Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

Thread: Marines Press to Remove Their Forces From Iraq

  1. #1
    A Self Important Senior Contributor troung's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    6,788

    Marines Press to Remove Their Forces From Iraq

    Marines Press to Remove Their Forces From Iraq

    By THOM SHANKER
    Published: 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.”

    NY Times Advertisement
    To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

  2. #2
    Senior Contributor HKDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 May 06
    Location
    Shanghai
    Posts
    858

    Marines Press to Remove Their Forces From Iraq

    Something that I caught in the paper this morning. I hadn't known that anything like this was even being considered. Anyone have an opinion?



    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/wa...xaUxoPAAwL5A5w


    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.”

  3. #3
    Senior Contributor HKDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 May 06
    Location
    Shanghai
    Posts
    858
    Whoops, Troung has already posted this article. Sorry, man.

  4. #4
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    21,348
    That's OK. I didn't see that post but I saw yours.

    I think this idea has merit. We should do whatever that's necessary to help our guys win.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  5. #5
    Senior Contributor HKDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 May 06
    Location
    Shanghai
    Posts
    858
    Im pretty intrigued by this idea too. I would be fascinated to see if having the Army run Iraq and the USMC run the show in Afghanistan would result in any substantial changes to how those conflicts are approached. Would the biggest difference be that troop rotations were more convenient? Or are there institutional differences between the two services that would make one more suited to a particular conflict than the other. Is a MAGTF really that much more integrated and efficient than the Army-AF team? I have read a lot of anecdotal evidence that the Marine Corps does great CAS, but there are also a lot of people who will tell you that AF A-10s are the way to go. Hopefully someone out there can enlighten us.

  6. #6
    Regular Indirect Fire's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Dec 06
    Location
    Colleyville - Grapevine, US
    Posts
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by troung View Post
    Marines Press to Remove Their Forces From Iraq

    By THOM SHANKER
    Published: 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.
    Finally the administration has learnt that Afghanistan is not spelt I-r-a-q!
    I have no idea what I'm doing. Honestly!

  7. #7
    Senior Contributor HKDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 May 06
    Location
    Shanghai
    Posts
    858
    Here is another article, this time from the Washington Post. The two cynical points by the "retired general" at the end of the article are pretty interesting. I think that there is probably some truth to the idea of the Marines wanting Afghanistan in part because its a more popular war. I also wonder if the Marines would be better able to justify the Osprey due to the difficult helicopter conditions in Afghanistan.

    washingtonpost.com

    A bid by the Marine Corps to take responsibility for the primary U.S. military mission in Afghanistan is generating a heated debate inside and outside the Pentagon, with some senior officers arguing that the Marines are ideally suited for the Afghan war while others contend that the move would undermine the counterinsurgency strategy there.

    Gen. James T. Conway, the Marine Corps commandant, has raised the idea of the Marines shifting from Iraq to Afghanistan in meetings with the military's Joint Staff and the office of Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. "It's just started to be discussed at senior levels," said Col. David Lapan, a Marine spokesman.
    Gates yesterday played down the discussion, saying he has not yet seen any proposals. "It's . . . extremely preliminary thinking on the part of, perhaps, some staff people in the Marine Corps," Gates said during a trip to London. "I don't think at this point it has any stature."

    The Marine Corps is enthusiastic about a possible move to Afghanistan, with senior officials saying yesterday that its integrated air, ground and logistics units are tailor-made for the dispersed fighting in rugged terrain.

    "It's an optimal deployment of the Marine Corps," said one senior Marine officer, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to be interviewed. "We feel as though we could very neatly fit into that niche."

    Marine combat units -- traditionally trained in mountain warfare -- served in Afghanistan starting soon after the 2001 U.S. invasion. They have been largely pulled out over the past two years to focus on Iraq's Anbar province, where there are about 25,000 Marines. Over the past year, violence has fallen sharply in the western province, leading to the withdrawal last month of 2,200 Marines.

