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
Marines in Afghanistan would be threat to Air Force
2007-12-06
Senior Pentagon and military officials said Wednesday that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates had decided against a proposal to shift Marine Corps forces from Iraq to take the lead in American operations in Afghanistan.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates stepping off an Air Force transport plane upon his arrival today in Mosul, Iraq.
Mr. Gates told top Marine Corps officials and his senior aides that the situation in western Iraq, where the Marines now operate in Anbar Province, remained too volatile to contemplate such a significant change in how the ground combat mission in Iraq is shared by the Army and the Marine Corps.

That broad message was underscored by Mr. Gates on Wednesday as he made his sixth visit to Iraq as defense secretary. During an evening news conference, Mr. Gates said the mission facing American, Iraqi and allied forces was to “work together not only to sustain the momentum of recent months, but to build on it.”

Senior Defense Department officials said Mr. Gates met at the Pentagon on Friday with Gen. James T. Conway, the Marine Corps commandant, and received a formal proposal that would shift Marine forces from Anbar Province and deploy them in Afghanistan. The proposal was based on Marine Corps concepts in which an integrated “air-ground task force” of Marine infantry, attack aircraft and logistics could carry out the Afghanistan mission, and build on counterinsurgency lessons learned by marines in Anbar.

The idea also was based on an assessment that a realignment could allow the Army and the Marines each to operate more efficiently in sustaining troop levels for two wars that have put a strain on their forces.
Makes too much sense.
“The secretary understands what the commandant is trying to do, and why the commandant wishes to transition the Marine Corps mission to Afghanistan,” Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, said Wednesday during Mr. Gates’s visit to Baghdad. “But he doesn’t believe the time is now to do that. Anbar is still a volatile place.”

Senior military and Pentagon officials familiar with the discussion acknowledged that the Marine Corps proposal might eventually be adopted, although such a decision would be left up to the next defense secretary and military commanders.

At present, 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 approximately 160,000 American troops.

In Washington on Wednesday, General Conway said that he felt the Afghan mission “is one that matches our strength and capabilities.” But he acknowledged that “it doesn’t appear that additional Marine units will be needed in Afghanistan in the near future.” He added that “that’s not to say that in the future, were there additional U.S. troops needed, that we would or would not be called — that would be a determination made on what the nature of the request was at the time and what the availability of forces were between, probably, Army and Marines.”

When word first surfaced of the Marine Corps proposal in October, some officials in the Air Force expressed private fears that its mission in Afghanistan could be ended if the mission went to the Marines, who deploy with their own tactical fighter and attack combat aircraft.
Now we're getting to the net/net.
Army officials acknowledged that the idea could streamline their force planning, by giving them only one mission to fulfill — although some Army officers also expressed wariness that the Marines were trying to move from an unpopular war, Iraq, to Afghanistan, which has more popular support.

Thus the idea was viewed by many military analysts as part of the maneuvering among the four armed services for priority combat missions, and the requisite share of the budget. There is widespread concern among Pentagon and military officials that the high level of military spending approved by Congress since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, may not be sustained by a nation that may move toward isolationism after Iraq.

Marine Corps officials said, however, that their proposal was based solely on military logic and efficiency. Marine units train to fight in an air-ground task force. The term refers to a Marine deployment that arrives in a combat zone complete with its own headquarters, infantry combat troops, armored and transport vehicles, attack and transport helicopters, and attack jets for close-air support, as well as logistics and support personnel.
Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC

#10  I dont know that the Marines are the right fit for Afghanistan. Its more of a special ops environment. And Masrines dont do that. They are light infantry. Plus their helicopters dont work well at the higher altitudes, bringing into question mobility, compared to Army Airmobile units like the 101 or army Light Infantry brigades with support for the divisional helicopter brigade, or USAF Special trained and equipped airlift. And the Army is trained to fight at altitude and in the mountains, They are specialized for it. The Marines, for the most part are not - their mountain trianing facility is not comparable to those beigade sized areas the Army has in Colorado and Ft Drum NY.

Add in the apache vs the Marines older attack helicopter, and you get the feeling that Afghanistan is the Marines way to get new equipment.

