[...] Marine audience at Camp Lejeune sit in wild, rapturous applause for President Barack Obama. (Photo by Gerry Broome / [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Hat tip BlackFive for this from Mudville Gazette:

Diversions (III)

Greyhawk

Remember the Iraq drawdown you heard about last month? The one where a Brigade originally scheduled for Iraq was going to Afghanistan instead? Well, a funny thing about that…

Last weekend we noted this obscure bit of news from ABC:

Gen. Odierno will receive a Stryker Brigade to replace the incoming replacement brigade diverted to Afghanistan just a week ago. That means that he will continue to maintain the current level of two Stryker brigades in Iraq.

While that story might be obscure, it’s anything but insignificant. The diversion of the Stryker Brigade (one of two that were then scheduled to replace the two currently in Iraq) to Afghanistan made headlines as the President appeared at Camp Lejeune to announce his Iraq drawdown and Afghanistan “surge”. As noted here at the time, that followup report – if accurate – “exposes everything you’ve heard about troop deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan over the past two weeks as an absolute hoax on the American public.”

Read the first entry in this series for details of the preparations made by the Stryker Brigade for an Iraq deployment – 10-month Arabic language schools being just part of the training rendered useless by a reassignment to a country where the locals don’t speak it.

Of course, “intensive, 10-month Arabic language training” and “exercises… where they had to help their commanders negotiate with native-speaker role players” were now useless – but if they were no longer needed in Iraq, so be it.

But they were needed in Iraq – just not as badly as the Obama administration needed to make it appear that troops initially slotted for Iraq were going to Afghanistan instead – seemingly making good on a key campaign promise. So with much fanfare the Iraq drawdown (consisting entirely of the Stryker Brigade)/Afghanistan surge (Strykers plus a Marine unit) was announced, and subsequent polls indicated Americans were wildly enthusiastic about the idea.

And a few days later no one would notice the bombshell reported by ABC: “Gen. Odierno will receive a Stryker Brigade to replace the incoming replacement brigade diverted to Afghanistan just a week ago” – perhaps because within 24 hours of reporting that news they changed it to this:

ABC News has also learned that Gen. Odierno will continue to maintain a Stryker Brigade presence in Iraq through the upcoming elections as he had requested. There are currently two Stryker Brigades in Iraq. When their tours end later this year, only one of those departing brigades will be replaced by an incoming Stryker Brigade.

Not only was there no explanation of the “correction”, there wasn’t even an acknowledgment of the change on the site.

But wait… there’s more…

*****

I don’t like conspiracy theories – I suspected that ABC’s initial report was due to some sort of simple misunderstanding and that the corrected version was in fact correct. But to confirm that I sent a simple email to them:

Greetings
Just linked this in a post, but subsequently discovered the line “ABC News has also learned that Gen. Odierno will receive a Stryker Brigade to replace the incoming replacement brigade diverted to Afghanistan just a week ago” has since vanished without explanation.

What happened?

Even though it was the weekend they were kind enough to reply:

That was updated.

I checked to see if they were referring to a subsequent update – they weren’t. So I replied:

Clearly. But that’s rather a dramatic change to make without explanation, don’t you think? The original version indicates the entire narrative of diverting troops from Iraq to Afghanistan is a fraud perpetrated on the American public. The later version is hardly newsworthy.

Aren’t corrections of that magnitude worthy of an appended explanation?

It’s been a week since that was sent and I’ve received no reply. But that’s probably because other developments have rendered the point somewhat moot.

*****

Specifically, last Monday the DoD announced:

The Department of Defense announced today that 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, based in Ft. Lewis, Wash., will deploy in the fall of 2009 to support Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The brigade consists of approximately 4,000 personnel and will deploy as a replacement unit for a formation currently operating in Iraq. Its deployment will provide commanders in Iraq the flexibility to maintain the appropriate level of effort based on their assessment of the security situation on the ground.

The next day’s Tacoma News Tribune would report:

A Fort Lewis Stryker combat brigade will deploy to Iraq this fall, several months ahead of the original schedule, Army officials said Monday.

When the 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division departs, all three Stryker brigades based at the Army post will be simultaneously deployed to combat for the first time. Each brigade has about 4,000 soldiers.

And ABC would change their story once again – this time with an explanation:

Editor’s Note: Over the weekend, additional information led us to rework this article. We have restored the original wording as additional reporting reconfirms the information posted Friday night.

Gen. Odierno will maintain a two-Stryker Brigade presence through the rest of this year even though a replacement Stryker Brigade had been redirected to Afghansitan [sic]. The Pentagon’s announcement Monday that the 4th Stryker BCT, 2nd Infantry Division will head to Iraq in the Fall means both brigades currently in Iraq will be replaced by Stryker Brigades. In shorthand, the 4th SBCT/2nd ID will replace the 1st SBCT/25th ID and the 3rd SBCT/2nd ID will the 56th National Guard Stryker Brigade.

