Pentagon plans Strategic Landpower Office stand up

Pentagon plans Strategic Landpower Office stand up

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno announced Thursday that Army, Marine Corps and Special Operations Command officials are working together to stand up the Office of Strategic Landpower to evaluate how the U.S. military’s ground forces will transition within the new defense strategy and the pivot to the Pacific.

The Air Sea Battle concept has dominated discussions about the Defense Department’s transition from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the Pacific. Air Sea Battle is a strategy in which the Pentagon can meld power projection assets such as a carrier group or long range bombers to influence a region without having a large footprint directly inside it.

Led by the Air Force and Navy, national security leaders have made clear the two services will require additional forces to execute Air Sea Battle strategies. More importantly, Air Sea Battle is expected to carry additional influence when it comes time to divide the Pentagon’s budget.


U.S. Army leaders did not hide their frustration with the lack of discussion of the Army’s role within Air Sea Battle — especially as 60,000 soldiers remain deployed to Afghanistan — at the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual conference. In many ways, the Office of Strategic Landpower, sounds like the Army’s answer to Air Sea Battle.

The office has not been established yet, but Odierno said he expects leaders inside the office to evaluate what roles ground forces will play in “future conflicts.” Odierno spoke Thursday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank. He warned those in attendance of the negative consequences if you “assume away the need for ground force capability.”

“I think that’s a dangerous road for us to go down,” Odierno said.

Army leaders made their case for the need for the Army within the new defense strategy saying “presence” wins wars.

“Preventing conflict demands presence, shaping the environment demands presence, restoring the peace demands presence, and more often than not, that presence proudly wears the uniform of an American soldier,” Odierno said Oct. 23.

Army Secretary John McHugh said the Army holds key positions in the Air Sea Battle office. Deputy Defense Secretary Ash Carter confirmed that the Army will “have a major role in each of the tenets of the new [defense] strategy.”

However, the Army remains nervous over its footing in the pivot to the Pacific, especially as Congress plans to continue cutting the defend budget. Although Odierno said it was justified after the Army experienced the greatest amount of growth over the past decade, the Army still absorbed more than half the cuts to the Pentagon’s 2013 budget.

As Odierno explained at AUSA, he anticipates the Army must prepare to engage a range of threats across a wide spectrum to include “regular warfare, irregular warfare, terrorism, and criminality all combined together.”

Like it did in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army will work closely with the Marine Corps and Special Operations Command to engage those threats.

The buzz word that circulates the halls of the Pentagon is “A2AD,” or anti-access anti-denial. It has been for the past two years since Air Sea Battle was stood up and Pentagon officials started to consider a military that wasn’t fighting two simultaneous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Army officers have explored how their service will execute A2AD scenarios. Odierno said the 18th Airborne Corps will focus on defining how the Army will operate in forcible entry missions. However, he made sure to emphasize that the Army holds a major role within those scenarios.

“You can’t achieve, in my opinion, A2AD with just air and sea,” Odierno said.

Join the Conversation

Problem is both land services USMC and Army are two different creatures in training uniforms weapons vehicles and tactics and trying to merge them in to one strategy probably wont happen. Overall any pacific pivot will have more funds needed for the Navy and Air Force than ground forces as a deterrent against China. Army is need and the USMC yes but they have to ride shotgun while the Navy and Air Force drive.

Here comes the powerpoint…

“are two different creatures in training uniforms weapons vehicles and tactics and trying to merge them in to one strategy probably wont happen”

You can say the same thing about the Navy and Air Force, but they’re figuring it out. In an Army vs Marine argument you might be right, but if this turns out to be a land vs non-land budget argument then you’ll quickly see the two ground services churning out mutually supporting briefings.

243,000 marines, USMC, USMR (2010); 1,129,275 soldiers, Army, AR, NG (2010); not nearly the same, never were. USMC is providing power projection from the sea. US Army is providing sustained land dominance across the full range of military operations. Calling the Army and Marines the same because they both have two feet, is for simpletons. Co-ordinating their roles with the SOC is obvious but none of the three organzations are confused about their roles and responsiblities. Defending our country and our right to international trade is the responsiblity of all seven uniformed services. I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies.…as we have, as we are and as we will.