Not to mention as we draw down, the Marines will get pulled first, becuase they are needed in the pacific in the event of a collapse in NKor, Chinese misadventures, or Iran going nuts and attacking us.

Regarding Iraq, Marines "reach over beach" is better than any Army attack overland from Iraq/Afghanistan in terms of quickly getting to sensitive targets - Marines and carriers off shore is a hell of a threat to a lot if Irnaian sensitive targets, and possibly enouhg to prevent a war.

So there are other good arguments for keeping the Marines in Iraq and not moving them into Afghansitan.

The Airforce has always been a pain in the ass when it comes to ground support - look at their tryign to scrap whats arguably the best airframe for this war supporting the poor bloody infantry: the A-10. When they tried to ditch those and go to F16s, the Army threatened to pick them up and the UASF screamed bloody blue murder.

USAF needs to be split - give the ground support mission back to the US Army Air Corps. The Zoomies cna have the missles, strategic bombers and fighters that they love so much.

Nothing against the FACS or PJs - ballsy guys there. But the fighter mafia is a buncha pricks who are screwing the USAF out of good airframes.


Posted by: OldSpook   2007-12-06 23:33  

#9  some officials in the Air Force expressed private fears that its mission in Afghanistan could be ended if the mission went to the Marines, who deploy with their own tactical fighter and attack combat aircraft.

Maybe it's because the Marines don't like having to set up a fly-in appointment two weeks in advance with a bunch of 'zooomies' who view close-air-support as menial labor?
Posted by: Pappy   2007-12-06 22:01  

#8  That makes too much sense, 3dc. And then you'ld have all the anti-military types crying about the militarization of Space. As if there will never be conflict there if we ever develope more extra-earth capabilities.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2007-12-06 21:40  

#7  Well the USAF could take over maned space flight from the NASA guys.
Posted by: 3dc   2007-12-06 21:00  

#6  GB is more on target than he thinks. The Air Force has been run by the fighter pilot mafia for lo these many years and unfortunately for them, no one stepped up to fill the void left by the collapse of the Soviet Union. The AF has been steadily shrinking since 1989 and its aircraft are aging. The Air Staff wants more people and more new airplanes. The problem for them is that the F-15C can hold its own against just about anything that flies, making it very difficult to buy F-22s. Every year the AF goes through contortions trying to get rid of "old" aircraft like the U-2, F-117, A-10, F-15, C-141, and C-5 to free up dollars to fund the "recapitalization" of the force. And every year Congress says thank you and just reduces the AF budget. Recapitalization, at least the way HqAF wants it, ain't gonna happen. Too much money is needed to fund the expansion of the Army and the Marine Corps. One visible sign of this is that the F-22 line is getting ready to go cold. The only reason the F-35 program is continuing is that the political support (both foreign and domestic) for it is breathtaking.

Add the pressure from the UAV (or UAS depending on the phase of the moon) advocates and the AF is desperate need of a mission to justify its continued existence as something other than a uniformed air transport service and its budgets.
Posted by: RWV   2007-12-06 16:43  

#5  The Navy has been working in both Iraq and Afghanistan despite the lack of water in those areas.

I'm talking primarily about the Army/Marine overlap. Let them each take an area of operations and let the Navy/Airforce help a bit but mostly be ready for events elsewhere.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2007-12-06 16:17  

#4  With the Army getting armed UAVs and the Marines taking care of their own aviation, the Air Force is ending up with transports and a lot of expensive, stealthy, Hanger Queens.
Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC   2007-12-06 15:13  

#3  Marines in Afghanistan would be threat to Air Force

Hey, the Marines are a threat to everything! :-)
Posted by: gorb   2007-12-06 14:11  

#2  Probably because there's a lot of ocean in the Pacific, not much in eurasia.(Unless you count "Oceans of Sand")
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2007-12-06 14:05  

#1  In WW2 they pretty much gave the Marines/Navy the Pacific Theater and the Army/Army Air Corps the European Theater. I'm not sure why we don't do that sort of thing now.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2007-12-06 13:31  

00:00