What's the point of so many special forces groups in the US?

[Scorpion89]

Where have I ever said that CAG is better than all the other SOF units. Please show me where I have said that and I will gladly say sorry. If you cant show me where I said anything like that than you really should quite making up lies. All I said is that a MEUSOC is not designed to do the same job as CAG. Are you really trying to tell me that they are? If you are so smart about what CAG does you tell me what there primary mission is than. Because last time I checked there primary mission was counter-terrorism. Which is pretty much the same as DEVGRUs focus. Do they do other things of course they do. You also realise that they work together alot of times in Iraq and Astan right.

So then this isn't your words then,

I hope you are not comparing CAG to a MEUSOC as that they can do the same job because that is insane. If the president needs CAG to do a job there is no one else in the US military that would get the call except maybe DEVGROUP. The skill level difffence between a CAG troop and and a MEUSOC platoon is not even worth talking about. And that is not saying anything bad about the Marines it is just that MEUSOCs dont need to be that good because they do completly different jobs. But please just dont try and play it off that MEUSOC might take a job from CAG because that just wont happen.

As for what CAG does I already described what there mission is way back on page 2 post #15

http://www.debatepolitics.com/military/60498-whats-point-so-many-special-forces-groups-us-2.html

As for CAG and SEAL Team 6 doing the same job yes and no while they both have elements of Anti-Terror CAG has a totally different mission profile then SEAL Team 6 does. And yes they do work together in Iraq and The Afgan but only on certain types of missions and it's not SEAL Team 6 that is in Iraq or The Afgan. that is SEAL Team 2/3 and 1 platoon each from Team 7 and 8.

 

[MSgt]

GUNNY,

This was written recently by a Marine Major at the USMC Command and General Staff College.

It highlights and discusses the exact issues that I am referencing.

Full article here: Marine Corps Leadership: Empowering or limiting the Strategic Corporal?

The jist of the article:


Standing by for your apology...

This is about holding a zero-defect mentality towards our NCO ranks and expecting perfection in their decision making. This is a fact that we had recognized earlier this decade and it defies our long history of "empowering the Corporal."

You stated something quite different. Something to the effect that Marine officers have a zero-defect mentality which prevents them from thinking outside the box.

 

[MSgt]

Raliegh is dead and the only people the seas matter to are Somali pirates.

Well, this is ignorant. Those Somali Pirates are exactly why controlling the seas allow us to rule the world. All of our enemies are land locked. None of them could ever reach us by sea. None of them could ever threaten our import/export business. Not since World War II, when the Japanese and the Germans caused us economical and bodily harm have we relinquished the seas.

Naval Gunfire? Get a clue!!! There has been NO naval gunfire shot in Iraq or AFG. None. Yeah, they provide your corpsman, because you don't have medics for some reason. Ok, the seals...what else? Nothing.

Yeah, less Naval Gunfire. Good thing I got a clue. It's one of those things Marines want back. But you do tend to run at the mouth before thinking it through....

You went from stating they don't have a job to acknowledging Corpsemen and Seals (dismissed aviation air support and forward base capability on any coast in the world) ......and back to "nothing."

No, it's the absolute truth.

Yet...above you stated otherwise yourself. Perhaps you should try to figure out what the Air Force have been doing in this fight. Maybe you'll find your "absolute truth" in that branch. Of course, seeking a way to bash on the far more capable Marine/Navy team is a soldier's task isn't it?

No, Petreaus' plan came from his own plan in 2003 in Mosul with the 101st. He pacified the city with the very same approach used during the surge. Ask youself this: why did Mattis get stuck in a CONUS post while Petreaus ended up running the war? The marines messed up Anbar...1/1 AD saved you. Why won't you refute this. Do it. I dare you.

Do you? Do you really dare me? What's to refute? It's mostly garbage and sophomoric antics. But here is some grown up truth for ya...