Lance, Lance, Lance… (facepalm)

Different uniforms keep us from working together? That’s news!
Different tactics? Uh, we use almost identical manuals.
Different weapons? Not significantly but then again we had different rifles on Guadalcanal. Then, like now, the ammo is the same. Not an issue.
Different training? Again, not that much and not to the point that we don’t work together.
Different vehicles? Didn’t seem to be a problem in the Tiger BDE in Desert Storm of Falujah in Iraq.

BTW, did you notice we’ve been merged in the same strategy for the last decade?

Sounds like all they are doing is creating more government bureaucracy.

This is more ridiculous duplication of strategic planning efforts that will consume more resources and create more confusion and cost limitless tax dollars. Is there some sort of reason why the strategic plan for the Pacific cannot be developed within the existing resources at OSD, Joint Staff, and PACOM??

Both the Army and the USMC conveniently forget that it’s the Navy that transports them to land battles in the Pacific and transports their supplies for any type of sustained operations, and the Air Force keeps the bad guys away. The USMC and the Army simply can neither get to nor exist anywhere in the Pacific without massive and sustained Navy and Air Force support.

Just another case of the tai trying to wag the dog.,

The same answer to every problem: create a new office for a colonel or flag officer and staff, they pump out PowerPoint presentations and journals and soak up millions of dollars in the process.

A new flag position to promote a new star, need more of those at teh Pentagon.

I fly commercial every time I deploy and land at airfields secured by the Marines and the Army.

Good point. Probably to counter the “ridiculous duplication of strategic planning efforts” of the AirSeaBattle office.

You didn’t comment when the AirSeaBattle office conveniently forgot to include land power in their group to look at how we are going to project military power in the Pacific. I wonder why?

Oh, the Air Force has done a magnificent job of keeping the bad guys away. We only went over 2000 dead (mostly Army) in Afghanistan last month. Thanks!

Wasn’t this why Joint Forces Command was stood up (now shut down) in the first place?

Not really lets see MARPAT vs crappy ACU different tactics due to that the Army wanted only urban combat uniforms the Marines kept outdoor style camo. Marines kept full size M-16s and practice more for open area warfare Army all M-4s and are most training is for Iraq 2.0

Marines due pure Amphibious assaults nad have AAV-7s Army cant they have no amphibious attack vehicles so major operation problem. The Marines trained alot more on shore landings and pacific warfare than the army a major training shift for the army needs to be made then if we pivot to the pacific.

i hate that one, too btw. i’m fair.

Ohh check out defense news interview with US pacific command. They have a strategy with pacific allies and US territories alot different from what the USMC is doing. I do not think the Army is merging with the Corps into one service.

The Tiger BDE didn’t need to use rearm at marine bases and they never had the losses and needs parts and me from Army units far away. The Marines couldn’t help then.

The Army’s sudden love affair with the Marines is getting a little embarrassing. The Army needs to stop hugging the Corp and saying “we are all the same here”

Let’s be clear here

The Army is build for major land wars with emphasis on heavy mechanized divisions, lots of tanks, and artillary with support from the Air Force for logistics and air control.

The Marines are a part of the Navy and the are build for power projection from the sea, they are not a branch of the Army or even Army light.. They are designed to be light and fast, both in doctrine and equipment with a combined arm approach.

If we plan on invading a large land army or country that requires massive and sustained LAND operations then that is an Army job and they do that well.

If we are projecting power from the sea, need to move very fast, or need to kick the door in then it’s the Marines turn –support by Marines and the Navy. That is a Marine mission that they do that well.

There will always be an Army, it may be smaller in the future, but they need to man up and quite whining. The future of this country depends upon predicting what the future threats may be and preparing for them. The Army needs to realize that the FUTURE threats are not in Iraq or the ‘Stan, they are in the Pacific.

Wow! I am very interested indeed as to what effect on tactics that the differences between MARPAT and ACU make. Please tell! No opinion, only documented, approved tactics please. Thanks in advance.

No you didn’t.

Would be well over 2000 without USAF air support.

MARPAT retains camo for wooded jungle ops ACU is grey and intended for Urban ops. The army is way more into Urban combat and equipping a fore just for that than the Marines are.

No doubt! Just making it very clear that the “Air Force keeps the bad guys away” is a bit of an exaggeration. If it kept the bad guys away the casualties should be somewhere around 0.

Full size M16s and M4s use 5.56.

The Marines parctice more for open warfare? Really? Have you seen the NTC in the Mojave desert. Have you compared the ability of the Army to move on land compared to the Marines? (BTW, the Army got to Baghdad first).

Marines do practice more for defended jeep landings. The Army actually has a larger footprint in the Pacific and does more training based on sheer numbers than the Marines to include jungle ops and the Pacific. Landing on a defended beach is a complicated operastion (just like air assaults and airborne ops). Landing on an undefended beach or through a port isn’t roocket science and the historical record clearly demonstrates the Army has put boots on the ground as quick if not quicker…

You need to expand your reading to just Marine authors.

Oh and the Tiger BDE was resupplied through marine logistics channels. Doctrinally combat units routinely do two logistical resupply ops per day and back in Desert Storm M1 tanks could run their engines about eight hours before they ran out of fuel. You clearly don’t know what you are talking about.

Yes but the M-16A4 is better and more accurate for open warfare terrain and the M-4 is better for urban warfare. NTC once was a BIG open warfare center but over the course of Iraq was turned into a urban warfare site and the Opposition forces broke up sine the army thinks no more wars will have tanks or open combat.

Your too biased for the army its a two way service both are. For defense of a nation where we have forces and need heavy firepower the Army is the force for amphibious and or quick reaction forces the marines are better. We need both the Army cant do it all neither can the Marines why we need both separate from each other.

Don’t see this as the Army hugging the Marines. Looks more like we’re inviting them to play with the big boys.

BTW, you might not think the Marines as an Army but later you define the Army mission as “invading a large land army or country that requires massive and sustained LAND operations.” What do you call Iraq and Afghanistan? You might not realize it but you guys have become a second land army which again is a good reason to invite you as we evaluate landpower’s strategic role.

Welcome aboard! :)

Yes, there’s a lot of open areas in the jungles of the Pacific… Way to go Lance…

The NTC always had built up areas. Yes we built more but guess what? The last rotations are focused again on more contingencies. Suprisingly the Marines did the SAME thing! (Yeah, I’M too biased)

Finally, if you are right that for “quick reaction forces the marines are better” why do we keep sending the Army in before or with the Marines? WWII, Korea, Nam, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Panama, Desert Storm, Afghanistan, and Iraq (off the top of my head)?

Sorry the Marines where in the front line in WW2 in the Pacific Spear heading most allied island hops. And In WW1 in France. You forget “Operation Starlight” in Nam first major US/Vietcong battle USMC no army in 1965. Grenada USMC was primary force not the army. You can claim Army ahead in the Middle east wars but theirs no need for amphibious Ops, so army get the lead.

yes the army needs to rebuild the OPfor in the NTC sorry the marines dont usually train there as they do in South Carolina. As for your idea the M-16A4 is so inferior to the Army M-4 the M-4 range is 600 yards the M-16A4 is 800 yards. the longer barrel is better for outside combat and yes in jungles too, In Vietnam the M-16A1 was preferred to the XM-177E2. As in Iraq in house to house fighting the shorter M-4 was loved by troops.

This is the latest move in a bureaucjratic game. Our services should focus on resourcing national strategy; no service shoauld attempt to define it. I agree with the thrust of an earlier post, JCS or OSD should impose some order on this chaos.

No Lance, your bias and lack of knowledge is showing. The Marines weren’t “heading most allied island hops”. First the Army conducted many more landings than the Marines in the Pacific alone (e.g. the Philippine Campaign alone had over 12 and ZERO Marines were involved). On some Joint landings Marines landed simultaneously and to the flank of an Army unit. There were actually less than a handful (with fingers left over) where Marines “led the way” Guadalcanal and Saipan being two of them).

Nam? The Army was there starting in the late 50’s. In 1964, a year before the Marines arrived there were over 23 THOUSAND soldiers in Nam and almost 500 had died. “no army in 1965”? The 173rd deployed to RVN 3 May 1965. It earned one of its Presidential Unit Citations for actions in Bien Hao Nov ’65. The battle of the Ia Drang (we Were Soldiers fame) was in Nov ’65 and involved the 1st Cavalry Division. I guess they were honorary Marines since you don’t think any soldiers were in Nam (besides the over 23 thousand that were there a year before).

“Grenada USMC was primary force not the army.” Then why were there more soldiers than Marines (5k vs 2K)? Why did Army units get tasked to capture Salinas airfield, rescue US citizens who were medical students (even using Marine Helos) on three different locations and have the majority of contact to include enemy light armor(Salinas, Frequente and Calvigny Barracks) and almost four times the casualties?
Read more and other than Marine authors…

BTW, you know the Marines never stood up a dedicated OPFOR force at their training centers.

An Urgent Fury (Grenada) source http://​www​.dtic​.mil/​d​o​c​t​r​i​n​e​/​d​o​c​t​r​i​n​e​/​h​i​s​t​o​r​y​/​urg

Sorry only a few US army Spec Ops supported marine units in the invasion. The Corps did most of the action.
http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​O​p​e​r​a​t​i​o​n​_​U​r​g​e​n​t​_​Fur

Resourcing national strategy=keep their piece of the pie. If they can help steer and flat out lobby for what the national strategy will be they have a better chance of getting the money to buy the things they want. The President says “we’re going to pay more attention to the Pacific.” The services then put on their thinking caps and try to figure out how to accomplish that while proving their value to Congress and maximizing their share of the budget. If our national strategy remained fighting wars in land-locked countries, do you think the Navy and Marine Corps would just stand idly by? Each service has something to contribute to pretty much any fight, but don’t think for one second all of this isn’t about protecting their funding. That’s been the name of the game ever since the first post-WWII budget cut.

Two battalions of the 82nd, two battalions of Rangers, Delta, and a few hundred support troops constitute “a few US Army Spec Ops?” They outnumbered the Marines! The Army and the Marines split the island in half and conducted a number of operations. Neither did “most of the action.” By the way, the link majrod provided is the official DoD history of the operation. You countered with Wikipedia.

Sorry its not yes two ranger and air born battalions helped in the assault The Marines used two divisions the map of the battle on my references shows what unit attacked were. Im not dising the Army for helping the invasion but the marines where the main force in the invasion.

Lance, you don’t even realize you don’t know how to read military graphics.

Here’s your wiki map http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​F​i​l​e​:​O​p​_​U​r​g​e​n​t​_​F​u​ry_
(wiki is a terrible reference)

The two little lines above the Marine icon is the symbol for a BATTALION, NOT a division. An “x” above the square is the symbol for a division. 2 BATTALION 8th Marines was the ONLY ground element at Grenada.

Here’s the Marine history (since you only read them) and you can see on page 31 the task organization http://​community​.marines​.mil/​n​e​w​s​/​p​u​b​l​i​c​a​t​i​o​n​s​/Do

BTW, Clint Eastwood in Hamburger Hill isn’t history either.

Wrong yet again Lance. The Marines barely own enough ships to float a single division let alone two. The 2nd BATTALION, 8th Marines fought in Grenada. That’s a BATTALION sized task force, not a division. The difference between a Marine battalion and a Marine division is over 17,000 men. The USMC only has 2 and a half divisions of ground forces on active duty. On your wiki graphic, see the box in the lower left with the Xs over it that says 82(-)? That means a portion of the 82nd Airborne’s division headquarters was there and responsible for all those Army units on the ground.

Delta airlines was absorbed by the USAF as ” squadron D’, and Kandahar was originally secured by a USAF Andrews AFB recreation boating detachment.

To whom does this new office report? Who does the sea battle office report to?

the army will aways be an army and always be relevant in our nations defense weather in the pacific or else where. the marine corp was built to be a mirror reflection of it english counter parts from across the pond purly an expiditionary force that is what it was built for,…not a second land force but hand to fill a nich with two land war just like during ww2 period ‚but there need to be more dicussion on flexability for the army joint service operationsas well as asking other nations in the pacific to carry there weight as well like japan, korean,etc.. i wonder all of the islands that were captured from the japanese in the pacific during the war that were not reclaimed by japan after the war , why dont the u.s build them up like sipan (does japan own it) or pelielu (sorry if i spelled it wrong) HOPE SOME GETS MY THOUGHTS.

you see “Army guy” that’s the problem with your thinking, the Marines are not Army light nor a division of the Army, and neither is the Army the heavy component of the Marine Corp Navy team.

The Marines are a expeditionary force, from the sea (the Navy), designed for expeditionary warfare. The Marines are designed for quick small conflict, not heavy long sustained land campaigns. That’s why they ride around on amphibious ships you see, and that’s why they bring everything they need with them on the gators, AAV, LCAC, tanks, helos, fighters, etc. The Army doesn’t operate that way. They are mostly based in the US and they would need massive sealift and airlift and months to move anywhere in the world in force.

Just because the Marines were on the play field in Iraq and the “Stan does not mean that they are now a second land army. The effort in Iraq and the “Stan needed all available forces, no single force or branch could do it on their own, thus everyone got a change to play in the games there. The Army couldn’t do it on it’s own in Iraq or the “Stan, that’s why the Marines were there.

Now the Marines are going back to becoming Marines again, as the major LAND operations in Iraq and the “Stan are winding down.

3 things both landing where of 2 marine Divisions that still more troops than 3 battalions of Air born and ranger platoons. The 82nd airborne didn’t show up till the fighting was over and was there to peace keep after Marines and few ranger units left to go back home.
http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​/​i​n​d​e​x​.​p​h​p​?​t​i​t​l​e​=​F​i​l​e​:US

Clint Eastwood never played in Hamburger Hill which was Vietnam war silly.

You have a grudge against Marines every service has its part the Marines do the Army does you wont get your way disband the Marines.

yes, S, that might be a wise course of action. I see some reports where we are already starting to do that

Strange the maps show it different I know you and Majrod are Army and think you alone win all major battles. But the Marines did most of the fighting there a Ranger unit was there too and thanks for there help but they where not the dominate US force for the battle. Plus The 82nd Air Born didnt show up till after the fighting to peace keep the island for a few years.
Check the time line guys.
http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​/​i​n​d​e​x​.​p​h​p​?​t​i​t​l​e​=​F​i​l​e​:US

Forget Grenada even in land war in Desert Storm the Marines drove the Iraqi out of Kuwait with extremely low casualties. The peace keepers well in Somalia and left before task Force Ranger failed.

You two hate marines for some reason it illogical since we are on the same side. They army doesn’t do the Marines job the Marines dont do all Army jobs quit gripping over it. Its silly.

Let me rephrase it the 82 showed up later in the island battle the Ranger fought more than air born but the Marine took the majority of the island where the army took the southern tip of the island. 82 stayed and peace kept till South American force revealed them. sorry, misphrased in my latest email but for you 2 Marine haters still the Army played the role but was smaller operation then the marine landings in the North to take the capital and airfield.

I never once said I hate the Marines or wish them to be disbanded. All I do is try to set the record straight for people who can’t be bothered to read. Quite often that includes you. I don’t give a damn who did what first or biggest, but if we’re going to talk about it here its going to be the truth.

As far as your reading skills, your WIKIPEDIA map shows a single Marine battalion icon with the letters 2/8 (-) meaning 2nd battalion, 8th Marine regiment (minus) which means slightly less than the entire battalion, but included task organized elements from 2nd Tanks, 2nd Tracks, and an artillery battery from 10th Marines. The Marines call that a Battalion Landing Team.

According to your map and official Army history linked above(page 31), the 82nd as a headquarters element was involved from day 1 along with everyone else. In fact, Rangers and Delta were under the overall task force command for just the first morning. By the afternoon of D-Day, the Army portion of the invasion was reinforced by two battalions of the 82nd with Major General Edward Trobaugh in overall command of all army forces. Trobaugh commanded the 82nd airborne division.

The official USMC history (page 31) linked above lists every detachment the Marines sent in — again 2/8 was the only ground unit.

How is it we’re trying to have an academic discussion of the operation and you don’t even know the difference between a division and a battalion? A battalion is roughly 1000 troops. A division is well over 10,000.

Lance you’re so weak. Now you want to change the subject after showing you don’t know what you are talking about.

Oh and Clint was in Heartbreak Ridge (which contrary to the movie was an Army battle in Korea).

I got no problem with Marines. They have an accomplished history. I do have problems with their fanboys though who try fudge or outright lie about the historical record.

Majr0d — Heartbreak Ridge. I get them mixed up sometimes too.

“They are mostly based in the US and they would need massive sealift and airlift and months to move anywhere in the world in force.” You might not realize this “Navy army guy” (we can both disrespect each other if you want to go there), but the Marines don’t get anywhere without a HUGE amount of Navy support either.

BTW, the record about months long deployment times is wrong. Both in Korea and the desert Storm the Army was up and ready in less than a month (and before the Marines showed up). The bootom line is both the Army and the Marines need the Navy to get them there.

I agree with you that the Marines should be an expeditionary force but the Marines are choosing to do things contrary to that mission and have done so for a decade. Law enforcement bns, standing up psyops units, building a FID capability and a component in SOCOM aren’t expeditionary type tasks. Finally when the Marines can only float 30k troops but have a quarter million size force that’s much greater than expeditionary in nature. You have in effect become a second land Army. Heck, you’re bigger than the British Army. Like I said I agree with you but the Corps isn’t following your lead or logic.

In the movie Clint started in the Army in Korea then transferred to the Corps which is how the movie justified him having 30 years of service in 1983 as an E-7.

Im not dissing the Army im just saying all along they have separate mission in war and cannot or should not be merged. Im just saying about Grenada and to the Navy’s account Marines where in the north of the island and fought hard They where more involved in the main taking of the Island Delta and rangers where to seize key towns and rescue trapped americans on the island. The USMC provided all helicopter CAS with AH-1S and T Cobras army had some Blackhawks but no attack helicopters for almost all battle.

Now let calm down the victory goes to America not one services all have there place.

Here is the Navy accord of the history. http://​www​.history​.navy​.mil/​f​a​q​s​/​f​a​q​9​5​-​1​.​htm

“Just because the Marines were on the play field in Iraq and the “Stan does not mean that they are now a second land army…The Marines are a expeditionary force, from the sea (the Navy), designed for expeditionary warfare. The Marines are designed for quick small conflict, not heavy long sustained land campaigns.”

Tell that to the Corps. They have 202,000 troops capable of fielding 2 and a half divisions of ground combat power, but only enough ships to put a Marine Expeditionary Brigade in the water at a time. Majr0d’s 30k number really only works if the Corps put every single amphib in the water at the same time (no drydock, no leave, no other missions). I would love to see a truly expeditionary Corps like you describe, but they let themselves get caught up in the “get heavy” procurement that the Army did this last decade. CMCs Amos and Conway even admitted as much.

As far as bringing everything they need on gators, remember a significant amount of their fixed wing support comes on a carrier flown by Marine and Navy pilots. The Corps and the Army also operate with prepositioned stocks of equipment around the world. Iraq was invaded by the Army in part using a brigade’s worth of equipment sitting in Kuwaiti warehouses. Unless the Corps was already close to the conflict area (which they tend to be), the Army bringing in an equivalent sized force would take about the same amount of time. The biggest difference being the Army needs a fairly safe place to land to kick off unless they’re jumping in. Those times go longer the heavier and larger the force becomes.

TMB — I agree with everything you’ve written. The issue I see is that the services & SOCOM are cpositioning themselves for the future (invevitable) in a way that may prize institutional interests at the expense of the nation’s interest. It seems odd that services are “teaming” against each other to plan for the future. What happened to the joint fight? I don’t care who started it, USN/USAF and USA/USMC/SOCOM “teaming” runs counter to clear joint thinking about how to secure the nation’s future;. JCS or OSD should be the proponent of one office that develops a single, comprehensive view.

Lance that’s a much more reasonable account after you had to be beat about the head and shoulders that there weren’t two Marine Divisions in Grenada, the Army was in Vietnam in 1965, the Marines didn’t head most Pacific landings in WWII and the Tiger BDE of Desert Storm wasn’t supplied by the Marines.

I hope in the future you stop attributing an anti Marine bias to cover for your lack of knowledge.

BTW, I don’t think ANYONE is promoting a unification of the Army & the Marines. I sure am not!

tmb — That’s a tidbit. Thanks!

Don’t remember that from the movie. Didn’t his buddy the CSM serve there with him then?

Clint didn’t let history get in the way of a good story!

Heartbreak Ridge, yes! My bad.

Now now You seem to forget your WW2 history Iwo Jima, Tarawa, first 4 months of Guadale Canal, Paleilue. All Marine ops only Army and Marines did Okinawa. The only Army operations where New Guinea and Philippines. Army had its part but it want the dominate power in the pacific during the war.

In Korea try the Inchon landings and the frozen chosen.

yes Arm,y special Forces and 1st cav in Vietnam in 65 BUT the first official US/Viet Cong battle was Operation Starlight A USMC vs VC battle. Iea Drang came month later first large US army vs NVA battle.

Grenada you still wont admit the Marines did a BIG part of the battle and took northern half of the island.

I say keep your Army bias and your skewed history at home your idea the Army is everything and the Marines do nothing is skewed history yourself. Quit this arguing and lets agree to disagree your wanting to fight over history no not even on the subject shows your bias.

Just before Grenada when they all just made bail and were at the bar, the CSM explained to Mario Van Peebles that Clint, he, and the other guy were all in the Army in Korea at the ridge. After the war they transferred to the Corps. It didn’t appear that Clint had a break in service so it was a bit of a stretch to say he did 4 in the Army and 26+ in the Corps without being forced into retirement, but it was an entertaining movie.

since we in the midst of football season, perhaps a football analogy is in order

when trying to stop the run, you bring in your big heavy linemen (the Army)

when trying to stop the pass, to bring in your nickel package of fast, light linebackers (the Marines)

;-D

Ugh, you are either forgetful or deceitful.

The Philippines and New Guinea where MULTIPLE landings. The Philippines alone was a dozen. Kwajalein which was a joint landing was led by four Army only landings on occupied islands around it. The Aluetians were an Army only campaign again including MULTIPLE landings.

The Chosin wasn’t an amphibious operation and if you are talking about the withdrawl off the beach that was again a joint op with the Marines leaving first.

The 173rd was in Nam in ’65. It got there before the 1st Cav. Also the 23 THOUSAND Americans there in ’64 were not all special forces. For almost eight years the Army was flying combat missions, providing logistics, conducting training and advising ARVN units before the Corps arrived. I know you think history only starts after the Corps arrives.
I never said the Marines didn’t do a lot in Grenada. I just reject your concept that they were the major force. They were outnumbered by the Army and during several parts were the supporting effort.

Can’t agree to disagree. You’re rewriting history. Agreeing to disagree would be acknowledging you have a valid point like two divisions of Marines were at Grenada. It’s simply not true.

This a old post your a old man who just wants to argue strange all my info is from the history channel you can cuss and scream but this is old post one and two now one but you and your friend cares. just go home your wasting every ones time. Go read a few books.

Oh, The History Channel! I didn’t realize i was dealing with an expert!

My apologies. ;)

Unless you play for the Chiefs.

“Go read a few books.”

You mean like the official Army and Marine Corps histories of Urgent Fury? Now where could I find those.…

No disrespect intended to the United States Marine Corps, but they don’t get to turn down missions any more than the Army does. They’ve been bled white doing counterinsurgency missions in the past decade just like their Army counterparts. So, spare us the commercials. Please. The notion that Army will be relegated to big wars and we can rely on the Marines to take care of all the small wars is a pernicious fantasy. Don’t go there. And Air-Sea Battle looks like a strategy to deter, not to fight a big war. So, what is our real day job anyway ? The commencement of wars in the Western Pacific offers little to be optimistic about. Bataan, Corregidor, the Pusan Perimeter, even Guadalcanal. Backs to the sea, no operational depth — supply lines endangered by enemy air and sea power. This would not be my recipe for seizing the initiative or dominating the enemy. And yet, this appears to be the best our current strategists can muster. You have to be a real believer to believe that long range precision strike is the cure for these deficiencies.

It was too much for the CBSA sponsors of Air Sea Battle, to say nothing of former SecDef Robert Gates, to get their heads around the idea that Future Combat Systems was the design of choice for a future Army expeditionary capability — anywhere around the world, including the Western Pacific. Having killed the program, we must live with the consequences thereafter. I will accept apologies from any and all who wish to concede that this choice narrows, not expands US options in a future crisis. I think it was deliberate. Why would anyone want to do that ? Are we really that arrogant and stupid ?

FCS was never a realistic expeditionary model. It was the equivalent of our Spanish American War Army contemplating air assault operations.

The Army was just too ambitious in coupling 22 combat systems and the infrastructure to link them together into one program.

VP — That was an EXCELLENT post. You nailed the whole chest thumping phenomena. The truth is our services do what they are told at the time and when that time comes the decision makers consider what’s possible vs. traditional roles. No problem. The branches can pursue their traditional roles but we always complement each other and rarely fight alone.

Your WWII comparison and questioning precision munitions as a war stopper were also right on target.

The Air Force should be consolidated back into the Army Air Force/Corps. Not only would millions or billions be saved on duplicated efforts and different uniforms,overhead, flag ranks the like but it would reduce the shaft measuring and competition in any campaign.

Another useless staff. There is already a JOINT Staff, use it!

What happened to JFCOM?? The services decided that they didn’t want to plan on playing together.… now all of a sudden they decide to split up the poker game into two or more tables, its funny how history always repeats itself when we don’t learn to play together:) The only loser is the men in uniform that will have to die because the services and ‘joint staff’ continue to play the same ole games. Anyone for a game of Monopoly?

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2014 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.