    Under the proposal, as Marines are freed up from Iraq they would flow gradually into Afghanistan, relieving Army soldiers, who make up the bulk of the U.S. contingent of 27,000 troops. "It would be phased" and would probably begin next year, leading eventually to the Marines assuming the U.S. command there, said another senior Marine official. "We could do a heck of a job there," he said, adding that some Marine commanders are making contingency plans for training for an Afghan mission. But he and others stressed that any shift in deployments would require high-level approval.

    Some military officers, including in the Army, see serious flaws in the proposal. They argue that the Marine Corps' seven-month combat tours are ill suited to a long counterinsurgency in Afghanistan, and that the sea-based force is not designed for a land-locked country.

    "Afghanistan is a long way from any ocean, and the Marine Air-Ground Task Force was not designed to conduct sustained operations inland without extensive Army support," said a general on the Joint Staff.

    Some officers pointed to institutional drawbacks in putting a single service in command of the Afghanistan mission when the Pentagon is striving to promote joint operations involving the Army, Marine Corps, Navy and Air Force.

    "A parochial, single-service approach to war-fighting would greatly complicate matters without providing a single significant advantage over our adversaries," said the Joint Staff general.

    "If the reports are accurate, to make the fight in Afghanistan a single-service effort flies in the face of all the progress made in joint war-fighting in the last 20 years," said retired Army Gen. David Barno, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005.

    The debate has also prompted inter-service rivalry. "The cynical talk is this gives the Marines another four-star billet running the NATO show over there," said a retired Army general. "The other cynical point is that this is a much more popular war" than the war in Iraq.

    Marine officers denied that the plan marked a bid for territory or resources. "This idea this is some kind of play for resources is myopic," said a senior officer.

  8. #8
    Canadian again at last! Military Professional
    Join Date
    17 May 05
    Location
    Yellowknife, NWT
    Posts
    1,400
    I think the idea makes sence even if all it does it save arguements thus saving time. If the army wants to do something it can focus without having to talk to the Marines to check it all over and vise~versa. Not sure how the US military works in this regards but at face value it seems to simply make sence.

  9. #9
    S2
    S2 is offline

    Military Professional
    Military Professional S2's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    8,582

    Expat Canuck Reply

    I'm guessing that you have a point. Jointness is good but if you can avoid any friction whatsoever, all the better. This proposal offers that for both services.

    I suspect that the Marines are selling the idea that they recruit young men for battle and here's where the fight will be as Iraq winds down. I do like the political message that Marines don't suggest permanence to our presence there.

    I don't personally believe that the U.S. Marines constitute any more effective COIN force than the U.S. Army at the brigade/regimental level. Too many Army victories in both Iraq and Afghanistan to question the relative levels of COIN acumen. Marines may better satisfy the sensibilities of America's N.A.T.O. partners who may philosophically align more closely with the smaller Marine organizations. Nothing so bueraucratically daunting as a U.S. Army/Air Force Joint Task Force H.Q. A bit convoluted at times with the workarounds. Afghanistan has had some notable U.S. command-related snafus.

    Finally, I'm sure that they're quietly selling MAGTF as the most seamless air-ground close support team in the market-just what's needed these days for Afghanistan. They may have a point but they don't have Apaches or A-10s.

    In Afghanistan, those are proven difference-makers.
    "This aggression will not stand, man!"
    Jeff Lebowski

  10. #10
    Senior Contributor HKDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 May 06
    Location
    Shanghai
    Posts
    858
    I wonder what size Marine force would be running the show in Afghanistan if they took over. Is it possible that them taking over would result in a larger US ground presence?

  11. #11
    S2
    S2 is offline

    Military Professional
    Military Professional S2's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    8,582

    Sean Naylor Reports From the Marine Times

    Marines- Iraq To Afghanistan

    I think that this non-proposal will be D.O.A. at SECDEF's level. Too many good reasons why it DOESN'T make sense.
    "This aggression will not stand, man!"
    Jeff Lebowski

  12. #12
    Military Professional wabpilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    05 Dec 03
    Location
    Commuting between Dresden and Ft. Worth
    Posts
    620
    Quote Originally Posted by HKDan View Post
    I wonder what size Marine force would be running the show in Afghanistan if they took over. Is it possible that them taking over would result in a larger US ground presence?
    There are three regular and one reserve Marine Divisions. Assuming a standard rotation giving troops about a year in country, a year to prepare for deployment and a year to recover from deployment that puts the US contingent at roughly one Marine Division forward deployed at any one time without using the reserve division.

    It is possible, we do it now, to reduce the recovery and preparation time. But, compressing those cycles hurts overall readiness and retention.

    One other point is, the USMC has a great deal of success to build on in counter insurgency. They have been doing it well for a long time. In fact much of what the USA does now, the USMC pioneered. And the techniques that are working in Iraq.

  13. #13
    Senior Contributor HKDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 May 06
    Location
    Shanghai
    Posts
    858
    WabPilot,

    Even assuming the standard rotation, the Marines would have to dip into the reserves in order to keep a full division worth of Marines in Afghanistan. To start with 2 of the Divisions have 3 Infantry regiments, while the 3rd Marine Division only has 2 Infantry Regiments. One rotation would already be short a regiment of infantry, and thats if the USMC was able to dedicate itself totally to Afghanistan and leave its other commitments hanging. More realistically I think that it would be unlikely to see more than 2 infantry regiments worth of Marines in Afghanistan at any given time. It seems that a significant Army presence would be needed in Afghanistan no matter who was running the show.

  14. #14
    S2
    S2 is offline

    Military Professional
    Military Professional S2's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    8,582

    Gates Kills Notion

    Dave Dillegge reports on SWJ-

    "Yesterday, Inside Defense reported that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has nixed that proposal:

    Defense Secretary Robert Gates today shot down Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway's proposal to shift Marines from Iraq to Afghanistan, which would leave the Army to handle operations in Iraq.

    Gates dismissed the idea when asked about it at a Pentagon media briefing.
    'I have pretty much literally, up until this point, heard one sentence about it, that they were thinking about it,' he said. 'So I would say that if it happens it will be long after I'm secretary of defense.' …"

    Inside Defense is a pay-subscription thus I was unable to provide the link.

    This was my comment a week ago-

    "I think that this non-proposal will be D.O.A. at SECDEF's level."

    It is NOT true that Gates is my sock-puppet within DoD.)
    "This aggression will not stand, man!"
    Jeff Lebowski

  15. #15
    New Member ANGLICOone's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Mar 09
    Location
    Tulsa, OK
    Posts
    22

    Marine CAS

    Quote Originally Posted by HKDan View Post
    Im pretty intrigued by this idea too. I would be fascinated to see if having the Army run Iraq and the USMC run the show in Afghanistan would result in any substantial changes to how those conflicts are approached. Would the biggest difference be that troop rotations were more convenient? Or are there institutional differences between the two services that would make one more suited to a particular conflict than the other. Is a MAGTF really that much more integrated and efficient than the Army-AF team? I have read a lot of anecdotal evidence that the Marine Corps does great CAS, but there are also a lot of people who will tell you that AF A-10s are the way to go. Hopefully someone out there can enlighten us.
    I can't say first hand about today's Marine CAS. To me the two issues are the warriors and the equipment. I do know that in 1968, if you needed big ordinance dropped extremely close-in, you wanted a Marine or Navy pilot who would come in low and risk their neck for you. In recent years, I have personally met many young Marines, all of whom are extremely impressive as individuals and as warriors. Today, I'd still put my money on the training and discipline of Marines and Navy CAS putting them out front. The drawback with Marines historically, is that they operated with Army cast-offs or what they could steal from the Army or Air Force. I think that's changed today.

    My unit, 1st ANGLICO (Air Naval Gunfire Support Company) provided CAS to allied units and U.S. Army and other U.S. units that needed our skill set, but I'm sadly out of date on the topic, and this opinion is based on what happened 40 years ago.
    Nightcover 1-4 Bravo

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. A failure in generalship
    By Shek in forum The Staff College
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 01 Jun 07,, 01:04
  2. Rove on the Hotseat?
    By Broken in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 370
    Last Post: 23 Mar 07,, 13:57
  3. If you could change the battle plan in Iraq, what would you do?
    By Jedi_Iatros in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 27 Feb 06,, 16:21
  4. Marines From Iraq Sound Off About Want Of Armor And Men
    By Shek in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 28 Apr 05,, 20:49

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •