You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Afghanistan
Marine general says limited troops available
2008-09-19
There is a limit to how many troops can be sent to Afghanistan without drawing down the number deployed in Iraq or other places, the Marines' top general said Thursday. Gen. James T. Conway, commandant of the Marine Corps, told reporters before speaking to a sea power conference that the time is right to send about 2,000 Marines to southern Afghanistan instead of Iraq's Anbar province because violence has subsided.

The Marine task force includes a battalion from Camp Lejeune and will replace two North Carolina-based Marine units now in Afghanistan. The task force is scheduled to deploy in November.

"The things we used to do in Anbar are much less needed today," Conway said, noting that on a recent trip to Iraq he saw people building instead of fighting. He said 20,000 to 25,000 Marines in Anbar plus Iraqi forces that have been trained are enough for now.

But if the president wants "to increase the Marine presence in Afghanistan you must reduce in Iraq," Conway said, adding his personal belief is Marines are needed more in Afghanistan than Iraq. "We can't continue unless we're allowed to draw down elsewhere."

Conway said Marines also need more time at their home bases so they can reconnect with their families and get more training for both traditional combat and counterinsurgency missions. He said the Marines can do both missions, but need training and have been focused on counterinsurgency. He said they need to be deployed seven months and at home for 14.

He also said it would take a year to remove all Marines from Iraq if ordered. Conway also said Marines are being trained both for duty in Afghanistan and Iraq at desert and mountain training centers.

Conway and other military officers also spoke to a conference that promotes the importance of U.S. sea power. Conway said the U.S. should equip sea bases with ground combat troops and aircraft that can quickly respond to emergencies in countries that won't allow war ships into port. He said the sea bases could allow U.S. forces to move around hostile countries rather than needing to seize airfields and ports. Sea bases comprised of five or six ships that act as ports and airfields afloat also can be used for humanitarian relief.

Planners in the Marine Corps believe future conflicts will include oil supply disagreements but "nations will be prepared to go to war for water," he said.
Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC

#2  Lily Pad Theory, he's been to NWC in Newport, paid attention in class. Wasn't that long ago though the "war for water" thing was eh'd. Things change and I'm more intent on raking leaves and lowering my handicap.
Posted by: Last Breath Farm Resident   2008-09-19 22:48  

#1  On the last part, nanotechnology help may be on the way, in which USMC might not have to fight in "water wars" over fresh water but help provide "water support missions."

That is, new nanotechnology filters are able to convert brackish water to fresh water with a fraction of the energy needed by reverse osmosis, and they are also scalable. So a nuclear ship would park on the coast and pump enormous amounts of fresh water inland.

The USMC would be needed to prevent attacks against the pipeline and denial of the fresh water to the hated enemies of the locals, whoever they were. And that can get pretty harsh--as bad as delivering food aid--people will fight and die to keep other people from being fed or having water.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2008-09-19 16:35  

00:00