U.S. Marines force of 20,000 seen for Afghanistan

[Al-zakir]

U.S. Marines force of 20,000 seen for Afghanistan


Reuters
Published: January 23, 2009

WASHINGTON: Up to 20,000 U.S. Marines could be deployed in Afghanistan as part of a planned major troop build-up to battle worsening insurgent violence, the top U.S. Marine officer said on Friday.

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway said any buildup of Marines in Afghanistan would have to be accompanied by an equivalent cut in the 22,000-strong Marine force in Iraq to maintain the corps' schedule of seven-month deployments.

U.S. military planners have proposed injecting up to 30,000 U.S. troops into Afghanistan over the next 12 to 18 months to combat an intensifying insurgency from Taliban militants and other fighters.

The United States now has 34,000 troops in the country, including 2,200 Marines.

But Conway told reporters that sending too many Marines to Afghanistan could jeopardize the corps' ability to resume training in vital areas, including amphibious landings, after a hiatus of several years.
Today in Africa & Middle East
Zimbabwe's children become refugees
Unbowed, Gazans rebuild tunnels
Congo rebel leader arrested

"We hope that the number is 20,000 or less," he said.

"The time is right for Marines in general terms to leave Iraq. It's very much a nation-building kind of environment that's taking place there," he said.

"A building fight taking place in another locale -- that's really where Marines need to be. That's what we offer the nation."

OSPREY SQUADRON

President Barack Obama and his defence advisers are reviewing options for how quickly to reduce the U.S. force in Iraq, which currently stands at 143,000 troops.

Marines would likely be deployed to southern Afghanistan where NATO commanders say there are not enough troops to combat growing Taliban influence in the countryside.

Conway said the expected Marine deployment to Afghanistan would include at least one squadron of tilt-rotor MV22 Osprey aircraft, the half-airplane half-helicopter made by Textron Inc. and Boeing Co..

"It's made for a place like Afghanistan," he said, adding that the Marines and U.S. special forces were installing a belly gun to the Osprey to make it more effective against insurgents in Afghanistan.

He said the Marines are also working to modify the blast-resistant vehicles designed to protect troops from roadside bombs.

The marine-resistant ambush-protected trucks, or MRAPs, have not performed well off-road and Conway said the Marines would test a new version in the barren Afghan landscape that uses independent suspension instead of a heavy axle.

"The initial tests have been somewhat encouraging," Conway said. "We're looking at how rapidly we can prove the product before doing a massive overhaul of vehicles we've got and get them to Afghanistan."

He added that the Marine Corps has no plans to buy more vehicles.

(Reporting by David Morgan; Editing by Xavier Briand)

U.S. Marines force of 20,000 seen for Afghanistan - International Herald Tribune

 

[S-2]

Our guys are telling us that it's a double-edged sword. You need to be heavy for the IEDs on the roads.

You've got to be agile to chase the taliban in their toyota pickups.

If I'm the P.A., I'd watch this development of vehicles very carefully.

Another difference from Iraq. The IED threat remains high but the demands of the terrain are exponentially higher.

 

[metalfalcon]

Marines: " The few The proud "

The land where you are going........ Stats there are really not that good for whoever went their Just like you but i know when thing.....You have a very Bright history and your History is written in Golden words.......... Whenever Someone from Higher Command asks you to retreat when you are being Bombed like hell...A MARINE reply is " Hell NO... I JUST ARRIVED HERE "

A MARINE Team Commander selects his team by saying " YOU, YOU, YOU and YOU Just PANIC Rest of YOU come with me.. Even then if some tries to run a away in the middle of the battle, the TEAM Leader reminds them by saying that " Hey you Sons of a Bi****h, Do you think you gonna live for ever ". Then Marines start to Fight again.

Risk there will be high and as mentioned by S-2

Our guys are telling us that it's a double-edged sword. You need to be heavy for the IEDs on the roads.
You've got to be agile to chase the taliban in their toyota pickups.

If I'm the P.A., I'd watch this development of vehicles very carefully.

Another difference from Iraq. The IED threat remains high but the demands of the terrain are exponentially higher.

So be careful about the IEDs.

 

[metalfalcon]

I hope Marines will do the job as they have done it in the Past for so many times. Pakistanis will co-operate with you if you ask them the Right way, Pakistan wants to get rid of this Menace more than USA, as its hurting Pakistan on Daily Basis now.



Just remember one thing not Every Muslim is a Extremist not Every PUSHTUN is a Taliban.

And the main Point You better stay in Afghanistan, don't even think of Chasing them into Pakistan. Let the Pakistanis do the job on their Land, If you really want to get the things going smoothly and nicely.

 

[Kasrkin]

You've got to be agile to chase the taliban in their toyota pickups.

I'd rather have my men in armored vehicles while on assault, patrol and logistics. Chasing, spying out or deploying right on top of Taliban patrols or camps can be done best by air I'd say.

 

[S-2]

This is interesting. Our reinforcements have largely been predicated on U.S. army forces. Unless I'm wrong, they're bringing in three ground brigades and a combat aviation brigade this spring and summer.

Concurrent with that will be a buildup of support troops to sustain these forces. Then there are more troops who'll be devoted to training/mentoring ANA/ANP units.

If these marines are in addition to that, that'll be a significant increase in combat power downrange. Too, marines rarely deploy in packages of that size without bringing their own aviation.

Your point here-

"...deploying right on top of Taliban patrols or camps can be done best by air I'd say."

You'll be reading of more of these. I imagine we'll be reaching out into some heretofore new neighborhoods closer to your border down south. Below Garmsir in Helmand is virtually unexplored taliban turf- and lots of it. Been so that way since the beginning. Just one of many A.O.s that are unscathed and fully flipped.

 

[TruthSeeker]

To me what is surprising is how our marines are being posted so far from the water's edge. I'm not sure what this says about the US Army capability. Before this decade, marines were not interchangeable with Army units. Now they seem to be given the hardest tasks, whether or not the situation is a "marine" one. I think it means that the US Army needs to improve the rep (morale) of our "baddest" units.

 

[S-2]

"Now they seem to be given the hardest tasks, whether or not the situation is a "marine" one."

The U.S.M.C. is aware of it's other competing requirements. General Conway appears to be floating a trial balloon publically. They've done this before on this exact topic when deploying a MAGTF to augment the Brits down south last summer.

Note the following- 1.) An upper limit of 20,000 regardless, 2.) Contingent on a draw-down of 22,000 marines in Iraq- a net gain of 2,000 troops un-deployed, 3.) seven month tours versus Army tours of 12-15 months.

We know that there's 30,000 troops already slated. When one accounts for three ground combat brigades and a combat aviation brigade along with it's requisite support slice, we're really discussing an additional army division and that'll shake out to near 20,000 of that total.

When we look at MTT (Mobile Training Teams) or OMLTs (Operational Mentoring and Liaison Teams) being increased to expand ANA/ANP capacity and the support requirements there we very nearly max out the 30,000 army troops being sent.

The marines don't wish to ignore their traditional missions and covetously guard their sea to land mission from Army encroachment. Equally, though, they don't want to be out of the only fight we have for, amongst other reasons, funding in Congress.

It's hard to be a well-funded war-fighting component of anybody's armed forces at a time of war and not be in the fight. It won't happen especially with the Marines. They need to stay in the fight.

The biggest problem I see with their deployments is the seven month tours. It makes more difficult the use of these forces because it closely ties them to a geographic area. Let me explain-

Let's say that the U.S.M.C. can release a MEB (Marine Expeditionary Brigade) on a sustainable basis for an undetermined period. 10,000 troops that will come in theatre for seven months and be gone to be replaced by a like unit.

There's little ability under that scenario to build any institutional knowledge or history for that force unless it's confined to a distinct area. That at least permits the passing of accumulated intel and history to the gaining unit though they are new to the area of operations. So to optimize the effectiveness of a relatively short stay in-country, I've got to commit those forces to one area at the expense both now and later of other needed locales.

That's disruptive to planning very nearly as badly as attempting to coordinate the disparate deployments of our many other allies with their even far smaller contributions.

Are we configured to accomodate their additional supply requirements in-country? If not, what must be accomplished to do so and at what trade-off, if any?

This issue might define the duration of Gates' tenure with Obama. He's once before shut down marine proposals like this that were inappropriately "floated". He's very cautious about discussing deployments and I think understands what putting troops downrange means from all perspectives-operational, sustainability, family impact even.

Gates has made comments that we should review very carefully any increases of forces to Afghanistan beyond these current Army projections. He's also suggested that any increased need for additional forces must come from elsewhere if at all. Finally, Gates has hinted that a review of our overall mission might be necessary should these forces now not be able to reverse matters somewhat.

To that end, I don't know if these Marine forces might be seen by Gates as broaching that internal threshold of his.

We can use them. No doubt. Simply how to best effect is always the question.

 

[fatman17]

if the combined forces want to be effective, stay close to the international border and conduct your ops. close off the 5 main entry/exit points and some 40 other secondary paths used by the militants to deny the militants their reinforcements of men and material.

and finally as the NATO sec-gen has forcefully advocated, go after the narco-war lords. the narco trade has generated US 100m/year for the talibans on both sides of the border. thats a lot of funds to be used for recruitment, weapons, food to sustain their ops. this needs priority and finally NATO realises this as being on of the key objectives if things in afghanistan and for that matter in FATAland are to move in the right direction.

why the US dosnt recognise this issue and support this initiative is a serious misjudgement IMO. maybe it is because they want to support the tottering and corrupt karzai regime and they dont see a viable replacement in their view.

 

[S-2]

I think McKiernan mentioned something about using U.S. or ISAF forces to begin going after these guys as adjunct contributors to the war.

To date many of the European allies have had a very hands-off approach to utilizing their combat forces in any meaningful anti-narcotics campaign. I think that they've seen this as an onerous burden on the local farmer-or at least that's what they offer us. They're also reluctant to engage in a "police and governance problem", as I understand matters. I say that when you're the only man standing, the role falls to you.

We burn fields (which the Brits hate) but only some of them. In general, our approach has been more aggressive and I suspect that this will be on the up-tick as our force levels increase. We'll have more leverage to run matters as we see best in Helmand and Kandahar. South of Garmsir is taliban and opium country. Both untouched but I don't think it's going to stay that way.

There is progress being made. It's been offset, though, by yield increases. Afghanistan is reducing hectares allocated to opium. There's little question there. It's been slow and we've seen yield increases where it hurts worst-Helmand.

Worse are the suggestions that the taliban now have a sufficient backlog of product to manipulate supply in the market even as Afghanistan reduces it's own profile. IMHO, that backlog may be stored in Afghanistan or elsewhere...who knows?

There's no victory of any sort by any definition until this is tackled. There's too much confluence of bad actors around dope and the business behind it.

 

[Patriot]

I hope they monitor the border and make sure any taliban entering into AFG from Pakistan is killed and make sure no taliban enters into Pakistan from AFG border.

 

[Kasrkin]

You'll be reading of more of these. I imagine we'll be reaching out into some heretofore new neighborhoods closer to your border down south.

I certainly hope so and look forward to that. About time too, I should say...

 

[S-2]

"About time too, I should say..."

Count on you to have an encouraging tone...but you're correct. The Brits, Canadians, Australians, Dutch, and Danes have been in Oruzgan, Kandahar, and Helmand. Too much contested "heartland" area, too few troops. They've HUGE operating areas and can barely keep the LOC between Lashkar Gal and Kandahar open.

My suspicion is that five miles in any direction away from a hard-ball surface has a 50/50 chance or better of having never seen an ISAF soldier-even seven years later.

Finally, it's now or never down south, IMHO. We've got a window with these forces being committed. I say "window" not because we'll pull them elsewhere but because it's increasingly likely that other nations will pull THEIR FORCES in the south. If so, we've got to accomplish all that's possible as a combined force while continuing to raise forth the ANA to semblance of proficiency before seeing our allies draw-down...

Two year window at max there, IMHO. Sooner for some.

 

[Kasrkin]

Count on you to have an encouraging tone...

No, I'm not like you. I'm genuinely thrilled. But I do appreciate your candidness in relating the reality of the situation. I’ll hope to see more of that in the future too.

 

[TruthSeeker]

As far as the opium production issue goes, I have never understood why we don't just buy the crop from the farmers. I'm sure the "farm price" is just a fraction of the eventual street price. I would think we could buy the whole opium crop of Afghanistan for the cost of putting 5000 US troops in theater. Alternatively, we could supply free seed, fertilizer, etc. for alternate crops, and guarantee a market for alternate crops for a few years to get that started, for a fraction of the cost of trying to contain the fighters that the opium supports.