# Marines to Afghanistan



## tomahawk6 (9 Jan 2008)

Looks like the Marines will go to Kandahar - based on the article.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2008/01/marine_afghanistan_080109/

3,000 Marines could be headed to Afghanistan
By William H. McMichael - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Jan 9, 2008 20:15:29 EST

The Pentagon has received a U.S. Central Command request to send roughly 3,000 Marines to Afghanistan to bolster the combat troop-strapped NATO force and counter a possible spring offensive by Taliban insurgents.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who has expressed concern that six years of progress in Afghanistan could be reversed if NATO efforts falter, is expected to begin considering the request beginning Friday. He is not, however, expected to make a snap decision, according to press secretary Geoff Morrell.

“It is highly unlikely that he will approve this on the spot,” Morrell said Wednesday evening. “He has more thinking to do on this matter. It’s a serious commitment of additional troops. And he wants to discuss it with some additional people.”

The NATO International Security Assistance Force, now roughly 41,700 troops — 14,000 of them U.S. — bolsters efforts by the Afghan army and police forces to provide security and stability in war-torn country so its young government can rebuild and become more economically secure. A parallel effort by the U.S.-led Combined Joint Task Force 82 — 12,000 U.S. and 1,200 other coalition troops — focuses on defeating anti-government extremists.

If Gates decides to approve the new request, the troops — a Marine Air-Ground Task Force and a battalion that would focus on the training of Afghan army and police units — would be in place by April and spend seven months operating in southern Afghanistan, the area most vexed by Taliban attacks. It would be a “one-time-only” deployment and the troops, who would be assigned to Regional Command South, would not be replaced by additional U.S. forces, Morrell said.

RC South, headquartered in Kandahar, is currently commanded by the United Kingdom.

Sources said the Camp Lejeune, N.C.-based 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit — scheduled to deploy in mid-February — went into high gear this week, laying plans for an accelerated deployment schedule that could have the unit departing for Afghanistan on Feb. 1 and staying out past its traditional 180-day rotation. However, unit officials would not confirm that the group is planning to leave early.

“We do not have a deployment order,” or a warning order, said Capt. Kelly Frushour, spokeswoman for the Camp Lejeune, N.C.-based unit.

The 24th MEU is planning to deploy with the Nassau Expeditionary Strike Group. Cmdr. Herman Phillips, 2nd Fleet public affairs officer, said he knew of no changes to the Nassau ESG deployment schedule.

“There’s nothing planned right now,” he said.

Morrell said no units have been identified, but that they would not be drawn from neighboring Iraq. Late last year, Gates rejected a Marine Corps proposal to move Marine units from Iraq’s Anbar province to Afghanistan. The security situation in Anbar, while much improved over the past year, “remains tenuous,” Morrell said.

Gates has repeatedly complained that other NATO countries have not contributed enough combat forces and other capabilities, particularly helicopters capable of high-altitude operations, to the coalition effort. Gates has said ISAF is short about 3,500 trainers and to meet every command requirement, a total of 7,500 additional troops would be needed.

But Gates softened his tone during his December meetings with NATO defense ministers in Scotland, saying the U.S., recognizing “political realities” faced by some European governments regarding involvement in Afghanistan, would stop “hammering” its allies to contribute more and instead take a more creative approach toward resolving the shortfalls — such getting allies to contribute more funds for items such as helicopter overhaul.

“As a result, we will likely have to bear more of the combat shortfall,” Morrell said.

Violence increased markedly over the past 18 months in Afghanistan, particularly in the south — the result, U.S. officials say, of renewed Taliban assaults. But the new proposal is not a reaction to that increase but rather, Morrell said, “more a move in anticipation of what we expect to be another attempt at a Taliban spring offensive.” The idea is to get the Marines in place “to prevent, as we did last spring, another attempt by the Taliban to come back.”

The Taliban controlled Afghanistan from 1996 until late-2001, when a coalition of U.S. and Afghan warlord-led forces drove them from power. Pockets of Taliban insurgents have remained in Afghanistan ever since, some crossing into eastern Afghanistan from tribal areas in neighboring Pakistan to spring attacks on civilians and coalition forces.


----------



## geo (9 Jan 2008)

Yup... so it would appear.

Afghanistan would get it's own "surge"! - just in time for the TB's annual spring offensive


----------



## GAP (9 Jan 2008)

I was under the impression Kandahar Airfield was bursting at the seams now, how will this impact on it?


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Jan 2008)

I suspect the Marines will find an FOB someplace.If the Canadian mission ends in 09 the Marines will move in.


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 Jan 2008)

The KAF PX had better stock up on Red Man


----------



## MarkOttawa (10 Jan 2008)

Actually:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/09/AR2008010903724.html



> The Marine air-ground task force will go to Helmand, where its mission will be "to beat back another spring offensive," [Pentagon spokesman]  Morrell said. Fighting in Afghanistan tends to be seasonal, with a lull in winter when the weather makes travel difficult. British forces now lead the NATO command in southern Afghanistan, including Helmand...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## cameron (10 Jan 2008)

If and when the leathernecks go in, good luck to them and Godspeed, Semper Fi.


----------



## McG (10 Jan 2008)

> Hillier welcomes news U.S. troops off to Afghanistan
> Updated Thu. Jan. 10 2008 10:56 AM ET
> The Canadian Press
> 
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080110/hillier_afghanistan_080110/20080110?hub=Canada


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (10 Jan 2008)

This looks like awesome news.  It would certainly give the RC South commander a hammer.


----------



## Mike Baker (10 Jan 2008)

Sounds like good news to me. 3,000 Marines can do a lot  ;D


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 Jan 2008)

Not to mention Marine Air. ;D


----------



## Mike Baker (10 Jan 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Not to mention Marine Air. ;D


I assume that includes Harriers, correct?


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 Jan 2008)

Mike Baker said:
			
		

> I assume that includes Harriers, correct?



Cobras,Harriers and F/A-18;s.


----------



## Mike Baker (10 Jan 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Cobras,Harriers and F/A-18;s.


Thats a lot of Air Power


----------



## aesop081 (10 Jan 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Cobras,Harriers and F/A-18;s.



and UH-1s and EA-6Bs


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 Jan 2008)

CH-46E's


----------



## aesop081 (10 Jan 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> CH-46E's



CH-53s


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 Jan 2008)

Could be but the Squadron that is deploying is built around a CH-46E unit although the Marines can addon additional aircraft as needed.


----------



## aesop081 (10 Jan 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Could be but the Squadron that is deploying is built around a CH-46E unit although the Marines can addon additional aircraft as needed.




Can you tell me how you came to that conclusion ?

(from the original posted article)


> Morrell said no units have been identified,


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 Jan 2008)

I am assuming the unit going is the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit with the Nassau ARG.They are to deploy in Feb so they would be the logical unit. Call it an educated guess.


----------



## aesop081 (10 Jan 2008)

and you will see that the 24th MEU is equiped with CH-53s as well

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usmc/24meu.htm


----------



## cameron (10 Jan 2008)

3000 U.S. Marines in Southern A'stan would certainly be extremely helpful.  They along with the Canadians will make life expectancies even shorter for the Taliban :threat:


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 Jan 2008)

It definitely will send a message to the Taliban. ;D


----------



## Tow Tripod (11 Jan 2008)

I had the opportunity to work with the Marines in Kabul in 06 at Camp Black Horse and I have to say those guys are OUTSTANDING. It is a small world and I hope I get to see them again in 08 this time in the south.

Tow Tripod


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 Jan 2008)

The notifications went out to the Marines and their families over the weekend. The unit designated is the 24th MEU.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/01/ap_marinesafghanistan_070114/



> The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the deployment announcement has not yet been made. If approved, the deployment to southern Afghanistan would be a “one-time, seven-month” assignment, Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell said Friday.
> 
> The 2nd Battalion, which is from the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, is an infantry unit, and it will be used largely for training Afghan forces.


----------



## MarkOttawa (14 Jan 2008)

Latest:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hrCv_cDe9d8ARDqyjEs8ULaMiryQD8U5UPF80



> About 3,200 Marines are being told to prepare to go to Afghanistan, military officials said Monday, in an effort to boost combat troop levels and get ready for an expected Taliban offensive this spring.
> 
> Once complete, the deployment would increase U.S. forces in Afghanistan to as much as 30,000, the highest level since the 2001 invasion after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon...According to officials, 2,200 members of the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, based at Camp Lejeune, N.C., will go to Afghanistan, as well as about 1,000 members of the 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, which is based at Twentynine Palms, Calif...
> The 2nd Battalion, which is from the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, is an infantry unit, and it will be used largely for training Afghan forces...



Earlier:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/09/AR2008010903724.html



> The Marine air-ground task force will go to Helmand, where its mission will be "to beat back another spring offensive," [Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell] Morrell said. Fighting in Afghanistan tends to be seasonal, with a lull in winter when the weather makes travel difficult. British forces now lead the NATO command in southern Afghanistan, including Helmand...



One assumes the MEU air assets will largely be based at Kanadahar, along with the training battalion.

During the 2001 "invasion" there were around 400/600 Special Forces and CIA personnel in Afstan (can't find a precise reference)--nothing close to 30,000.  The first conventional US formation, a thousand-plus Marines, started arriving at Kandahar in late November after the Taliban had been routed in most of the country by the Northern Alliance, with US air and US and Brit special forces/covert types assistance.  What ahistorical journalism.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/11/26/ret.afghan.marines/index.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## observor 69 (15 Jan 2008)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/14/AR2008011402722_pf.html

Allies Feel Strain of Afghan War
Troop Levels Among Issues Dividing U.S., NATO Countries

By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 15, 2008; A01



The U.S. plan to send an additional 3,200 Marines to troubled southern Afghanistan this spring reflects the Pentagon's belief that if it can't bully its recalcitrant NATO allies into sending more troops to the Afghan front, perhaps it can shame them into doing so, U.S. officials said.

But the immediate reaction to the proposed deployment from NATO partners fighting alongside U.S. forces was that it was about time the United States stepped up its own effort.

After more than six years of coalition warfare in Afghanistan, NATO is a bundle of frayed nerves and tension over nearly every aspect of the conflict, including troop levels and missions, reconstruction, anti-narcotics efforts, and even counterinsurgency strategy. Stress has grown along with casualties, domestic pressures and a sense that the war is not improving, according to a wide range of senior U.S. and NATO-member officials who agreed to discuss sensitive alliance issues on the condition of anonymity.

While Washington has long called for allies to send more forces, NATO countries involved in some of the fiercest fighting have complained that they are suffering the heaviest losses. The United States supplies about half of the 54,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, they say, but the British, Canadians and Dutch are engaged in regular combat in the volatile south.

"We have one-tenth of the troops and we do more fighting than you do," a Canadian official said of his country's 2,500 troops in Kandahar province. "So do the Dutch." The Canadian death rate, proportional to the overall size of its force, is higher than that of U.S. troops in Afghanistan or Iraq, a Canadian government analysis concluded last year.

British officials note that the eastern region, where most U.S. forces are based, is far quieter than the Taliban-saturated center of British operations in Helmand, the country's top opium-producing province. The American rejoinder, spoken only in private with references to British operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, is that superior U.S. skills have made it so.

NATO has long been divided between those with fighting forces in Afghanistan and those who have restricted their involvement to noncombat activities. Now, as the United States begins a slow drawdown from Iraq, the attention of even combat partners has turned toward whether more U.S. troops will be free to fight in the "forgotten" war in Afghanistan.

When Canadian Foreign Minister Maxime Bernier visited Washington late last month, he reminded Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that Canada's Afghan mandate expires in January 2009. With most of the Canadian public opposed to a continued combat role, he said, it is not certain that Ottawa can sustain it.

Bernier's message was that his minority government could make a better case at home if the United States would boost its own efforts in Afghanistan, according to Canadian and U.S. officials familiar with the conversation.

"I don't think he expected an express commitment that day that they would draw down in Iraq and buttress in Afghanistan," the Canadian official said. "But he certainly registered Canadian interest and that of the allies involved."

According to opinion polls, Canadians feel they have done their bit in Afghanistan. Prime Minister Stephen Harper last fall named an independent commission to study options -- continuing the combat mission, redeploying to more peaceful regions, or withdrawing in January 2009. The commission report, due this month, will form the basis of an upcoming parliamentary debate.

With a Taliban offensive expected in the spring, along with another record opium poppy crop, the new Marines will deploy to the British area in Helmand and will be available to augment Canadian forces in neighboring Kandahar.

Both President Bush and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates have toned down their public pressure on allies. When German Chancellor Angela Merkel visited Bush at his Texas ranch in November, U.S. and German officials said, she told him that while Bonn would step up its contribution in quiet northern Afghanistan, any change in Germany's noncombat role would spell political disaster for her conservative government.

