Marines Press to Remove Their Forces From Iraq By THOM SHANKER 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. The suggestion was raised in a session last week convened by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and regional war-fighting commanders. While still under review, its supporters, including some in the Army, argue that a realignment could allow the Army and Marines each to operate more efficiently in sustaining troop levels for two wars that have put a strain on their forces. As described by officials who had been briefed on the closed-door discussion, the idea represents the first tangible new thinking to emerge since the White House last month endorsed a plan to begin gradual troop withdrawals from Iraq, but also signals that American forces likely will be in Iraq for years to come. At the moment, there are no major Marine units among the 26,000 or so American forces in Afghanistan. In Iraq there are about 25,000 marines among the 160,000 American troops there. It is not clear exactly how many of the marines in Iraq would be moved over. But the plan would require a major reshuffling, and it would make marines the dominant American force in Afghanistan, in a war that has broader public support than the one in Iraq. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/w...login&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
withdrawal = surrender redeployment = retreat Waiting for Mitt, Rudy, Fred, and the BBS traitor brigade to denounce as traitors....... waiting........ waiting........
In these dangerous times it is truly alarming to learn that an entire branch of our armed forces is comprised of phony soldiers.
I think it sounds like a good idea. As cocked up as the situation is in Iraq, with Afghanistan deteriorating, this move would at least simplify unit rotations for both services. Also, Afghanistan is a far different environment than Iraq. "The Marines had a slogan that they win battles and the Army wins wars, but these protracted stability operations are what we have," defense analyst Michael Vickers said. Since World War II, the Corps has been legendary for strikes from sea and air, while long-term land operations are generally left to the Army. The Marines at times have taken on nontraditional tasks over their 228-year history. Vickers said Marines waded ashore at Da Nang in March 1965 and that during the Vietnam War two divisions, including the 1st Marine Division from Camp Pendleton, helped secure the northernmost part of that country until 1971. At the height of the war, about 85,700 Marines were deployed to Vietnam. "The Marines were also a major small-war force from 1915 to the 1930s" in Haiti, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic, said Vickers, director of strategic studies for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. "So there has been swings in what the Marine Corps does, and we might be seeing a new era for the Marines." Whether the Marine Corps wants the job of caretaker and terrorist-hunter might be another story. "I don't think there is any doubt that if the Marines were given a vote, they'd vote that the Army should continue doing this role," said retired Marine Gen. Joe Hoar, former head of the U.S. Central Command, which is responsible for military activities in the Persian Gulf region. "This is a nontraditional role for the Marines," said Hoar, who retired in 1994 and lives in Del Mar. "But the Army is deeply overcommitted around the world and is not capable of meeting all its responsibilities." http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/031117-marines-role.htm Honestly, I think Afghanistan would give the Marines a more traditional role for the service than Iraq does. In conjunction with Special Forces, the Marines would be operating in a far less urban (to put it mildly) environment, where the enemy is apt to be based in remote areas, attempting to strike where it is unexpected. Well, that's what the Marines do very well, themselves. T.E. Lawrence once said, "The desert is an ocean where no oar is dipped." Afghanistan certainly isn't all desert, but it has huge areas with scattered populations, "islands in the ocean," if you will, from which the Taliban love to operate. The Marines are well suited for operations there, and they are more used to not having large amounts of heavy equipment, with the attendant greater mobility. I think it makes a lot of sense. The Army needs those units in Afghanistan to reduce the time spent in Iraq by other units. Until we can get out of Iraq, freeing the Marines for their more traditional role just seems logical. Probably too logical for the brass under the current Administration. D&D. Impeach Bush for Promoting Terrorism.
Its pathetic how people spin things around. There is no retreat. There is no phony soldiers. Iraq is in defense/peace keeping mode. I think everyone agrees the marines need to be in Afghanistan. I don't even know why i post in D&D anymore, much less read it.
The 82nd Airborne and the 10th Mountain have been rotating in and out of Afghanistan. Both those divisions are comparable to the Marines in terms of light combat. And they aren't talking about adding net troops to the mix, just reshuffling the deck so the 'additional troops' argument seems like flim-flam to me. I don't know, to me most of the arguments for it that I've read just sound questionable. It sounds to me like the Marines just want to shaft the army with the quagmire and take the "good war" for themselves. But of course I don't know all of the details. Maybe it does make sense in terms of logistics, but I'm not sure the Marines wouldn't need some of the Army's support infrastructure. But I guess I don't really have enough information to say anything definite. And they are Marines. As in water. How goofy will they look in a land-locked country driving around those amphibious landing vehicles? At least in Iraq they can pretend they just came from the beach.
It sounds like a good idea on the surface but what would it cost to redeploy 26,000 Marines to Afghanistan and 26,000 army units to Iraq. That's a lot of logistics at Halliburton prices. Didn't T E Lawrence say " a desert is an ocean with it's life underground and a perfect disguise up above?"
I had to go back and read what you wrote. Posts like yours are the reason why I do enjoy reading D&D. Its the first 4 type of comments that ruin D & D. it the extremist like mc mark, batman jones, Basso and traderjorges that drag the the discussions down.
You have a good point, Ottomaton. Maybe I just think the Marines need a change of scenery. They aren't exactly swimming in Anbar Province, either.
My positions on virtually every single issue are majority held positions in this country, as are mc mark's. It's funny to me, in the face of that, to be called an extremist. IIRC, you still support the war in Iraq (along with less than 1/3 of the country). That's a far more radical position than any I currently hold.
I think the controversy is in your thread title. I didn't click over to the article but do the Marines ever call Afghanistan the "real war on terror" or was it just you? It is implied that the Marines think that... do they?
You forget that you are in an Extremist Bridge Foursome with mcmark, basso and Trader_Jorge. His extremist characterization covered both poles. Is a position supported by fully 30% of the population really radical?
Bush should declare a war on nice boobies. That way we will get more of them. The only risk is that we might lose some brown colored boobies in the process.
