Article

2007-10-11 Afghanistan

Marines Press to Remove Their Forces From Iraq - to Afghanistan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by 3dc 2007-10-11 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11131 views ] Top
File under: Taliban

#1 When you look at any ~~Fifth Column Fishwrap~~ New York Times article about the war, look for a John F. Burns byline. If you do not see the John F. Burns byline, it's a reasonable assumption the entire article is bullshit.

Posted by Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2007-10-11 00:19|| 2007-10-11 00:19|| Front Page Top

#2 There was a Marine Spec Ops group in Afghanistan, but they got kicked out for fighting.

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2007-10-11 07:07|| 2007-10-11 07:07|| Front Page Top

#3 "Gentlemen - you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"

Posted by Sgt. Mom 2007-10-11 07:40|| www.celiahayes.com]">[www.celiahayes.com] 2007-10-11 07:40|| Front Page Top

#4 Well, come on now. I'm sure the Marines chaff a bit around the Army. It's a long and grand tradition. It's nothing like the infighting [as at Saipan or Okinawa] that existed before, but while both forces can now mesh pretty well, there's still some tribal identity and pride involved. If the Marines can 'get' Afghanistan, I'll take bets that the coverage coming from theater will increase significantly. I think they have a better media game plan.

or as my old man pointed out [veteran of the 2d Marine Division, Tarawa, Saipan, Tinian], the basic fire team is composed of three Marines - one to shoot, one to loot, and one to take pictures.

Posted by Procopius2k 2007-10-11 09:34|| 2007-10-11 09:34|| Front Page Top

#5 Thus begins our slow redeployment to Okinawa.

Posted by kelly 2007-10-11 10:53|| 2007-10-11 10:53|| Front Page Top

#6 "...in a war that has broader public support than the one in Iraq."

Yep...she's a bone-i-fied NY times article allrighty.

Posted by DepotGuy 2007-10-11 10:55|| 2007-10-11 10:55|| Front Page Top

#7 This does not sit well with me. It goes to the central point of what is the purpose of the Marines in the first place. Are they to be nothing other than a combination of the Army and the Air Force?

They have had a very precise concept in past, of a sea borne coastal and island fighting force, that make the initial penetration and beachhead for the much larger Army to exploit in long term inland operations.

But when they take over the Army's job of extensive inland operations, they effectively cease being an elite force. For though it hasn't really been the case in a long time, the idea that "every Marine is a fighting Marine", breaks down at that point. Because extensive inland operations need extensive combat support and combat service support, to function for an extended mission.

The army has a hell high ratio of CS and CSS personnel to its combat personnel. Perhaps as much as 20 to 1. But in the original concept Marine operation, the ratio is much lower, perhaps 5 to 1.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-10-11 11:13|| 2007-10-11 11:13|| Front Page Top

#8 what is the purpose of the Marines in the first place.

To make sure impressed sailors do what their officers tell them, snipe enemy officers, board enemy vessels and repel boarders.

Amphibious warfare was not part of the Marine portfolio until the 1930's when Lejune presciently focused attention on it. The Marines have always had a mission/identity problem. They should have picked up counter insurgency after Vietnam when the Army dropped it like a hot potato for Air-Land Battle in Europe. I have a feeling that is what they may be trying to do now. Too bad Petraeus works for the Army.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-10-11 11:34|| 2007-10-11 11:34|| Front Page Top

#9 Historically the Marines have been our counter-insurgency force. They started out on boats but that didn't last long. Look at the history of Latin America and it's the Corps, not the Army that was doing the work. The Marines small war manual was written through experience, not just theoreticals.

During Vietnam the war was deemed too big so the Army was given control and the Marine's Small War Manual was ignored and replaced with set-piece battles the Army prefered. It didn't turn out as well as the Army hoped.

Posted by rjschwarz 2007-10-11 14:44|| 2007-10-11 14:44|| Front Page Top

#10 Go back far enough, the Gilded Age, and the Army was in the counter insurgency business with the Indians. That's why they didn't have any trouble pacifying the Philippines. But come WWI, they got to Europe and began to hobnob with the Euros and wanted to be a real Army, so the banana republics got left to the Marines, which was fine with Chesty Puller but didn't set so well with Smedley Butler. So there's been a real checkered history of the armed forces being in the conventional or counter-insurgency mode when the other kind of war came along.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-10-11 14:50|| 2007-10-11 14:50|| Front Page Top

#11 Another factor here:

The Marines are inherently expeditionary. Their org structure assumes a pretty much self-contained deployment at much smaller unit sizes than in the Army.

Army is changing to a somewhat more expeditionary model but a) it takes time to do that and b) there will be an expansion of the army that has to be folded in along with the transformation.

Given the mission in the 2 countries this proposed use of the Marines makes a lot of sense to me.

Posted by lotp 2007-10-11 15:25|| 2007-10-11 15:25|| Front Page Top

#12 First I've heard this. We're supposed to plus up from 172,000 to 202,000 active duty Marines. Not sure of the shift to afghanistan. I think maybe our bosses want to solidify things and start really working the CI stuff. Right now we obviously still send folks to both places. Kind of like ETO vs PTO WWII style but on a smaller scale. I agree it would be better for us (at least) to pick one venue and see it through. Douchebagistan is plausible for those reasons. Gen Conway's a smart man, there's a reason he's pressing this but I don't have all the inside scoop yet.

Posted by Broadhead6 2007-10-11 18:19|| 2007-10-11 18:19|| Front Page Top

#13 Were there any sizable detachments of USMC in the ETO in WWII?

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-10-11 18:44|| 2007-10-11 18:44|| Front Page Top

#14 UN and OAS,
They have their place I guess,
But when in doubt,
Send the Marines!

Posted by Eric Jablow">Eric Jablow 2007-10-11 20:26|| 2007-10-11 20:26|| Front Page Top

#15 Thank you for that, Eric. The good professor is never inappropriate. :-)

Posted by trailing wife 2007-10-11 20:45|| 2007-10-11 20:45|| Front Page Top

23:55 gromky
23:50 Zenster
23:48 Old Patriot
23:44 twobyfour
23:40 Hans Klass
23:35 twobyfour
23:34 Zenster
23:33 twobyfour
23:26 Hans Klass
23:25 twobyfour
23:25 Zenster
23:22 twobyfour
23:21 Hans Klass
23:20 Zenster
23:17 twobyfour
23:14 twobyfour
23:11 twobyfour
23:09 Silentbrick
23:07 Mike Sylwester
23:05 Silentbrick
23:04 Hans Klass
23:03 JosephMendiola
23:03 Hans Klass
23:01 twobyfour