Since this weeks Texas Democratic debate, something has been stirring online concerning a story told by Barack Obama. The Senator relayed a story he claimed to have heard from an Army Captain who said it was easier to capture weapons from the Taliban in Afghanistan than get the necessary equipment from the United States. The reason was because resources had been moved to Iraq. The Pentagon questioned the account.

Some bloggers were skeptical. You can check out comments at, Hot Air, Ace of Spades, , Free Republic, The Weekly Standard, Amy Procter, Flopping Aces, Cop the Truth, Astute Bloggers, Political Inquirer to name a few.

Some of the bloggers believe the story is outright fiction, some believe the idea is right but the facts are off. ABC News reporter Jack Tripper reported that he talked to Obama’s source on the story and though the overall idea turned up to be factually correct during his investigation some of the details were off including the fact that the “captain” was a lieutenant at the time.

MSNBC reports that they talked to the captain and found:

The captain, who spoke on background because he’s still active duty, said that his unit temporarily had to replace their .50-caliber turret-mounted machine gun with a weapon seized from the Taliban because they couldn’t get a needed part fast enough.

He did not say that any of the shortages contributed to any combat casualties in his unit. But he said any shortage, whether in training or combat operations, was inexcusable for the U.S. military.

Obama said the captain had served as the head of a rifle platoon, which should have had 39 members — but 15 had been sent to Iraq so the unit deployed to Afghanistan had only 24 soldiers.

Obama’s campaign said an ABC News interview with the captain confirmed the story. ABC said the officer was a lieutenant when he led a platoon to Afghanistan in 2003. Fifteen soldiers were reassigned to other units in ones and twos and not replaced before the unit deployed, ABC cited the captain as saying. He knew 10 had gone to Iraq, and suspected the other five had too, ABC said.

The AP noted (found via hot air):

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. It is also commanded by a lieutenant and not a captain.

So in short, though the story is accurate the overall idea is off. This soldier, who was a lieutenant at the time not a captain, did use captured Iraqi weapons. However this has been something of a common practice and though a part they needed couldn’t be had fast enough it did not result in any casualties or operation loss. Also though the platoon did not 39 soldiers, a platoon does not NEED to have that many soldiers to be functional. Obviously more soldiers is always nice to have but there doesn’t seem to be evidence yet that those numbers destroyed operations or resulted in casualties.

In addition Jack Trapper and ABC News later reported that Former Senate Armed Services Committee chairman John Warner has written a letter to Senator Obama “seeking more information on the captain and the details of the deployment.” Warner was head of the committee during the time this incident supposedly took place, in 2003, and wants to know the truth behind what is going on.

I am sure more will come out of all this.