"It's not an excuse; it's simply reality -- coalition reality and domestic reality," a German official said. Merkel came away with Bush's pledge to praise Germany's efforts and stop criticizing.

Although Gates began a meeting of NATO defense ministers late last year by saying he would not let them "off the hook" for their responsibilities in Afghanistan, he said in a news conference at the end of the session that further public criticism was not productive.

Still, the Defense Department hopes that increasing its own contribution -- nearly half of an additional 7,500 troops Gates has said are needed in Afghanistan -- will encourage the allies. "As we're considering digging even deeper to make up for the shortfall in Afghanistan," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said, "we would expect our allies in the fight to do the same."

Many Europeans believe that the United States committed attention and resources to Iraq at Afghanistan's expense. But U.S. officials say the problems of NATO countries in Afghanistan have roots in not investing sufficiently in their militaries after the Cold War. Canada, U.S. officials say, needs American military airlift for its troops in Afghanistan because it got rid of a fleet of heavy lift helicopters.

At the same time that they want more from their partners, however, U.S. defense officials often disdain their abilities. No one, they insist, is as good at counterinsurgency as the U.S. military.

U.S. and British forces have long derided each other's counterinsurgency tactics. In Iraq, British commanders touted their successful "hearts and minds" efforts in Northern Ireland, tried to replicate them in southern Iraq, and criticized more heavy-handed U.S. operations in the north. Their U.S. counterparts say they are tired of hearing about Northern Ireland and point out that British troops largely did not quell sectarian violence in the south.

The same tensions have emerged in Afghanistan, where U.S. officials criticized what one called a "colonial" attitude that kept the British from retaining control over areas wrested from the Taliban. Disagreement leaked out publicly early last year when British troops withdrew from the Musa Qala district of Helmand after striking a deal with local tribal leaders. The tribal chiefs quickly relinquished control to the Taliban.

Britain, with a higher percentage of its forces deployed worldwide than the United States, is stretched thin in Afghanistan. Not only did the British have insufficient force strength to hold conquered territory, but the reconstruction and development assistance that was supposed to consolidate military gains did not arrive.

"It's worth reminding the Americans that the entire British army is smaller than the U.S. Marine Corps," said one sympathetic former U.S. commander in Afghanistan.

After 10 months of Taliban control, Musa Qala was retaken in December in combat involving British, Afghan and U.S. forces. The new Marine deployments will supplement British troops, and both sides insist they have calmed their differences. "Whatever may or may not have been said between the two in the past," said one British official, ". . . we are now in the same place."

Now, he said, "the much more interesting question is where do we go from here, and can we sustain a cautiously positive picture in Musa Qala" and elsewhere.

British officials hope that new deployments and stepped-up Afghan security training by the Marines will address one of Helmand's biggest problems -- the expansion of the opium crop. Opium provides income for the Taliban and is a major source of corruption within the Afghan police and government, yet the allies are divided on how to stop its production.

U.S. officials in Afghanistan, led by Ambassador William B. Wood, have insisted that the current strategy of manually destroying opium fields is ineffective and have pressed to begin aerial spraying of herbicide. Wood is a former ambassador to Colombia, where the United States funds and operates the world's largest aerial effort to eradicate coca.

The British, in charge of NATO's anti-narcotics program in Afghanistan, strongly oppose spraying, as does Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who last month formally ruled it out over U.S. objections. But the government's preferred method of manual eradication -- sending Afghan troops and police to pull poppy plants out of the ground -- has faltered because of poor security.

More important, programs to provide rural Afghans with alternative income sources remain underfunded and poorly coordinated. Each of NATO's regional Afghan commands operates its own provincial reconstruction teams, and scores of nongovernmental organizations work in the country. But with few exceptions -- such as Khost province under U.S. command in the east, where military and reconstruction resources are meshed -- they share no overriding strategy or operational rules.

The United States has pressed U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to appoint a high-level representative to coordinate non-military activities in Afghanistan. Karzai has resisted, and Ban is said to be worried about taking responsibility for what he sees as a worsening situation.

Staff writers Thomas E. Ricks and Colum Lynch contributed to this report.


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Jan 2008)

The US is looking at a drawndown in Iraq this year of anywhere from 30,000 - 60,000 troops. No question that the effort in Afghanistan will receive more troops. WE dont want the Afghans to think we are occupiers so its a fine line.


----------



## MarkOttawa (15 Jan 2008)

The Marine deployment is official. 
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=48669

The MEU part will be under ISAF but the training battalion will be under Operation Enduring Freedom (I infer the Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan in this case; 
http://www.cstc-a.com/
the combat side of Enduring Freedom is Combined Joint Task Force - 82). 
http://www.cjtf82.com/
No precise location for the basing of the two different units is given; maybe the trainers will actually be stationed in Kabul at Camp Eggers--or at least be part of US training activities in the Kabul area. 
http://www.cstc-a.com/Newcomers.html

The MEU's



> ...deployment is slated to last seven months and "will temporarily fill a standing ISAF request for a maneuver force in southern Afghanistan...”



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## time expired (15 Jan 2008)

I understand from the comments of the White House speaker
they come under Canadian command,is this a first?.
                                        Regards


----------



## brihard (15 Jan 2008)

Right on.

Now, this is my interpretation of things- please someone correct me if they're off.

Currently the established battlegroups in Helmand and Kandahar are doing a pretty decent job of holding their ground, and expanding slowly one district at a time with ANA assistance. However, overall efforts in RC South are hampered by the lack of a sizeable, territorially uncommitted manoeuvre element that could deployed as a sort of Thor's Hammer against targets of opportunity; smashing the enemy against the anvils of the existing BGs. As this Marine force is being touted as a 'one time' deployment for 6 or 7 months, it would likely be used as such to bring some decisive offencive operations to the enemy possibly on a scale we've not been able to manage before and hopefully draw enemy attention away fropm the areas we're currently operating in?

Obviously this is pretty speculative, but for the proposed duration of the deployment, it strikes me that a manoeuvre battalion to be used at the discretion of Comd. RC South probably makes the most sense for this force...

EDIT TO ADD:


			
				time expired said:
			
		

> I understand from the comments of the White House speaker
> they come under Canadian command,is this a first?.
> Regards



If I'm not mistaken, an American infantry force (Company size I think?) was under the command of LCol Hope for some time in 2006, I believe about the same time as they were operating in Nawa and Garmser... I know there's a few guys here who can confirm or contradict this for me if I'm incorrect.

