Marines = Modern day Spartans
IMHO
Posted on 08/04/2005 5:53:50 AM PDT by Jarhead1957
Brig Gen. Carter Ham, deputy director for operations at the Joint Chiefs of Staff gestures during a Pentagon news conference, Wednesday, Aug. 3, 2005 to discuss Marines in Iraq. A Marine amphibious assault vehicle on patrol during combat operations near the Syrian border hit a roadside bomb Wednesday, and 14 Marines were killed in one of the deadliest single attacks in Iraq against American forces. (AP Photo/Heesoon Yim)
The Marines have one of the roughest assignments in Iraq: pacifying the perpetually restive Anbar province, home to Fallujah, Ramadi and Haditha, all sites of heavy American casualties since the insurgency went into high gear last year.
Underscoring the heavy load, the Marines have taken casualties disproportionate to their numbers in Iraq.
Marines number more than 23,000 out of 138,000 members of the U.S. armed forces in Iraq, or 17 percent. Yet they have lost at least 530 of the more than 1,820 U.S. personnel who have died there, or 29 percent, Marine officials said.
On Wednesday, they lost 14 when a roadside bomb detonated under an amphibious assault vehicle in Haditha in western Iraq. Just two days earlier, seven other Marines died.
Some military experts pointed to Wednesday's attack to note the Marines are performing duties somewhat different from those for which they are organized and equipped. The amphibious vehicle, for example, was designed to get troops ashore and is less armored than some other infantry carriers.
"It's basically designed to get across the beach and get a few dozen miles inland," said John Pike, a military expert with Globalsecurity.org. "The point being, once (Marines) had managed to secure the beachhead and get a few miles inland, the Army would come ashore and take over from there."
Beyond that, occupation and stabilization duties often require expertise and equipment distinct from amphibious assault and the rapid capture of enemy-held territory, experts said.
"The entire Marine force was designed around the concept of amphibious warfare, which is a good deal different from the kind of conflict they're fighting in Iraq today, hundreds of miles from the sea," said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute think tank. "The Marines are a light force; they kick in the door but they are not supposed to occupy all the rooms."
Still, the service has tried to adapt to changing missions, studying concepts like urban warfare and nonlethal weaponry. Marines took the lead in supplying food during a famine in Somalia in the early 1990s.
They, along with the Army's 3rd Infantry Division, comprised the leading forces in the drive toward Baghdad in 2003.
Since the invasion of Iraq, the Army's effort to keep its troops fresh by rotating them in and out of the country has created a need to use the Marines as a stabilization and counterinsurgency force in parts of the country, experts said.
The Marines killed Wednesday were part of a sweep for insurgents in communities along the Euphrates River between Baghdad and the Syrian border. At the Pentagon, Brig. Gen. Carter Ham said similar operations were under way in several communities at once, to prevent insurgents from skipping to towns without a strong U.S. presence.
He suggested the attacks on the Marines were the insurgents' response to their stepped-up operations.
The Marines killed Wednesday were assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 25th Marines based in Brook Park, Ohio, a Cleveland suburb, and attached to the Regimental Combat Team 2. Nine of them were from a single smaller unit in Columbus. A civilian translator also was killed and one Marine was wounded.
Six more Marines were killed in Haditha earlier this week. A seventh was killed by a car bomb in Hit.
In November, Marines led the assault to retake Fallujah, an insurgent stronghold 40 miles west of Baghdad. They had regular clashes with insurgents there and in nearby Ramadi for months before.
In January, 30 Marines, along with a Navy sailor, were killed when their helicopter went down in bad weather. The military, however, still has not issued a finding on the cause of the crash.
___
Associated Press Writer Pauline Jelinek contributed to this story.
You'd think so. I do know my daughter's group has been involved in some major things.
Blow it out your ear. I don't know why you think the Marines had to wait for the Army in the Gulf War, but even if they did don;t you think it might have been because they had to manuver to pull off that flanking movement.
She's excellent, thanks for asking, coming home next week for a 14 day leave. Stay cool!
The dirty little secret is the USMCs use of Army Cav during the (second) Fallujah assault. They realized that the AAV was a joke for modern combat and used the Cavalry to lead off the assault with the M3 Bradley (better armor, better mobility, better gun, tow missiles). Over ONE THIRD of the troops in the (second) Fallujah assault were Army Cavalry troops.
The Army was in Iraq first and will be there last, as usual ;)
Loren should put down the book and get his a~s out of the tank. The Marine force Corps was also designed around the concept of flexibility enabling it to morph well beyond its amphibious assault role.
Hmmm.. well in WWII in the PTO us Marines fought suicidal maniacal savages in caves for every inch of soil. In the ETO the Army fought a more civilized opponent, who knew when to surrender and when to fight to the death. But I will say, Iwo Jima, Wake Island to name a couple. But I don't think this post had anything to do with WWII did it Dogface? Just joking... no offense intended. Just a lil Marine to Army humor. We ARE on the same side here.
It is not a question of which is better ( I am biased however, Semper Fi ) both branches are doing the best job they can given engagement parameters, but it is mission. The Army's underlying mission is that of an occupying force the Marines have always been a strike/invasion force and not tasked for occupation. The Army has strike forces that work like Marine units ( 101st, 82nd etc... ) and are suppose to vacate the area to general army units once open fighting is over.
It is a symptom of trying to make our military fit the new mission of insurgent ( they are not insurgents but foreign terrorists ) fighters.
And why aren't they patrolling and watching for IED's at night? That's when their usually planted. My daughter's battalion is on their second tour since march 2003. God Bless them and the marines who've given their lives for us.
US Army was first on the ground and first DEPLOYED for ODS. Nobody was waiting on the Army for ANYTHING.
Why? Because I was there, and I was sitting in that Sh*thole for 8 months... waiting... and yes.. waiting for the Army to get all their boys up there for the flanking movement. So see.. you answered my question.. we did sit there and wait on the Army to mobilize. We (Marines) stay mobilized.
The USMC had the worst mission of WWII.
The Pacific Theater was designated as a "holding actiion", which meant limited forces and limited material supplies. The bulk of our output was devoted to controlling the Germans, first.
There was no doubt that the USMC acquitted themselves extremely well during WWII.
Deployed is one thing, being ready to fight is yet another.
Geez, you know that we had to wait for the political games to be played. It had nothing to do with the Marines having to wait for anyone-for that matter the 82nd was there first. But you couldn't resist the opportunity to get a dig in and then you wonder why I am defensive.
The ENTIRE USMC was not mobilized for GWI/ODS.
HALF of the Army, a considerably larger force, was mobilized for ODS. That's because the Army was the lead force and provided the vast majority of the combat assets, as well as supplying the USMC with the material assets that their failed logistics train could not provide.
You were waiting for the Army, Navy, Air Force AND USMC to deploy to the theater to present enough firepower to take on the world's FOURTH BIGGEST ARMY.
Yeah, they would have sent in you and your squad to get the job done, buy you had to wait for the Army.
The first troops on the ground and on the forward lines were 82nd ABN troops. They weren't floating on a boat, they were in the sand, leaning forward. Facts is facts.
BTW I never said that the Marines did not do very well during WWII, but the facts are that the Army fought in both theaters, while the Marines were only in the Pacific. I doubt if the DIs point that out to the recruits when they teach Marine Corps history which is one reason why so many Marines seem to feel free to take cheap shots at the Army.
No offense taken. We are all proud of our service and we should be. My best friend is former Ranger and we sit and argue all the time about who is the best. Noone ever wins this arguement, but our enemies are always the losers no matter what.
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.