Marines Want Out Of Iraq, Prefer Afghanistan?

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Thursday played down a newspaper report that the U.S. Marine Corps was pressing to remove its forces from Iraq and switch to a leading role in Afghanistan.

"I have heard that they were beginning to think about that and that's all that I've heard. I've seen no plan, no one's come to me with any proposals about it," Gates told reporters in London after meeting his British counterpart, Des Browne.

The New York Times reported on Wednesday that the Marines' suggestion was raised in a session last week convened by Gates for the U.S. military's Joint Chiefs of Staff and regional war-fighting commanders. It comes at a time when Washington's key ally in Iraq, Britain, is drawing down its presence there.

"My understanding is that it's -- at this point -- extremely preliminary thinking on the part of perhaps some staff people in the Marine Corps but I don't think at this point it has any stature," Gates said.

Under the proposal, the newspaper said, the U.S. Army would concentrate on Iraq while the Marines would focus on Afghanistan.

Would You Like To Know More?

So, Wordforge Warriors, what do you think of this strategy?

Marines don't like the Door to Door hunting and killing thing. It's not their style.

Not necessarily a bad idea - not sure what the ratio of Marines in Iraq are, but they are even less doctrinally designed to handle garrison and anti-insurgency duty as the Army is. If things are heating up in Afghanistan as we hear, it might be the best use for them. I'd imagine they'd be the easiest to redeploy as well, due to their very nature.

Why does it matter?

Are soldiers entitled to decide where they want to fight?

The generals do, Dayton. That's why they're generals.

Some branches are better at some jobs than others. If the Marines are better suited for open-country anti-insurgency operations, and the Army is better at urban combat, then it's the professional's job to point these things out to their leaders, especially if the closest the leaders got to combat was passing out in a bar while the movie "Patton" was playing on TV.

So, American generals (and admirals I suppose) are the ones who get to decide where they want to fight?

I thought that you were hyped up on the idea of Congress doing that?

When it comes to the decision as to go to war, yes, that should be up to Congress. Constitution says as much, and I would be ecstatic if they asserted that power.

However, the military should definitely have an opinion in the decision as to whether or not to go to war, and should be allowed to make the tactical decisions, which this amounts to.

Wanting to send their troops to an entirely different country is NOT a tactical decision.

Deciding to attack Hill 407 instead of Hill 409 because it will provide better fighting positions to provide cover for an approaching convoy is a tactical decision.

Tactical as in not sending the Army to meet the Japanese Fleet at Midway.

That is correct.

Wanting to send their troops to an entirely different country is in fact a STRATEGIC decision, and is one that Generals most certainly ought to be consulted on.

Actually, IIRC there were U.S. ARMY Air Force B-17s and other aircraft stationed at Midway and they did in fact engage the Japanese Fleet unsuccessfully.

Link this statement to an actual Marine and we'll talk. Until there is an attributable source this has less credibility than a Bigfoot sighting.

Exactly. This is why they went to the SECDEF with their proposal.

You seemed to think that this was not appropriate, when in fact this is exactly the sort of thing that Generals are payed to do.

I did not say it was not appropriate.

What I say is that we shouldn't give such opinions the overwhelming amount of attention.

Generals and admirals have their own interests that might not readily coincide with the long term interests of the country.

Then make your argument when that becomes the case.

Clearly this time it's not, as the General is right.

It's obvious to anyone who understands the military and the roles, duties, training, and specializations of the various branches that the Marines are not particularly well suited to Iraq's mission compared to Afghanistan's mission.

the Army is only just beginning to change their training to match the current fighting styles. 3-4 years ago basic training was still running around the forest with BDUs and dinosaur guns. i'm not sure, SF aside, we really have a well suited force for what we're doin.

Honestly it doesn't seem like a bad idea at all. Send the Marines to Afghanistan and let them focus on that mission. Let the Army worry about Iraq. The different generals would then be able to better focus on their specific task. The Marines and Army are all basically just infantry soldiers in Iraq anyway, why not let other Army soldiers come to Iraq instead of Afghan to make up for the difference created by moving the Marines to another theater.

I beg to differ! We'll hit you with our microphones if you keep talking like that.

I see nothing wrong with this plan.


Except of course everyone would rather go to Afganistan (it's a real war) so it's not the Marine's are making some huge sacrafice here...

However, doesn't change the fact that it makes sense.

I'm sure every member of the military wants the hell out of Iraq. Why should anyone listen to the badass marines whining again?

OK. This is an absolutely terrible idea and makes no sense to anyone with even the most basic grasp of Marine Corps or Joint doctrine. This is why I have a hard time believing anyone credible is the source on this.

Doctrinally, the Marines do a couple things: They do amphibious warfare, they do rapid response to crisises, they provide "one stop shopping", and they do maneuver warfare.

As Afghanistan is completely landlocked, having Marines there makes even less sense than having them in Iraq.

One of the challenges in Iraq is that the way the Marines are structured--as a quick reaction force, the Marines isn't set up to hang around for the "long fight" and do nationbuilding. Doctrinally, they get in, get the ball rolling, and then hand things off to the Army. That said, it makes no more sense for the Marines to focus on Afghanistan than it does for them to be in Iraq. And it makes no sense to give them a theater all to themselves. The Marine Corps isn't set up for the long fight, so by putting them in a Joint environment, you get the benefits of the Marine's strengths as well as the benefits of the Army's strength's. Put either service on your own and you undercut its effectiveness.

Same goes for maneuver warfare. The Army is starting to figure out how to do it, but as I understand it, they still fall into a heavy armor battle in Europe against the Soviets mindset from time to time. I guess the terrain in Afghanistan is more suited to asymmetrical, maneuver warfare, but not to a degree that it merits pulling the Marines out of Iraq.

Finally, the other thing the Marines bring to the table is one stop shopping. We deploy an integrated force, with its own ground combat, close air support and tactical lift, and logistic support. No other branch of the service really does that. That's how we are able to get into a fight as quickly and effectively as we do. I don't know why anyone would say that integrated response capability should be taken out of Iraq.

In conclusion, this is probably the largest non-story I've heard in awhile. It doesn't surprise me at all that the "source" seems to be a third-hand anonymous person. The only thing that does surprise me is that Gates would take any time to even respond to it at all.

Well the Army is pretty much "one stop shopping" as far as Iraq goes. They have aviation assets up the wazoo. Yes, they need Air Force A-10 and logistical/cargo aircraft, but 90 percent of the time helicopters are plenty of firepower and also for getting folks in and out with a quickness.

Balad is built up now to be a huge permanent base (Air Force and Army).
The mold is set pretty much now.

I think it's a good idea, British forces are pushed to the limit there and really need support sharpish.

Still winning every fight but it's wearing them down.

Iraq isn't a water mission, landlock or no landlock, the marines can handle afghanistan. They are exactly the same as the army in iraq. The doctrine the marines are based on actually doesn't make the least bit of difference here, general.

Uh oh. If this keeps up, a football game will break out.

:

Here's my opinion:

Marines want to be at the leading edge of the fight. IF they are requesting to go to Afghanistan, then all it means is that is where the current fight is. And Sez I, let 'em go. You want the devil dogs on the pointy end of the spear, dealing death and ruin to our enemies, wherever they may be found.

:

SERMPER FI!! :usmc:

I say put the Marines, SEALS, Special Forces, and Rangers (and a small Air Force contingent) in Afghanistan and let the rest of the military have Iraq. I'd rather have our best fighting the real fight.

It is good news, because in 2009 Canada may well withdraw the bulk of its troops from the south Kandahar region, which is the most unstable, and where upwards of 70 soldiers have lost their lives since the middle of last year (source: my own ass). As much as people like me think it is a worthwhile cause with progress being made, the majority see it differently and want us out. I understand the Dutch feel even stronger about this, and in two years time there will need to be replacements.

From what I understand however, there is as much "nation-building" and peacekeeping going on as actual combat (which is considerable), something that doesn't strike me as the Marines' top priority IMHO.

Volpone, everything you say about Afghanistan not being for the Marines can be said about Iraq. And I agree. The Marines aren't suited for either war. But ah... how to say this... You go to war with the military you have, not the one you want. Unless we continue to expand the Army (which I think we should) the Marines will be forced to hang around longer than they should.

With that said, I would think the Marines would do better in the relatively open environment of Afghanistan instead of Baghdad. I think a BIG reason we are hearing this now is that Patreus is moving the Marines out of Anbar (open terrain mostly) into Baghdad. IMO the Marines are even less suited to the kind of nationbuilding/police work/bullshit that goes along with that. Send them to Afghanistan where there are actual real battles going on with an enemy that stands up to fight you, will actually manuever on you (instead of just hit and run). Afghanistan is more of a stand up fight than Iraq which is why every Army Infantryman who's been to both would much rather fight in OEF. Which the Marines handle better than nationbuilding IMO.

And not to mention the Marines would still be in a Joint Environment. ISAF is expanding rapidly, and they are handling most of the nationbuilding and police work in Afghanistan. I don't anyone is talking about removing the U.S. troops assigned to them, but just to the U.S. forces that aren't part of ISAF and instead are simply offensive forces against the Taliban.

Well, as an update, it would seem that my analysis is completely wrong. Commandant of the Marine Corps himself is on record saying this:
Military.com

Now, far be it from me to second-guess the head Marine, but quite frankly this has me a bit mystified. And this just joins some of his other judgment calls--banning "sleeve tattoos", tightening up regulations on camouflage uniform wear (you can wear it in your car on the way to work as long as you don't get out of the car--except for an emergency. So theoretically if you are low on gas, you can't get out at a gas station to pump gas, but if you run OUT of gas, you can get out of your car, walk to a gas station, get gas, and walk back. ) There've been some recent Commandants that have done some really visionary things in recent years. And maybe this guy is just so far ahead of my thinking that It'll take me a couple years to see what he's up to, but right now I'm...unsure...