Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Marines Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Was the USMC the appropriate force to send to Baghdad?
towgunner1960    10/3/2003 10:46:39 PM
I submit that it might have been more efficient to send British troops north to Baghdad instead of the Marine Corps, for the following reasons; U.S. Army and U.K. troops have trained together to fight the type of war that was fought for the last 50 odd years. (Mechanized warfare). The Marine Corps armor, excepting the M1 are totally unsuited for RAPID desert armored fighting, i.e. aav, lav and M198. U.K. and U.S. Army are equipped exactly the way you need to be to fight this type of war,(M1, M2-3, M109), (Challenger, Warrier, AS90). This gives them the ability to shoot and scoot, and to slug it out if needed. The Marine Corps has never trained with the Army to fight massive Soviet style forces the way U.K. and U.S. Army have. It might have been better for USMC to have taken over the British role, attacking southern Iraq, where they could have worked as a combined arms team with naval support, the way they have for over 200+ years. Long range desert armored warfare is not a Marine mission with the equipment and the training they have. If they want to equip themselves the way the Army does to fight this type of war, then they risk losing capability to fight the littorial type of war that they are so magnificant at. This is no way a slight against the Marines, who I have trained with and admire. But what nation can afford to have two armies? If they insist on trying to compete against the Army for that mission, (mech warfare), then what need is there for a Marine Corps? You might as well combine them with the Army.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14   NEXT
Liver    RE:Was the USMC the appropriate force to send to Baghdad?   10/16/2005 6:45:49 PM
I heard that Brits got Basra and souther Iraq because of historical connections and historical brit sympathy and influence in the area ....... As to the USMC training in urban warfare, the British Army has years and years experiance in urban Counter Insurgency. Im not really sure on how much Urban Training the British army does though.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:Was the USMC the appropriate force to send to Baghdad?   10/16/2005 7:36:27 PM
Various 'official' statements and other ites in the Marine Corps Gazette from the last couple years give the following reasons: 1. Avalability. It would have delayed things to get another reinforced US Army division in place. The navy could get the marines there faster. 2. Ability to operate across the water obstacles. The AAVs & integrated heliocopters made the water obstacles less of a problem for the Marines than for a US Army unit. 3. Size. The Brits were hard pressed to field two brigades. The I MEF had three or four brigade size manuver units, depending on how they are counted. 4. Terrain. Aside from the water obstacles the terrain is more favorable to a infantry heavy force, rather than a mech/tank heavy force. I think all these reasons were posted above, but they are all reasons given by the Marines who had somthing to do with it.
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:Was the USMC the appropriate force to send to Baghdad?   10/18/2005 7:06:21 PM
It's possible that the inability to insert the 4th I.D. in from the north completely altered the preferred battle plan, but I suspect that the Marines were part of the plan in any case. It just didn't really matter, short of availability, who we sent north. Could've been the local girl scouts (naw-but you get the drift). All part of Saddam's actually rather successful rope-a-dope strategy. Though Army all my life, I kinda like the Marines. They do a lot of different things really, really well. Especially CAS. Plus, they possess incredible operational mobility. That little hop from the Indian Ocean into Kandahar was awesome.
 
Quote    Reply

bunkerdestroyer    RE:Was the USMC the appropriate force to send to Baghdad?   10/19/2005 11:29:53 PM
tow gunner 60...I havent read the other replys, but.....why dont they conform the army to marine corps standards? because it is much harder to have a large group to transition to a higher level of professionalism and effectivness... the world fears the marine corps not the army. In somolia, the skinnies kept in like because they feared us. I was told a couple of times they did not care about the army(and the pakis...they did like the Italians as they were a former colony)....When the first KIA was in somolia-lcpl anthony botello, adid and the other factions panicked and quickly reassured the us it would not happen again and they would deal with the attacker....In addition, they had a ceramony dedicating a school and they named it the anthony botello school... In kosovo, they bad guys said they only feared the marines, not the army. they had respect for the airforce, but they felt their airdefense could even the odds(weither it did nor not...) in the first gulfwar, the iraqis feared us as they were told that to become a marine you had to kill and eat a family member(or so)..... in short, the world knows our record. weither you or others think it is a myth, the rest of the world(more importantly) do not... marine training is harder than army training(for the most part)and the standards are higher. so in the long form, you dont bring the marines down to the army level and the army is to big to bring up to marine standards(you do have rangers, GB, etc) oh, yeah.....and the marines cant be melded into the army as it is law(and embarassing as it is for me, I cant tell you the specific act) the marine corp per congressional order is to be maintained atleast 3 div and 3 air wings and is porportionally to be of certain size of the army.... SEMPER FI
 
