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.
i don't know about everyone else, but my frind is in 1st cav in the army, his (whatever grouping platoon, squad, not sure) was only stationed for 6 months there.
There are exceptions. I'm just going by what I know.
3rd Brigade Deploys
2/4/2005 3:01:10 PM
Approximately 2,700 Soldiers with the 3rd Brigade, 1st Armored Division deployed this week to Iraq.
This is the brigade's second deployment in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The brigade's first rotation was from March 2003 to April 2004.
During this deployment, the 3rd Bde will be attached to the 3rd Infantry Division as they continue the fight against terrorism. The brigade is expected to be deployed for approximately one year.
Currently, almost 4,300 active duty Soldiers from Fort Riley are deployed to Iraq supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom.
You claimed, incorrectly, that no Marines served in Europe. You're wrong, so admit it and stop trying to deflect the verifiable refutation of your false statement. It's very telling of your lack of character and integrity in failing to admit that you are wrong.
A DIFFERENT WAR: Marines in Europe and North Africa
It's not posted in full on the net and you and I both know that you don't possess the initiative to have previously obtained a copy. Running your ignorant mouth takes much less effort.
So reluctant that I, not you, provided the designation of the Army unit that replaced Puller's Regiment. That Regiment had suffered high casualties, the highest in Marine Corps history. There's a night and day difference between that and being relieved for cause for timidly engaging the enemy.
Actually what I said was: Hey tell us about all those great Marine victories in Europe in WWII and in the Civil War Back in post 18. If your reading comprehension is not up to standard, don't blame me. Obviously, I read your link-otherwise how would I have known about the Marine who served as a combat correspondent which I referred to in Post 92-go read it for yourself.
If there was any substance to it you would have quoted it here instead of blustering. As I said, it deals almost exclusively with shipboard detachments, staff duty and training-no great victories noted. Your attempt to bluster your way through it reveals that you suffer from a pride so fragile and prickly that any revelation of the reality of the Army's combat history as compared to the Marine Corps is more than you can bear. Too bad for you.
I suppose you think it a virtue that Rupertus wasted the lives of his men. You have consistently shown that you refuse to acknowledge that the Marines have any faults while taking every opportunity to point out any that you know of on the part of the Army. Don't be shocked that I reply.
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.