Top Marine suggests Marines be the prime force in Afghanistan

[kilekaldar]

Top Marine suggests Marines be the prime force in Afghanistan

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.main/index.html

Plan would put Marines' focus on Afghanistan, not Iraq
Army would be the lead force in Iraq under such a plan

 
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The Marine Corps would like to reduce its forces in Iraq and move them to Afghanistan, a senior U.S. military official said.


Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway, speaking in July, reportedly hasn't put forth a formal plan.

Gen. James Conway, commandant of the Marine Corps, has proposed that the Marines become the prime U.S. combat force in Afghanistan while the Army takes the lead in Iraq, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Troops from each service would remain in each country, the official said.

The development was first reported in Thursday's New York Times.

If implemented, the plan would bring a dramatic change to U.S. troop alignments.

As of Thursday, about 26,000 Marines are among the 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. About 400 Marines are among the 25,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, according to U.S. Central Command, which oversees operations in the two countries.

Two senior Marine officers who spoke to CNN said the nature of the war in Afghanistan -- spread out with small-unit fighting -- makes it more the type of conflict in which the Marines typically engage.

Citing recent security improvements in Iraq's Anbar province, the Marines maybe able to drawdown there, the officers said, making it more feasible for them to deploy to Afghanistan.

"Iraq has become a prolonged ground conflict that is more an Army mission," one of the officers said.

Conway made the suggestion last week at a meeting of senior combat commanders and the heads of the military services, but the Marine commandant has not put forth a formal proposal, the official said.

Such a shift in policy would require approval of Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Asked about the report Thursday, Gates called it "extremely preliminary thinking on the part of perhaps some staff people in the Marine Corps."

If the idea gained approval, it could simplify troop rotations and deployments.

Marines generally serve seven months on the ground, while Army troops are on a 15-month rotation.

 

[MarkOttawa]

More in NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/washington/11military.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Mark
Ottawa

 

[tomahawk6]

Turf wars 8)

 

[GAP]

The Marines are not stupid....if the Democrats get in, as it looks like they are going to, they are going to look to have someone to blame, just prior to cutting support, for the issues in Iraq.

If the Marines are totally in Afghanistan, and not in Iraq, they can stand back and say "it wasn't us....uhuh.....it was them army guys over there!!"

 

[tomahawk6]

If Hillary is the democrat nominee she and they will lose. This move if its accurate is purely about turf. The Marines are tired of playing second fiddle to the Army. To be honest though Afghanistan is a light infantry environment and Iraq is more of a heavy fight. I can see why the jarheads might want to jump theaters, but the bottom line is control.

 

[aesop081]

If Hillary is the democrat nominee she and they will lose. This move if its accurate is purely about turf. The Marines are tired of playing second fiddle to the Army. To be honest though Afghanistan is a light infantry environment and Iraq is more of a heavy fight. I can see why the jarheads might want to jump theaters, but the bottom line is control.

I agree. This is inter-service rivalry at its best. Nothing more.

 

[Spencer100]

Will this make much of a difference to the CF in threater?  Do we have a better relationship with one service or the other? 

Also does the different skill sets and assets they bring to the fight make a difference to the CF?

 

[AIC_2K5]

Also does the different skill sets and assets they bring to the fight make a difference to the CF?

The Marines have been labeled as having better tactics and porcedures in fighting counterinsurgency warfare than the Army. During the first couple years of the Iraqi occupation, the regions under jurisdiction of Marine units were known to be the most stable.

 

[a_majoor]

Although there are "political" overtones to the proposal, there are also some sound tactical, operational and logistical advantages to adopting this plan.

As well, the Marines have excelled in "Small Wars" for many years, being able to "kick in the door" and then administer nations during the "Banana Wars" and other operations prior to WW II. Even in the post war environment, Marines have remained more flexible and open minded (for the most part), even to the point of being the early adopters of John Boyd's OODA Loop theory.


while this might not be a magic bullet against the Taliban and their fellow traveller's, it will certainly shake up the local environment.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

damn...I've been to Iraq with the Marines, now I might just have to re-enlist to get over to Afghanistan. 

 

[HItorMiss]

Field test all your own Kit Matt 

 

[medaid]

Oh my! I can just picture it now.


Matt Fisher on the cover of Soldier of Fortune completely loaded out with everything CP has to offer

MAJOR advertising shabam!

 

[CougarKing]

Shouldn't this thread be merged with this earlier thread? It is pretty much the same topic, after all.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/67131.new.html#new

 

[GK .Dundas]

Some of this sounds like good old fashioned empire building , I forsee  more then few Kipling poems showing up soon in the Marine Corps Gazette.

 

[Kiwi99]

Good idea me thinks.  Political or not, and it probably is'nt if you take the time to think about it, the Marines have historically been better suited to small unit combat against bigger and more established forces in a small area.  ISAF is turning into a bunch of pussies, so maybe the Marines can get it back to the good old days, like in 06 when we  were in it to win it!  Sometimes change can be good, and this is one of those times.

 

[tomahawk6]

Update

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/10/army_afghan_react_071011w/
Generals slam Marine wish for Afghanistan mission

By Sean D. Naylor - Staff writer
Posted : Friday Oct 12, 2007 5:38:16 EDT

Generals in the Army and on the Joint Staff reacted with surprise at a Marine Corps move to assume the Army’s combat role in Afghanistan and expressed doubt that the Corps could handle the mission without substantial support from the larger ground service.

The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times reported Oct. 11 that the Marine Corps has floated the idea of removing its estimated 25,000 troops in Iraq and taking over the mission in Afghanistan, where there are no significant Marine forces at present.

“This is not going to go down well with the Army,” said a general on the Joint Staff, adding that the issue “is going to be more contentious and sensitive than many people outside of the inside team realize.”

The Joint Staff officer was one of several generals who spoke only on the condition of anonymity and said the Marine initiative to supplant the Army in Afghanistan runs counter to the U.S. military’s increasingly joint approach to warfare.

“We’re seeking joint solutions to most of the challenges we face today, to include Afghanistan and Iraq,” he said. “A single service approach? Holy smokes. Why would we ever go back to that way of war fighting, particularly when it doesn’t give you any advantage over your enemy and in fact complicates life tremendously in terms of sorting out how you’re going to support all of this?”

A retired Army general with Afghanistan experience agreed. “The fact that a service would propose somehow that their service would take over a war seems to me to fly in the face of everything that’s been done since Goldwater-Nichols was passed in 1986,” he said, referring to legislation mandating integration of the capabilities of the military services.

However, he said, “there’s going to be a tremendous number of Army soldiers out there, even if, quote unquote, the Marines take over the mission,” because the Marines would have to rely on the Army for support in Afghanistan.

“There are some extraordinarily obvious flaws in this,” the retired Army general said. “The Marines don’t bring any of the infrastructure, logistics, aviation, all of the other enablers that are necessary to fight in this environment successfully.”

The Joint Staff general noted that although the Marine combat formations are organized on deployments into Marine air-ground task forces, or MAGTFs (pronounced mag-taffs), which combine ground maneuver forces with fixed-wing air support. “The MAGTF is not designed to do sustained operations inland without any extensive Army support as well as Navy support,” he said

Marine units are designed to be self-sustaining for up to 30 days in the case of a Marine expeditionary unit and 60 days in the case of a Marine expeditionary brigade, he said. For longer deployments, the Army is obliged “by law” to provide logistical support to the Marines, he added.

An active-duty Army general with recent Afghanistan experience said the Marines lacked much of the equipment that allowed the Army to fight effectively in Afghanistan. For instance, he noted that Marine helicopters are not as capable as those of the Army.

The Marines’ twin-rotor CH-46 is not considered as strong as its Army equivalent, the CH-47 Chinook, a critical factor when operating in the rugged mountainous terrain of eastern Afghanistan.

“If you’re along the [Pakistan] border ... you’d better have the capability to get up around 10,000 feet,” the Army general said. “It’s a tough fight in Afghanistan. ... It’s not a cakewalk by any measure, and if you’re not geared appropriately, it’s even harder.”

The generals also expressed concern that the Marines’ seven-month rotations were ill-suited to the demands of a counterinsurgency campaign in which nurturing relationships with local figures over long periods can be the key to victory. Army units deploy to Afghanistan for at least 15 months.

“Marines rotate for seven months,” said the retired Army general. “That’s extraordinarily disruptive in a counterinsurgency campaign. The [Army] brigade that just came out of Afghanistan was there for 16 months.”

“The Afghans, they have the utmost respect for the United States military and they don’t want you to leave,” said the active-duty Army general with recent Afghanistan experience. “If you’re constantly churning at six months or seven months, as the Marines are doing now ... people aren’t going to connect with you, and you’ll lose some of those gains.”

Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway briefly joked about the proposal at a dinner hours after the news reports hit the streets and were generating controversy, but otherwise refused to discuss it.

“Would any of you retirees like to go with us to Afghanistan?” he quipped at the Marine Corps Association’s Ground Awards Dinner in Arlington, Va., where he was the guest speaker.

After the dinner, he declined to discuss the issue with a Military Times reporter.

“It’s premature at this time for me to talk about it,” Conway said. “If there is an appropriate point in time, if certain things happen, we’ll let you know so we can get it out to the Marines.”