Quote    Reply

shek    RE:Was the USMC the appropriate force to send to Baghdad?   10/23/2005 10:23:51 PM
1. Wow, there's not a lot of love for Shinseki on this board. Of course, he has been proven right on the effectiveness of the Stryker Brigades and Stryker vehicle, the first transformation effort in DoD, an effort that was already approved and underway by the time that Secretary Rumsfeld came aboard. He was also proven right that our force structure for Iraq wasn't adequate, and as power abhors a vacuum, an insurgency was allowed to incubate and form, and a chance to provide security and reach out to the different Iraqi communities was lost. We've now adapted successfully to fighting it, but we lost valuable time and gave the initiative to the insurgency. I won't defend the black beret decision - he was correct in identifying the problem of separate armies within the Army, but the beret wasn't the right way to go. As far as the Stryker "scandal," I still haven't seen anything beyond allegations of wrong doing. Plenty of general officers receive positions in the military-industrial complex upon retirement and make lots of money, money that they didn't make while serving their nation in positions of great responsibilty. So far, no one can present anything beyond the Lonnie "the Stryker critic" Schultz piece and the websites that parrot that piece. Also, what money did General Shinseki make from GD? The only position that I could find him taking was on the board of directors of Honeywell in 2003. You would think that in five years that facts, proof, and corresponding criminal charges would emerge if there was actually wrongdoing and not just speculation. Finally, Ambush, CO2 was the creation of LTG Foley and was implemented in the Army under General Reimer. Nice try to blame everything on General Shinseki. 2. The force structure of OIF depended on who was ready to go and the ability to flow the units into theater. Thus, why the USMC was called upon. As far it's mission, it was well suited for east of the Tigris as there are more potential water obstacles. Furthermore, it is capable of conducting urban operations, although it is not as well protected as Army units do to fewer tanks and a lack of infantry fighting vehicles. 3. As far as the comment that the Marines did all the fighting in towns, this is not correct. 3ID didn't conduct sustained urban operations on its way to Baghdad - they destroyed armored formations and large bodies of Fedayeen as it passed through urban centers, leaving the clearing operations to the 101st ABN and the BDE from the 82nd ABN.
 
Quote    Reply

AlbanyRifles    Once again Let's get it straight   10/25/2005 12:03:53 PM
The USMC fights and wins battles...that is how it is designed. The US Army fights and wins campaigns and wars....that is how it is designed. And since we are on the Marine Board, I'll let you have your beliefs that some how the Army just bumbles along with poor standards and bad soldiers and lousy leaders. Its not true.....but enjoy it.
 
Quote    Reply

GOP    RE:Once again Let's get it straight - Albany   10/25/2005 12:31:38 PM
>"The USMC fights and wins battles...that is how it is designed."< They won the Pacific campaign in WW2, so another myth. >"The US Army fights and wins campaigns and wars....that is how it is designed."< True, but they would have had a very rough time in the Pacific. They both have their place, and both can win campaigns and wars. >" And since we are on the Marine Board, I'll let you have your beliefs that some how the Army just bumbles along with poor standards and bad soldiers and lousy leaders. Its not true.....but enjoy it."< The Army has good standards, good soldiers, and good leaders. But they are not Marines. Marines are the fiercest, most dedicated fighters on earth, regardless of their training or anything else. Navy SEALs and USASOC may be better trained, but you will never find a more dedicated killing machine than a Marine in combat. Just my opinion, though
 
Quote    Reply

shek    RE:Once again Let's get it straight - GOP   10/25/2005 12:46:38 PM
1. More Army soldiers were involved in the Pacific than the Marines. What you stated is a myth. Furthermore, the campaign was led by an Army officer, who later executed what is considered one of the most daring and successful amphibious operations ever. 2. The Marines are a cohesive organization with a proud history. They do have an esprit de corps edge over the Army as a whole with their "Marine first, branch second" attitude. However, don't confuse that with standards. The Marines have a focus on particular operations and the Army has a different focus. Each does what it trains to do well and are equipped for their particular mission. However, a blanket statement that the Marines are better is simply wrong. You must look at particular units, leadership, and mission sets.
 
Quote    Reply

AlbanyRifles    RE:Once again Let's get it straight - GOP   10/25/2005 1:26:53 PM
Did this about 18 months ago on this board. The USMC had six divisions in WW II. The US Army had over 20 in the Pacific in WW II. And as for fierce warriors...yup, the USMC has some good Marines, an dI tip my hat to them. But most professional Marine officers I know (and I know quite a few) acknowledge the fierceness, toughness and capabilities of the 3rd ID in its drive to Baghdad...as well as the 101 ABN DIV, 2 ACR, etc. Oh, and the 1 MARDIV was happy to have TF 2/2 Infantry, 1 Infantry Division (US Army) alonmg for the ride into Fallujah with the M2s and M1s.
 
Quote    Reply

GOP    RE:Once again Let's get it straight - GOP   10/25/2005 1:37:14 PM
>"1. More Army soldiers were involved in the Pacific than the Marines. What you stated is a myth. Furthermore, the campaign was led by an Army officer, who later executed what is considered one of the most daring and successful amphibious operations ever."< I didn't know that, my bad. Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Guadal Canal, and Pelilieu were primarily taken by Marines (with some Army support). >"2. The Marines are a cohesive organization with a proud history. They do have an esprit de corps edge over the Army as a whole with their "Marine first, branch second" attitude. However, don't confuse that with standards. The Marines have a focus on particular operations and the Army has a different focus. Each does what it trains to do well and are equipped for their particular mission. However, a blanket statement that the Marines are better is simply wrong. You must look at particular units, leadership, and mission sets. "< Marines physical requirements, basic training, and AIT (I believe is what they call it) is more physically demanding then the Army eqiuvalant, and it is better compared to Ranger training than Army infantry training (from what I have read). Ofcourse, my love of the Marine Corps could cloud my judgement (and it probably has)
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics