Replies

The USMC is the expeditionary force of choice. That said, I'm confused about Rumsfeld's plans for lighter, more deployable forces. He wants the Army to get lighter (with that Stryker bastardization), but the USMC has moved to the heavier, 65-ton M1A1 tank? Very confusing. This is precisely why Rummy is at war with the Army. He's mixing missions without regard to capabilities.

Somebody needs to remind Rummy that there's a big difference between getting to the theater (quickly) and actually fighting the battle. If anything, heavy assets proved their indispensiblilty in BOTH DSI and DSII. Moving to lighter, less armored vehicles for close-in encounters is a prescription for disaster. Just look at the damage to the lighter, less armored amphibious units. It's one thing to take a lightweight vehicle and use stand-off weapons to engage an enemy outside of the enemy's range. It's another to meet them toe-to-toe and slug it out.

As for the Army's heavier supply lines; Army divisions are much heavier and require significantly greater logistical support than the lighter USMC units. It's one thing to be proud of your supply lines, but it's another to be short of gas, bullets and beans. If anything, the heavier Army logistical units made it possible to make the unprecedented run to Baghdad.