If THIS is Afghanistan, YOU must be a Marine?
This may get moved to another thread, but I'll start it here (since its likely to make for a great discussion!):
Marines Press to Remove Their Forces From Iraq, NYT, 11 October 2007:
Quote:
WASHINGTON, Oct. 10 — The Marine Corps is pressing to remove its forces from Iraq and to send marines instead to Afghanistan, to take over the leading role in combat there, according to senior military and Pentagon officials.
The idea by the Marine Corps commandant would effectively leave the Iraq war in the hands of the Army while giving the Marines a prominent new role in Afghanistan, under overall NATO command.
It seems to me to be quite a challenge to hand over, lock,stock, andbarrel, the current US Army role in Afghanistan to the Marines, whatever the supposed advantages in consolidation. The article also really doesn't discuss what is meant by the "under overall NATO command" part, and whether it would differ from current command arrangements in Afghanistan.
Thoughts?
Light Infantry war, self contained MAGTF, unity of
command. Some operational logic -- that's the pro side.
The cons: Long way from the ocean. The Army is still going to have to keep many of its support elements in place; the Navy can and would pick up some but only the Army has some of the pieces. The Air Force will not be pleased -- they really don't like Marine air anyway and they'll have to fly the long haul cargo support missions.
TBD: The Marines get to leave an unpopular war and go to one that has more support, the Army's gonna be in Iraq no matter what so they may not care all that much -- or they may. The NATO relationship and NATO input, if Canada goes in 2009, who picks up the slack? Marines? I don't have access to the intel but based on what I see, I think we'll be in combat in Afghanistan longer than we are likely to be so engaged in Iraq... :wry:
Interesting to see where that idea goes. My suspicion is that the answer will be parochial political, based on Stars and not operationally relevant... ;)
They can't. Wouldn't if they could.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wildcat
...
. . .
... (Then again, will that even matter if Congress begins phased withdrawals in 2008?)
Not their job and they aren't totally stupid, just mostly. All that noise is about the 2008 elections, has little to do with Iraq.
The interesting thing will be the CentCom
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wildcat
At the moment, the USAF controls the skies over A'stan. If the Corps moves in, we'll have Harriers and Hornets flying alongside Vipers and Eagles, and on the ground we'll have JTACs from both the AF and Marine Corps trying to coordinate CAS simultaneously in support of Marine and NATO ground forces. There are procedural and behavioral differences between the two branches (as my brother could well tell you, were he not incommunicado... in fact, as a Marine aviator you can certainly attest to the same differences) that affect how they interact and conduct these missions. Fortunately, they've been working on this for a couple of years now, so it shouldn't be too hard.
I don't believe that this is in any way "anti-jointness." The Army's footprint in Afghanistan will be greatly reduced, but it won't be eliminated entirely. The Marine Corps will still need much of the Army's infrastructure that is already in place in A'stan (SF, psyops, CA), ergo the entire US Army apparatus will not depart (least of all SF). At the same time, the Air Force will stay and help conduct CAS in support of Marine ground forces, not to mention provide stratolift capabilities for the Marine Corps to-and-from the theatre. How is that anti-joint?
position on the issue...
It's 'anti-joint' because the senior US Commmand and the bulk of the combat troops and thus any 'Win' tags will be USMC while the support and scut work goes to the Army and the AF. The Navy will, other than the Chaplains and the Medical side, pretty much get a pass on support of the land campaigns. In Iraq, there will be few to no USMC units and the Navy will plead they're busy supporting the Marines in Afghanistan.
Add to that the fact that if things go bad in the 'Stan, there's always NATO to blame and in Iraq there's only ones self to blame.
I'll be surprised if it flies -- though, of course the CJCS and the CentCom Commander might like it. :rolleyes:
Not all that well thought out, IMO. Not least on the issue if what happens is, as I suspect, that there is a significant drawdown of US forces in Iraq next year and a concomitant plus-up in Afghanistan...