Major General Lessard takes over command of RC South in February. As such, any U.S. forces as part of R.C. South under ISAF should be under his command. That may well be a first for an American force of that size in a conflict of this intensity within recent history.


----------



## HItorMiss (15 Jan 2008)

There was a force of Americans ( read Legin Article part 3 Battle for Panjawi) under the command of LCol Lavoie and BGen Fraser..Grizzly 6 was his C/S I believe.


----------



## MarkOttawa (15 Jan 2008)

time expired: From Feb. 28, 2006, US forces in Regional Command South were under Canadian command  (BGEN David Fraser) for nine months, as part of Enduring Freedom and then from July 31 under ISAF.
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/02/afstan-canadian-officers-t_114115588468095379.html
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1863
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=63b93669-64f0-4a0a-95b5-920632d6f3ea&k=76096
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/6_1_1.asp?id=1409

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Jan 2008)

From today's Pentagon briefing,

(....)

Q     Do you know whether this MEU is going as a MEU with the package, with its own air and so forth, or not?   

Press Secretary Geoff Morrell: That's a good question and maybe something you can -- we'll get you an answer on. My original understanding was that this was a MAGTF and it would have its own air and ground, but we can certainly get a more firm answer for you. *I can tell you the MEU will be, as I mentioned, in RC South, therefore under ISAF command.   The Canadians are taking over there from the Brits in February of this year, so they will be operating most immediately under Canadian command in RC South. And as I mentioned, it's also a maneuver force so it has the flexibility to move wherever in Regional Command South that the Canadians deem is necessary to go after the enemy. I mean, this is a fighting force that will greatly enhance the capabilities of the Canadians and our allies who are down there taking it to the enemy.*

(....)


----------



## GAP (15 Jan 2008)

Fine words, but knowing a little something about American Unit leaders....the cooperation tends to be in name only, they have their focus, them other guys have theirs......


----------



## MarkOttawa (15 Jan 2008)

milnewstbay: Thanks to your comment, a post at _The Torch_ ;D:

Marine combat troops in Afstan will be under overall Canadian command
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/01/marine-combate-troops-in-afstan-will-be.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (15 Jan 2008)

Of these 3000 how many "boots outside the wire" will there be?


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (15 Jan 2008)

Brihard said:
			
		

> EDIT TO ADD:
> If I'm not mistaken, an American infantry force (Company size I think?) was under the command of LCol Hope for some time in 2006, I believe about the same time as they were operating in Nawa and Garmser... I know there's a few guys here who can confirm or contradict this for me if I'm incorrect.



An American infantry company and some other assets were indeed under Canadian command as part of TF Orion for roughly two weeks in Jul 06.  There were Brits mixed in as well from time to time.  At times Canadians were under the US company commander and we had guys cut over to the Brits for a bit.  It all worked well from my point of view, even if it was hard to keep track sometimes.  I suppose that the US battalion in Zabul was also under a Canadian (as part of RC South).  In turn, that Canadian had an American boss in Bagram for a while and then a British boss in Kabul.  Multi-national at fairly low levels seems to be the norm these days. 

In any case, additional troops will be a good thing as the RC South commander can add forces to a problem area without necessarily robbing them from another.  

I imagine that a proportion of those 3000 will be in support roles.  It is the cost of doing business.  Even the Spartans had CSS.


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Jan 2008)

The 24 MEU as the article outlines will have its BLT[battalion landing team] which will conduct offensive operations.There will be a second battalion from the 7th Marines [I think it is] that will be involved in training the ANA. The MEU with its own air assets will be a self contained package capable of performing any mission that will be assigned. Marine rifle battalions are larger than those in the Army with Marine rifle companies of around 185 men each so the commander will have a very robust force available. Another plus is that the unit's personnel have seen combat in Iraq.


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Jan 2008)

Oh yes Mr. Gates, this should encourage NATO to welcome the Marines with open arms. My God, what an idiot...

+++++++++++++

Gates faults NATO force in southern Afghanistan

The U.S. Defense secretary says he thinks the soldiers from Canada, Britain and the Netherlands do not know how to fight a guerrilla insurgency.

By Peter Spiegel, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer 
January 16, 2008 

WASHINGTON -- In an unusual public criticism, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said he believes NATO forces currently deployed in southern Afghanistan do not know how to combat a guerrilla insurgency, a deficiency that could be contributing to the rising violence in the fight against the Taliban.

"I'm worried we're deploying [military advisors] that are not properly trained and I'm worried we have some military forces that don't know how to do counterinsurgency operations," Gates said in an interview.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-usafghan16jan16,1,163569.story?track=rss


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (16 Jan 2008)

Maybe he's right.  Nothing like taking ground and giving it back only to take it again.  I'll leave it at that and let people with more experience in counter insurgency to dispute Mr. Gates or add to what he has written.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Jan 2008)

And add to Mr. Gates' comments they have.....


----------



## GAP (16 Jan 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> Maybe he's right.  *Nothing like taking ground and giving it back only to take it again*.  I'll leave it at that and let people with more experience in counter insurgency to dispute Mr. Gates or add to what he has written.



Do you want the hill numbers.....there's lots  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Jan 2008)

"Oh, The Grand Old Duke of York,
He had 10,000 men. 
He marched them up to the top of the hill 
And he marched them down again."


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Jan 2008)

Interesting allusion to an earlier English COIN campaign against the Scots!


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Jan 2008)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Interesting allusion to an earlier English COIN campaign against the Scots!



Which, as I recall, required the taking of many of the same hills over and over again.

This is one of my favourite descriptions of those campaigns.



> This led to the usual tit-for-tat cross border raids. The Scots raided Northumberland and so the English retaliated. Robert Bowes, the English Deputy Warden for the East March, led a raid on Teviotdale only to be ambushed by the Earl of Huntly and defeated at the battle of Haddon Rig on the 24th August 1542. *In October that same year the Duke of Norfolk led an English army of some 20,000 which burnt Eccles, Kelso and a few villages but ran out of beer after four days and so returned home to Berwick on Tweed.*



Priorities.


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Feb 2008)

Update: The Marines will be flying directly to Afghanistan. Their vehicles are being shipped by the Military Sealift Command.