Kudos to them for reporting it, but they fail to connect the dots – removing a Brigade from Iraq (or from the schedule to go to Iraq) and replacing it with another Brigade is no way to accomplish a “drawdown” (except in newspaper headlines).

*****

Let’s recap the salient points here:

1. In September, 2008, the 5th Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) – after months of preparation – is ordered to Iraq. (One of two SBCTs that were then scheduled to replace the two currently in Iraq)

2. In February, 2009, President Obama announces his Iraq drawdown/Afghanistan surge – the 5th SBCT will be diverted to Afghanistan instead of Iraq.

3. March, 2009, the DoD announces the 4th SBCT will deploy to Iraq this fall, several months ahead of the original schedule replacing the 5th SBCT in the rotation in order to maintain two Stryker Brigades in Iraq.

For the record, I’m in favor of commanders on the ground getting the forces they need to get the job done. I have no doubt that two Stryker Brigades are needed in Iraq, and others in Afghanistan.

I’m deeply concerned when I see troop rotations “adjusted” in what appears to be an effort to fool the American public. But I appreciate that the Obama administration can do that in plain sight, even providing press releases detailing exactly how they’re doing it.

I’m even more concerned that those efforts – and the ramifications thereof – are obvious to an American media assumed to be independent of the Executive Branch but apparently unconcerned about reporting its activities. Item two above was headline grabbing/TV news lead story material – item three indicates it was a fraud.

One year ago that would have been a hell of a story, don’t you think?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I used to say that I didn’t hate Obama. I have changed my mind.

http://tinyurl.com/d8ajpn

and

http://tinyurl.com/bsjrcy

I am now, as I was “then”, a Troop first and foremost. I shred this pathetic speech the evening he spoke it, complete with Grunt Speak.

Obama. Fraud.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Perhaps Obama is concerned that Iraq has become too free and needs to keep his fingers in the pot to insure they conform to the new world socialism.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

SoCal Chris, It was moving to see the energetic excitement, and the respect shared by the troops and President Bush for each other. President diving into the sea of our troops with handshake, kisses and hugs. Absent from the Obama video.

Wordsmith, I don’t doubt at all that there were many of our troops overwhelmed by emotion at Obama’s historic election. I also don’t doubt that those same troops would have shown respect and affection for President Bush while in his presence. Different reasons for their reactions, but same response.

I loved your post, again, you do good stuff!

Obama hasn’t changed a thing, it doesn’t matter what “words” he carefully elects to use, the enemy has their say, too. If something horribly unfortunate happens to upset the tentative plans that have been put in place, what then? So far Obama is hiding behind words, do we know if he will be bold enough to do what’s necessary? I’m not confident.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Thank you, Missy…I about used up my kleenex box watching those of President Bush…my heart is so much with the military, and, of course, President Bush, and when President Bush receives this kind of well-deserved reception, I’m overcome with emotion, to say the very least. Perhaps I feel, as a staunch President Bush supporter, that it’s an affirmation for ALL of us who’ve vicariously, through him, served our country, as he has done so commendably. I’m sure some folks here at FA have the numbers, but I wonder how many of these brave servicemen and women joined the service after 9-11-2001, after hearing President Bush’s strong and famous response to do whatever it takes to defend America, bringing justice to those who did us harm on that fateful day? I in no way am minimizing those who were already enlisted at that time, serving their country selflessly, but I’m sure the bond of those enlistees, with President Bush as the Commander in Chief post 9/11, was strong beyond words. When I see the video with Obama, and the lack of the soldier’s affection towards him, my heart breaks for these same military heroes, losing “their” Commander in Chief. I know they are strong, and will make it, though. We all need to remember to stand strong with our military, letting them know we are still behind them 110%.

Thank you, Blast, as well, for the link to that story. We’ll keep those families in our prayers, too.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Thanks blast; thanks Missy. I’ve seen some of those video comparisons. To be fair, I’ve also seen photos of soldiers in tears (I know what you’re thinking!) or expressing joy during President Obama’s inauguration.

Having so much trouble getting on FA today.

We all have been having trouble since yesterday. Blame Curt’s Server Guy. It’s been a royal pain editing this post and trying to arrange it into something coherrent when I get errors and can’t save the updated draft, as I’m working. Finally got frustrated and just posted after a dozen tries at “publish”.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Good job Word, going to come back and finish reading later. Having so much trouble getting on FA today.

Thought you might want to take a peek, hope this posts.

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/8185

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Story about accident involving Marines from Camp Lejeune. (today)

Like or Dislike: 0  0