If THIS is Afghanistan, YOU must be a Marine?

[Wildcat]

How would the proposed change increase the requirment for USAF and Marine Air to "mesh"?

I'll agree that the move does smack of 'anti-jointness'.

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?

[Ken White]

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.

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...

[stanleywinthrop]

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.

As a point of fact, the USAF controls the skies over Iraq too (except below a certain coordinating altitude in MEF airspace) , yet USMC air and USAF have no issues with cooperation. In fact (from personal experience) Harriers and Hornets have been flying alongside Eagles and Vipers on a daily basis for the last 3 years in Iraq. The USMC ANGLICO teams are almost tailor made to 'farm' out to NATO units in Afghanistan to allow them to coordinate with U.S. Air. In case you haven't heard there is a joint CAS procedures handbook on the streets which is supposed to eliminate terminology differences amongst the services. Of course this doesn't mean that everyone has read it or follows it 100%, but my experience is that it's use has become nearly universal in the USAF and the USMC.

I don't see the integration of Air Assets in Afghanistan as being a barrier to this plan, but as previously stated, I do have issues with it based on other concerns. I personally feel that the USMC should stay in Iraq, because as has been pointed out, no one technique will work in all places times and circumstances, and having two seperate services in the same theater can lead to more creativity and innovation in the COIN fight because of different training, background, experience, etc.

[Wildcat]

As a point of fact, the USAF controls the skies over Iraq too (except below a certain coordinating altitude in MEF airspace) , yet USMC air and USAF have no issues with cooperation. In fact (from personal experience) Harriers and Hornets have been flying alongside Eagles and Vipers on a daily basis for the last 3 years in Iraq. The USMC ANGLICO teams are almost tailor made to 'farm' out to NATO units in Afghanistan to allow them to coordinate with U.S. Air. In case you haven't heard there is a joint CAS procedures handbook on the streets which is supposed to eliminate terminology differences amongst the services. Of course this doesn't mean that everyone has read it or follows it 100%, but my experience is that it's use has become nearly universal in the USAF and the USMC.

I don't see the integration of Air Assets in Afghanistan as being a barrier to this plan, but as previously stated, I do have issues with it based on other concerns.

Well, I won't claim to be an expert on the subject, sir. That's your field. I have about a month of OCS under my belt, and that hardly qualifies me to talk with any authority on CAS procedures. I just go off what I know from my brother's experience as an officer with 2d ANGLICO. The rest of it is just idle speculation. I'll humbly defer to him and you on this subject.