[url]http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1101/112901kp1.htm[/url]

By Katherine McIntire Peters
[email protected]


The Army is either unable or unwilling to do its job. That’s the message some mid-grade officers are getting from the deployment of hundreds of Marines to landlocked Afghanistan this week.


The seizure of an airfield near Kandahar is a textbook Army mission, yet it was Marines, who usually operate near shorelines, who performed it.


The mission was “a tremendous showcase of new capabilities,” said Marine Corps spokesman Capt. Joe Kloppel. “It shows you how far the Marines can extend when they need to.”

The fact that the Marine Corps was needed to extend into what most Army officers consider their service’s territory had some of them wondering where Army leaders were when the mission planning decisions were being made.


“If this doesn’t raise questions about Army relevance then I don’t know what would,” said one infantry captain who says he is beginning to think he might feel more at home in the Marine Corps than in the Army.


“It’s a big slap in the face,” said Maj. Don Vandergriff, an armor officer who teaches military science at Georgetown University.


The fact that the Marines have the first sizeable contingent of conventional ground troops on the battlefield in a theater of operations far from any shoreline sparked fury among many mid-grade officers. The fact that the theater commander in chief is an Army officer--Gen. Tommy Franks--only adds insult to the injury.


“The Marine Corps foresight seems to have eliminated the need for the Army,” one Army captain complained in an online forum. “Here’s the bitter pill I’ve been chewing on. My Army is operating equipment designed to fight Soviets in the Fulda Gap, and the stuff in the pipeline is just a more expensive version of the same. My Army has a personnel system that was build to defeat the Kaiser. My Army trains to fight fictional forces in make-believe lands instead of focusing on real-world missions. My Army has one-half the number of generals as we did at the height of World War II, even though the force is one-tenth the size. The resultant leadership inertia bogs decision-making down in a bureaucratic morass, as more chiefs fight to protect their hallowed turf. The end result of all this is we get to watch the Marines perform Army missions because they can do them better,” he wrote.


“You’ve got to give the Marine Corps credit for trying to make themselves useful,” said Thomas Donnelly, deputy executive director of the Project for a New American Century and a former staffer on the House Armed Services Committee. “At least they’re making some attempt to respond to what the country needs to have done. The Army just seems to be spending most of its intellectual effort trying to find ways to stay out of it.”


Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki has been pushing a plan to transform the Army’s conventional forces into more easily deployed forces capable of a greater range of missions. But change isn’t coming fast enough for many younger officers, if Internet chat rooms and e-mails are any indication.


In a November speech, Shinseki said, “The Army must change because the nation cannot afford to have an Army that is irrelevant.” The Army may need to change more quickly than many senior leaders now realize.

Or it could be that the MEU is an all in one package ready to grab and use a small airfield in one fell swoop with resupply for a month within two days quick steam for the MPPS, whereas the Army is either a heavy force ready to beat anything on this earth but who take a half year to deploy, or a light force that is good at running through the jungles with rifles, with nothing in between

I'd say it's most likely that the Chief of Staff of The Corps demanded that his branch of the service not be "left out" of the action.  It's almost certainly a political appeasement move.

-kill-9

So, if it is appeasment, name the Army unit that can accomplish what the Marines have.  They have over 300,000 soldiers, certainly there is at least one unit that can accomplish the mission.

If you want me to, I can save you some time.  THERE ISN'T!  The 101st is closest, but it is logistically totally unprepared to accomplish this mission from a temporary home on a CVN.  The Army is almost totally incapable and unready to deploy anyone but Special Forces units to combat because that's all they have been asked to do for the last 10 years.  The peacekeeping regular troops can be of lower readiness by definition.  The other regular Army units are pillaged for the personnel to fill these peacekeeping missions.  There just aren't any Battalion or larger units ready to go with adequate logistics.  

He can be wacky at times, but Hackworth had a good point the other day.  He said, "The US doesn't need both an Army and Marine Corps.  The simple answer is the disband the Army."  They are just about irrelevant and useless.  

