thoughts on Marines in the middle east

[texag02]

i sent this email to a fellow candidate friend and i was curious on some more educated opinions on it. keep in mind, i know very little of operation in the middle east, mostly only what i hear on the news and in a few conversations with some people who have been over there...regardless, let the responses begin.

as i watch the news and i note the growing concern of the american public for the war on terrorism i think how drastically short termed our vision is. not only have we seemed to have forgotten the world wars and vietnam, even the attack in lebanon - but what about 9-11, or even the mroe recent hotel bombings...this IS a war worth waging, at whatever the cost. secondly, we continue to lose lives by the, uh, ones and people seem to be freaked out by this. arguably the most amazing military occupation in history is that of germany into france. people forget that while it only took six weeks, the germans lost over 60,000 soldiers in that time-but contrasted to the millions of prisoners taken it was seen as a substantial victory. this IS war and lives will be lost, even those of our own people.

also, i continue to hear of a "soldier's" convoy being ambushed - and it seems they are all from ft. hood. this raises a few questions in my mind. is fort hood just so big that all of the US army forces are out of hood? or is it that we are from texas and thus hear a great deal about ft. hood? is it that fort hood has gotten so big that it can no longer properly train its forces meaning the training has become lax and less effective? why do i not hear of marines being ambushed, or even killed? is it because they are superiorly equipped? NO. is it because they are superiorly trained? YES. is it because they are better at calling in air support and artillery? YES. is it because EVERYtime they secure a new position they dig in to their firing holes even though its late and they're tired and digging a new hole means they'll only get and hour or so of sleep? YES. is it because they DONT fall asleep on firewatches? YES. is it because they know how to patrol and watch their perimeter? YES. is it because the army has gotten sloppy?

just my thoughts.

 

[kevin]

look, i dont know much about ground tactics....but i have no idea what youre talking about with army/marines. first of all, look at the list of soldiers killed over there so far....plenty of army, lots of marines, and navy/air force guys and gals to go along. and seeing how most of them are killed, i dont think tactics really has much to do with it. when youre driving your humvee down a street and someone explodes a car when you get next to it...not sure anyone can do anything about that. i feel for all the troops over there, for many reasons, but particularly because theyre sitting ducks and they know it (theyve had about 6 or 16 suicides so far, i cant remember). guerrilla warfare thrives in that kind of environment. and youre comparing nation building to occupying a country- not sure why. while i agree that this war on terrorism is important, i question whether we're going about it in the right way. particularly after sec rumsfeld himself has leaked out information that things are not going nearly as well as is made public- and even he has concerns that terror cells are getting recruits much faster than we're killing or capturing them. while i agree that the public often loses site of the big picture, they are right about one thing. if we are going to get our soldiers killed it had better be for a good reason and pay significant dividends. as far as iraq is going right now, it's hard to see that. hopefully we're not getting the entire picture, because it doesnt look all that great right now.

 

[TNWhiskey]

First off let's not be persuaded that Rumsfeld thinks the war isn't going well because of some internal memo leak that asks questions of the senior military commanders. You're listening to the media which is basically cynical about everything government, especially when it comes to the Pentagon. I don't buy it and even if so...so what? We're there and we aren't going to leave until we've rebuilt their infrastructure et al. Blame the French who basically forget that they are here because of the 'dough boys' and the 'eddies' that have died on their soil.

Secondly, as far as our troops getting killed...I'm not one to care if someone is wearing the globe/anchor/eagle vs. a 3rd or 4th infantry patch, etc. They're all Americans and thats that. However, since I am applying for Marine OCS I do have the belief that the Corps is more efficient. When people ask me why the Marines and not the AF, Navy, etc. I tell them because I want to be one of the best not just someone looking to put in 20 and retire. That leads me to Texag's point about

"why do i not hear of marines being ambushed, or even killed?"

From my knowledge there are two reasons for this...1) the Marine Corps major fighting forces have largely been withdrawn from Iraq. While they're the point of the spear they don't hang out and play peacekeeper generally...2) the 3rd and largely now the 4th infantry divisions (and other army units) were charged with occupying the larger more troublesome areas of Iraq, (i.e Baghdad, Fallujah, Tikrit, etc) in which their large presence and frequent patrols bring them into contact with more hostiles, especially outsiders. If you were going to attack American forces in a foreign country you would go to the biggest cities right? Who wants to try to tangle with Marines and/or special forces operators in the boonies?

As for is it worth it...I will always point back to the fact that if we do not actively seek out those who might harm us we will have more than just 9/11 to worry about. If anyone trusted Saddam Hussein not to pass on any c/b/n weapons to terrorists who would strike at us I would say you're dillusional. So yes for me it is worth it...I hate seeing flags draped over coffins...but I also hate seeing people jump from burning sky scrapers and our own cities in ruin. Just my two cents...

 

[airwinger]

TNWhiskey raises some very good points viz location of patrols and number of Marines. A big point though is General Mattis (my nominee for the next CMC) We have not had a single KIA since the end of major ground combat in Iraq. A casual glance through the links I've provided shows that between sending people home, really good PR tactics plus good old fashioned don't mess with us were responsible for the result.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/078vlxzr.asp

semper fi,
airwinger

 

[kimphil]

Why are Marines not being killed in Iraq? They're not there anymore! I'm going to pretend the people reading this are ignorant and explain some of the politics of Iraq. Iraqis aren't a monolithic culture. Basically, you can divide Iraq into three areas--The Kurdish North, whose people are Sunni muslims but not Arab; Central Iraq whose people are predominately Arab and Sunni muslims; and the Shiites in the South, who are a group distinct culturally and religiously from the the other two groups.

It's necessary to explain this distinction to understand why the Army has had a disproportionate share of casualties. The Kurdish North is basically self governed, with few American troops there. The Shiite South hates Saddam as much, if not more, than Americans do, and so has little incentive to attack Americans. It is the Sunni center that Saddam drew and presumably still draws his support from. At the end of the war, the Army were given responsibility for the most dangerous part, the center of Iraq, and, you guessed it, the Marines were given peacekeeping responsibility for the South.

As much as we'd like to believe that Marines are ubermen, the reasons why their were relatively few casulties among Marines vs. Army is because of geography, not training.

texag02, Ft. Hood is huge. It's the largest base in the free world. However, I doubt all the casulties that are occurring are to soldiers from Ft. Hood. You're probably relying too much on local media for your coverage of the war. And I doubt your local news channel is going to thoroughly explain the politics of the Middle East when there are so many car chases to cover.

 

[vegita1220]

kimphil...according to that article, Marines are still there. You also can't say that being in the South would cause NO casualties. After all, there have to be SOME people pissed at us there, and there should be SOME terrorists leaking in. And I don't know if you've been listening to some broadcasts of Shiite immams, but some have been encouraging attacks on our troops as well. At least that's how I remember it.

 

[TNWhiskey]

kimphil makes a very good point about geography...By now hasn't everyone heard of the 'Sunni triangle'? I believe its pretty much the air encompassed by Baghdad, Tikrit, and Fallujah. The Kurds helped us in the North so they'll pretty much police their own there, hence no deaths there for awhile...The Shi'ites in the south largely welcomed our presence at first, and thought they'd probably like us to leave ASAP, they'll use their newly found freedom of protest against us before they'll start shooting at us. That leaves the Sunni's (same ethnicity as Saddam) in the middle/central part of the country. These guys were in charge and now many are afraid that they'll receive reciprocity from the much larger Shi'ite majority. So a lot of them are pissed at us. Throw in the fact that hundreds if not thousands of Syrians, Egyptians, et al have crossed into Iraq to take up arms against us and you've got the reasons why we're being ambushed in the same 4-5 towns. Angry townsfolk + foreign infiltration + large stock piles of arms hidden everywhere, and you've go the recipe for a good old fashion guerrilla war. It just so happens that 3rd/4th infantry, 82nd Abn, 1st Arm. Cav., etc. occupy these regions...therefore they take the casualties. As for the no Marines being there I agree and disagree...While no LARGE force is there, certainly there are Force Recon and other units there. I know that a Marine attached to one of the LAR untis that took Tikrit was at my OSO's office back in late June...I also know that a kid three years behind me in HS, who is in Force Recon came home from there in August. This would lend creedence to the idea the Marines are pulling out and the Army is the main if not only occupier. Of course I'm not in the know anymore than any other civilian, I just try to stay informed.

 

[kimphil]

Originally posted by vegita1220
kimphil...according to that article, Marines are still there. You also can't say that being in the South would cause NO casualties. After all, there have to be SOME people pissed at us there, and there should be SOME terrorists leaking in. And I don't know if you've been listening to some broadcasts of Shiite immams, but some have been encouraging attacks on our troops as well. At least that's how I remember it.

The end of the article also mentions at the end that Marines were being withdraw. This article was also written almost two months ago. From what I understand, the Marines turned over their responsibilities to the Army and mercenary Polish troops (their presence is being paid for by our government), probably right after that article was filed.

Also, are you sure that "Shiite immams" have been encouraging attacks against Americans? I don't pretend to be an expert at Islam, but I believe Sunnis have imans, not Shiites (who have ayatollahs).

TNWhiskey explains the point I was making--while large numbers of Marines were present during the War and immediately afterwards, large forces aren't there now. I'm sure there are some Marines in Iraq, but there aren't large numbers of them, and they're probably mostly support or Recon, not prime targets like military police and infantry patrolling in Sunni dominated urban areas.

PS--Marines will probably be deployed back to Iraq next year.

 

[kevin]

and that was one of my points. standing around being target practice for pissed off locals is not a job i envy, and i feel for them.

 

[Sins]

Regarding Rummy's memo: I think that there would be a problem if someone wasn't asking the tough questions.

 

[kimphil]

A little too late to be asking the tough questions.