fact check. The ABC News "fact check" won't even name its source... that's not fact checking, that's asking the rest of us to have faith in a media that the media hasn't earned.

When this guy steps up and identifies himself like the Baghdad Diarist, we'll all listen. Until then, there's probably a reason why he's remaining anonymous.

Posted by Amy Proctor | February 22, 2008 3:56 PM

FROM THE ABC BLOG:

"I called the Obama campaign this morning to chat about this story, and was put in touch with the Army captain in question.

He told me his story, which I found quite credible, though for obvious reasons he asked that I not mention his name or certain identifying information."

When a soldier, ESPECIALLY an officer, contacts an anti-war political campaign but refuses to be publicly identified I think there's a reason for that.

The DOD, my husband in Baghdad, who is a subject matter expert in the GWOT, and every other soldier I've talked to said the story is incredibly suspect.

But the left is banking on this one statement being true from an "unnamed source." That's good journalism for you!

My husband went to war in Iraq with former CPT Patrick Murphy, who is now an anti-war Congressman representing PA. CPT Murphy also misrepresented the equipment issue accusing the Bush administration of sending troops into harms way unprepared and underequipped... "our humvees didn't have doors", he said, either knowing full well or completely ignorant that in the 82nd humvees AREN'T SUPPOSED TO HAVE DOORS. Murphy told Stars and Stripes:

“We were absolutely shorthanded,” said Murphy, a former West Point professor. “My Humvee didn’t have doors. And I knew in the back of my mind what was going on. We weren’t given enough to do the job, and there weren’t enough boots on the ground.”

The 82nd is a rapid response unit, deployable within 48 hours. THEIR HUMVEES HAVE NO DOORS. They aren't supposed to. It is SOP (standard operating procedure) for the 82nd ABN DIV to leave doors off of tactical vehicles to facilitate rapid dismount of ground troops. The mission of the 82nd is to conduct forced entry operation by parachute assault, not ride around in tanks and Humvees. When IEDs became the primary threat, the 82nd contracted to have iron doors bolted onto the Humvees.

Bottom Line, the handful of anti-war soldiers who perpetuate this "we are short handed" myth do so because they know the general public can't really fact check. The ABC News "fact check" won't even name its source... that's not fact checking, that's asking the rest of us to have faith in a media that the media hasn't earned.

When this guy steps up and identifies himself like the Baghdad Diarist, we'll all listen. Until then, there's probably a reason why he's remaining anonymous.

Posted by Amy Proctor | February 22, 2008 3:57 PM

"I have a cousin who says they had to buy defected/rejected British Ammo during Eisenhower's time"

The British used the Short Magazine Lee Enfield rifle in various forms from 1895 to 1957. It used the .303 british cartridge which is not interchangeable with either the US 30-06 or .308 cartridges then in use.

I suppose its possible that WW2 surplus ammo was returned from Britain, as some US firearms from WW1 were shipped over after the losses at Dunkirk.

Posted by rmark | February 22, 2008 3:58 PM

Hum wrote:

'You have to figure this is the direction they're going to go in for the general. Obama hasn't got military experience. Problem for them is that the country isn't going to care.'

Keep in mind, GWB's military experience was minimal at best, and Dick Cheney got 5 deferments during Vietnam.

Oh, and neither of the Clintons were military, of course.

At least the GOP can't SwiftBoat either Dem candidate.

Posted by IrritatedVet | February 22, 2008 4:05 PM

Whoa, sorry for the multiple entries. Don't know how that happened.

Posted by Amy Proctor | February 22, 2008 4:06 PM

Tapper's reporting doesn't confirm the story, unless one thinks that the question was whether Obama had actually heard a particularly story. If the question is, is the story true, well, Tapper should get to work checking that out.

Carter's post doesn't help. The conclusion doesn't follow at all from the post.

Perhaps we should ask John McCain's son whether he has enough equipment. He's in Iraq now. Shouldn't we let McCain make the judgment here, since he's closer to the action, more familiar with the needs of the soldiers fighting today, and has more knowledge of the issue?

Posted by Thomas | February 22, 2008 4:13 PM

Yes, Amy, nothing underlines your SHRILL quite as sublimely as when it's posted multiple times. There must have been a little divine intervention when you clicked "post."

Posted by Woody Bombay | February 22, 2008 4:14 PM

Amy- You are no doubt quite exercised as a result of seeing your little circle-jerk fall to pieces, had no patience to wait for the screen to load, and hit post multiple times.

Posted by Tzal | February 22, 2008 4:14 PM

Perhaps we should ask John McCain's son whether he has enough equipment. He's in Iraq now. Shouldn't we let McCain make the judgment here, since he's closer to the action, more familiar with the needs of the soldiers fighting today, and has more knowledge of the issue?

Um, well, er ... since Obama's point was that the folly in Iraq has diverted resources best used elsewhere, wouldn't that be pretty meaningless? Why, yes. Yes it would. It would be completely meaningless.

And, while I am NOT saying that McCain the younger is the same kind of desperate liar his father is, he certainly wouldn't be an impartial observer.

Posted by Woody Bombay | February 22, 2008 4:21 PM

Jake Tapper cites a conveniently unnamed source to support a claim that is conveniently unfalsifiable in the absence of identifying information. Gee, that's persuasive.

Posted by Mixner | February 22, 2008 4:21 PM

When a soldier, ESPECIALLY an officer, contacts an anti-war political campaign but refuses to be publicly identified I think there's a reason for that.

Yes, I see no reason why he would be wary of the spittle flecked shitflinging of the wingnut brigade^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H sober, dispassionate analysis of the right wing blogosphere.

Posted by Killjoy | February 22, 2008 4:25 PM

Woody, we know that all soldiers are impartial and totally trustworthy. That's why Tapper didn't need to document the anecdote; he just needed to hear it from the soldier directly. And of course it was MY who suggested that Carter's experience in Iraq was relevant to the question. If MY disagrees, well, why did he say it?

Posted by Thomas | February 22, 2008 4:28 PM

Dear Amy Proctor:

First, I would be willing to bet that the reason the Captain prefers to remain anonymous is that otherwise the flying monkeys will hunt him down and force him to submit to public ritual humiliation--that is the specialty of the wingnut crowd, isn't it? Alternatively, some vengeful wingnut will fire him from his job, or retaliate in some other way. The right wing is like a Mafia--break omerta (i.e., speak the truth) and you can pretty much count on being surveilled and then savaged by a pack of slack-jawed, cheeto-eating war-lovers.

Secondly, I think that perhaps when the 82d's mission was changed to acting as an occupation force, someone should have thought to put on the goddamn doors. Patrick Murphy's complaint seems eminently reasonable to me.

Thirdly, the fact that ABC News will not name the source has not one thing to do with whether they are fact-checking. Simply because you and your wingnut crowd will be unable to retaliate against the source if his identity is disclosed does not give you the credibility to challenge an anecdote that has been confirmed by an independent journalist.

Fourthly, just reading your multiple posts confirms to me that I have misanthropic tendencies. You see, I am barely able to contain my contempt for and disgust with your entire lying crew. Unlike Obama, I recognize that you can neither be reasoned with nor persuaded even with the truth staring you in the face.

Posted by Baldrick | February 22, 2008 4:30 PM

Baldrick, the anecdote hasn't been confirmed. It's been repeated. Are you too dense to see the difference?

Posted by Thomas | February 22, 2008 4:32 PM

The desparate right wing horde bangs on our doors to eat our brains. Their reasoning all boils down to - let us eat your brain.

Posted by Northern Observer | February 22, 2008 4:34 PM

Tapper has not exactly been sympathetic to the Obama campaign. I suspect that had there been an angle to make Obama look like he'd stretched the truth, he would have used it.

But it is funny to watch all the rightards pretending to be not only military experts, but omniscient. Sure, they know what every unit has, wears, uses, eats, drinks, and shits, right Amy?
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | February 22, 2008 4:39 PM

Thomas,

I see no reason to discuss how dense (or not) I may be.

However, what Tapper has done is speak to a military man who was there, and confirmed Obama's account of this man's report of the situation in Afghanistan. Obama related what he had been told by this military man. Tapper confirmed that the military man stands behind this story. You, of course, have no particular reason to think the military man was lying. Rather than accept his account as more likely accurate than not (why would he lie?), you prefer to cover your ears and sing LA LA LA. Fair enough. Don't expect your views to be respected, though. That is all.