Of course the other comment I heard made sense too.  "If we disband the Army, there won't be anywhere for mediocre people to go.  They'll end up Marines."  On second thought, let's keep the Army around.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought that marines operating in the middle of the desert was odd.

Wall Street Journal
November 30, 2001
Men On A Mission Fight To Keep The Warrior Spirit

By Max Boot

The Marines have landed. Those very words inspire confidence, and well they should, for the Marines have developed a reputation as some of toughest fighting men in the U.S. armed forces. Doubters -- and there are many, particularly in competing services -- scoff that the Marine aura is a triumph of image over reality. The Corps, they argue, is neither heavy enough for sustained ground operations nor light enough for commando raids. It is a source of constant consternation for the other services to see themselves outmaneuvered by the Marines in the battle for congressional support, leading to cracks about how the "Marines are best at storming Capitol Hill."

There is no denying that the Marines have devoted a great deal of energy to burnishing their image. They've had to. Ever since the Corps' birth in 1775, it has been the target of attempts to eliminate it. The Marines have
responded by cultivating the American people, whether through their famous band (once led by John Philip Sousa) or through movies like "The Sands of Iwo Jima." It will surprise no one familiar with the Corps that the first reporters allowed to accompany U.S. troops into action in Afghanistan were brought in by the Marines.

Yet it would be wrong to think that the Corps' reputation is mainly the product of slick PR work. I remember sitting in a classroom at the Naval War College a few years ago with students from all four services. The Air Force, Army and Navy officers present all lamented that their services had lost focus since the Cold War; between peacekeeping assignments and sexual-discrimination training, they no longer knew what their mission was. The lone Marine officer present offered a striking contrast. He knew his job -- to fight, and if necessary kill, the enemy -- and remained confident that there would be as much call for his skills in 2000 as in 1800.
To put it another way, the Marines have done a better job of instilling, and preserving, a warrior ethos than the other services. During a visit earlier this year to Camp Lejeune, the Marines' main East Coast expeditionary base, a grizzled infantry colonel complained to me that the Corps had gone soft.
Why, his men were sleeping in dormitory-style apartments, not in open squad bays! But the other services have made far greater accommodations to modern American mores. The Marines alone segregate the sexes during basic training, and they put the emphasis on preparing for combat above all, as exemplified by their slogan, "Every Marine a rifleman." You can see the difference in something as trivial as a haircut: In the other services, most officers sport hair
that's almost as long as a civilian's, while even the most senior Marine generals maintain a crew cut that would do a recruit proud. To outsiders, this can make the Marines appear to be cultish, abnormal, even frightening. That is precisely the point: Normal people don't go to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban.

The Marines won their greatest glory in two major wars: World War I produced the memorable nickname "devil dogs," and World War II the iconic image of the flag raising at Iwo Jima. But the Marines have an even longer track record at the kinds of low-intensity operations that they are now undertaking in Afghanistan.

Cont

Between 1800 and 1934 the Marines landed abroad 180 times. Whether battling Haitian cacos (1915-20) or Nicaraguan Sandinistas (1927-33), they showed a flair for counter-guerrilla warfare matched by few of their compatriots in the more staid services. To take only one example: Marine Sgt. Herman
Hanneken and Cpl. William Button darkened their bodies in order to pass as Haitians and infiltrate the camp of the leading anti-American rebel. Leading their own phony band of locally recruited "revolutionaries," they managed to kill Charlemagne Peralte and helped end the revolt. This is not a tactic likely to be found in any operations manual, but this kind of improvisation comes naturally to the Marines, who push initiative and responsibility down to the lowest ranks. The Corps' organizational structure reflects its flexibility. Marine Expeditionary Units can be formed quickly by drawing on infantry, air power, artillery, armor --whatever is right for the job at hand, whether that means delivering relief supplies to a devastated Third World country or rescuing American diplomats from a besieged embassy.

