Beats me, I am just wondering why all the major offensives we read about in Iraq are conducted by the Marines. As you know they are a much smaller organization than the Army. Seems we would read something about the Army ever now and then.
You know, it might be because PR is so important to the Corps. What's the old joke? Why did the Marine advance stop? The cameraman ran out of film.
You know, it might be because PR is so important to the Corps. What's the old joke? Why did the Marine advance stop? The cameraman ran out of film.
You'd think so. I do know my daughter's group has been involved in some major things.
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 ;)
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.