qrayjack
10-11-2007, 05:38 AM
Marines Press to Remove Their Forces From Iraq - By THOM SHANKER
WASHINGTON, Oct. 10 — The Marine Corps is pressing to remove its forces from Iraq and to send marines instead to Afghanistan, to take over the leading role in combat there, according to senior military and Pentagon officials.
The idea by the Marine Corps commandant would effectively leave the Iraq war in the hands of the Army while giving the Marines a prominent new role in Afghanistan, under overall NATO command.
The suggestion was raised in a session last week convened by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and regional war-fighting commanders. While still under review, its supporters, including some in the Army, argue that a realignment could allow the Army and Marines each to operate more efficiently in sustaining troop levels for two wars that have put a strain on their forces.
MORE (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/washington/11military.html?ei=5 065&en=b04c82f5948a21e0&ex=1192680000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print)
*I think I understand the reasoning behind this strategy, but am unsure if it would accomplish what is being stated. And you'll notice that the NYT gave the piece a totally misleading headline.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 10 — The Marine Corps is pressing to remove its forces from Iraq and to send marines instead to Afghanistan, to take over the leading role in combat there, according to senior military and Pentagon officials.
The idea by the Marine Corps commandant would effectively leave the Iraq war in the hands of the Army while giving the Marines a prominent new role in Afghanistan, under overall NATO command.
The suggestion was raised in a session last week convened by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and regional war-fighting commanders. While still under review, its supporters, including some in the Army, argue that a realignment could allow the Army and Marines each to operate more efficiently in sustaining troop levels for two wars that have put a strain on their forces.
MORE (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/washington/11military.html?ei=5 065&en=b04c82f5948a21e0&ex=1192680000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print)
*I think I understand the reasoning behind this strategy, but am unsure if it would accomplish what is being stated. And you'll notice that the NYT gave the piece a totally misleading headline.