The Army, organized in a divisional structure that has changed little since Napoleonic days, is racing to catch up. Many of the Army's heavier units have been of little use in post-Cold War assignments. M-1 Abrams tanks, for instance, were too heavy to traverse the bridges leading into Bosnia. Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, has recognized the problem and has formed a medium-weight brigade designed to respond to emergencies within 96 hours.

Some Marine officers look askance at this development, worried that the Army will try to usurp their role. If history is any guide, they have little to fear. America will always need "a few good men."

GO ARMY OF ONE

RAF
I don't think he is referring to the army of past but the army of today.

As Gen Claudine Kennedy, USA said to a bunch of soldiers at West Point last year, "this isn't your fathers' army"

Just read or heard something about this and they were saying the Marines were used explicity for the political implication that the US is not occupying Afganistan wheras the Army would imply that we are staying awhile.

raf,

Some of the most scathing comments were made by Col. David Hackworth, USA ret, a veteran of WW2, Korea, and Vietnam, and I also believe to be the most decorated American still living.  I tend to believe he may know a thing or two about the subject.

There is no such thing as a bad Soldier.  The Army's leadership is where the blame sits.

[i]Foreign relations of the United States, 1950[/i] Volume 7 (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976), pp. 953-954.

"Ground Support is a very difficult thing to do.
Our Marines do it perfectly. They have been trained for it. Our own Air and Ground forces are not as good as the Marines but they are effective." - General Douglas MacArthur
speaking to Truman.

Marines vs. Army.  They're different tools for different purposes.  End of story.z

Col. Hackworth is deserving of all our respect for his service in Vietnam.
However, Mr. Hackworth is now a flake.
Gen. McArthur shamelessly used the Marines to die in the Pacific war as they counted as Navy dead not Army.
I'm so dumb I thought Army Rangers took and held airfields.
This particular bunch of Marines is exceptionally well trained for this and many other jobs.  I believe all have had at least one and one-half years training.

Well, if our stupid politicians would recall all the army troops from all the other far-flung places they are stationed these days then maybe they could handle a big deployment to Afghanistan.  

Y'know, despite all this war nonsense, I still think the Defense Dept. is too big, uses too much money, and is too unaccountable to the people who pay the bills.  

What's more, the Marine deployment reeks of inter-service rivalry.  Are these people acting in the nation's best interest when they act like little children on the schoolyard?  Is one giant pissing contest really the best way to spend billions of dollars each year?  Even if it is, what about the lives they place at risk needlessly?  

I think nostalgia and tradition are clouding the minds of a lot of people.  The past victories are great and should be remembered.  But our nation is going to collapse under its own weight just like Rome if we continue to live in the past.  

Here's a good example--someone invented a stealth ship that only required a tiny crew to accomplish largely the same tasks as today's destroyers.  The Navy wouldn't field it though because it was feared that there would be no career path for those who must lead huge numbers of men in order to advance themselves.  My question is:  Since when was defense spending about the egos of individual ship captains?  

I guess you never heard of 29 Palms. I hated the place.

trickshot,
the Secretary of War (Defense) is in agreement with you.
For my $.02 and this includes all services:
Select well
Train well
Give the best equipment money can buy
Pay them

When it comes to air-ground-support the rank by the Grunt Marines is:
Marine Aviators
Naval Aviators
Air Force pilots.

Nothing like a little interservice rivalry over BS.......

The USMC has alway been the amphibious jack of all trades that supports/gets supported by the USN. They have to pack equipment that gets them the most puch per the pound. They are an all round combined arms team, from small formations to the largest.

What they don't do well is fight powerful land armies. If the USMC was tasked to fight USSR forces in Europe during the cold war they would have been outgunned.

The USA (United States Army) Has always been the 600 pound gorilla. He ain't fast or agile, and he hates to travel..... But once he gets where he needs to be he's ready to go toe to toe with anyone.

The USA is hamstrung because it can't operate fixed wing attack aircaft, by law. Can you imagine the increase in firepower if the USA had A-10's and AH64's ready to go. Not to mention the odd AC-130 or transport plane, that is not the USA's fault.

