Marine chief worries force growing heavy

[Firetxmi]

Marine chief worries force growing heavy

By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press WriterMon Oct 15, 5:43 PM ET

Commandant Gen. James Conway said Monday he is concerned about the Marines Corps' ability to respond to security flare-ups around the world on short notice because of the demands put on it by the Iraq war.

In recent years, the Marine Corps has emerged as a "second land Army" tasked with securing Iraq and must buy heavy equipment, including a fleet of 3,700 mine-resistant vehicles, to protect its personnel from roadside bombs, Conway said.

"I'm a little bit concerned about us keeping our expeditionary flavor. ... We are much heavier than ever before," he said at a lunch sponsored by the Center for New American Security.

Conway's comments come amid discussion at the Pentagon that the Marines pull its forces from Iraq and send them instead to Afghanistan to take the lead combat role there.

On Monday, Conway declined to comment because he said he had not yet briefed Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Gates recently told reporters that he was aware of the suggestion, but had not seen a plan.

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

On a separate issue, Conway said Monday he agreed with recent assessments that al-Qaida in Iraq is significantly crippled by recent U.S. efforts. But, he added, the terrorist network has shown previously an "amazing ability to regenerate." Conway cautioned his view was restricted to the western Anbar province, where Marines have control.

"Are they crippled? Yeah," he said. "Are they still dangerous? Absolutely."
Link:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071015/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq;_ylt=Al2kFjOwyikJSQ5QZefByNcD5gcF

[SOG]

did they have the same concerns during world war 2 or did they island hop fast enough?

it does suck the marines have to spend money on stuff they wouldnt normally need. then again, hasnt that been allocated in addition to normal budgeting via congress?

[ElHombre]

If this sort of thing continues then sooner or later folks are going to start wondering why we need two separate services with the same job.

Won't the fireworks start then. :lol:

[Ratamacue]

If this sort of thing continues then sooner or later folks are going to start wondering why we need two separate services with the same job.

Won't the fireworks start then. :lol:Been there, done that. The Army has tried several times throughout history to have the Marine Corps absorbed into their department. I honestly can't picture it happening in the foreseeable future as long as the Marines maintain their close relationship with the Navy, and their image/reputation among the public.

[MichaelF]

If this sort of thing continues then sooner or later folks are going to start wondering why we need two separate services with the same job.

Won't the fireworks start then. :lol:

We'd be better off with just two (2) Armed Services. One that handles Naval and Aerospace activities, and one that handles Ground Combat.

Call it the Army, call it the Marines. It doesn't matter.

[Cralis]

IMHO that if you think the services should be combined, then you don't know enough about us. Everything from how we are organized, our methodology, tactics, to how we treat our personnel, and even to our traditions are entirely different.

There is a massive difference between the services, and not just in effectiveness and "bang per buck". That has been proven from Bladensburg, to Tripoli, Chapultepec, Belleu Woods, Tarawa Atoll, Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, to the Chosin Reservoir, Hue City, Grenada, Khafji, to Op Al Fajr in Fallujah (and many, many more).

Thats not to say that the Marines should become the army and replace them. If that happened we would be just like them. The Army is very good at secure and defend, and has the personnel and equipment to carry out large static campaigns over land (whether they are combat or humanitarian doesn't matter). The Marine Corps is good on the attack, especially as a mobile force via sea or air. In addition, the Marine Corps holds a place in the defense of our President and our embassies world-wide, and Presidential Orders are a part of our standing directives.

We both have our places, and that will never change.

[TheBelgian]

I read somewhere once that the continued existence of the Marine Corps is constitutionally guarenteed. Is that true, or bs?

[MichaelF]

IMHO that if you think the services should be combined, then you don't know enough about us. Everything from how we are organized, our methodology, tactics, to how we treat our personnel, and even to our traditions are entirely different.

There is a massive difference between the services, and not just in effectiveness and "bang per buck". That has been proven from Bladensburg, to Tripoli, Chapultepec, Belleu Woods, Tarawa Atoll, Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, to the Chosin Reservoir, Hue City, Grenada, Khafji, to Op Al Fajr in Fallujah (and many, many more).

Thats not to say that the Marines should become the army and replace them. If that happened we would be just like them. The Army is very good at secure and defend, and has the personnel and equipment to carry out large static campaigns over land (whether they are combat or humanitarian doesn't matter). The Marine Corps is good on the attack, especially as a mobile force via sea or air. In addition, the Marine Corps holds a place in the defense of our President and our embassies world-wide, and Presidential Orders are a part of our standing directives.

We both have our places, and that will never change.


Ethos statements (particularly your highly flawed 3rd paragraph) aside, there is way too much duplication of effort.

We don't need two Land Forces. Everything that the 2 forces do now, could be done by a unified force.


Disclosure: I worked closely with the Marines of 1 MEF. I was part of the handoff team from the 82nd that stayed behind with the Marines for 10 weeks after they relieved us, in the Spring of '04. The intended Marine Corps strategy of foot patrols, less aggressive raids, humanitarian aid, and close cooperation with local leaders didn't pan out, as the area was Fallujah and the whole AO went up like a cherry bomb, and we had to fight.

Fighting alongside them, I can say that the Marines are quite similar to the US Army, in both methodology and tactics.

Surprised? Why? We fight the same enemy, in the same places, attending more-or-less identical Professionl Educational curricula, and we are all oriented towards Maneuver Warfare. Form follows function.

[hank]

I read somewhere once that the continued existence of the Marine Corps is constitutionally guarenteed. Is that true, or bs?

The words "marine" or "corps" are not in the US constitution. I've also studied the US con and have never heard that before. I could be wrong but methinks that is bs.

hank

[Ratamacue]

I read somewhere once that the continued existence of the Marine Corps is constitutionally guarenteed. Is that true, or bs?Not constitutionally guaranteed, as hank said. However, their continued existence is currently guaranteed under the National Security Act of 1947.

[ElHombre]

I read somewhere once that the continued existence of the Marine Corps is constitutionally guarenteed. Is that true, or bs?

The Army (supported by Gen. Marshall, the man who did the most to prepare the US for WW2) did try to fold the Marines into the Army after the war. Marshall noted that the biggest amphibious invasion in history was perfromed by the Army and with the formation of the Defense Department there was little need for a separate service whose main job was amphibious assault. Marshall got SoD Forrester's support, the Marines got Congress's support (helped by the fact that Congress was a bit annoyed at the time with President Truman). The Marines won. ;-)

[TheBelgian]

Not constitutionally guaranteed, as hank said. However, their continued existence is currently guaranteed under the National Security Act of 1947.

Allright cool, thanks