Posted on 11/30/2001 3:57:34 AM PST by chambley1
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.
Probably studying a map of Iraq.
The first people on the ground were Army. The SpecOps and SF are ARMY!!! Don't forget it.
Second, anyone remember the 10th Mtn Division deployment a few weeks back? Anyone hear what they're up to? I haven't. They're light infantry, mountain capable.
Third, if the Marines hadn't been used in some operation shortly they would have been considered irrelevant. Someone threw them a bone for just that reason. They weren't invited in any significant way to (count them): Panama, Desert Storm, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo. That pretty well covers it, doesn't it? Those were all Army Ops.
Fourth, the Rangers could be doing this mission (should be) because airport takedown and Fwd Op Base setup is their expertise. Anyone wanna claim that the Rangers aren't ready. That'd be silly.
Finally, there remains in this world a need for heavy forces. When real high intensity war comes along we'll be glad that someone someplace had the foresight to keep big tanks in the inventory. They gonna put 'em on the ground in Afghan. No way. It's not their environment. But when they're needed, they're real nice to have.
Okay, flame away....
"Shoreline" combat training won't help much in rooting the Talibastards out of their caves. That's why there are Infantry units on the ground over there- as a backup force!!
An Army officer might want to highlight the strengthes of his service which are unavailable in the USMC. Mass and staying power of multiple division sized structures are possible within the USA. USMC is better tailored for MEU evolutions to MEF deployment.
To place this in proper perspective, whenever I fly cross country on a passenger airliner, I'll like to enjoy the view from a window seat and attempt to identify the areas I'm over by terrain appreciation. When one begins to fathom the number of people and density throughout the country, and that is only the US, it can become quite mind boggling.
Folks who believe that a battalion to several divisions are able to control even a major city, let alone a state or a country, are poorly deluded. The numbers aren't there nor are the numbers supported by historical studies of WWII or WWI.
Different strategies today might not employ forces as they did in WWI or WWII, but the tactical employment freequently is quite similar, although with substantially more firepower at a smaller unit level.
Nevertheless, the logistics and control necessary for larger scaled involvements to "Change the will" of an enemy via military power is still substantial.
We've advanced the tactical art and we've downsized forces miopically focused on tactical combat power.
We've missed the point of military power to change the will of an enemy, though. A handful of well placed M-82s does nicely to eliminate a handful of tactical enemy squads or command and control centers, but once the jets have left after 15min to 4 hrs on station, the enemy reverts to normalcy.
I suspect there was something behind wars which endured for 3-5 years in total warfare which finally influenced the willpower of nations, which today only seems to touch upon those in shouting distance of an explosive event.
The Army may not have the numbers anymore, but they are the closest organization to quickly organize as a national military force for total war. There is quite a bit to be said for that legacy.
The problem is that the present heavy force is too slow to deal with tomorrow's wars--it's too slow strategically, and it was too slow tactically in Desert Storm to catch a fleeing enemy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.