They have different missions....... In WWII the longest USMC battle was how long?? The USMC doesn't fight sustained battles, not that the Marines wouldn't be willing to, but because of their supply and combat doctrine. The Army packs heavy because it is SUPPOSED to stay long and fight hard.

Everyone back to your corners, USA, USN, USAF, USMC, or USCG are all Americans.......I don't think the Afghanees really can tell the difference when the bullet or bomb hits what branch of the service threw it.

the 10th Mountain had a BDE in Uzbeckistan, on the northern border since the beginning of the war.

The Army is in Afganastan and were placed on the ground before the Marines landed. The army's 10th Mountain Division was deployed to sieze and repair (read that to be clear minefeidls and craters) an airfield at Masar-e-sharif before the Marines were sent to their airfield in the south.

[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-1348335,00.html[/url]

[url]http://www.nandotimes.com/special_reports/terrorism/retaliation/story/124376p-1306790c.html[/url]

While there are not as many army soldiers in the North as there are marines in the south; it was reported on NPR that they were actually deployed before the Marine corps was sent in (let alone the fact that they were on the ground in Uzbeckastan weeks ago).

I beleive that the Marines were sent in to seize that airfield because they were there. It really takes alot of airlift capability to move army troops to performa a mission like that; but the Marines were setting on the water doing alot of nothing -- why not use them? There is no rivaly in my eyes, there were units that could do  the job setting nearby -- put 'em to work!

High Performance Tactical Gear!  
[url]www.Lightfighter.com[/url]

STLRN, ???? Check logo to the left 3-ID traces some of it's units back to the Civil War. In WWI it earned it's nickname Rock of the Marne, securing an area that a French Army Group distintigrated from when attacked...... covering the flank of the USMC Expeditionary Force in the Muese-Argonne. 3-ID was subsequently taken off the line during the Allied counter-offensive, the offensive stalled, 3-ID put back in.......the offensive started going again. Then someone called of the War.

WWII 3-ID goes into North Africa, then Sicily, then Italy, then France and Germany. Amphibious landings all over the place........ IIRC more medal of Honor reciepients than any other fighting formation, 36, in WWII. They were also MoH awarded during WWI and the Korean War to 3-ID soldiers.

They also sent units to Desert Storm, "the phantom brigade" to spearghead the VII Corps forces.

Army formations are designed to fight as units in larger groups, against other armies. Marines are combined arms groups that aren't the heaviest, or fastest, but they are well rounded in capability. They deploy easier, they are better at low to moderate intensity comflict. Army formations are better at extended hig intensity conflicts.

As far as your USMC officer story, maybe that officer was just an very skilled determined officer, who was also an exceptional Marine.

Ok, the 10th has had a brigade there, so?? What is there mission now? Is it something that is critical? What portion of their ADA, artillery or other support formations are there? Are there any line infantry formations there? Or is it engineers trying to get the area ready for heavy airfield or support facilities, perhaps to supply troops in Afghanistan.

I believe that the USMC is a very versatile fighting force, which can be more easily down or upsized than similar army formations. It is the nature of the USMC, that is a strenght. That doesn't make it an Army weakness. The Army is for fighting other armies, not semi-organized irregular forces. It's not because the individual soldier won't, it's because it is the Army's mission, to fight other large armies.

Yes the Army is trying to put together light to medium rapid deployment forces for low to medium intensity conflicts. I just hope that if North Korea or Iraq decides to invade some other country and we send troops, there are enough heavy Army troops left to do the fighting once the advances are slowed or stopped by the lighter first to be deployed troops.

Speaking of North Korea they run out of food in January 2002.

Oly
There are a lot great people in the army and lot of people who want to do the right thing, no doubt about that.