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,161245,00.html

MEU Headed to Afghanistan
Stars and Stripes | Leo Shane III | February 02, 2008
WASHINGTON - The 2,000 - plus Marines headed to Afghanistan from North Carolina will serve as a quick-strike support force for NATO units throughout the country and won't be charged with securing one specific area, the Corps commandant said Friday. 


In a meeting with reporters, Gen. James Conway said U.S. and International Security Assistance Force commanders recently finalized mission statements for the Marine units expected to arrive in country this spring.

The 24th MEU, based in Camp Lejeune, will operate primarily in the south and east of the country but could be deployed to other regions as needed, Conway said.

"They have their own mobility, they have their own fire support, so in that context the commander can deploy them in a number of areas," he said. 

"If they were tied to ground, that would be a different issue."

Regardless the region, the commandant said he expects the MEU to see combat.

"The commander has said they're going to live hard and fight well," he said.

Another 1,000 Marines from the 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment from California will train with Afghan National Army and police members and will be more stationary than the MEU.

The 3,200-person deployment is designed to help fill shortfalls in NATO security forces and react to increasing attacks by Taliban and al-Qaida forces.

Conway would not reveal specifics of the Marines' chain of command, but he said their role has been discussed at length with ISAF and Canadian officials.

"They are on [Operation Enduring Freedom] rules of engagement," he said. 

"They are working in the same area as the Canadians, at least initially. I think there is going to be a great deal of discretion applied to what the threat appears to be come springtime."

While the initial deployment is expected to last seven months, Conway could not say whether Afghanistan could become a long-term mission for the Marines. But he noted that any additional burden on the force there would likely require a drawdown of Marine forces in Iraq.

"We have told the secretary (of Defense) that we're taking one for the team here," he said. 

"The point we have made is we can't continue to do it without relief elsewhere.

"That needs to be part of the consideration come October, hopefully before, so that we can do proper training and planning for our young men and women."


----------



## vonGarvin (2 Feb 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Conway would not reveal specifics of the Marines' chain of command, but he said their role has been discussed at length with ISAF and Canadian officials.
> 
> "They are on [Operation Enduring Freedom] rules of engagement," he said.
> 
> "They are working in the same area as the Canadians, at least initially. I think there is going to be a great deal of discretion applied to what the threat appears to be come springtime."


The original press release  on 15 Jan says the following:


> The bulk of the additional forces will come from the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) based at Camp Lejeune, N.C. Comprised of about 2,200 Marines and sailors, the MEU is scheduled to deploy aboard amphibious shipping. *It will join Regional Command South * and conduct full-spectrum operations.



In any event, it will be good to see the USMC in Afghanistan, OEF or ISAF.


EDITED to add link to press release


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Feb 2008)

The battalion deploying from California doesnt quite have the mission priority as the MEU does. There is a sense of urgency to get the MEU in place ASAP. The Nassau ASG is deploying without a MEU on board - a first I believe.


----------



## tomahawk6 (19 Mar 2008)

A couple of pic's










Marines with the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit load three AH-1W Super Cobra helicopters onto an Air Force C-17 Globemaster III March 16 at Manas Air Base, Kyrgyzstan. The Marines are headed downrange to Afghanistan as part of the troop plus-up authorized by the president in January. The Marines will be a part of the NATO-International Security Assistance Force, conducting operations to extend the authority of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. (U.S. Air Force/Senior Airman Tabitha Kuykendall)


----------



## Panzer Grenadier (19 Mar 2008)

Here come the Marines.


----------



## geo (19 Mar 2008)

Now that they are in KAF, the question that comes to mind is.... under who'se command do they fall under?


----------



## tomahawk6 (19 Mar 2008)

Canadian command.


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 Mar 2008)

The command chain seems to be, er, changeable--January 15:

DoD News Briefing with Press Secretary Geoff Morrell from the Pentagon
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4120



> The bulk of the additional forces, approximately 2,200, will be provided by the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit. In March the MEU will deploy to southern Afghanistan, where they will be under the command of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force, or as we call them, ISAF. The deployment, which will last about seven months, fills a long-standing ISAF request for a maneuver force in Regional Command South.  There the MEU will conduct full-spectrum combat operations against the Taliban and al Qaeda so as to provide the Afghan people with a safe and secure environment in which to rebuild their lives...
> 
> MR. MORRELL: That's a good question and maybe something you can -- we'll get you an answer on. My original understanding was that this was a MAGTF and it would have its own air and ground, but we can certainly get a more firm answer for you. I can tell you the MEU will be, as I mentioned, in RC South, therefore under ISAF command.
> 
> *The Canadians are taking over there from the Brits in February of this year, so they will be operating most immediately under Canadian command in RC South. And as I mentioned, it's also a maneuver force so it has the flexibility to move wherever in Regional Command South that the Canadians deem is necessary to go after the enemy* [emphasis added]. I mean, this is a fighting force that will greatly enhance the capabilities of the Canadians and our allies who are down there taking it to the enemy...


    

Then there is a typical letter in the _Globe and Mail_ (fully text payer only):


Them's fightin' men
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080319.COLETTS19-6/TPStory/Opinion/letters



> GEORGE DUNBAR
> 
> March 19, 2008
> 
> ...



More links:

24th Marine Expeditionary Unit (official)
http://www.iimefpublic.usmc.mil/24meu

Marines return to Afghanistan
http://www.iimefpublic.usmc.mil/Public/InfolineMarines.nsf/(ArticlesRead)/5692B5EB769E08D38525740D00255086

The 24th MEU Unofficial Blog
http://the24thmeu.wordpress.com/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Mar 2008)

The 24 MEU is probably going to be used as a sort of fire brigade,going where they are needed most.The bad guy s are plainly going to try and test NATO in Kandahar and Helmand, the Marines will be able to respond in either direction.Its clear that ISAF's strategy will continue to focus on attacking taliban bases in Paksitan and targeting their leadership.


----------



## armyvern (20 Mar 2008)

Whooo Hooo!! They are in KAF.

Lovely.  

Helicopters, the CDS, the Stanley Cup ... wonder what'll show up next.


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Mar 2008)

The politicians cant be far behind, ;D


----------



## armyvern (20 Mar 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The politicians cant be far behind, ;D



Actually, the MND was right behind ...   8)


----------



## Journeyman (20 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Helicopters, the CDS, the Stanley Cup *... wonder what'll show up next. *


The Pope?   >



			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The 24 MEU is probably going to be used as a sort of fire brigade,going where they are needed most.The bad guy s are plainly going to try and test NATO in Kandahar and Helmand, the Marines will be able to respond in either direction.


