The USMC in Helmand (merged thread)

**davidbfpo** · 03-03-2013

A short NYT article on the declining USMC presence and their replacement by:

the Afghan National Army has grown, to almost four brigades with more than 16,000 soldiers...

Link:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/wo...pagewanted=all

As a DoS veteran of Afghanistan remarked this week:

Helmand Province only has 3% of the population, why the UK & USA made such a large commitment there is not easy to understand.

**former_0302** · 03-04-2013

Originally Posted by davidbfpo

A short NYT article on the declining USMC presence and their replacement by:

As a DoS veteran of Afghanistan remarked this week:

As a matter of pure conjecture, I'd guess it was because the Marine Corps wanted into Afghan, and the Army said something along the lines of "Great--we already own all this battlespace, and we're not giving it up, and we don't really want you around us, so where can we send you? Hey, the British could use some help in Helmand!" Or something to that effect.

**Bill Moore** · 03-04-2013

There was another post on the blog a few months ago that explained our leadership wanted the Marines to secure the population in Kandahar, but the Marines chose not to follow this order/advice(?) and struck out on their own into Helmand. One can speculate all day on why they did this. Did their leadership want a mission that had a higher probability of success, so they could support the never squeaking Marine propaganda wheel (look at our success)? Did they believe they could better secure Kandahar by securing the routes into Kandahar? Who knows, but it seems incredible if true they decided to follow their own strategy. We keep talking about the value of whole of government, coalition operations, but we need to get our joint operations straight first.

Seems every nation, every service, SOF, and each government agency is to a large degree pursuing their own strategy. While this won't generate synergy, it may quite by accident overwhelm the Taliban by confusing the hell of them.

**former_0302** · 03-04-2013

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

There was another post on the blog a few months ago that explained our leadership wanted the Marines to secure the population in Kandahar, but the Marines chose not to follow this order/advice(?) and struck out on their own into Helmand. One can speculate all day on why they did this. Did their leadership want a mission that had a higher probability of success, so they could support the never squeaking Marine propaganda wheel (look at our success)? Did they believe they could better secure Kandahar by securing the routes into Kandahar? Who knows, but it seems incredible if true they decided to follow their own strategy. We keep talking about the value of whole of government, coalition operations, but we need to get our joint operations straight first.

Seems every nation, every service, SOF, and each government agency is to a large degree pursuing their own strategy. While this won't generate synergy, it may quite by accident overwhelm the Taliban by confusing the hell of them.

I can't vouch for your first point, nor argue with your second. However, having been to both Iraq and Afghanistan with USMC units, and having seen very few soldiers in either theater, I'd submit that if your first point is true, the reason for it is probably related to why Anbar was mostly Marine territory in Iraq as well.

**carl** · 03-04-2013

In one of the books I read about Helmand, I think "Little America", it said the reason the Marines went into Helmand was because their leadership wanted place where the large number of Marines going would all be under Marine control. Helmand was the the only place available that was empty enough of other US forces whereby they could do that. Which is what former_0302 said.

And it further illustrates Bill's point that unified command is something we can't do at all. I thought unified command was the bedrock of small war fighting and if you didn't have unified command you were wasting your time? That is one thing all those much maligned small wars theorists said. But we never did it. For that matter unified command is vital in big war fighting too. I hope we remember how to do it before we get beat in the next big war.

**davidbfpo** · 03-04-2013

I too have read explanations for the USMC deployment to Helmand, politely but firmly pushing the UK & partners aside.

Yes, unity of command - even within the US military - appears to be lacking. What our enemies made of this and the ANSF is a moot point.

What I do not understand is why first the UK, then the USA decided Helmand Province was more important than Kandahar Province. Helmand has only 3% of the Afghan population. Yes the Canadians had a small battle group there and much later, I suspect in the surge, a Stryker Brigade went there.