But let me tell you there is a difference between the Army and the Corps.  I say this after attending army schools and latter going back to an Army OBC to instruct, and latter some classes for a CCC a WOBC, both army and Marine Officers.  I can tell you I have had student Lt that were literally illiterate, who hardly spoke English, who to quote "I cannot wait till I get relieved, so I can get out of the army and get a real job."  Now are they the norm, far from it, you do see a lot of good men that want to do the job, but you also see a lot that are there to pay back their education, who just getting by with a 70% and not excelling is more than acceptable.

It is funny you mention the rock of the Marne, a relatively good unit in its own right, and the Marines in World War I.  There was no Marine "expedionary force" in that fight.  The army didn't allow it, although there was a big enough Marine Corps to send 1 division to France as part of the AEF.  Pershing broke the Marines up and gave 1 Bde to several division, his only concession was giving command of the 2 Division, now 2ID to Gen John Lejeune.   So that is one of the reasons the Marine distrust the Army, there have been over a half dozen times in the 20th century they attempted to disband us.

Lightfighter, et al if you have access to Sipernet you can answer all your questions for yourself, but the answers all falls under OPSEC.

STRLN, The Marines do have an advantage......  "the few....." means they can be more selective who they let in. I think the military in general often allows that kind of thing. Are 1st/2nd Lt's really allowed to do that much without a Capt. or E-6 "giving them the nod."? Yes it makes leadership issues problematic when people join because they wanted money for college or debt forgiveness. I'm sure the USMC has a few of those too but they are easier to pick out in the smaller crowd. They get singled out in the larger crowd sooner or later too.  I know a few ex Air Force officers, well they are just scary.

Sorry about the MEF, I really am not that up on WWI or USMC history. As far as 3-ID, relatively good(?), I think the have been exemplerary since WWI, and they have a distinguished history. They used to have the 3-ID MoH stories on their website, but it wasn't there last time I looked, too bad it was fascinating. Known as blue and white devils in WWII.  

You seemed to be a little worked up earlier, remember all the branches start with "United States" and that is the important part.

No, I know a lot of good people in the Army.  Some of the most capable men I know are Army Officers and SNCOs.  I have no grudge against the army, but am one that has done enough joint work that I think my opinion is bit more informed than some that responses are out of parochialism.

As Gen V Krulak said in his study, the Marine Corps in search of a mission “America doesn’t need a Marine Corps, America wants a Marine Corps.” The truth be told many of our missions can be done by the Army, but right or wrong Americans hold the Marine Corps and its Marines in a little higher esteem than it does the average service member of other services. They see us as a group that still is holding up a little higher standards than the other services.

We are more than willing to cultivate an image of toughness. It really took hold in the late 70’s. Remember when other services would advertise “beer in the barracks” and “Come in and get an edge on life.” At the same time the Corps advertisement campaign was “we did promises you a rose garden.” Even until a few weeks ago the army was selling come in get 25,000 for college and get out. The Corps on the other hand was advertising, “Do you have what it takes to be a Marine?” I ask you which approach will get those more inclined to be warriors? And that is not a slam on many that go into the army, because they get as many of those who join to be warriors as we do, but when you spread that over 400,000 plus thousand, you dilute the spirit to a great deal.

Another reason is that the Marine Corps holds itself as something separate from the American society to a greater degree than the other services. We recognize that generally many of American society’s mores are something we do not want. Our business is war and the ways you prepare for war do not fit in with a civil society. The other services also see this fact, but are often willing to accept many “civilianism” into their service.

I'm certain that there are Marines that did join to get the college benefits, but than again is the differance in the Corps and the Army, it is almost a badge of honor in the Army to say they came in for the college money.  In the Marines and in a few army units you would recieve scorn for saying that.

Your ignorance is so loud my ears hurt.

I still haven’t heard any suggestions as to units that could have done what we did.  Until I get one, I will assume that “raf” is an ignorant troll.

I have a friend that spent his first four years in the Marine Corps with a red patch on his cammies.  He wasn’t happy about that.  He did get a chance to “observe” an Army “invasion”, specifically to work with them on the logistics at the beachhead.  According to him, “they had gear lined up on the beach for almost 3 miles, and ran out of ammo by noon.”  Another quote from him, “if the gear doesn’t pass the test, make the test pass the gear.”  Different situation, same lesson.