Posted by Baldrick | February 22, 2008 4:42 PM

"The cost for that diversion was paid by America's sons and daughters, and our Afghan brethren..."

Our Afghan "brethren"? Interesting choice of words. I don't recall Carter using it to describe the Iraqi troops he worked with when he served there as a legal adviser, but perhaps he did.

"The desparate right wing horde bangs on our doors to eat our brains. Their reasoning all boils down to - let us eat your brain."

Is this a Jonathan Coulton reference?

Posted by Fred | February 22, 2008 4:42 PM

Thomas- The point here is not to convince the bloggers and their defenders that they wrong, but to further marginalize them.

Posted by Tzal | February 22, 2008 4:45 PM

"Whoa, sorry for the multiple entries. Don't know how that happened."

i'm going to guess you were dropped quite often as a child.

Posted by cha cha cha | February 22, 2008 4:47 PM

So now the argument is:
"Well, OK, maybe Obama didn't pass on a Beauchamp, but, but, but IT'S CLINTON'S FAULT!"

Apparently not. There seem to be two completely different sets of complaints about this anecdote. On one side, conservatives say this couldn't possibly happen BECAUSE it takes 15 months to get to this officer's rank but he was supposedly only in Afghanistan for 13 months at that point! And he must have BEEN lying because it's against POLICY and all the menfolk in their family are IN Iraq and they say this would never happen!

On the other hand, conservatives say that of course this happens, it's a normal situation, it happens all the time for inevitable reasons that have nothing to do with organization, and it's completely irresponsible for Obama to imply that anyone in the army is at fault for it, and they wonder whether he's doing so because he's dishonest or because he's simply ignorant hint hint.

How these morons manage to spell their own names correctly, I'll never understand.

Posted by Cyrus | February 22, 2008 4:47 PM

So what's the problem here - you guys never seen First Blood or Red Dawn? All you need is a knife and a bit of ingenuity. What a bunch of wusses.

Posted by novakant | February 22, 2008 4:52 PM

As a result of the Conservative Bloggers inquiry, we have:

1. leaned Obama was right;
2. more evidence that conservative bloggers are not credible; and
3. another example of a widespread problem currently facing our military.

That worked out well for them.

Posted by Tzal | February 22, 2008 4:59 PM

I would like to thank Amy for clarifying the obscure acronym "SOP".

Posted by matt | February 22, 2008 5:02 PM

Tzal,

Apart from being completely wrong on all three of your points, you're right. Well done.

Posted by Mixner | February 22, 2008 5:02 PM

You left out point #4, Tzal: Obama is teh awesome.

Posted by Fred | February 22, 2008 5:02 PM

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," he 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.

I've heard much of the same thing--the AK47s have more punch, they're more reliable in wet weather, and the ammo is plentiful. That's been in circulation since day one.

Also, it doesn't say if this was a Guard unit--a lot of those units have soldiers that can't deploy. On paper, their strength might be 30-40 but when you factor in non-deployables, details, and sports injuries--lots of troops get them, they're not talked about, but it's hard to get in shape for a deployment and a lot of people blow out their knees--it's entirely possible to go with 20 or even fewer.

What? Do these wingnuts think you can just miss movement? Don't make me laugh.

The military has been broken for over two years. Surprised they're just now getting the word. Tens of thousands of members of the US Army have NEVER been to Iraq and they never will. They're non-deployable or in skill sets that are outdated or not going to deploy.

Posted by Pale Rider | February 22, 2008 5:04 PM

"However, what Tapper has done is claim to have spoken to a military man who claimed to have been there, and claimed to confirm Obama's account of this man's report of the situation in Afghanistan."

Fixed that for you, Baldrick.

Posted by Mixner | February 22, 2008 5:06 PM

look folks, if you agree with george and mccain, you are a MILITARY EXPERT (you can get your medal by buying a box of Lucky Charms)

if you DISAGREE with george and mccain, you just don't understand the military (and we better not catch you eating Lucky Charms, you commie bastard)

it's that simple

forget Sun Tzu, Clouswitz, all that foolishness ...

repuglitards make their own reality, and that's what they came up with

deal with it

Posted by free patriot | February 22, 2008 5:09 PM

OK, Mixner.

Who else might be lying here? Could it be--YOU?

Posted by Baldrick | February 22, 2008 5:09 PM

My tank crushes your proportional font!

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | February 22, 2008 5:19 PM

"The military has been broken for over two years."

If the existence of some non-deployable servicemen in the Guard and Reserve is evidence of the military being "broken", than it's always been "broken". The same troops who couldn't get in shape for deployments to Iraq or Afghanistan wouldn't be in fighting shape if we weren't at war in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Of course "broken" is hyperbole. When an army's at war, it's going to have wear and tear, no question. I don't think this has ever been used as an argument to abandon the war effort in one theater to send resources to a less strategically significant theater.

Posted by Fred | February 22, 2008 5:21 PM

I would highly recommend not engaging Mixner. If you do, at least see if you can sneak in some mention of basic economic principles. They drive him nuts.

Posted by too many steves | February 22, 2008 5:21 PM

Baldrick- Anyone Mixner disagrees with is lying. Good luck getting through to that.

Fred- I don't know how awesome Obama is or isn't, but on one side we have Phil Carter and Jake Tapper and investigation/reporting, on the other side you have the Conservative Bloggers and conjecture/outrage. I think my list accurately reflects the results of that confrontation. If you perceive it some other way, please advise.

Posted by Tzal | February 22, 2008 5:23 PM

Baldrick,

You do understand the difference between a fact and a mere unsupported claim of fact, don't you?

Posted by Mixner | February 22, 2008 5:30 PM

Folks, this is the same Matthew Yglesias that told us we should all believe Scott Beauchamp, and all his critics should apologize to TNR!

In any case, Jake Tapper didn't confirm that much for us. Turns out the story was 4-5 years old, even though Obama made it sound like a current problem, and the source is 100% anonymous.

I have done two tours in Iraq. I've never been to Afghanistan, but our supply system everywhere is the best in the world. Throughout our wars, soldiers have always made use of captured equipment. It's what you are SUPPOSED to do!! Can anyone give me an example of a US unit that lost a single battle in Afghanistan from lack of ammunition?

Adjusted for inflation, the USA spends about a hundred times per soldier what it did in WWII. Exactly what does Obama think we are skimping on?

Posted by John Rohan | February 22, 2008 5:35 PM

Watching the CNN Democratic debate last night, I wondered if Barack Obama had reprised George W. Bush's infamous "not ready for duty, sir" accusation about the American military's preparedness. As it turns out, what sounded like Obama hyperbole about the state of overstretched U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan is by and large accurate. And that makes it a far cry from then Governor Bush's slanderous charge at the 2000 Republican National Convention.

For the details, see:
"Obama and Bush's 'Not Ready for Duty, Sir' Fraud."

Posted by Angry | February 22, 2008 5:58 PM

John,

I hear what you're saying. Good points.

If you haven't been deployed to Afghanistan, my suggestion would be to ask someone from a combat unit who has, and see what they have to say. Barring that, read the Afghan dispatches from someone like Michael Yon.

Granted, the units in Central Asia aren't being sent into the field with air rifles. However, it is abundantly clear that this isn't the Administration's focus. In that case, perhaps a post on digg was right: we should have retrofitted better locks on the cockpit doors, and called it a day.

Posted by cmholm | February 22, 2008 6:02 PM

Obama owes a lot to Rove. Rove, by narrowcasting to the nuttiest of the base, gave them the illusion that they represented the base - and now they sorta do, having driven out even the mildly sane.

So I don't think stories like these are a big risk. Rather, stirring up the loonies is an excellent tactic - how many people want Michelle Malkin representing the official white house line on... anything?

The undue influence of the far right over the last seven years was promoted by a media establishment owned by rightwing billionaires and inhabited by lazy people who enjoy appearing on Fox tv. Edwards did a genuinely brilliant thing by refusing to appear on Fox. Why pretend that they are anything more than GOPTV? Rove started to segregate the loonies for his own purposes, but the unexpected result is going to be making them a small, noisy, increasingly bitter niche, counting for little.

Posted by roger | February 22, 2008 6:03 PM

I have done two tours in Iraq. I've never been to Afghanistan

Sure you have. Wingnut bloggers demand independent confirmation!

Posted by Vergil | February 22, 2008 6:04 PM

This is amusing.

Obama's argument can be summarized as follows:

1) The war in Afghanistan was the focal point in the war on terror.
2) For that reason, it was important to take and hold the country from the Taliban.
3) The U.S. had the military strength and know-how to do that.
4) The war in Afghanistan is now going badly, and the Taliban is making a resurgence.
5) There is a high but finite amount of money that the U.S. can spend on the military, and past a certain point, it will be forced to choose how to allocate resources.
6) The military currently has trouble recruiting enough people to replace troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and the government is having trouble funding both wars.
7) Based on (6), it seems that the problems in Afghanistan (4) are a direct result of the invasion of Iraq (5).
8) This little anecdote illustrates that point. since both men and equipment were diverted from the captain's position in Afghanistan to Iraq.
9) People who voted to invade Iraq should have thought of this at the time and planned accordingly.

It's a mistake to attack Obama's anecdote and believe that you have defeated his whole argument.

Points 1, 2, and 3 are probably all true, and it doesn't really speak well of Republicans if they start arguing against them. They are the entire rationale for going into Afghanistan in the first place.

Point 5 is also true, although some people would prefer not to see the bills for the two wars go into the actual budget.

You can argue points 4 and 6, but I think you have to put your head in the sand to do it. Things are not going well in Afghanistan, and the military's recruitment problems are well documented.

Point 7 is what Obama actually said, and drove home point 9 to make the case for him and against Clinton. Point 8 is simply an illustrative case. Even if his story is debunked completely, the onus is on Obama's critics to make the argument that point 7 is not true.

Either prove that the U.S. has more than enough resources to win (in which case, please explain why it isn't), or that the apparent shortfall in resources is not actually damaging the war effort (in which case, please explain the Taliban's apparent recovery and how the U.S. will keep up its troop levels after the end of the "surge".)

Posted by Splitting Image | February 22, 2008 6:08 PM

Yes, there is a finite amount of money that can be spent on the military, especially when "needs" such as ethanol from corn subsidies are to be addressed. Perhaps Senator Obama can explain why those subsides are more important than the needs in Afghanistan he cited last night. I suspect it is because the "Obama needs to be elected" is the most fundamental need of all. Yes We Can!!!

Posted by Will Allen | February 22, 2008 6:18 PM

As the wingnut Intertubes revolution winds down to oblivion, they are reduced to this kind of silliness. They're nuts, all of them, and barely literate to boot.

Posted by Charles Giacometti | February 22, 2008 6:42 PM

Will,

You're right, the corn subsidy situation is out of control. And supporting it is part of the cost of winning the Presidency:

"And in another clear bid to earn favor from his new electorate, [Bush] said that he would support governmental subsidies for ethanol, which is manufactured from corn. He described it as good for farmers and the environment, though it is a position that could cause him trouble among oil producers in Texas." Source New York Times, 6/13/1999.

Posted by cmholm | February 22, 2008 6:45 PM

Jake Tapper cites a conveniently unnamed source to support a claim that is conveniently unfalsifiable in the absence of identifying information. Gee, that's persuasive.
Posted by Mixner

I'll just let the irony of McMixner's comment stand on its own demerits.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 22, 2008 6:49 PM

Just call it a day, rohan and holm. The party's over, the cops broke it up early before you could trash the place and will be hauling most of you off to jail. Wake up and die right.

Vote for Me!

Save the GOP!

My platfor is a tripe and keister!

Posted by Soapy Smith | February 22, 2008 6:58 PM

Apparently, stamping your feet and yelling "Is SO!" is the next line of wingnut defense.

Good luck on that.

Posted by Stu | February 22, 2008 7:00 PM

Adjusted for inflation, the USA spends about a hundred times per soldier what it did in WWII.

Yes, and the people running that supply system are verrrrrrrry competent, aren't they? No way in hell the people who brought us "heck of a job, Brownie" and "this war may last six days, six weeks, I doubt six months" could POSSIBLY fail to provide our soldiers with what they need, is there? After all, they knew right where all those Iraqi WMD were, didn't they?

Posted by Notorious P.A.T. | February 22, 2008 7:44 PM

Some FACTS that the right wing might want to consider before they immolate themselves attacking Obama's argument:

1) Six and a half years after 911, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are running free in Central Asia

2) The major problems in Operation Anaconda and other operations in Afghanistan have been well reported in SOF and other places. See,e.g,
http://www.combatreform.com/realmountaindivision.htm

3) General Tommy FRANKS told Senator Bob Graham that the war in Afghanistan was being kneecaped early on by Bush's diversion of resources to PREPARE for the Iraq invasion. See Graham's book "Intelligence Matters." Graham was Chaiman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Posted by Don Williams | February 22, 2008 8:09 PM

cmholm, that's kinda' my point. Anybody who is wagging his finger about spending priorities and how they affect operations in Afghanistan, while handing out ethanol from corn subsidies with the the other, is just a run of the mill jackass elected by run of the mill jackasses.

Posted by Will Allen | February 22, 2008 8:30 PM

I will also note that while the likely Republican candidate has many faults in my view, kissing the ass of the corn lobby isn't one of them.

Posted by Will Allen | February 22, 2008 8:33 PM

For what it's worth, it isn't spending priorities that keep material out of Afghanistan it's logistical priorities. Iraq is the favored theatre and they get first grab.

Posted by Ed Marshall | February 22, 2008 8:34 PM

All these College Young Republicans and wingnuts are cowards.

They're blogging their way to freedom. No sir, don't ask these wingnuts to sign up for a war that they call for.

If I were president Jonah Goldberg would be at Ft. Jackson in infantry training.

Posted by Consigliere | February 22, 2008 9:15 PM

Yes, Will, John McCain twice skipped Iowa and therefore never had to make ridiculous promises about ethanol and corn subsidies.

But we certainly spend more than enough money on the military to achieve appropriate objectives -- we spend nearly as much as the rest of the world combined.

The problem is how we spend it. One trillion or so for the Iraq War -- probably a quadrillion dollars by the time McCain's 100 year war ends.

You might want to ask McCain how the F22 is relevant to the war on terrorism.

Posted by pj | February 22, 2008 9:16 PM

Interestingly, Obama's day-to-day military affairs advisor, Mark Lippert, is currently on leave from his Senate office. Uncle Sam needed him in uniform in Anbar Province, Iraq.

Hmm, why do I think that George W Bush would have figured out some way to avoid that call-up so he could work on the campaign?

Posted by J | February 22, 2008 9:23 PM

pj, a guy who kisses the ass of the corn lobby is in a poor position to deliver any lectures at all about any misplaced spending priorities.

Posted by Will Allen | February 22, 2008 9:29 PM

A thread on the U.S.'s role in the strife in the Middle East is stopped dead in its tracks by a libertarian who's angry at Big Corn.

If that wasn't a metaphor for something, it sure is now.

Posted by Woody Bombay | February 22, 2008 9:31 PM

A side note: I've heard that some Americans in Afghanistan (private security and regular military) have used Taliban weapons (like AK-47s), largely because other Taliban and Taliban sympathetic people recognize the sound of M4s and come out of the woodwork with their rocket launchers and mortars when they hear one fired. So the Americans will use the AKs everyone else is using if they're trying to keep a low profile.

Posted by Colatina | February 22, 2008 3:12 PM

It was also the case that the Special Forces fellows who first when into Afghanistan (grew beards, rode on horseback) also used AK-47s, and in most cases barely fired them. I can still remember reading about how pissed they were when the 82nd came in and started treating all the villagers that the Special Forces men had cultivated as though they were terrorists.

Posted by Max Renn | February 22, 2008 9:32 PM

If the existence of some non-deployable servicemen in the Guard and Reserve is evidence of the military being "broken", than it's always been "broken".

Ha! Good one.

Except for this one little chestnut--HOW MANY US ARMY DIVISIONS ARE RATED FULLY READY TO DEPLOY?

Zero. They're all undermanned, understaffed and underequipped. The soldiers that are transitioning in aren't trained to fight as cohesive units because they are replacing thousands of troops that are either getting out, can't deploy, are too seriously wounded or have mental health issues. They're chewed up. Their equipment is shot--veh

Platoon

Comments (119)