Tennesseefree.com

UPDATED: I originally attributed the post to Glen, when it was in fact Serr8d who wrote it. I should have known. Even Glen’s not that bad. Apologies to Glen.

Serr8d gleefully falls in line with the conservative echo chamber, calling Obama out for his anecdote about an Army captain in Afghanistan during the debate, citing an ABC news blurb that notes a couple of minor inaccuracies. One small problem for Serr8d (and the other conservatives in the echo chamber), however: the full ABC News source confirms Obama’s story. What the ABC News reporter actually says (bold mine):

Asked about the story in the Spin Room last night, Obama strategist David Axelrod told the National Review’s Stephen Spruiell, “that was a discussion that a captain in the military had with our staff, and he asked that that be passed along to Senator Obama.”

Conservatives have weighed in on this story, many of them challenging its veracity (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE.)

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.

Short answer: He backs up Obama’s story.

The longer answer is worth telling, though.

The Army captain, a West Point graduate, did a tour in a hot area of eastern Afghanistan from the Summer of 2003 through Spring 2004.

Prior to deployment the Captain — then a Lieutenant — took command of a rifle platoon at Fort Drum. When he took command, the platoon had 39 members, but — in ones and twos — 15 members of the platoon were re-assigned to other units. He knows of 10 of those 15 for sure who went to Iraq, and he suspects the other five did as well.

The platoon was sent to Afghanistan with 24 men.

“We should have deployed with 39,” he told me, “we should have gotten replacements. But we didn’t. And that was pretty consistent across the battalion.”

He adds that maybe a half-dozen of the 15 were replaced by the Fall of 2003, months after they arrived in Afghanistan, but never all 15.

As for the weapons and humvees, there are two distinct periods in this, as he explains — before deployment, and afterwards.

At Fort Drum, in training, “we didn’t have access to heavy weapons or the ammunition for the weapons, or humvees to train before we deployed.”

What ammunition?

40 mm automatic grenade launcher ammunition for the MK-19, and ammunition for the .50 caliber M-2 machine gun (”50 cal.”)

“We weren’t able to train in the way we needed to train,” he says. When the platoon got to Afghanistan they had three days to learn.

They also didn’t have the humvees they were supposed to have both before deployment and once they were in Afghanistan, the Captain says.

“We should have had 4 up-armored humvees,” he said. “We were supposed to. But at most we had three operable humvees, and it was usually just two.”

So what did they do? “To get the rest of the platoon to the fight,” he says, “we would use Toyota Hilux pickup trucks or unarmored flatbed humvees.” Sometimes with sandbags, sometimes without.

Also in Afghanistan they had issues getting parts for their MK-19s and their 50-cals. Getting parts or ammunition for their standard rifles was not a problem.

“It was very difficult to get any parts in theater,” he says, “because parts are prioritized to the theater where they were needed most — so they were going to Iraq not Afghanistan.”

“The purpose of going after the Taliban was not to get their weapons,” he said, but on occasion they used Taliban weapons. Sometimes AK-47s, and they also mounted a Soviet-model DShK (or “Dishka”) on one of their humvees instead of their 50 cal.

The Captain has spoken to Sen. Obama, he says, but this anecdote was relayed to Obama through an Obama staffer.

I find that Obama’s anecdote checks out.

Some are quibbling about whether or not the “commander in chief” can be held responsible for how well our soldiers are being equipped, since Congress provides the funding for the military, but the Pentagon (and ultimately President Bush) are in charge of the funding mechanism.

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.

In quibbling about the details of Obama’s anecdote, conservative war supporters like Serr8d are dodging the far more important issue here: that “supporting the troops” isn’t just a slogan, or a cute yellow magnet you stick on the back of your car. It means giving them the tools they need — in terms of manpower, training, and equipment — to do their jobs effectively, rather than trying to run a war on the cheap. It’s about giving them a clear mission with clear objectives and a consistent strategy. All but those blinded by their ideology can see that this administration has been a miserable failure when it comes to supporting the troops in these ways, the ways that count the most when the rubber hits the road.

It’s infuriating to me because it really shouldn’t be a partisan issue. I guaran-damn-tee you I’d be every bit as pissed off at a Democratic administration if they were to treat our armed forces the way this administration has. I don’t give a damn what letter they have after their names.

Even if Obama’s anecdote had been completely fabricated, rather than almost completely true, it would still illustrate a very real problem, one which pro-war conservatives refuse to even acknowledge exists, to their eternal discredit.

P.S. to Serr8d: The legislative branch does indeed pass funding resolutions for the war and whatnot, but they only have limited say in how that money actually gets spent. And legislative attempts to deviate from what the president asks for have been met with vetoes and veto threats, not to mention filibusters by GOP senators…