Army Gen. Dan McNeill commands NATO’s International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, and is the overall commander of U.S. forces in the country, which number about 26,000. But if the Marines provided the bulk of the U.S. combat forces, the Corps might push for one of its own to be given that four-star command slot, according to the retired Army general with Afghanistan experience.

“That’s certainly something that would be out there on the table now, wouldn’t it?” he said. The Joint Staff general agreed. “I’m sure that has entered the equation,” he said.

The generals also took umbrage at the implication in the newspaper stories announcing the Marine initiative that it was the Marines stationed in Iraq’s Anbar province who played the leading role in fostering the “Anbar awakening” that saw local Sunni tribes switch sides and take up arms against al-Qaida in Iraq. They said that much of the credit belonged to Army Col. Sean McFarland and his 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division.

“There is concern [among Army officers] that we’re overplaying the Marines’ assertion that they’re the masters of counterinsurgency and they might be trying to export that into Afghanistan,” the retired Army general said.

The active-duty Army general with recent Afghanistan experience said there appeared to be a lack of analysis underpinning the reported Marine initiative.

“The question that has to be asked is: Do they have the command and control, logistics and equipment architecture to conduct this fight?” he said. “You have to do a troop-to-task analysis on the ground in Afghanistan and work it backwards, and then say, what is the right force for this mission? As opposed to making a strategic announcement that this is where we want to go, and then trying to make it fit. ”

Staff writer Michael Hoffman contributed to this report.

 

[GAP]

Turf wars 8)

Yep...

 

[CougarKing]

A little update. It seems that US Marines may not become the prime force in Afghanistan after all, according to this article:

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,157673,00.html?wh=wh

No Shift of Marines to Afghan War
Associated Press  |  December 06, 2007
WASHINGTON - The top Marine general said Dec. 5 that Defense Secretary Robert Gates has rejected his proposal to shift Marine forces from Iraq to Afghanistan, reflecting in part the Bush administration's concern that recent security gains in Iraq are fragile and reversible.

"After discussion with the secretary and with my colleagues on the Joint Staff, there is a determination that right now the timing is not right to provide additional Marine forces to Afghanistan," Gen. James T. Conway, the Marine Corps commandant, told reporters at the Pentagon.

Conway's proposal gives unusual insight into the thinking of the Marine Corps, which sees itself as offering unique capabilities, different in important ways than the Army, with which it has shared the bulk of the work in Iraq since a joint Army-Marine force invaded and toppled Baghdad in 2003.

Conway hinted at those differences, saying Marines prefer serving under fire in a combat zone to performing nation-building duties in Iraq. He said that in his meeting with Gates on this subject last week, Gates understood Conway's thinking.

"He's heard anecdotal reports that lance corporals are complaining that they don't have anybody to shoot" in the newly peaceful Anbar, where most Marines are operating, Conway said. "But that doesn't drive strategic thinking, of course." At another point Conway, who visited Anbar last month, described the province as still dangerous and said it would be too early to withdraw all troops.

Reached in Baghdad, where he was traveling with Gates, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said Dec. 5 that Gates had carefully weighed Conway's proposal and believed it made sense.

"But the secretary thinks the security situation in Iraq is still too unpredictable to let those fighting forces leave anytime soon," Morrell said. "It is better, he feels, to wait and see if the security Marines bravely brought to Anbar is for real or just another cruel tease. The Marines proudly believe peace is there to stay now and Secretary Gates hopes their confidence is justified, but he is not ready to take such a chance at this time."

Conway also acknowledged that his idea of putting Marines primarily in Afghanistan, after they leave Iraq, would have the added benefit of attracting recruits at a time the Marine Corps is trying to expand.

"There's a little bit of a recruiting consideration here in this, I'll admit to you," he said, sketching out a scenario in which about 15,000 Marines would be in Afghanistan and none in Iraq, compared with the present situation in which there are about 25,000 Marines in Iraq and just a few in Afghanistan.

Switching to Afghanistan at lower numbers would give Marines more time between combat tours, while appealing to those potential recruits who like the idea of fighting in the country that gave haven to al-Qaida before it carried out its Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, Conway said. Left unsaid was the notion that many Marines get less satisfaction from their efforts in Iraq.

"I think the fact that the Marine Corps is still fighting the nation's wars would continue to bring in those great young Americans who want to be Marines and fight for their country," he said.

He referred to the Marines' current duty in Iraq's Anbar province as almost like occupation duty.

"Occupation is not the right word here, but the long-term security forces, that's not a Marine function," he said. "That's not what U.S. Marines do for the country. We're expeditionary, and we do not get engaged in some of the long-term type of duties that you see in Germany or in Japan or in Korea. We are much more mobile than that, and we want to keep that mobility and that flexibility and not get tied down."

The Afghanistan mission, he said, "matches our strengths and our capabilities" as a force that combines light infantry, armored ground power and tactical air capabilities.