They've already received their marching orders -- wait for the open source reporting 



> Its clear that ISAF's strategy will continue to focus on *attacking taliban bases in Paksitan * and targeting their leadership.


 Pardon? Are you suggesting ISAF/NATO has a policy of attacking a sovereign nation?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Mar 2008)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> The Pope?   >



 :rofl:
Just about knocked my tea over with that one......ya just have to tease the axe murderer, don't you?


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Mar 2008)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> The Pope?   >
> They've already received their marching orders -- wait for the open source reporting
> Pardon? Are you suggesting ISAF/NATO has a policy of attacking a sovereign nation?



The US had made several successful strikes in the past week using Predator's against AQ/Taliban leadership targets in the tribal area of Pakistan, with a wink and a nod from the Pakistani government. This is something we have learned from the Israeli's [ going after the enemy leadership].


----------



## Journeyman (20 Mar 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The US had made several successful strikes in the past week using Predator's against AQ/Taliban leadership targets in the tribal area of Pakistan, with a wink and a nod from the Pakistani government. This is something we have learned from the Israeli's [ going after the enemy leaedrship].


No winks, no nods, and I don't know what a "tribal area of Pakistan" is. I do know that the US State Dept announced that the border at Baram Chah was "misidentified" in the 1890s, allowing a strike against TB "in Afghanistan."

And while you may wrongly believe this to be a trivial point, it wasn't ISAF (which stands for *I* *S*uck *A*t *F*ighting), it was OEF. 

Far from having a "strategy" to attack Taliban bases in Pakistan, I don't believe ISAF has any strategy whatsoever....beyond appeasing the lowest-common denominator amongst the troop-contributing nations - - which so far, has kept them at the stage of attempting to agree on a PowerPoint font. This allows each nation to "fight" as it sees fit, whether cowering behind national caveats, speaking 'hearts & minds' while practicing attrition, or patting oneself on the back for issuing the most speeding tickets on a 16kph camp.


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Mar 2008)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> And while you may wrongly believe this to be a trivial point, it wasn't ISAF (which stands for *I* *S*uck *A*t *F*ighting), it was OEF.


I thought it stood for *I* *S*tay* A*t *F*OBs.   >


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Mar 2008)

I guess you're right.  ;D

Anyway the US command structure has been folded into ISAF. CFC-A was deactivated. 24 MEU is under the command of MG Lessard as long as they are in the South.


----------



## MarkOttawa (20 Mar 2008)

tomahawk6: But there's now Combined Joint Task Force - 82:
http://www.cjtf82.com/

Major General David Rodriguez, commander 82nd Airborne Division, is double-hatted as commander of CJTF - 82 (US national command under CENTCOM) and commander of Regional Command East under ISAF.
http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/99614.htm

An interesting press briefing by ISAF commander US Gen. McNeill here;
http://www.centcom.mil/en/article/news/enemy-snipers-aim-foiled-by-friendship/15.html

Anyone know if Gen. McNeill, or his successor in command of ISAF, US Gen. David D. McKiernan, 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/01/us-to-keep-command-of-isaf.html
has a direct command subordination to CENTCOM as well as to  SHAPE?
http://www.nato.int/isaf/structure/comstruc/index.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Mar 2008)

The relationship between General McNeill and CENTCOM is the same as that of General Petraeus to CENTCOM and a bit different.Through ISAF McNeill is responsible to SACEUR but he also is supported by CENTCOM.The CAS is supplied by USAF assets "owned" by CENTCOM. The command structure reminds me more about how we are organized in Korea.

US forces are in Korea under UN auspices just as ISAF is.UNC/CFC reports directly to Washington but also interacts with PACOM. In the event of war PACOM would support UNC with the Commander UNC as the operational commander.

The US command for Afghanistan was CFC-A which was folded into ISAF in Nov 06. There are US Army task organizations that report to ISAF. As noted TF 82 commands two Army brigades plus the PRT's in the Regional Command East AO.


----------



## Journeyman (21 Mar 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> *Anyway the US command structure has been folded into ISAF. *


I hate to nag about this; I really do. But you don't have a clue what you're talking about here.


According to a very credible National Post story, your General McNeill doesn't seem to think OEF [ie, part of the "US command structure"] has been abolished and "folded into ISAF."  


> *Gen. McNeill said....Two thousand of them [USMC] (will be) under the NATO flag [ie - ISAF], and 1,200 under the OEF (the U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom) flag.*


 I'll be sure and pass word to the guys busily cutting off their OEF patches to stop -- it was merely stateside rumour-mongering by someone out of his lane.


_Please_ stop posting crap you obviously know nothing about. Please


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Mar 2008)

> Anyway the US command structure has been folded into ISAF.



I stand by that statement. This is why. McNeill is the theater commander.The CFC-A command doesnt exist as far as I can tell. McNeill reports through NATO command channels but he also interacts with CENTCOM because Afghanistan is still part of their command area.



> Gen. McNeill said....Two thousand of them [USMC] (will be) under the NATO flag [ie - ISAF], and 1,200 under the OEF (the U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom) flag.
> I'll be sure and pass word to the guys busily cutting off their OEF patches to stop -- it was merely stateside rumour-mongering by someone out of his lane.



My post was in regard to 24 MEU which IS part of iSAF. I made no comment at all about 2/7 Marines who as has been pointed out will be training the ANA which is part of Combined Security Transition Command - Afghanistan.


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Mar 2008)

http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/0/B1EAB48AC25626A88525741200361E37?opendocument

KC-130s deliver for NATO-ISAF
Submitted by:   	24th MEU
Story by:  	Computed Name: Cpl. Randall A. Clinton
Story Identification #:  	20083204516





KANDAHAR PROVINCE, Afghanistan(Mar. 20, 2008) -- Somewhere over Afghanistan, Capt. Rick Sofge’s heart jumped a beat; his accompanying crew’s eyes fixed on a small paved landing strip appearing around the corner from a sprawling mountain chain.

“We train for it, you expect it, you know it is going to look small, it is going to look weird, and you are going to go “whew,” said Sofge, KC-130 Hercules aircraft commander, Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron 365 (reinforced), 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, NATO International Security Assistance Force. 

Part thrill ride, part freight train, the Marine airplane banks and descends to the patch of paved desert. There is no stopping now; seconds before wheels touch the dusty ground a slight pull on the controls and the plane soars safely into the clouds.

This was only a test of the crew’s ability to adapt to new landscape. 

“The terrain is a gigantic issue when you are landing at a higher altitude, which changes the performance of our airplanes,” said Sofge. 

Each of these flights is another chance to try a new airfield or talk to a different nation’s radio operator. While all countries share the same basic rules of the sky, each nation may have different expectations of the arriving pilots, crew and cargo, said Maj. Scott Madziarczyk, chief intratheater airlift system, Joint Transportation System, NATO-ISAF. 

“When you get on the ground and move cargo, different nations are able to do different things due to national caveats,” he said.

Fitting in among the multinational force has other benefits for the KC-130 crew, a chance to do things peers in Iraq only dream about.

“I think we would all like to do everything our platform is capable of. In Iraq we have become more segregated into certain teams and what we do. Here we have the chance to take a KC-130 and do everything it was built to do, so I hope we get that chance while we are here,” he said. 

For him that means, helicopter and fixed wing refueling, resupply drops, and landing on less-than perfect landing strips (short, dirty or at high elevation.)


The KC-130 detachment has worked non-stop since arriving in country, combining training missions with much-needed cargo runs for ISAF. 

“If you can name it and fit it into a C-130, they have been flying it around,” said Maj. Madziarczyk. “Over the last 7 days they have been averaging 100 to 170 passengers a day, and 6 to 7,000 kg of cargo.”

“We are doing a sortie per hour, where over in Iraq we would do a sortie and it might last four hours. Big difference, we are doing a lot of hop skipping and jumping. From here to here to here to here, so it’s pretty busy,” explained Sofge. 

This particular flight included stops at airfields around the country; a load of cargo here, a group of soldiers there. Typical of their flights in country, they span the region making frequent stops. Due to the required work for each flight, and each landing, the bus-stop like flight schedule translates into a more hectic work schedule for the crews. 

“Every leg is more planning, so if you put on four little half hour legs, it’s a whole lot more planning,” he said. “You have to know how you are going to get in, how you are getting out, all while keeping terrain in mind.”

Lost in the talk of terrain and altitudes is the notion that these planes are flying and landing in combat zones. They can’t control whether the enemy will fire at them, so they turn their attention to the things they can control.

“There is a point at which you transition, and I don’t really consider it anymore. I stopped having to think about a guy shooting me, because if I don’t flare I’m going to go into the ground and the wings are going to snap off and we are not going anywhere… if we live,” Sofge explained.

The callous yet reasoned approach of Sofge is on par with his crew, they understand the dangers of their job, but are not restricted by them.

“When you fly into a hostile environment there is a chance you will get shot at,” said Sgt. Alexander Kientz, KC-130 loadmaster, HMM-365 (Rein.), 24th MEU, ISAF, who wears Aircrew Combat Wings, a symbol of his time flying in combat zones.

With over a thousand hours of flight time, including two tours in Iraq, Kientz sees the missions around Afghanistan as a way to get familiar with the area before the 24th MEU begins full-spectrum operations. 

“We are just here in support of the MEU, and whatever they need us to do we are comfortable with. We don’t really want to say no to anyone. We want to be as helpful as possible to the MEU or ISAF. If someone needs us to go here and pick something up, then it's just like ‘We’re on it,’” he explained.

That attitude from the squadron is music to Madziarczyk’s ear. 

“The day before they called me, I was walking around wishing I had another aircraft,” he explained. “They moved gear for darn near every nation that is here with ISAF. (Every ISAF country has) had someone or something fly around on KC-130s over the last seven days,” he said. “(Now) I’ve got customers asking to fly with them.”


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 Mar 2008)

A letter of mine in the _Globe and Mail_ (full text subscriber only):
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080325.LETTERS25-5//TPStory/Comment



> *Feeding the NDP
> 
> MARK COLLINS*
> 
> ...



The last sentence is the Globe's; this is what I wrote:



> But I guess the NDP's defence spokeswoman doesn't bother to follow the media on her subject. After all, facts are irrelevant to NDP positions.



A _Norman's Spectator_ LETTER OF THE DAY. 
http://www.members.shaw.ca/nspector4/LETT.htm

I should have called the Marines "troops", not "soldiers". Sorry about that.

These were my references:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j_OQliDILY2WjV06CzfFZHstrZrA
http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/main5/E9C34438231157B58525740D0020CA8F?opendocument
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/War_Terror/2008/03/17/5031611-cp.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## vonGarvin (25 Mar 2008)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> I should have called the Marines "troops", not "soldiers". Sorry about that.



As an aside, you are quite correct in that they are not soldiers.  And they are quite aware of that fact.  In my own experience, in Haiti, I referred to one of our Marines as a soldier.  He simply said "Sir, I'm not a soldier: I'm a Marine".  Being pedantic, I went to the source of Language Excellence (Concise Oxford), and found the definition of "Soldier" meaning "A member of an army" (or words to that effect).  For "Marine", it said that meant "a member of a marine force, eg: Royal Marines, USMC, etc".  So, I went back to said Marine, apologised, and asked him not to hate me for being "only" a soldier! 

As for Dawn Black, I believe that the USMC troops, although for ISAF (the MEU part, anyway), are a one time thing, and NOT part of Manley's Final Solution on Afghanistan.


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 Mar 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter: Very good point about Dawn Black's statement :-[.  I completely missed that angle--though I still think Ms Black is blowing smoke.  I've put the letter up at a couple of other places and wonder if anyone else will make your observation.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP (11 Apr 2008)

US marines say they have begun operations in Afghanistan
Article Link

KABUL (AFP) — More than 2,000 US marines recently deployed in Afghanistan to support a NATO-led military campaign against Islamic rebels have began operations in the country's restive south, the unit said Thursday.

The 2,300-strong US Marine Expeditionary Unit was part of Washington's recent contribution to the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) efforts to quell a resurgent Taliban insurgency.

"The last of the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit's Marines and Sailors are arriving and the unit is beginning operations after weeks of flowing personnel and equipment here," the unit said in a statement.

"The Marines have begun their operations in (southern Afghanistan) in support of and with their Afghanistan international partners," it said, referring to ISAF forces deployed there.

Southern Afghanistan sees much of an ongoing insurgency being waged by remnants of the Taliban, which was toppled from government in a US-led invasion in late 2001.

The insurgency, which includes suicide bombings and is said to be supported by Al-Qaeda terror network, has increased especially in the country's south and east in the past two years.
More on link


----------



## Kendrick (11 Apr 2008)

Permanent or not, I for one sure am glad they are there.  Wished they were 3 months ago when I was.