Other than specially trained Army units, I would count among these Army Special Forces and Rangers (with qualification), I consider the modern US Army as close to worthless as any military unit in the western world.  Virtually all of their combat capability exists on paper, but not in real life.  If you want to prove me wrong, research the readiness certification of the regular Army divisions within the last few years.  It’s piss poor, in case you were wondering.

The 10th Mountain Division element in theatre has been used for a mission to which it is suited, a very minor engineering duty in an already conquered part of the country.  They have no intrinsic expeditionary logistical capability.  They have very little heavy weaponry.  I hope they have very few casualties carrying out whatever ill-suited combat mission they are given.  BTW, if you are interested in their initiative and prowess in combat, I guess you could ask the Rangers about it.

As far as the Marine Corps’ ability to fight heavy units, I would agree that a first tier Soviet mechanized units would be a tough opponent.  However, keep in mind that we went through multiple third-world Soviet-equipped Iraqi mechanized divisions like shit through a goose.  In fact, we destroyed them so fast that it ruined the Army plan for the war (if you have any questions, read “The General’s War”).  Gen. Franks almost got relieved because he couldn’t catch up with our pace.  Ironic, isn’t it?

I have the answers I need; and I probably got them from the same place you did (as neither  one of us is really that far up the food chain to have much OPSEC to worry about). I don't have any questions that are not rhetorical in nature and I know where to go to find them when I don't.

I was sharing on this thread for the benefit of the discussion and to help some people who are too blinded by some sort of energy field to realize that the command authorities are using the tools that they have at hand to accomplish a mission. This topic is not the trump card in some debate about one of our armed force's superiority over another. It is actually about an article that was written by an author who has a failing grasp on military reality and in some way managesd to find a few mouth peices to reinforce their fallacy. This debate has shifted away from that truth, though, and become another Army vs. Marines slugfest that I am starting to find tiresome and irrelevant.

I wish all soldiers who are fighting in Afganastan the best (regardless oftheir branch of service) and I would venture as far as to guess that there are alot more things going on that none of us will ever know about -- so there is no sense trying to second guess the few nuggets that we are privy to.

High Performance Tactical Gear!
[url]www.Lightfighter.com[/url]

The Army will get their turn.  This war is just starting.  Iraq is next in line  and they will have to use the Army , ALL OF IT.  There will be Tank Heavy divisions and Mechanized divisions and 1st Cav and the Big Red One Charging straight into Baghdad. M1A1's and All.  The Armies days are not numbered , and one Airfield does not a war make.  They are bruisin for a fight and they will get one. However to not be put into action right off the bat is a slap in the face and now the Army is going to catch hell from the Marines for a while. But this always happens and its just a sign of "Espirit de Corpe"  The Army are not binch warmers and everyone knows it.

The real reason was the Marines can feed themselves.

101 AAD- who really should be there- cant be supported becuase the Air Force doesnt have enough cargo lift anymore.

As I understand it, the Marines are also at the end of their teather at Rihno.  They had to borrow the use of Army Chinooks off of Kitty Hawk to get in- 12 Sea Stallions weren't enough lift and the Sea Knights were too slow and short ranged to cover the distance.  But the Marines can supply themselves by helicopter from their amphibious ships, now that there is a place to gas up at the end of the flight I am sure the Sea Knights are now quite busily involved in the lift too. Jet fuel is coming in (so far) by KC-130 from Quatar and Oman. Eventually as they get control of a stretch of the border it will be replaced by truck convoys from Pakistan.  The 101AAD cannot supply itself in the same manner, its dependant totally on the AMC which has been allowed to atrophy.  This disparity is going to get only worse as the Osprey comes into service for the Marines.