"My point to (Gates) is that, if and when we are able to continue our drawdown in Iraq and it comes time for Marine units to start leaving the country, ... should we bring them home or should we start looking at putting them where there is still an active fight; in this case, Afghanistan? And we were prepared to do that."

Gates visited Afghanistan on Dec. 4 and was in Iraq Dec. 5, although he did not go to Iraq's Anbar province.

In addressing the matter publicly for the first time, Conway said he was not disappointed by Gates' decision, given that the Marines have had considerable success in stabilizing Anbar province, which for much of the war had been a haven for Sunni Arab insurgents who killed hundreds of U.S. troops.

"Personally discouraged? No," he said. "Frankly, our casualty count is going to continue to be lower and that is a good day," Conway said.

Conway, a former commander of Marine forces in Anbar, said the essence of his proposal was to shift Marine combat units to Afghanistan as the need for their services in Anbar declined. Asked when he thought the situation in Anbar might be stable enough to reduce the Marine force there, Conway said two battalions likely would come home by March but further reductions were uncertain.

Conway also confirmed that he has proposed buying fewer mine-resistant armored vehicles than previously planned - 2,300 instead of 3,700 - in large part because the need for extra force protection in the Marines' sector of Iraq has declined dramatically as insurgent violence has dropped in recent months.

 

[razorguns]

Iraq is where the majority of bloodshed, fighting and terrorists are. 

His comments on why they should be in afghan not iraq makes no sense.

r

 

[CougarKing]

Iraq is where the majority of bloodshed, fighting and terrorists are. 

His comments on why they should be in afghan not iraq makes no sense.

r

Umm...so you don't think the joint US Army and USMC's surge of troops from months ago worked? Violence is down in Iraq and is said to be the lowest it has been in months, according to the media, if you haven't noticed.

So while the violence there hasn't ended and there is still work to be done, at least there has been progress. Here's one article from as early as October that confirms it:

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSCOL24813120071022?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Violence in Iraq drops sharply: Ministry
Mon Oct 22, 2007 1:01pm EDT
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Violence in Iraq has dropped by 70 percent since the end of June, when U.S. forces completed their build-up of 30,000 extra troops to stabilize the war-torn country, the Interior Ministry said on Monday.
The ministry released the new figures as bomb blasts in Baghdad and the northern city of Mosul killed five people and six gunmen died in clashes with police in the holy Shi'ite city of Kerbala south of the Iraqi capital.

Washington began dispatching reinforcements to Iraq in February to try to buy Iraq's feuding political leaders time to reach a political accommodation to end violence between majority Shi'ites and minority Sunni Arabs that has killed tens of thousands and forced millions from their homes.
While the leaders have failed to agree on key laws aimed at reconciling the country's warring sects, the troop buildup has succeeded in quelling violence.

Under the plan, U.S. troops left their large bases and set up combat outposts in neighborhoods while launching a series of summer offensives against Sunni Islamist al Qaeda, other Sunni Arab militants and Shi'ite militias in the Baghdad beltway.
Interior Ministry spokesman Major-General Abdul-Karim Khalaf told reporters that there had been a 70 percent decrease in violence countrywide in the three months from July to September over the previous quarter.
GRADUAL IMPROVEMENT

In Baghdad, considered the epicenter of the violence because of its mix of Shi'ites and Sunni Arabs, car bombs had decreased by 67 percent and roadside bombs by 40 percent, he said. There had also been a 28 percent decline in the number of bodies found dumped in the capital's streets.
In Anbar, a former insurgent hotbed where Sunni Arab tribes have joined U.S. forces against al Qaeda, there has been an 82 percent drop in violent deaths.
"These figures show a gradual improvement in controlling the security situation," Khalaf said.

However, in the northern province of Nineveh, where many al Qaeda and other Sunni Arab militants fled to escape the crackdown in Baghdad and surrounding region, there had been a 129 percent rise in car bombings and a corresponding 114 percent increase in the number of people killed in violence.
While the figures confirm U.S. data showing a positive trend in combating al Qaeda bombers, there is growing instability in southern Iraq, where rival Shi'ite factions are fighting for political dominance.

Police said six gunmen were killed in police raids in Kerbala, 110 km (70 miles) southwest of Baghdad.

Some 50 people were killed in Kerbala in August in fierce clashes between fighters loyal to Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and local police, who are seen as aligned to the rival Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council's armed wing, the Badr Organization.

After the clashes, Sadr said he was imposing a six-month freeze on the activities of the Mehdi Army, increasingly seen as beyond his control, so that he could reorganize it.
In Baghdad, three roadside bombs killed four people, including three policemen, while in Mosul one policeman was killed when a blast hit a police patrol.