Obama Versus The Milbloggers

As a proud member of the Right Wing Noise Machine (or are we now the Freak Show?) I can only say "Ouch".  IMHO, Jake Tapper gets the goods from the Obama campaign and squelches folks like this at the Weekly Standard.

For flavor let's go with the WS lead:

There is a lot about Obama's story that makes no sense.  Let us start with the opening line:

"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."

Well, captains command companies, not rifle platoons. A rifle platoon is normally commanded by a 2nd lieutenant, sometimes (if short handed) by a senior sergeant. So for starters, Obama betrays a woeful ignorance of military organization and the chain of command.  Then he remarks that the platoon was under-strength because 15 of its men had been "sent to Iraq." Sorry, the Army doesn't work that way. Platoons are organic units, consisting of three rifle squads, a heavy weapons squad, and a headquarters section. You can't break it up. It is the smallest building block in the infantry that can conduct fire-and-movement tactics.

Tapper talked to the Obama people, got ahold of the captain in question, and delivered this:

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."

As I said, "ouch".

MORE:  As I said, Ace is made of sterner stuff, and notes that Tapper's story does not back Obama's claims on the topic of captured ammo and equipment.

And here is the AP:

ABC News said it talked to the unidentified captain, whose account of shortages in Afghanistan was for the most part accurately summarized by Obama, although not verified.

The captain said, however, that the unit did not go after the Taliban for the purpose of getting their weapons, but sometimes used those weapons when some were captured.

BUT THEN AGAIN:  Phil Carter notes that a certain amount of scavenging is part of war, but takes Obama side.

Comments

[Thomas Collins]

Folks worrying that Barry the O hasn't been sufficiently vetted might better spend their time researching Rezko and the machinations of machine politics in Illinois than on Barry's blusterings. Let's face it, there have been seemingly lightweight "change" candidates before, and Barry is no worse than any of them. He might even turn out to be a decent President. What troubles me is that the MSM hasn't dug deeply enough into his various wheelings and dealings. At least we've had plenty of digging into Billary and the Ancient Mariner over the years. Barry the O is still a relative unknown who may be less than a year away from taking the POTUS oath of office.

[Garth]

sounds like the WS took the bait and some nice prep on obama's side to know they would have to produce the captain.

smart move.

[rplat]

Who is this jackass and what unit was he assigned to? Did he inform his commander before he puked his guts out to a politico. We need to know more about this guy and his unit. I spent 35 years as a soldier and from time-to-time I experienced some serious logistical problems but never did I let it effect the welfare of my troops or my mission, nor did I whine to the media. I think what we have here is a young captain that really needs attention. This sorry story just doesn't have much effect.

[Anon]

Where the hell to start with this.

Let's start with did Obama believe it-the story -himself?

Well-for frig's sake the answer looks like a bloody yes does it not?

Then what does Obama doe with "it"-

Is he a Man of Action or damn it-Mr.Pretty Wordman?

If the story was true-Obama had certain repsonsibilites did he not? A call to duty...

What action did he take as a US Senator- what did he do with the story-vote "Present".

Or did he preserve the conditions of that story for his OWN political gain.

Which brings me to that Grand Dame Hillary.

The punditocracy everywhere is lauding the vaildictory nature of her las statement.

You have got to be kidding me.

She lists the case of the soldier with his face blown off, and the amputees limping in-

So that she can STEAL THEIR VOICES for her political gain-and essentially minimize their sacrifce to STAB their BROTHERS in the back and erradicate the gains made through THEIR sacrifice.

{She! now has a plan to get out in less than 60 days!-ya that's optimal...}

I can't express it-I'm too angry.

But- if Jack Tapper had any GUTS he'd interview those guys who's story Hillary used.

Ask them who they'd vote for-

All of a sudden Tapper and the Liberals would remember that the active duty have a duty to remain apolitical.

Which didn't seem to bother them in this case, ey?

[Alamo]

Ouch my ass. Tappers professed celief in this Captain's credibility established nothing. All very....."Foeresque" to coin a term. TNR continuously calimed their source "credible" while he remained anonymous- and they ended up being shown for the hacks they are.

And even if the unidentified Captain is genuine, his story and the account put forward by the Messiah vary in significant and meaningful ways.

[Anon]

Short answer:

Tapper you useless jackalope go ask those guys at the Vet Hospital that Hillary so "eloquently" used in her final "winning" comment, what they think of the Democratic Lose the War as Fast as You Can Plan.

[Anon]

Well ya-

First Obama says he was a Capt.

Tapper says he was a Lt.

Then it was an undermanned-situation normal- division . It wasn't divided against Army policy as Obama declared.

There's probably more differences...

[Sue]

I can only say "Ouch". IMHO, Jake Tapper gets the goods from the Obama campaign and squelches folks like this at the Weekly Standard.

Does he really? As Rusty, over at Jawa says, this doesn't mean the story has been verified, only that the storyteller has been located. It seemed to me that the story had come to Obama recently. Is that the way others thought? If so, what took the captain so long to tell his story, why did he give it to Obama, and are there other stories similar to his and if so, why have we not heard them?

I saw somewhere while surfing this story, I can't remember where, so I don't know who to hat tip, a comment about if our soldiers are indeed capturing Taliban weapons without any weapons of our own, we are indeed kicking some serious butt in Afghanistan.

Indeed.

[Pofarmer]

I think what we have here is a young captain that really needs attention.

Ouch.

I've got a feeling the attention you have in mind isn't the attention this young captain would like.

[Pofarmer]

If there actually is a young captain, that is.

[Garth]

face it.

obama's version was carefully worded to be verified in detail from an unimpeachable source. the story is true.

what's being exposed is the automatic RW attack hyenas savaging every sad detail that doesn't jibe with their prefered reality.

this was no off the cuff remark by obama, but clever bait that has been taken up by the sharks, heedless of the hook in it.

IT'S ALL TRUE. EVERY LAST VERIFIABLE DETAIL IS TRUE!

choke on it.

just another mindless diversion from the sucking mccain drain.

[Other Tom]

I wouldn't say "ouch," or anything else, until I'd had a chance to talk to this officer. I'm not sure we will ever have a chance to hear what, say, his company commander has to say about the reasons for whatever parts of the story are true, because apparently the officer will not let us know the identity of the company commander, or the battalion commander, or anyone else except the "Commander-in-Chief."

"He knows of 10 of those 15 for sure who went to Iraq, and he suspects the other five did as well." Really? When did those ten go to Iraq? Were they detached from his platoon for the purpose of going to Iraq, or for some other reason, and simply end up in Iraq later on? Why does this officer "suspect" that the other five went to Iraq?

What was the function of this "rifle platoon?" If in fact it was downsized, was that downsizing done because, army-wide, platoons with that particular mission were restructured?

It is simply not conceivable to me that the army would ever begin to cherry-pick individuals from a unit as small as a platoon in order to commit resources from one theater to another. I don't think it has ever happened in the history of the US Army, and if anyone knows of a contrary example I'd love to hear about it.

There is a lot more (or less) to this story than we have been told thus far.

[Garth]

the full guts of the article;

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.

[michaelt]

Obama said it
Garth believes it
That settles it.

[Topsecretk9]

Usually instapundit says "ouch"

[boris]

"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.

So a platoon, defined as between 16 to 40 soldiers was temporarily closer to 16 than 40. BFD.

Is the implication that Soldiers in Afghanistan, at this time, seriously underequipped true or not? If not, is it therefore a lie or just standard leftist political boilerplate?

[Sue]

Obama: "They were actually capturing Taliban weapons because it was easier getting Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current Commander in Chief."

The Captain: "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.

Nuance. The left had a candidate that was nuanced last go round. I'm sure he, like Garth, doesn't see any difference in the 2 statements.

[SteveMG]

Obama: "They [US troops] 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."

Captain: "The purpose of going after the Taliban was not to get their weapons" 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.

Hmm, a bit of a discrepancy. Were they using Taliban weapons because they were easier to get?; or did they use them because it was smart to use them? Need or improvisation?

In any event, as the saying goes, "for example is not proof."

I'm going to want more than one anecdote.

[SteveMG]

Ooops, Sue beat me to it.

[Topsecretk9]

Spruiell has a lot of military emailers, but this is an excellent question...

Another veteran writes, "There's also the obvious question of, if they're so short of U.S. ammunition, how are they managing to capture Taliban ammunition."

Bueller? Bueller?

[MikeS]

"...And that was pretty consistent across the battalion."

[SteveMG]

A story about military preparedness in Afghanistan in the summer of 2003 and 2004 is relevant today how?

Obama neglected to put an expiration date on his anecdote.

[Anon]

Tops-

Obama:I heard from a 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.

Which might beg the question-

If it was so easy to get Taliban weapons then why would they need more guys?

Afghanistan has been lauded by Chinese generals of all people as a job well done and subject of their study.

[clarice]

AJ's not buying the tale either:
Tell me a Tale that you told long ago

I'm not buying it, at least in the O version. While the Lt/Capt is not in Scott Beauchamp territory, I expect he embellished a bit (as BFD Boris notes) and then I think O added his special sauce and stirred.

[Topsecretk9]

If it was so easy to get Taliban weapons then why would they need more guys?

Exactly.

Spruiell's emails are pretty great

I am an Infantry Captain. I have deployed to Afghanistan twice, OEF 4 (2003-2004) and OEF 7-8 (2006-2007). In the army, we don't split up units like that; the quote about 15 guys from a rifle platoon bound for Afghanistan getting sent to Iraq is utter nonsense. Not enough ammunition? are you nuts? No soldier leaves Bagram Airfield without a Basic Load, 210 rds of 5.56 (7 full magazines)....

...US Soldiers do not use enemy weapons or equipment under most circumstances (Special Forces and assorted secret squirrel guys sometimes do). Think about it: why would I train up on a weapon system, zero the optic so that I hit what I aim at, maintain it etc. and then trade it in for an AK47?

What do we do with captured Taliban/Al-Qaeda/Haqqani/Waziri equipment? We turn some of it over to the Afghan police (what is serviceable, which usually isn't much) and Afghan army units, but the majority is destroyed.

I seriously question the veracity of the "Army Captain" referred to. Most disturbing to me about this incident is it illustrates how clueless Obama and his staff are when it comes to the military. Prepared to be the CIC indeed...— JDT

Here's my question - if Obama's Captain is to be believed simply because he says so, then why isn't JDT or Pete L. or any other serving or previously served troops who question it or disagree?

Personally I'm kind of tired of exploiting and believing only anti-war troops. Further, the left and the press do not care or want to here about or from troops who are proud of their mission or want to recount their successes.

If Obama's Captain wants to say what he wants, fine - but JDT and Pete L. and thousands of other soldiers get as much or more validity and time in my book.

[Jane]

Fox reports that the Pentagon disputes Obama, who got an advance look at a NY Times story and no one can believe the NY Times.

I swear.

[Forbes]

Were up-armored Humvees an issue in the summer of 2003? IIRC, the armoring of Humvees became a news and policy issue in Iraq not until 2004 or 2005. (My nephew--Army infantry Sgt--served in OIF II--'04-'05--without armored Humvees.)

Anyone?

Also, Obama's claim is that soldiers needed to capture Taliban weapons and ammo because they were not being properly supplied and re-supplied. Jake Tapper's report does not support that claim.

[Topsecretk9]

hear, not here from above. Sheesh.

[RichatUF]

I was poking around and found that Task Force Warrior from Drum was deployed from 03-04. It included the 1st Brigade CT, and I've found write ups for the 1/87, 2/87, and 2/22. I find the training argument hard to believe because I thought everyone deploying had to go through 3 months at NTC or JRTC first?

Wonder if this guy got on the Winter Soldier II panel and has dreams of becoming the Lt (jg) Kerry II for this war?

[GMax]

The storyline was that we were beggaring our troops with too few men and so scarce ammo that they were having to confiscate weapons from the slain or wounded or abandoned enemy just to be able to fight.

Coming up with a Captain who did talk to Obama is certainly a nice touch. It does remove the making shit up charge from the table.

But Captain story is not supportive of scavenging weapons to be able to fight.

And then there is the small admission that 12 of the missing 15 from the platoon were replaced within months. So is 3 short in a platoon odd, is it even a story?

I find this whole thing to be a candidate hearing what he wanted to hear and then throwing in some more stuff about the CinC not supplying the troops cuz that would be just what the Out of Iraq coalition would believe and further would eat it up.

[Bill in AZ]

OT - Politico has a piece on Bush hammering congress on not passing the Protect America Act.

Reyes, the House intelligence chairman, told NPR on Thursday: “President Bush has just been spoiled dealing with the Republican-controlled Congress before. I take strong offense at the president's comments that somehow we're less safe because the Protect America Act expired.”

And I had just fired up my brand new replacement ACME IronyMeter after the last one melted last week - and this one already has a bent needle.

[Enlightened]

So Obama spews a contrived anecdote which allegedly answered the question of how his lack of experience qualifies him for CIC.

The only answer he came up with was second- hand, anecdotal drivel some 4 years old, proving he is adept at blaming George Bush or This Administration.

And yet there they were - standing and clapping and oohing and ahhing for the apparent next leader of this country whose only qualifications are his oratorial BDS skills.

A Supahstar is born.

[Sara]

I've read so many milblogger comments on this story this morning, I now can't find the link, but one soldier made what I think is a pretty good point. He said that soldiers learn the sound a particular type of weapon makes and it would be suicide to go to battle with confiscated AK-47s as our side would figure you for the enemy and blow your position to smitherines.

[cathyf]

Hmmm... Is this a coincidence? On Tuesday, the Illinois National Guard press office put out a release (warning, .doc file) It included these explanatory paragraphs:

According to Maj. Gen. William Enyart, Adjutant General of the Illinois National Guard, the mobilization of the 33rd IBCT is unique in comparison to previous Illinois Army National Guard call-ups for operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom.

“Previously, Illinois Guard battalions and companies have been mobilized and attached to another brigade once they arrived in theater,” Enyart explained. “By mobilizing the entire 33rd Brigade Combat Team, our Soldiers will not only train together as a cohesive team, they will deploy together as a family.”

So, I wonder how mangled this story is? If this is a guard or reserve platoon, then, yeah, calling up individuals with high-demand jobs and attaching them to another unit is how it works -- that's why they call it reserves after all.

Then there is the whole question of attrition, and individual troops not deploying and getting reassigned when things happen. So consider this scenario: there is a platoon that is deploying within a very short time to Iraq. One of the members who has an important (must have) job tears his achilles tendon playing basketball, and can't deploy. Then the only other platoon member with the same specialty is injured in a car accident (Murphy's law, ya know.) So the army scrambles and finds a platoon which has 5 people who are in that specialty, and transfers two of them into the platoon that's deploying. That's how a platoon that (eventually) deploys to Afghanistan could lose 2 guys to a platoon that needs to deploy to Iraq right away.

The captain is very vague about the whole time period of the transfers. So, over a period of months, people got transferred out and transferred in, and so they end up having to go to Afghanistan temporarily with closer to 16 than 40, as boris says. Then when they got to Afghanistan they got some individuals transferring in. This is how the military works -- in previous wars platoons would be constantly restructured to deal with the killed and injured. In more modern times it's gotten hugely easier, since there are orders of magnitude fewer troops killed and wounded in battle, but this problem is an inherent part of military operations and the military has been dealing with it since the dawn of warfare. People are not perfect -- they have gallbladder attacks and get cancer and have accidents and need to be replaced. No one is irreplaceable.

It's essentially a random process -- sometimes you lose somebody who is easy to replace, sometimes it's somebody hard to replace -- and who is easy or hard to replace changes from week to week even day by day. Groups deploying right away have priority over groups deploying later. The equipment needs of soldiers in theatre take higher priority over those training back home. Because of the random nature of the process, some platoons will be hit hard, others barely affected. This is how the military is supposed to work! Nobody is irreplaceable, and the military has solved the problem of scrambling around and doing replacements and getting the mission accomplished.

[in_awe]

I find it charming of Obambi to cite this story, when at the same time the Dems have done everything in their power to stop the flow of supplies and warriors to the front lines for over 2 years now. Doesn't anyone recall how Harry and Nancy used the defense funding bills as leverage for months and months and months?

It didn't seem to bother Obambi that his buddies in Congress were conspiring to do that to the very troops he "honors" - all for POLITICAL GAIN.

Disgusting.

[Anon]

The Capt. then Lt. was on duty in Afghanistan from the summer of 2003 to early Spring 2004-

The casualties during June 2003 through Oct.2003-the first five months of his tour-

Five.

It's at this website maintained by a liberal organization-

http://cryptome.org/mil-dead-iqw.htm#June%202003

[Anon]

In fact you could make the argument for argument's sake that they should have sent less troops to Afghanistan.

[hit and run]

Bill in AZ:
And I had just fired up my brand new replacement ACME IronyMeter after the last one melted last week - and this one already has a bent needle.

Word of advice. Ditch the ironometers.

Read on the internet with your fists clinched palms facing you. When you read a story you can measure by observing the extent to which the middle finger on your dominant hand is automatically raised in exclusion of the others. And if both middle fingers are raised, well...

And if instead of raising any fingers you start punching the monitor...

Wait. Maybe an ironometer is more economical.

[PeterUK]

It is very common in warfare for troops to use captured weaponry,soldiers of the Wehrmacht prized the Russian PPSh-41 submachine gun.The AK47 is used by US in Iraq and Afghanistan,whatever is plentiful and does the job at a given time.Special forces use whatever they see fit.
It is insane to think that troops only use standard issue.

[Anon]

At that time period.

[Garth]

face it. any time a democrat has the balls to tell a story involving a "soldier" who is in the least bit critical of the war or Herr Busch, goes through this meat grinder.

true, the captain didn't paint a pretty picture, but, maybe there should be more outrage about the reported problems and less shoot the messenger.

[PeterUK]

So does this mean that a President Obama would ensure all the troops he brings back from Iraq will be properly armed?

I like liberals,"Our boys must never fight,but they will have the best weapons money can buy".

[Anon]

Let me walk you through this in Afghanistan US casualties-

In June 2003 two guys died.

In July 2003 one guy died.

In August 2003 nobody died.

In September 2003 two guys died.

In October 2003 nobody.

In November there's a helicopter crash but can you blame that on Obama's argument...

too few guys not enough arms?

Probably not.

So that's six months of his tour.

I cant find a better site for the stats so if a liberal wants to check the rest of Nov.,Dec.Jan., Feb., and March go ahead.

I'm going to rest my case with the fact that five guys died in Afghanistan during this guys first five months -

So Obama's point that guys were robbed in Afghanistan for Iraq is kinda assbackwards.

[SteveMG]

more outrage about the reported problems and less shoot the messenger.

(1) We're not sure what the reported problems were. Sorry, I just don't believe whatever a politician - of any party - running for office claims.

(2) This story is about 4-5 years old.

We need to have more contemporary information.

If you wish to uncritically accept what someone claims, you're welcome to.

I'm not.

[clarice]

More outrage,Garth? Hill and O both voted to cut off funds for the troops. Did they expect they'd just get by on used shells? And why more outrage? The story is clearly an overwrought version of a perfectly ordinary reassignment and reveals neither understafing nor underequipping of the troops.

[PeterUK]

Garth
Obama isn't standing against Bush.It takes "balls" to tell a story? Is Obama a member of the Special Raconteurs Division? Parachute him into a Townhall meeting and he'll chill your blood.

[SteveMG]

Garth:
And when people claim that progress is being made in Iraq, they go through a meat grinder from folks on your side.

Michael O'Hanlon come to mind? His career in Democratic circles is reportedly ended because he's supported Bush's surge.

And supporting anything of Bush's is strictly forbidden.

As Joe Lieberman found out.

[Enlightened]

"face it. any time a democrat has the balls to tell a story involving a "soldier" who is in the least bit critical of the war or Herr Busch, goes through this meat grinder."

What a tool.

The meat grinder is neccessary for asshats that think their lies will never be discovered.

[hoosierhoops]

oh come on..
the story about soldiers using captured weapons because they didn't have any seems far fetched to say the least..
My son is a Marine in Iraq and i'm sure his unit has plenty of firepower in the 3/5th Kilo Company..I'm pretty sure if they come across an AK-47 it would do them little good to have a weapon with no issued ammo..
Of course for him to give up his SAW gun for a POS enemy rifle is laughable.
I can see the letter home now..Dear Mom and Dad..they sent me to war but forgot to give me a gun..guess they ran out..
don't worry, I'm sure i'll capture one any day now..
Love,
Your Son..

[Rick Ballard]

If Captain Anonymous is so brave, why doesn't he allow his name to be used?

ANON - Best maintained casulaty list I've found is here.

The Captain mentions Fort Drum which is home to the 10th Mountain. the 1st and 2nd Battalions of the 87th Regiment were in Afghanistan during the period mentioned. There would be about 40 LTs spread among the 10 companys of the two battalions.

Captain Anonymous could well have been among them.