In fact it is a bit of a puzzle why the 24 Ospreys the Marines now possess weren sent out for this mission, it has been noted by commentator on both Fox and lowely CNN that we used "experimental" aircraft in combat as recently as Desert Storm.  Why did the Marines pass up this chance to silence critics?  Course if they had, there would have been no need to borrow Chinooks from the Army and the Army would have been totally shut out.

Untill the Air Force gets more C17's and expands their airlift the 101AAD and 82AB divisions will remain grounded.  This is one of the reasons why the Air Force and the Army should never have been split, the Air Force spent way too much- even in the 90's- on nuclear weapons and delivery systems (read ICBM) that they should have spent on air transport and tankers.

Cant argue about the expense lavished on the bomber fleet though, it REALLY showed its worth in this war. China has to be quaking in its boots right now. Whith the combination of the B1, B2 and ALCM their "nuclear deterrant" of fewer than 20 missiles is a JOKE. We could knock them out in a few minutes with conventional weapons before they knew they were being attacked- much less before they could issue launch commands and get the things up and running.

The Marine force near Khandahar is a specialized elite unit not standard line infantry, correct?  If so, wouldn't it make more sense to compare them with elite Army units like the Rangers or 82nd Airborne?  

In that case, what is the problem with them being used now?  The 82nd Airborne were dropped into the Pakistan/Afgan border area a few weeks ago and the Rangers have been pretty much everywhere.  So why should it irk anyone that the Marines finally have a presence there when the Army's been in it from the start?  

True, neither of us is too high on the food chain, but commanders often get a little more info and briefs from a bit higher up said food chain.

But I agree, best of luck to those over there and those on there way, however long it takes them.

Gary I think the ring of fire created by B52s and the resupply via air had more with the Khe Sahn not failing than anything else.

STRLN, you just seemed a little worked up, you usually seem kind've easy going.

I was in the Army for 3 years, yes I got 19,200 for college, used about 12,000 of it before my time ran out. Didn't go in for that tho' needed a little time away from where I grew up, and I knew college wasn't in the cards for me then. Went to 2 different 2 year colleges, got an associate degree, became certified as an EMS specialist, and actually made money while going thanks to the GI Bill. I think the Army, GI Bill, and college made me a better citizen.

I was an MP, I got to go on 2 Reforgers, 1 with an MP element and 1 with 2 different 3-ID infanrty companies (1/4 inf, 2/7 inf IIRC). I was also in the 5-ID for a year.

Got to go to Honduras via Ft. Benning. We got to Honduras and were assigned to a newly built airfield with an Air Force SF guy (don't know much about him he lived in the woods we only swa him when he wanted us to), part of the 7th SF group and a Bn of Rangers, along with various engineers and air control people. There was also a SF camp to train "freedom fighters" nearby.

In 3-ID I was surronded by motivated people that were interested in upholding the traditions of the unit and doing their best. Yes some units were better than others. When I saw the Rangers they had more Initiative than usually military folks, but it was allowed and encouraged by their leadership. They didn't seem much different from the 3-ID combat troops just more sure of themselves, and in retrospect young, very young. In 5-ID I thought I got transferred to another Army, the division motto could have been "oh, that is good enough".

The difference wasn't individual soldiers. It was LEADERSHIP, and the fact 3-ID was a few miles from the Iron Curtain. Rangers were certainly motivated by leadership. Both 3-ID and Rangers also were made aware of their unit history and motivated to keep up the traditions.

STRLN, please don't run the Army down, feel free to talk up the USMC tho'.

Doug, welcome to the party. I think you are wrong about Army divisions ability to put power onto targets. Readiness probably has something to do with the last Commmander in Chief making budgeting decisions for 8 years.

Iraqi troops without aircover or the best Soviet equipment in a desert..... That is almost the ideal situation for the US to showcase their weapons. The training of the Iraqi's was certainly almost as poor as their morale and logisitcal support. There is a wolrd of difference between engaging a 3rd rate opponent in favorable (table top) terrain, and a determined opponent in tough terrain. A skilled, well equipped opponent in bad terrain would be a nightmare. I don't think we were very effective when we bombed Bosnia for just that reason. They knew how to hide when they wanted to, and be found when they had ADA ready to go.

