Why are (were) the US Marines in Iraq/Afghanistan?

[Stefan_S]

What purpose did the Marines serve in post-Invasion Iraq/Afghanistan? I understand their role in the initial invasion, their amphibious assault specialty, etc., but what did they do post-war?

The US Army is larger, with a bigger support element. The Marines are smaller, quicker, and are more combat orientated.

So, back to the question, what was the reason of their presence in post-war Iraq/Afghanistan? Couldn't the Army do without them?

 

[42RM]

The only purpose they have in life, is to piss the rest of us off! :angel:

The answer is pretty obvious, I think.
Primarily to maintain security in that **** hole of a country.

 

[Gator]

The Marines are a Corps of the United States Navy.
The Marines are the Land Fighting Force for the U.S. Navy.

The U.S. Army has many Corps, (used to have the Air Corps, before the Air Corps broke away to form the U.S. Air Force) The U.S. Army can get really small when need be, the U.S. Army is quick, and is combat orientated.


Could the Army have fought in OIF and OEF without the Marines?
Sure. The Army fought in Europe in World War II without the Marines.
The Marines were busy in the Pacific Theater, with the Army, Island hopping.

But why would the Army choose to fight without the Marines in the new wars?
The Marines do not have anything better to do, and are a valued and integral part of the United States Military.

 

[ezlead]

They are a tremendous fighting force! They kick ass and take names. Why would you not want them there.

 

[03USMC]

You better tell those Marines in A'stan that running combat patrols that it's "post-war" there General.

 

[Stefan_S]

You better tell those Marines in A'stan that running combat patrols that it's "post-war" there General.

Well, that is true, I overlooked that fact. So I guess this question goes more towards Iraq. Once the Iraqi military was defeated, couldn't the US Army take over?

Did the marines have a special purpose in Iraq 'post-war'?

 

[AVON]

Sorry for posting so late!

The US ground troops were in Iraq and are in Afghistan were chasing Al Queada out of these countries. The US does not want another Viet Nam type situation, where the USA supports one faction of the government but, another faction is not so friendly to the USA. The USA helps establish a new government and the USA does not want its another government to be toppled. The opposit of what happened in North Viet Nam where a peace treaty was signed and, within eighteen months the the US sponsored government had fallen and the North Viet Namese formed a new government!

 

[m16musicc]

everybody is an expert. lol

 

[84RFK]

The Marines are a Corps of the United States Navy.
The Marines are the Land Fighting Force for the U.S. Navy.

The U.S. Army has many Corps, (used to have the Air Corps, before the Air Corps broke away to form the U.S. Air Force) The U.S. Army can get really small when need be, the U.S. Army is quick, and is combat orientated.


Could the Army have fought in OIF and OEF without the Marines?
Sure. The Army fought in Europe in World War II without the Marines.
The Marines were busy in the Pacific Theater, with the Army, Island hopping.

But why would the Army choose to fight without the Marines in the new wars?
The Marines do not have anything better to do, and are a valued and integral part of the United States Military.

Or simply because the Navy wanted to contribute, and it's a tough task to relocate an entire Aircraft Carrier-group to Afghanistan without proper intel, so they sendt the Marines to do the recon.. :mrgreen:

 

[LeEnfield]

Why shouldn't they be there as they are a fighting force

 

[m551sheridan]

maybe they are there simply because they're

tis common knowledge in these parts that they ain't so bright....

 

[brinktk]

It's very simple, the reason the Marines were called to stay in Iraq was because the US military was unprepared for the occupation of Iraq after the initial invasion. The troop requirement at the begining of the war was substantial and the Army by itself would have had an even harder time shouldering this burden without the help of the Marine Corps. At the begining of the Iraq war there were only about half a million active duty soldiers and about 190,000 Marines. The troop requirements in Iraq and Afganistan at this time was over 150,000 by themselves, growing to about 240,000 by 2008...this isn't taking into account other areas where the US had troop requirments.

The Army grew to meet these requirements in the ensuing years of the war topping out at about 620,000 by 2010 and the Marines also grew their numbers to accomodate the wars, growing to about 220,000 by 2010.

This is why about half the troop burden in Iraq from 2004 to 2008 was from the reserves and National Guard. We don't continuously keep the same soldiers in theater until the job is done like we did in WWII. The Army had 12, then 15 month rotations for units going into these countries up until 2011. The Marines went from 6 to upwards of 8-9 and even 12 month rotations up until they pulled out completely from Iraq in 2010 where they picked up a more prominent role in Afghanistan from that point forward.

The Marines traditionally have a more active role in counter insurgency and small wars than any other service because they are expeditionary by nature. Yes, they are primarily to be employed as an amphibious force to establish beachheads for further combat operations. But, this is by no means their only purpose. They have shouldered significant burdens in every major operation the US military has been in since WWII to include Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Desert Storm, Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan, and finally Iraq, just to name the major ones.

The Marines have been using the Marine Expiditionary Unit concept for decades where an entire Marine Regiment is deployed for 6 months at a time ready to respond where ever the President needs them. There is a reason they are called the US's 911 force. They have the capability to conduct protracted combat operations...why not use it?