It will usually fall to an Army General because of the size of the mission and the larger personel base. Marines even fell under Army General Pershing at Belleau Wood during World War I. And McArthur later. This is tradition. And good thing because for themost part they always call on the Marines like in World War I, Korea, and Iraq to do the dirty work their soldiers can't do. Want some Army General quotes again?

The Army didn't save anybody. The Marines left Iraq in the capable hands of the Army and had to return in the fall because the Army couldn't handle it. Months later, the situation was out of hand and 1st Mar Div (with 7th Marines spearheading the aggression) faced it. An-bar got screwed up because the Army allowed it to get screwed. Marines had to come back to deal with it. The Marines, in fact, played the far larger part in attacking and assaulting the outskirts so that the occupying Army force behind them could have it easier. I realize your CO probably gave you a pep talk about how great you all were, but you were only what you were.

You already used that line, turd. The USMC officer corps does have the ZD problem. I've seen it with my own eyes. You may not have from the Regt. Comms shop. That's OK.

So now I'm a "turd." Professionalism...is this the soldier talking or the officer? I don't really put a lot of faith in what you think you saw since you seem to keep making obvious mistakes about the military and delving into playground behavior.

By the way, I spent very little time on any base. I'm a Marine remember? Green zones are for the Army.

Not sure what ZD effects had on the Mog; please elaborate. Maybe you were there...probably not.

The "Mog." The Black Hawk Down way of saying it. No...I wasn't there. However, I was a part of those "last Marines that had just left" you saw mentioned in the beginning of that movie.

And if you need the Black Hawk Down blunders elaborated, then you really don't know what you are talking about.

PS: Nice picture of a pogue M16 in your signature block. Lame.

An M16 is pogue-ish? You sure you weren't a Private? You seem to really hinge on the hip military talk glorified and exaggerated in movies.

 

[MSgt]

So you go to a comms guy to get advice on tatics or strategy. That might not be the best idea in the world. Now if you want comms advice than I am sure the gunny would be a great place to go for it.

And this is why your kind will never understand my kind. If you are not a "Grunt" in the Army then you recieve little to know infantry training. Your Comms and Motor-Ts and whatever else are separte support units that merely attach. However, in the Marine Corps, the infantry is made up of Comm, Motor-T, and others because of our size. Our comm guys carry the radios on patrols and our motor-T guys often are drivig the trucks on patrols. Often enough even an admin guy will find himself on patrol as a Grunt.


This is another reason why the Marine Corps is a better fighting organization. We are trained to be infantry with a separate emphasis on primary MOS. In other words, a box kicker in the Army is always only a box kicker. This is why Jessica Lynch and her friends did the Army so very proud. ...not trained to be in a warzone.

 

[MSgt]

I am pretty sure that I know a little bit more about warfighting than the gunny...

I doubt this, but you never know. Let's see....

3 Yrs 9 Months in 1st BN 2ND Marines (Infantry). - Somalia, Haiti, Cuba

4 Yrs 8 Months in 7th Marines Regiment (Infantry). - Iraq x2

3 Yrs 1 Month in MARFORCOM (Higher Intel HQ). - Associated with NATO intel.


That's a joint UN humanitarian mission (where I was rocked in the eye by a sling shot wielding kid), a Joint American humanitarian mission, embassy support (where I was bashed across the face by a man wielding a broken 2x4), two tours in a war, and a stint dealing with higher intel on the NATO level.

On top of this I have 18 years Active service continually training, as Marines do, on infantry tactics. As a radioman I walked the Grunt patrols in Somalia. As a "Grunt" I fast roped into the embassy in Haiti. As a Comm Chief I led patrols through Baghdad, monitored activity in the SYSCON, and dealt with the larger picture security of regions via intel work and direction assistance.

What you got, Rambo? And please have something more than just a tour or two in Iraq on the ground level. Wafighting is bigger than just a little experience in one area or some conflict on the ground level.

 

[braindrain]

I doubt this, but you never know. Let's see....

3 Yrs 9 Months in 1st BN 2ND Marines (Infantry). - Somalia, Haiti, Cuba

4 Yrs 8 Months in 7th Marines Regiment (Infantry). - Iraq x2

3 Yrs 1 Month in MARFORCOM (Higher Intel HQ). - Associated with NATO intel.


That's a joint UN humanitarian mission (where I was rocked in the eye by a sling shot wielding kid), a Joint American humanitarian mission, embassy support (where I was bashed across the face by a man wielding a broken 2x4), two tours in a war, and a stint dealing with higher intel on the NATO level.

On top of this I have 18 years Active service continually training, as Marines do, on infantry tactics.

What you got?

Just because you are deployed does not make you a warfighter. As you said your self you spent most of your time at Bat and Rgt level. Most of the Comms guys I know at that level dont go out all that often. And humanitarian and embassy work or working with NATO dosent count as warfighting either. I am talking about going out and doing hits or atleast patrols. I have 3 combat tours, 2 of those with SF. I have never argued that Marine support does get better training in grunt work than Army support but that still dosent make you infantry and only a pog would try to say other wise.

 

[braindrain]

So then this isn't your words then,

I hope you are not comparing CAG to a MEUSOC as that they can do the same job because that is insane. If the president needs CAG to do a job there is no one else in the US military that would get the call except maybe DEVGROUP. The skill level difffence between a CAG troop and and a MEUSOC platoon is not even worth talking about. And that is not saying anything bad about the Marines it is just that MEUSOCs dont need to be that good because they do completly different jobs. But please just dont try and play it off that MEUSOC might take a job from CAG because that just wont happen.

As for what CAG does I already described what there mission is way back on page 2 post #15

http://www.debatepolitics.com/military/60498-whats-point-so-many-special-forces-groups-us-2.html

As for CAG and SEAL Team 6 doing the same job yes and no while they both have elements of Anti-Terror CAG has a totally different mission profile then SEAL Team 6 does. And yes they do work together in Iraq and The Afgan but only on certain types of missions and it's not SEAL Team 6 that is in Iraq or The Afgan. that is SEAL Team 2/3 and 1 platoon each from Team 7 and 8.

Yes read what I said. I said that CAG has a higher skill level than a MEUSOC are you really trying to argue that. There is a reason that CAG is the DODs highest priortiy unit and not a MEUSOC. And that is only a meusoc not DEVGRU or anyone else. And I hate to break it to you but DEVGRU has been in Iraq and Astan. Do you really not know that. Look I have never said anything bad about ST6 they are great operators. The only thing I did was to compare CAG to a MEUSOC that is it, nothing more.

 

[Redress]

Just because you are deployed does not make you a warfighter. As you said your self you spent most of your time at Bat and Rgt level. Most of the Comms guys I know at that level dont go out all that often. And humanitarian and embassy work or working with NATO dosent count as warfighting either. I am talking about going out and doing hits or atleast patrols. I have 3 combat tours, 2 of those with SF. I have never argued that Marine support does get better training in grunt work than Army support but that still dosent make you infantry and only a pog would try to say other wise.

This has to be one of the most retarded posts ever. Just because you have fought in wars does not make you a warfighter. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant!

 

[braindrain]

This has to be one of the most retarded posts ever. Just because you have fought in wars does not make you a warfighter. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant!

So let me make sure I am getting this right. You see no difference in some one who, and I am not saying this is true for the Gunny, deploys to a combat zone and never leaves the fob and someone who deploys and is out doing hits and patrols and getting into firefights. Many Navy people deploy to the middle east and never leave the ship but since they were there they must be warfighters am I right. And dont get me wrong I am not saying there is anything wrong with those people. Thier services are needed just as much as mine. They are just not the people who I would look to take with me to do a hit. Just the same as no one should come up to me and ask me to set up a comm network. Because if it is much past a 148 it is over my head. There is a huge difference in deploying to a war zone and fighting in that war zone. Sorry if you dont like it but that is just the way it is.

 

[kansaswhig]

This has to be one of the most retarded posts ever. Just because you have fought in wars does not make you a warfighter. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant!

This proves my point that your definition of "deployed" and mine are quite different...

 

[braindrain]

This proves my point that your definition of "deployed" and mine are quite different...

I find it weird that this is such a hard concept to grasp. It is not like I feel that softskill guys who deploy are not sacraficing just as much as combat arms cuase they are and I thought I went out of my way to make that clear.
It would seem like a pretty easy concept that if I wanted advice about any subject I would try and find someone who does it. Not someone who watches others do it or has heard about how others do it or does it everyonce in a while when they are not doing other things. That is true for pretty much everything in life.

 

[kansaswhig]

This is about holding a zero-defect mentality towards our NCO ranks and expecting perfection in their decision making.

Yes! Exactly! A severe by-product of ZD...another result of a ZD command climate is also expecting perfection from the officers as well! Even more so!

I am pleased you read the article.

This is a fact that we had recognized earlier this decade and it defies our long history of "empowering the Corporal."

Exactly...but also defies your history of empowering the LT.

You stated something quite different. Something to the effect that Marine officers have a zero-defect mentality which prevents them from thinking outside the box.

Listen, I highlighted one result of ZD mentality...which is the stifiling of creativity. That's just one...the article highlights another, which is less empowerment of junior NCOs...

Also, it's not that Marine officers or NCOs can't think out of the box or think creatively, it's that this kind of culture actually prevents it, though fear of reprecussion if said creativity and "non-standard" methods result in failure.

I will say for the one hundredth time that the Army also has this problem, but since our promotions are not as cutthroat, hence our problem is not as bad. I do not know why you are so sensitive about this.

 

[kansaswhig]

Well, this is ignorant. Those Somali Pirates are exactly why controlling the seas allow us to rule the world. All of our enemies are land locked. None of them could ever reach us by sea. None of them could ever threaten our import/export business. Not since World War II, when the Japanese and the Germans caused us economical and bodily harm have we relinquished the seas.

Gunny, I'm specifically referring to the Contemporary Operating Environment. I realize the Navy was very critical during WWII...I got that. Right now, their contribution is limited, just by the very scope of the operations. It's just a fact...the Navy isn't able to contribute much to the fight right now.

Yeah, less Naval Gunfire. Good thing I got a clue. It's one of those things Marines want back. But you do tend to run at the mouth before thinking it through....

No, not less...none. There has been no Naval Gunfire shot in a while. I've been a foward observer, I know this. There is no need for it right now.

You went from stating they don't have a job to acknowledging Corpsemen and Seals (dismissed aviation air support and forward base capability on any coast in the world) ......and back to "nothing."

In comparison to what the Army and Marines have given up, it is very little.

Yet...above you stated otherwise yourself. Perhaps you should try to figure out what the Air Force have been doing in this fight. Maybe you'll find your "absolute truth" in that branch. Of course, seeking a way to bash on the far more capable Marine/Navy team is a soldier's task isn't it?

I would place the Air Force's contribution higher than the Navy's at this point. At least significant amounts of a/c are flying in troops and supplies hourly to both theaters. As for the rest of the AF...well, they are much like the Navy.

And good thing because for themost part they always call on the Marines like in World War I, Korea, and Iraq to do the dirty work their soldiers can't do.

This is simply untrue. Your view of history is so jaded that you can't see the truth. There is no doubt that in the history of warfare in this country that the Marines have contributed significantly, but to say that they "do the dirty work that the Army "can't" do is rediculous. In Iraq, you had Anbar. That's it. Who had the rest of the country?

Want some Army General quotes again?

I want to see them from one of the following individuals: McChrystal, Petreaus, Casey, McKiernan, Sanchez or Abizaid.

The Army didn't save anybody. The Marines left Iraq in the capable hands of the Army and had to return in the fall because the Army couldn't handle it. Months later, the situation was out of hand and 1st Mar Div (with 7th Marines spearheading the aggression) faced it. An-bar got screwed up because the Army allowed it to get screwed. Marines had to come back to deal with it. The Marines, in fact, played the far larger part in attacking and assaulting the outskirts so that the occupying Army force behind them could have it easier. I realize your CO probably gave you a pep talk about how great you all were, but you were only what you were.

So no Marines were in Anbar after March of 2003? It was not a Marine Force HQ that wasn't in charge?

So now I'm a "turd." Professionalism...is this the soldier talking or the officer? I don't really put a lot of faith in what you think you saw since you seem to keep making obvious mistakes about the military and delving into playground behavior.

I was poking fun at the fact that you kept using the same cliches over and over. Why the sensitivity?

By the way, I spent very little time on any base. I'm a Marine remember? Green zones are for the Army.

I have never lived on a FOB on any tours. Not once. I would question that you probably have...especially working at BN or Regt.

The "Mog." The Black Hawk Down way of saying it. No...I wasn't there. However, I was a part of those "last Marines that had just left" you saw mentioned in the beginning of that movie.

And if you need the Black Hawk Down blunders elaborated, then you really don't know what you are talking about.

I'm not sure how this relates to how the Marines could have pacified the warlords and fixed the Somali problem. You have yet to elaborate on that.

An M16 is pogue-ish? You sure you weren't a Private? You seem to really hinge on the hip military talk glorified and exaggerated in movies.

I was a private at one time...and yes, I did use an M-16 in Basic. I've had an M4 ever since. Again, I was poking fun. I thought it was funny.

 

[kansaswhig]

And this is why your kind will never understand my kind. If you are not a "Grunt" in the Army then you recieve little to know infantry training. Your Comms and Motor-Ts and whatever else are separte support units that merely attach. However, in the Marine Corps, the infantry is made up of Comm, Motor-T, and others because of our size. Our comm guys carry the radios on patrols and our motor-T guys often are drivig the trucks on patrols. Often enough even an admin guy will find himself on patrol as a Grunt.

That is why I granted this truth very early on and admitted you are correct. Our support personnel are not adequate infantrymen, but since Iraq, they have become better. Our support personnel have had to run logpacs and face ambushes, so naturally, they've placed more emphasis on it now.

This is another reason why the Marine Corps is a better fighting organization. We are trained to be infantry with a separate emphasis on primary MOS. In other words, a box kicker in the Army is always only a box kicker. This is why Jessica Lynch and her friends did the Army so very proud. ...not trained to be in a warzone.

I agree. It's a sad thing. We just don't place enough emphasis on the 10 level skills that you guys do. I wish we did.

 

[Caine]

This is another reason why the Marine Corps is a better fighting organization. We are trained to be infantry with a separate emphasis on primary MOS. In other words, a box kicker in the Army is always only a box kicker. This is why Jessica Lynch and her friends did the Army so very proud. ...not trained to be in a warzone.

This is where you are wrong Gunny.

In my time (I left in 2005 so I can't account for what has occurred since) infantry battalions in the 82nd ABN had Commo, Mechanics, Supply, NBC (me), and all these other non-combat sections a part of the battalion. Several of these within the individual companies themselves (Supply, Commo, NBC). As the NBC NCO of an infantry company, I went on several patrols as a member of the 60mm mortar team while in Iraq.

Jessica Lynch was in a unit that was entirely supply/maintenance personnel, think of it as a "warehouse" type unit made to support longer term and larger scale supply and maintenance operations as opposed to supply and maintenance units directly attached to the individual units. These large supply units handle supporting multiple brigades from different divisions. Its THOSE guys/gals that lack the individual soldier mentality, and THAT is where I agree with you.


That was a problem that I think has been addressed by restructuring alot of how the brigades work. I know my old battalion no longer exists and is now a part of a new Brigade Combat Team that has been restructured to include its artillery and other maintenance assets within it. I might be wrong though, as Im no longer in the Army and could give a **** less.

 

[MSgt]

This is where you are wrong Gunny.

I'm pretty sure I'm not. Look at this in order...

1) Army rear supply units were being attacked without any sense of how to protect themselves, which is why General Franks was asked for a time out.

2) Jessica Lynch's party is ambushed with dirty weapons and no sense of how to protect themselves causing an enormous amount of effort to locate and rescue them.

3) Abu-Ghraib, while being Army National Guard, is what happens when the untrained, unprofessional, and unappreciated to circumstance are given some responsibility. Is this black mark for America and the Army (and Marines since many think we are the same) a result of civilians in uniform or untrained soldiers?

Not taking their jobs seriously and a lack of regard for situation is why such big blunders occur. Because of the size of the Army, the majority of the time the non-infantry trained have been the victims of ambush in Iraq. They make themselves soft targets. This is why soldiers are far more susceptable to ambush than Marines.

The Defense Industry has had a very bad track record for insisting the military buy toys for the wars they wish us to fight. This has related to the Army's (and Air Force) continued stuborness to train for the big box wars they want to fight with little regard as to the world's condition and the typoe of wars we are going to fight. Afghanistan and Iraq were complete shocks to the Army. And even after 9 years, the Army is still very much set up to fight wars where there is a front and a rear. It has adjusted over time in Iraq, but it has not adjusted its practice as an institution. And this is why the "warehouse" type units will conitnue to be dropped unprepared into war zones in the next war and the next war after that.

Some of this is because of tradition.

 

[MSgt]

Right now, their contribution is limited, just by the very scope of the operations.

Well, of course they are limited. There are no sea battles because the Navy owns the seas. But you stated that they do not have a job.

1) Imbedded Corpsmen
2) Air Support, which comes from the sea.
3) Forward sea bases from which Marines launch into Afghanistan and Iraq

You are confusing the Navy with the Air Force.

I would place the Air Force's contribution higher than the Navy's at this point. At least significant amounts of a/c are flying in troops and supplies hourly to both theaters. As for the rest of the AF...well, they are much like the Navy.

Unbelievable. Are you purposefully refusing the Navy's role here? Some Air Force pilots fly supplies and soldiers across the ocean and they merit more contribution than Navy Corpsmen (who continually beled on the ground) and Navy aviators (who have continuously dropped ordinance and provided close air support, launched from sea)?

Where are the F/A-22s?

In Iraq, you had Anbar. That's it. Who had the rest of the country?

Who cared about the rest of the country? The violence was in Anbar and that is why the Marines were in Anbar. The first large batch of troops being sent into Afghanistan are going to be Marines. Do you think this is because someone rolled some dice? Do you think they are not going to be droppped into the most dangerous and violent positions?

What I state is truth and is a matter of historical record. While the Army was retreating in Korea, it was the Marines that covered and fought backwards. While the Army conducted their one beach landing in Europe, Marines conducted mulitple beach landings in the Pacific. The Barbary Pirates wars in the Med was Marines. Beirut...Marines. Chasing warlords in Somalia...Marines.

I want to see them from one of the following individuals: McChrystal, Petreaus, Casey, McKiernan, Sanchez or Abizaid.

Give them time. Army history is rich when it comes to Army generals making positive and grand statements in regards to the Marines in their midst. The Army is still tyring to figure out how to be more expeditious. Who do you think they are trying model?

So no Marines were in Anbar after March of 2003? It was not a Marine Force HQ that wasn't in charge?

After Baghdad was taken the Marines insisted on being relieved because our role was finished. Eventually, the 1st Marine Division, which consisted of 1st Marines Regiment, 5th Marines Regiment, and 7th Marines Regiment, were relieved by the Army's 4th Infantry Division in Baghdad. The majority of all Marines began traveling south towards Kuwait. Elements fro higher HQ and a small fighting force was left to hang out on the outskirts in case the Army's occupying force needed support. The majority of all Marines had left by June....and the same units were coming back by October.

I'm not sure how this relates to how the Marines could have pacified the warlords and fixed the Somali problem. You have yet to elaborate on that.[/qoute]

That's because I didn't state any of this. Your Black Hawk Down incident was a military blunder and a clear example of how soldiers are the ones with that closed sense mentality. There was no TRAP set up and no reserves. Soldiers like to blame Clinton for this and state that he made them do a mission without the proper support (Marines had left), but in the end the Army chose to conduct the mission the way it did.

The Somali problem was never going to be fixed because it was a UN mission. The Marines, which had replaced all the largely useless European forces that were operating in the towns surrounding Mogadishu, were not permitted to "cause trouble" in what was supposed to be a pure humanitarian mission.

 

[Caine]

I'm pretty sure I'm not. Look at this in order...

1) Army rear supply units were being attacked without any sense of how to protect themselves, which is why General Franks was asked for a time out.

2) Jessica Lynch's party is ambushed with dirty weapons and no sense of how to protect themselves causing an enormous amount of effort to locate and rescue them.

3) Abu-Ghraib, while being Army National Guard, is what happens when the untrained, unprofessional, and unappreciated to circumstance are given some responsibility. Is this black mark for America and the Army (and Marines since many think we are the same) a result of civilians in uniform or untrained soldiers?

Not taking their jobs seriously and a lack of regard for situation is why such big blunders occur. Because of the size of the Army, the majority of the time the non-infantry trained have been the victims of ambush in Iraq. They make themselves soft targets. This is why soldiers are far more susceptable to ambush than Marines.

The Defense Industry has had a very bad track record for insisting the military buy toys for the wars they wish us to fight. This has related to the Army's (and Air Force) continued stuborness to train for the big box wars they want to fight with little regard as to the world's condition and the typoe of wars we are going to fight. Afghanistan and Iraq were complete shocks to the Army. And even after 9 years, the Army is still very much set up to fight wars where there is a front and a rear. It has adjusted over time in Iraq, but it has not adjusted its practice as an institution. And this is why the "warehouse" type units will conitnue to be dropped unprepared into war zones in the next war and the next war after that.

Some of this is because of tradition.

You're missing my point.

You made a blanket statement about army non-combat MOS soldiers.

The type of unit they are in, not their MOS, has everything to do with the attitude/mentality of the soldier in regards to recognizing and respecting their role as a rifleman first.

 

[kansaswhig]

Well, of course they are limited. There are no sea battles because the Navy owns the seas. But you stated that they do not have a job.

I think you are giving them entirely to much credit.

1) Imbedded Corpsmen

I'll give you that one. I'm not sure why the Marines don't have medics.

2) Air Support, which comes from the sea.

Some of the CAS is Navy. More is AF. Have you ever heard of an AC-130? How about F-15 or F-16? Part of my job (as an FO) in Iraq was coordination of CAS...there were usually more AF on the job than Navy. In fact, I only remember coordinating for naval aviation once.

3) Forward sea bases from which Marines launch into Afghanistan and Iraq

You are either totally uninformed or trying to get one over on me. Sea base to lauch into Afghanistan? From where? It's landlocked! Look at a map. Did you storm the beaches to invade Iraq? NO! You drove up from Kuwait just like the army did! Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan get there by air. Stop telling lies, Gunny. What a load of crap.

Unbelievable. Are you purposefully refusing the Navy's role here? Some Air Force pilots fly supplies and soldiers across the ocean and they merit more contribution than Navy Corpsmen (who continually beled on the ground) and Navy aviators (who have continuously dropped ordinance and provided close air support, launched from sea)?

The Air Force flies hundreds of flights per day INTO Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition to providing the majority of the CAS, plus some other stuff that I can't talk about on here. The Air Force also:

1. Provide security squadrons to do force protection
2. Provides EOD support to Army and Marine units
3. Runs all of the air-capable bases in both theaters
4. Provides JTACs and FACs for CAS
5. Provices controllers/pararescue for JSOC
Where are the F/A-22s?

Who cared about the rest of the country? The violence was in Anbar and that is why the Marines were in Anbar.

Negative. The most violence was in Baghdad. It spiked in Anbar, just like it spiked in other provinces throughout the war (Diyala, Saladin, Ninevah). The Army was given Baghdad from the word go. It's been pacified for years now thanks to the Army.

Give them time. Army history is rich when it comes to Army generals making positive and grand statements in regards to the Marines in their midst.

So there aren't any quotes...just as I thought. You can admit you were wrong now.

That's because I didn't state any of this. Your Black Hawk Down incident was a military blunder and a clear example of how soldiers are the ones with that closed sense mentality. There was no TRAP set up and no reserves. Soldiers like to blame Clinton for this and state that he made them do a mission without the proper support (Marines had left), but in the end the Army chose to conduct the mission the way it did.

You original inference that U.S. Army Rangers and Delta Force aren't good Soldiers and somehow what happened in Mogudishu was their own fault is totally rediculous...and your insinuation that if "only the Marines" had been given the mission that day, it would have turned out better

 

[Scorpion89]

Yes read what I said. I said that CAG has a higher skill level than a MEUSOC are you really trying to argue that. There is a reason that CAG is the DODs highest priortiy unit and not a MEUSOC. And that is only a meusoc not DEVGRU or anyone else. And I hate to break it to you but DEVGRU has been in Iraq and Astan. Do you really not know that. Look I have never said anything bad about ST6 they are great operators. The only thing I did was to compare CAG to a MEUSOC that is it, nothing more.

I disagree with your assesment that CAG is the US Highest Priortiy Unit if so then why don't they have there won Air Support units. They must have USAF 1st SOG or 4th SOG move them and the 160th SOAP.

I hate to break it to you but SEAL Team 6 hasn't been in Iraq or The Agfan since 2003 I listed which SEAL Teams are in Country right now if you like I can list you which Teams will be relieving the and when the Harvest Hawks will be on Station. Also when SEAL Team 6 was in Iraq it was only three Mite Teams from Alpha and Echo Division who happen to be TDY in Germany at the time.

 

[braindrain]

I disagree with your assesment that CAG is the US Highest Priortiy Unit if so then why don't they have there won Air Support units. They must have USAF 1st SOG or 4th SOG move them and the 160th SOAP.

I hate to break it to you but SEAL Team 6 hasn't been in Iraq or The Agfan since 2003 I listed which SEAL Teams are in Country right now if you like I can list you which Teams will be relieving the and when the Harvest Hawks will be on Station. Also when SEAL Team 6 was in Iraq it was only three Mite Teams from Alpha and Echo Division who happen to be TDY in Germany at the time.

That is fine if you disagree with me I really dont care but CAG seems to think they are since they put that on all their recruitment emails.
I never said that they are there right now. I said they have been in Iraq

 

[kansaswhig]

I disagree with your assesment that CAG is the US Highest Priortiy Unit if so then why don't they have there won Air Support units. They must have USAF 1st SOG or 4th SOG move them and the 160th SOAP.

I'm pretty sure CAG is tops. And it's 160th SOAR

 

[oldreliable67]

Despite all the pissing-contest aspects (or maybe it is because of them?), this has actually been a very entertaining and informative thread, especially for an old used up 11 Bravo from Vietnam days, and a father whose son is currently a tanker with the 1st Armored Div in Iraq.

Many thanks to all who have contributed. But most of all, thanks for your service.

 

[samsmart]

Good choice. Definitely don't pick rear echelon Army medics. For us, regulations were meant to be broken; and military courtesy & discipline was something other service members did :mrgreen:

They made a TV show for 11 years about that, you know.

 

[EnigmaO01]

There are no Green Berets deployed on forward naval vessels and they are far from being like SEALs.

Are you sure? My father who was a Green Beret during the Vietnam era trained in scuba, underwater demolitions and even trained with the Danish equivalent of our Seals. You can all them Army but they still had to swim many kilometers and train to swim up torpedo tubes.

My dad also served on a river boat in Vietnam and climbed into VC tunnels. He also was on a POW rescue mission in North Vietnam. For some reason they had them, at least the Green Berets of that era, dong a little bit of everything.

I agree with you 100 percent that different entities have different missions but sometimes apparently the lines are blurred. And poo on the poster that has now idea why we have troops with all kinds of capabilities. If anything we need more of them theses days fighting an asymmetrical enemy.