Try zipping around with 500 yds of visibility with that LAV, in a forest, when the enemy has tanks or heavy AT weapons available. You'll wish for MLRS, AH-64's, and, tanks to get that job done.

Armdlbrl, howdy. I think they are your standard issue MK-I Marines that are by Kandahar.

The Air Force, good point, I'm not sure it is ICBM's that they spen to much on tho'. I think they like to buy those swoopy, fast, dare I say "sexy" fighter planes at the expense of all other types of aircraft. The USN is somewhat similar in the fact "sea-lift" capability is below what they think they need.

The 82nd was dropped on the Paki border?  When the hell did this happen? Its never been on the news... are you sure you got your units right.

I appologize to all the army or other services if I came off as insulting to your service, not my intentions.

Worng...They are standard issue Marine Grunts and various standard issue Marine Logistical and Air Wing support.  They are ALL riflemen regardless of MOS or rank.

Official Recognition: Thank you US Army Cavalry for showing up in Khe Shan after the battle was over.  The United States Marine Corps officially thanks you for giving us a source for stolen 30 rd. mags.  We were only issued 20 rounders, so the stolen mags were very appreciated.

The current mission we are performing should have been done by the 101st, but they don’t have the logistical support.  Since logistics are the craft of the professionals, I suppose this means that, regardless of the cool helicopters, they aren’t very relevant.

We did indeed need to borrow helicopters, since we have wasted too much money on the biggest POS since the Spruce Goose.  I hope they never field the V-22.  We should just cut our losses, use this tactical success as PR cover, and move on.  I would settle for MH-60s and CH-53Es.

I doubt that the Army Airborne could have done the same job, because they are reliant on IBM in cammies, I mean the US Air Farce, for their logistics.  They definitely made a mistake by allowing the Air Farce to run their fixed-wing logistics.  To even the score, we made a mistake by not finding a place for the A-10 over the last few decades.  Oh well.

As far as Hack, I did say he was a little wacky every now and then.  However, since he has been there and done that, he does deserve a certain level of respect.



No Representation Without Taxation

Nah, yeah just seemed a little worked up, no biggie, certinaly not insulting.

Hey Doug, why should the Marines give up the V-22. Its capabilities are phenomonal and ideal for just this kind of mission.

By your logic the Marines should have gotten rid of the Harrier too.  Back in the 70's pilots were smashing them up right and left, and they were all much more expensive than a A-4 Skyhawk.  A Skyhawk could carry more than the old AV-8A's could too. Now look at the difference today.

Once you get pilots to understand that the Osprey is NOT a funny looking helicopter but a VTOL AIRCARFT they will stop wrecking them. Just like with the Harriers.

Edited to add that any cost overruns on Osprey are a direct result of Dick Cheney's assinine decision- over the protests of the Marine Corps- to cancel the Osprey in 1991. Although reversed by the Congress a year later it has resulted in a expensive FIVE year delay in the program. IOC was supposed to be 97.

Because the Harrier was proven technology at that point, the British had worked out the kinks, more or less.

The V-22 seems to be a bad plane that turns into a bad helicopter. It has the disadvantages of both. I don't think that the concept is ready for frontline use. You don't want to have them start crashing in foriegn countries, with hostiles around, for unknown reasons.

I though the USMC really didn't want them but Congress decided it knew more about equipment procurement than the USMC.

I recall hearing a report a couple months ago that a small group of the 82nd was sent to the Paki side of the border along the route of Jalalabad and Islamabad.  I don't know if the media jumped the gun or if they're just keeping it quiet.  Its possible they reported a rumor as fact.  I haven't found much more about it.  It was a topic here for awhile:

[url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=54890[/url]

[url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=52332[/url]

As far as the Marines there being grunts, that does change the comparison.  Perhaps the mass Army units are holding in reserve for Iraq or other potential campaigns.