Marines to Army: I'll Swap Ya Afghanistan for Iraq

Interesting idea being floated by the USMC: the Marines take over ground operations in Afghanistan, while the Army takes over in Iraq. Simplifies logistics, simplifies C&C, sounds like a winner to me. Thoughts?

Marines Press to Remove Their Forces From Iraq

By THOM SHANKER, October 11, 2007

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.

Mr. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have not spoken publicly about the Marine concept, and aides to both officials said no formal proposal had been presented by the Marines. But the idea has been the focus of intense discussions between senior Marine Corps officers and other officials within the Defense Department.

It is not clear whether the Army would support the idea. But some officials sympathetic to the Army said that such a realignment would help ease some pressure on the Army, by allowing it to shift forces from Afghanistan into Iraq, and by simplifying planning for future troop rotations.

The Marine proposal could also face resistance from the Air Force, whose current role in providing combat aircraft for Afghanistan could be squeezed if the overall mission was handed to the Marines. Unlike the Army, the Marines would bring a significant force of combat aircraft to that conflict.

Whether the Marine proposal takes hold, the most delicate counterterrorism missions in Afghanistan, including the hunt for forces of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, would remain the job of a military task force that draws on Army, Navy and Air Force Special Operations units.

Military officials say the Marine proposal is also an early indication of jockeying among the four armed services for a place in combat missions in years to come. “At the end of the day, this could be decided by parochialism, and making sure each service does not lose equity, as much as on how best to manage the risk of force levels for Iraq and Afghanistan,” said one Pentagon planner.

Tensions over how to divide future budgets have begun to resurface across the military because of apprehension that Congressional support for large increases in defense spending seen since the Sept. 11 attacks will diminish, leaving the services to compete for money.

Those traditional turf battles have subsided somewhat given the overwhelming demands of waging two simultaneous wars — and because Pentagon budgets reached new heights.

Last week, the Senate approved a $459 billion Pentagon spending bill, an increase of $43 billion, or more than 10 percent over the last budget. That bill did not include, as part of a separate bill, President Bush’s request for almost $190 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Senior officials briefed on the Marine Corps concept said the new idea went beyond simply drawing clearer lines about who was in charge of providing combat personnel, war-fighting equipment and supplies to the two war zones.

They said it would allow the Marines to carry out the Afghan mission in a way the Army cannot, by deploying as an integrated Marine Corps task force that included combat aircraft as well as infantry and armored vehicles, while the Army must rely on the Air Force.

The Marine Corps concept was raised last week during a Defense Senior Leadership Conference convened by Mr. Gates just hours after Admiral Mullen was sworn in as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

During that session, the idea of assigning the Afghan mission to the Marines was described by Gen. James T. Conway, the Marine Corps commandant. Details of the discussion were provided by military officers and Pentagon civilian officials briefed on the session and who requested anonymity to summarize portions of the private talks.

The Marine Corps has recently played the leading combat role in Anbar Province, the restive Sunni area west of Baghdad.

Gen. David H. Petraeus, the senior Army officer in Iraq, and his No. 2 commander, Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, also of the Army, have described Anbar Province as a significant success story, with local tribal leaders joining the fight against terrorists.

Both generals strongly hint that if the security situation in Anbar holds steady, then reductions of American forces can be expected in the province, which could free up Marine units to move elsewhere.

In recent years, the emphasis by the Pentagon has been on joint operations that blur the lines between the military services, but there is also considerable precedent for geographic divisions in their duties. For much of the Vietnam War, responsibility was divided region by region between the Army and the Marines. As described by military planners, the Marine proposal would allow Marine units moved to Afghanistan to take over the tasks now performed by an Army headquarters unit and two brigade combat teams operating in eastern Afghanistan.

That would ease the strain on the Army and allow it to focus on managing overall troop numbers for Iraq, as well as movements of forces inside the country as required by commanders to meet emerging threats.

The American military prides itself on the ability to go to war as a “joint force,” with all of the armed services intermixed on the battlefield — vastly different from past wars when more primitive communications required separate ground units to fight within narrowly defined lanes to make sure they did not cross into the fire of friendly forces.

The Marine Corps is designed to fight with other services — it is based overseas aboard Navy ships and is intertwined with the Army in Iraq. At the same time, the Marines also are designed to be an agile, “expeditionary” force on call for quick deployment, and thus can go to war with everything needed to carry out the mission — troops, armor, attack jets and supplies.

General Petraeus is due to report back to Congress by March on his troop requirements beyond the summer. His request for forces will be analyzed by the military’s Central Command, which oversees combat missions across the Middle East and Southwest Asia, and by the Joint Staff at the Pentagon. All troop deployment orders must be approved by Mr. Gates, with the separate armed services then assigned to supply specific numbers of troops and equipment.

Marines train to fight in what is called a Marine Air-Ground Task Force. That term refers to a Marine deployment that arrives in a combat zone complete with its own headquarters, infantry combat troops, armored and transport vehicles and attack jets for close-air support, as well as logistics and support personnel.

“This is not about trading one ground war for another,” said one Pentagon official briefed on the Marine concept. “It is about the nature of the fight in Afghanistan, and figuring out whether the Afghan mission lends itself more readily to the integrated MAGTF deployment than even Iraq.”

Imma research conscription, what then?

It's too easy Lemur, it doesn't qualify as an option for politicians.

I'm sorry, Husar, I'm not following you. Could you expand on that a little?

I guess it makes sense, except for the fact that Afghanistan doesn't have any beaches. :inquisitive: I figure the Marine Corp leadership would love it, consolidated force, no real inter-service dealings, and the chance to stick the Army with the PR fiasco.

Sounds like a plan to me. Not much they can do in Iraq anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I'm sorry, Husar, I'm not following you. Could you expand on that a little?

---

Since when do politicians decide in favour of easy and logical options?

I can't really expand on it, it's a prejudice. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I can't really expand on it, it's a prejudice. ~D

---

Face up on your own prejudice, Husar!

:clown:

I'd worry about the problems in Al Anbar province if the Marines left. While it'd be swapping one US service for another I imagine that the Shieks the Marines have been working with would probably prefer to keep working with the same people. I'd argue sort of the same thing in Afghanistan though there it probably wouldn't be too much of a difference seeing how there's so many different countries already that a switch of US services wouldn't be too bad.

It makes sense. But Husar's right, politicians don't take the option that makes sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

I figure the Marine Corp leadership would love it, consolidated force, no real inter-service dealings, and the chance to stick the Army with the PR fiasco.

---

One thing you gotta credit the leathernecks with -- they've always been savvy when it comes to PR. There's a very good reason they never have a problem filling their recruiting quota.

Give that man (Lemur) a three day pass! That's what real teamwork is all about.
I think it would do a lot of good for morale, and show the politicians that some people can work together in a sort of military bi-partisanship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

One thing you gotta credit the leathernecks with -- they've always been savvy when it comes to PR. There's a very good reason they never have a problem filling their recruiting quota.

---

Another reason to let the army stay in Afghanistan. At least then some of the "I wanna kill terrorists/guys that did 9/11" guys can sign up for the Army.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

Another reason to let the army stay in Afghanistan. At least then some of the "I wanna kill terrorists/guys that did 9/11" guys can sign up for the Army.

---

Yeah, but then again most of the guys enlisting into the army couldn't tell the difference between one Arabic nation and another, they'd all be "dirty stinking turrurists" to them.

Afghanistan isn't an arabic nation.:no:

This doesn't surprise me, the Marines have always HATED playing the role of international cop and dealing with the duties and requirements of an occupying force. Their desire to move all leathernecks to Afghanistan is due in no small part to the fact that Iraq is utterly devoid of major insurgent strongholds anymore and has been transformed into one giant police assignment. Hotbeds of resistance like Fallujah and Ramadi have been pacified to the point where they no longer require periodic or active campaigning. This is not to say that the insurgency has stopped or that things aren't incredibly dangerous but the climate over there has definitely changed in the last 6-12 months. The fact that many Shiite and Sunni factions who were previously hostile to US forces are now working with them so as to stop Al Qaeda's incessant meddling in their neighborhoods shows just how much the political landscape has changed over there.

From what little I know Marines don't like being assigned passive or defensive roles, especially in areas where the enemy deliberately avoids any kind of direct confrontation (i.e. Iraq where most insurgents spend all day hiding and planting IEDs). I recall an ex-tenant of mine, a former Marine Recon Sniper, who shared with me some of his exploits while he was in uniform. He recalled with absolute disgust the time he spent in Haiti when the Marines were deployed there in the previous decade. Security detail, doling out food and supplies. He and just about every other Marine in his unit (and for that matter, the entire force) hated the assignment with a passion and he specifically decried it as being 'Army work', etc.

Basically I think the Marines realize their chances at being able to take a more 'proactive' stance against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan are much greater than against the typical insurgent and Al Qaeda operative in Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

One thing you gotta credit the leathernecks with -- they've always been savvy when it comes to PR. There's a very good reason they never have a problem filling their recruiting quota.

---

Well most people who join the Marines aren't under the delusion that they'll never see combat. Usually the Army Reserve and National Guard gets the lion's share of people looking to pad their income or macho it up on occasion ('weekend warriors'). You simply don't get the same number of GI Bill applicants or welfare mothers in the Corps like you would in the Army, Army Reserve and National Guard. The Marines don't want those kinds of people and even if they do manage to make it in they're expected to adhere to the same standards as other grunts. I imagine the peer pressure to live up to certain expectations must also be enormous in the Marines.

Yes, Marine PR and advertising is quite good but oddly enough the best Marine PR is the news footage you see of Marines in action. In fact, I believe whenever there is a major engagement (i.e. Fallujah) that involves Marines their recruitment numbers increase as opposed to the Army's which typically decreases. It seems the typical potential Marine recruit isn't quite as spooked by the images of dead Marines as is his/her Army counterpart.

I think that it is a fine idea and I'm glad Lemur likes it. Specializing each force for a specific role sounds like a good idea, rather than having all forces overlap in all regions. General ism can kill efforts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

Afghanistan isn't an arabic nation.:no:

---

I was being ironic.

Sorry for being a smart mouth then. You know how sarcasm and intentional irony are sometimes lost when putting stuff into text. I had thought your post was accidentally ironic. :juggle2:

Man! That last post by Spino was inspiring! He should be a recruiter for the Corps! I'd say he hit it right on the head for most of the former Marines I know. I don't entirely agree with him about the generalizations he makes about the Army, and the Army National Guard. There are many highly motivated soldiers in both services, it's just that these branches are so much larger and more diversified than the Marine Corps. I will admit that we do have our share of "educational mercenaries" and "weekend warrior" types, but there are also a large percentage of former active duty folks, such as myself, who can still perform well, despite our age. While I am no longer probably "front line" infantry material anymore, I do contribute by maintaining those highly desired (in a firefight) force multipliers-the Attack Helicopter! Many a grunt has been saved from a hard time by an AH-1, or an AH-64 engaging a well armed insurgent.
:smg:

By all means send in the mobile infantry of the Space Marines! OOUURAHH!
:hmg: