Not that it matters, at least here in the San Francisco of Texas, which is pretty well set as Obama Country for the Texas Dem primary, judging by the bumper stickers and yard signs. But Barry’s claim at last night’s Dem/MSM dog-and-pony-show (laughingly called "a debate") that our troops in Afghanistan are so desperate that they must capture their weapons from the Taliban is wacko.
From the CNN transcript: "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. 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."
First of all, captains lead companies, not platoons. And for various reasons that would be obvious to anyone with minimal knowledge of our NATO vs the Taliban’s Russian weaponry–which apparently does not include Barry–nothing they have would be useful to us and vice versa. Different rifles. Different rifle ammo. Different shells. &c. So now we see that the Dems’ prospective Pacifist-in-Chief is a bigger boob than anyone thought. Or else his wife (she of the finally-proud-to-be-an-American remark) isn’t the only one affected by self-righteousness and the blunders it breeds.
UPDATE: Heh. And Barry’s claim flew right over Hilarity’s head, as Wretchard points out. These Dems labor in amazing ignorance sometimes.
MORE: ABC News’ Jake Tapper interviews the captain Obama quoted, though does not name him or feel the need to question or corroborate his details, and shows (though Tapper doesn’t say so) that Barry (to be charitable about it) garbled the officer’s message. For one thing, the captain didn’t say fifteen of his men went to Iraq, or that they lacked ammunition in Afghanistan, or raise the crucial Obama detail that they needed captured weapons–only that they had used some of them from time to time. Obama also didn’t mention that this information was five years old, occurring in 2003. So, while Tapper concludes that we bloggers have gone off half-cocked, I still think it’s a shoddy political performance, and close to an outright lie.
THE TEXAS SCRIBBLER 
It DOES sound like his mouth ran quite a bit ahead of his brain, doesn’t it?
Long as he doesn’t put a helmet on and have a photo taken in a tank he’ll probably still be okay.
Tank or no tank, it’s probably a forecast of what he’ll do and say in the future. I suspect that, like most lefties, he prides himself on knowing nothing about the military.
Okay now I have to ask, is this a hard-and-fast rule about Captains and companies? I’ve tried to peg this one down, and maybe this is a situation where the answer varies between Army and USMC.
But the best answer I can get is it goes Sgt-Lt-Cpt-Maj-Col leading a squad/platoon/company/battalion/regiment, and BgG-MaG-LtG-Gen leading brigade/division/corps/army. Yet — in times of combat, it’s not at all uncommon for a switcheroo to take place, Captains can take command of platoons, they can also take commands of battalions. Lieutenant-Cols. can, and have, taken command of regiments, and Colonels have taken command of brigades.
Rules have exceptions in times of crisis.
Of course, in that spirit, I’m confident that Obama was even more off the deep end with 39 men to a platoon. If there’s 38 there’s something seriously wrong? I have to doubt it. But I don’t know.
“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.”
This is the issue, Morgan, Barry’s incredible claim which falls apart on examination. The other details could be argued endlessly with what-ifs, though I see no reason to do that.
Sure captains could command any size unit, but in the infantry (this is about a rifle platoon) they normally only command companies. Since Obama didn’t mention any special circumstance, we can assume he just didn’t know any better. As for the weapons, there’ve been endless debates about the relative merits of the AK-47 vs. the M-4.
But the AK-47 is a peasant’s gun, a trash rifle of no use at long range because it’s so inaccurate. It’s a pray-and-spray weapon, which is only good for closeup in, say, a jungle or a city. But even if our guys were capturing them in order to fight, which is ludicrous to begin with, they’d need to also capture large quantities of 7.62 mm ammo for them, since we only issue 5.56 mm, the NATO round. It’s all just political BS
Dick,
If you’re asking the reason, the one thing the “noses-per-platoon” issue has that the “Taliban weapons” issue does not, is that it shows a mindset that is accustomed to quibbling over numbers. As if the speaker had become acclimated to dishing out a bunch of snotty lecturing over things like students-per-classroom, in an effort to appeal to teachers’ unions.
Of course there wouldn’t be any tendency to carry such a lazy talking point from one subject into a decidedly different one, if the man is as BRILL-YUNT as Oprah has repeatedly instructed me to believe.
jdallen nailed it, in my opinion. The soul-savior dished out one sound bite and got himself into a triumvirate of triple-threat trouble. Somewhere, George W. Bush is furiously taking notes, or I have to question whether he’s ever managed to do that well.
The numbers part of Barry’s claim is curious for other reasons. I could see a large reserve unit being so broken up that its small units would field fewer people than normal, but not where a small unit would be divided so a portion of its people could go to another country altogether. Then, he says, “as a consequence,” of the split-up, the remaining troops were light on ammo. Huh? I don’t get it.
This story has more holes than your average kitchen sponge. How many you’re going to find, is a derivative not of Obama’s comments themselves, but on how much time you spend with a combat veteran or other authority with sufficient knowledge of these workings. The longer you go at it the more you’ll find.
A very decent takedown is available at another Corner article (and ensuing thread).
Talking about shooting off your foot at the neck…
Thanks for the link, Morgan. At the very least, the prospective CINC needs a crash course in military matters.