[Wooly]

The only thing that I agree with the author on is that the Marines are better than the Army in Iraq. The Marines are use to working in small units and supporting themselves in a firefight, whereas the Army is still of the idea of when you run into something you hold and then call in firepower.
If you will take note that all the casualties in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad have been U.S. Army. This can also be attributed to reports that Army patrols, until they started the night time raids, were not allowed to be locked and loaded until they were shot at. During this same time it was reported that the Marines were still carrying a full combat load and were ready for anything thrown at them.

[Atlantic Friend]

I agree with the author about the general evolution of military tactics, of course, and not with the fact the prospects of winning this war look thin. The fact that Marine units react better to small-scale attacks does not surprise me. These people are better trained (perhaps the best-trained troops in the world), and like every elite unit in an army, are trained to face special threats, to use special tactics.

I did not know, however, that US Army patrols were forbidden to lock and load before being ambushed or shot at. Is this policy still on ?

[SJSAMPLE]

And the higher casualties would have nothing to do with the fact that the Army was still in theater (first in) LONG after the marines had left (last out)?

Army units had their share of unfortunate choices which also attributed to higher casualty rates. Specifically, the Army was stretched out along much greater distances and was patrolling by vehicle, which made them susceptible to IEDs. Dismounted patrols were not as susceptible, due to the troop spread.