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Apr 2008)

I wonder how real their subordination to Maj.-Gen. Lessard as commander RC South is:

U.S. marines in Kandahar will follow same rules as Canadians: Hillier
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/04/10/hillier.html



> U.S. marines heading for southern Afghanistan to bolster battle-hardened Canadian troops will operate under the same NATO command and rules of engagement as their Canadian counterparts, Canada's chief of defence staff told MPs on Thursday.
> 
> Gen. Rick Hillier made the comments as he appeared in Ottawa before the Commons foreign affairs committee hearing on the Afghanistan mission. He was responding to questions from New Democrat Paul Dewar on whether the marines would "dance to their own drummer" in Kandahar province.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## geo (11 Apr 2008)

The COD FATHER  a man after my own heart!

Well said!


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Apr 2008)

Here's the 24th MEU's press release:

Marines begin operations in Afghanistan
http://www.iimefpublic.usmc.mil/public/infolineMarines.nsf/%28ArticlesRead%29/B11CE3610025219B85257427002B558F



> KABUL, Afghanistan (APR 9) – The last of the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit’s   Marines and Sailors are arriving and the unit is beginning operations after weeks of flowing personnel and equipment here.
> 
> The 2,300-strong unit is conducting operations in support of NATO’s International Security Assistance Force. The MEU will be *employed as a Theater Tactical Force, a position which allows the commander of ISAF* [emphasis added--no mention of Maj.-Gen. Lessard and RC South] to rapidly deploy the MEU wherever it’s needed to conduct full-spectrum operations from humanitarian assistance missions to combat operations.
> 
> ...



There's lots of material at the official website,
http://www.iimefpublic.usmc.mil/public/iimefpublic.nsf/UnitSites/24thmeu

including this slide show with text:

Outside the comfort zone: 24th MEU leaves the wire for the first time
http://24thmeu.wordpress.com/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Apr 2008)

This is pretty revealing about the command situation with the Marines:

Marines immobile in Afghan red tape
Multinational force has multiple leaders
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.afghan11apr11,0,925607.story



> KANDAHAR PROVINCE, Afghanistan - Disagreements and coordination problems high within the international military command are delaying combat operations for 2,500 Marines who arrived here last month to help root out Taliban forces, according to military officers here.
> 
> For weeks the Marines -- with their light armor, infantry, artillery and a squadron of transport and attack helicopters and Harrier strike fighters -- have been virtually quarantined at the international air base here, unable to operate beyond the base perimeter.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## tomahawk6 (11 Apr 2008)

Sounds like a real goat rope.


----------



## geo (12 Apr 2008)

Let's not forget that the Media will publish what they want to publish.

In the past, I have seen American MsM take a stand that is very much against having US troops under non-US command.

So the reporter may have been hunting for sour grapes


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Apr 2008)

I don't see that the military chain is overly complex.  The Marines have been assigned to McNeill at ISAF for his use and he has "chopped" (I believe that is the common expression) them to his Regional Commander in the South, Lessard, to use them as he sees fit, within limits.  Presumably those limits determine whether or not the Marines are to be kept in reserve as a Force in Being/Strike Force/Operational Reserve or some portion, or all of it, can be parcelled out in penny-packets for control operations like patrolling or manning FOBs and Platoon Houses.

My guess, from the press, is that the Marines were brought in as an Operational Reserve.  If they are not finding targets against which they can operate that can be interpreted as meaning that they are doing their job.  They are discouraging insurgents from concentrating and conducting conventional operations.  On the other hand the CF had already accomplished that.  On the other hand the CF didn't have the bodies to be able to maintain BOTH a Force in Being AND conduct the control operations.  By having the Marines in reserve then, presumably, that allows the Canadians to be parcelled out to maintain a forward presence and both expand their area of influence and also chance their operational emphasis from "combat operations" to "counter-insurgency constabulary"  taskings and institution building.

For the Marines that leaves them in the invidious position of being stuck in the dust waiting for something to happen and the Commanders trying to figure out how many Marines it takes to maintain a credible Force in Being and metering out the rest to both keep them employed and expand the zone of control.

I am reminded of the British Airborne being sent to Palestine as a Strategic Reserve in 1946, and in fact through out most of their history.  The troopers wanted to go to war.  Their fellow soldiers in other units wanted them to go to war. But, for Command their value was in having them NOT at war but available.  I think that also summed up the problems of the Canadian Airborne Regiment.   You want your Reserve to be the best available but the "best" want to be active but commanders want their Reserve to be inactive, or uncommitted.

If the presence of the MEU is further dampening the activities of the Taliban then they are doing their job.

Unfortunately for them I am reminded of a cartoon that I saw as a kid back in Britain.  It was of a street urchin banging a garbage can lid on an empty garbage can and making a racket.  When asked what he thought he was doing he replied "keeping elephants away".   When it was pointed out to him that there were no elephants in Britain his response was "See. It's working".

The only way you can prove that the MEU is surplus to requirement is by reducing it to the point that the enemy reverts to conventional tactics, then you can say "See.  It was working."


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 Apr 2008)

Vector 21B binoculars, a component of the new Target Location, Designation, and Hand-off System, overlooks mortarman from Weapons Platoon, Bravo Company, Battalion Landing Team 1st Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, NATO International Security Assistance Force, during a live-fire mortar range in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan. The 24th MEU is the first unit to use the TLDHS in a combat environment while in Afghanistan.
(U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Alex C. Guerra)





A forward observer from Battalion Landing Team 1st Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, NATO-International Security Assistance Force, pin points his next target on the new Target Location, Designation, and Hand-off System during a live-fire mortar range in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan. The 24th MEU is the first unit to use the TLDHS in a combat environment while in Afghanistan.
(U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Alex C. Guerra)





Cpl. Andrew S. Leroy, fire supportman, Fire Support Team, Weapons Platoon, Charlie Company, Battalion Landing Team 1st Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, NATO-International Security Assistance Force, examines terrain using Vector 21B binoculars, a component of the new Target Location, Designation, and Hand-off System during live-fire mortar range in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan. The 24th MEU is the first unit to use the TLDHS in a combat environment while in Afghanistan.
(U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Alex C. Guerra)


----------



## armyvern (14 Apr 2008)

They remind me of the little robot from the _Short Circuit_ movie of the 80s.  :-X


----------



## Nfld Sapper (14 Apr 2008)

You mean Johnny 5  ;D


----------

