American Foreign Legion

[Eddo36]

What do you think the Air Force is for?

 

Even now, the Army does not have landing craft enough to land a single division, let alone four as the Marines have. The Army does not have fixed wing attack aircraft, the Corps does. The Navy does not have ground support aircraft. The Marines do. At the same time, the Marine Corps does not have heavy armor. The Army does. The Marines have only limited artillery, the Army is well equipped. The Marines do not have anti-missle batteries, and has only 4 LAAD battalions. The Army has many. They are different in equipment, training and doctrine.

Landing crafts... aside from that fact that storming beaches under fire is an obsolete tactic of modern warfare which has the potential of causing mass casualties when modern airpower can bombard strategic targets to require one or carpet bomb the whole place... just build a few landing crafts for the army and put US soldiers into one and viola.... the Army can do D-Day again.

 

All gruntwork are the same and infantrymen are versatile, so why is a separate branch needed for that?

 

And the planes are a job for the Air Force. Why would you join the Marines to be in the Air Wing? Except get into an accident prone Harrier that vertical liftoff capability hasn't seen tactical use in modern times (modern meaning 21st century warfare and not the cannon fodding attrition trench warfare and dumb bombs of the past).

 

 

One other note, every Navy warship and every US Embassy has a Marine Security Forces detachment. Also, the Marines are tasked with security on Air Force One, and provide Marine One to the President of the US.

So an Army soldier is unqualified to do the exact same things as a Marine 0311?

Edited January 19, 2007 by Eddo36

[Guard Dog]

What do you think the Air Force is for?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Marines do not have bombers, stealth technology, long range surveilance air craft, have only a limited air to air combat squadrons, we did not have recon drones and the USAFs electronic warfare is the best in the world. The Marines do not have that. But the USAF is built to operate from air bases from the theater "rear". The Marine Air wings operate from carriers and forward air fields. Plus the Marines have one thing the AF does not, infantry. The AF is built to destroy an enemy's ability to wage war before a campaign begins then support a land campaign conducted by the Army. The Marine Air wings are built to support rapidly deploying infantry and amphibious operations. Diffrent aircraft, different uses. Simply put, the AF is a strategic force, the Marines are a tactical force.

 

In 1991 the B-1s flew from the US all the way to Iraq and then back to complete a single misson. Marine sorties came from Al-Asra or from a carrier in the Gulf. Or Diego Garcia.

[Guard Dog]

If I have not convinced you yet Eddo, I never will. It's your opinion and you are entitled to it. President Truman and Gen McArthur both thought as you do so you are in good company. It cannot be argued that they are the same. They can be made to be the same and I think that is what you believe. I think it would be a mistake. Different tools for different jobs. Then again, my thinking may be out of date. The doctrine of US forces was built around the concept of fighting two major (WWII or larger) conflicts simutaneously. That may never happen. But I'd rather be able to and not have to than have to and not be able to.

[Eddo36]

Well if that's the way you say it is, then theoretically the Marine Air Wing won't see action if USAF gets first dibs (as they do), no?

[Guard Dog]

Well if that's the way you say it is, then theoretically the Marine Air Wing won't see action if USAF gets first dibs (as they do), no?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yep, but as I said, the 4 MAWs are not meant to do what the Air Force can and vice versa.

Edited January 19, 2007 by Guard Dog

[Krookie]

You didn't answer my witty reply!

 

EDIT: Now this post looks absolutely ridiculous. Thanks Fionavar. Thanks.

Edited January 19, 2007 by Krookie

[Fionavar]

Thread Pruned: Discuss the topic, not the person ...

[alanschu]

Sorry Fio.

 

In any case, and I don't think this is a problem, since GuardDog inquired about it:

 

 

GuardDog, Eddo36 was at one time in the USMC, hurt his knee and was medically discharged, and seems to have become disenfranchised with the organization ever since.

[Krookie]

Both the Marines and Army invaded Iraq at about the same time. Troops deploy to the other side of the world only as fast as the Navy ships can take them. They both blitz through the invasion with similar limited protected logistic lines. And both Army and Marines still in Iraq fighting insurgents.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA invade Iraq? Not these newly thought up countries of ARMY and Marine?

[Eddo36]

If I have not convinced you yet Eddo, I never will. It's your opinion and you are entitled to it. President Truman and Gen McArthur both thought as you do so you are in good company. It cannot be argued that they are the same. They can be made to be the same and I think that is what you believe. I think it would be a mistake. Different tools for different jobs. Then again, my thinking may be out of date. The doctrine of US forces was built around the concept of fighting two major (WWII or larger) conflicts simutaneously. That may never happen. But I'd rather be able to and not have to than have to and not be able to.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, your thinking is obsolete.

 

America's military doctrine is spelled out in the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). Here is the 2006 one, and I suggest you read up on it if you want to catch with the current time-

 

http://www.comw.org/qdr/qdr2006.pdf

 

Simply put, airpower means military dominance in the conventional sense (unconventional aspects such as insurgency as in Iraq right now is a different thing), but your mindset is on winning a war conventionally, as in versus another superpower such as China? In that case, the new F-22 Raptors is all that is needed. The Raptor will shoot down all enemy aircraft long before the enemy pilots can obtain visual and get into dogfighting range. Chinese ships won't be able to send troops/supplies to the USA because they will be shot down in the Pacific by USA's airpower.

 

If China needs to be invaded, then a shock and awe campaign on military targets in its homeland starting with anti-air emplacements, like in Baghdad, just that there were too few military targets in Baghdad to hit and political and civil structures were stupidly targeted, messing up the host country's infrastructure and not to mention unneeded civilian casualties. Anyways... BOOM! There goes the Chinese tanks in flames as well as other military targets. Would be a pain in the ass getting troops over to China via ships due to Chinese submarines fast, IMO, unless anti-sub helicopters from destroyers and US submarines clear the area of Chinese subs which may take time. But who needs speed in a war with a big country? Overnight blitzkrieg won't work, China is simply too big. Better option is to attack from a neighboring country. China way too big for the run and gun tactic to work as what the US did in Baghdad neighborhood, so key is to win the hearts and minds, use PsyOps to do psychological operations since Chinese people are under a repressive government they can be incited to revolt once much of China's military is destroyed by USA airpower. Propaganda.

 

USA has weak neighbors (Canada and Mexico) so any other enemy nation that plans on invading USA will need time to move it's force into the USA, and they will be shot down from the air long before.

 

Now I am no Rumsfeld and I am not a hater of large ground toys and infantry, since they have their uses and there are needs to go in various ground engagements (holding ground, clearing out urban areas, etc etc etc, infantry will never be obsolete, sadly). Both Marines Corps and Army infantry/armor are the same when it comes to that job, they both can have units which specialize in rapid deployments, or they both can go in slow and supplied for the long haul, and thus without going through all those bull about how the Army doesn't have AmTracs or an Air Wing or Semper Fi... the Marine Corps is just another US Army, and USA don't need two armies. But planes are the key players in modern conventional warfare. But if you're worried about another superpower, airpower is your answer and not mass buildups of American troops as cannon fodder.

 

Now counter-insurgency is something that needs to be focused on.

 

http://www.cfr.org/publication/12257/

 

If you want to catch up on current times and start wondering why we don't fight with sticks and arrows anymore, you got some catching up to do.

Edited January 19, 2007 by Eddo36

[Purgatorio]

USA has weak neighbors (Canada and Mexico) so any other enemy nation that plans on invading USA will need time to move it's force into the USA, and they will be shot down from the air long before.--Eddo

 

Now that's not right, calling Canadia and Mexico weak. Especially Canadia! :angry:

[Xard]

Indeed, guys who invented curling must some serious motha****as!

[Guard Dog]

Sorry Fio.

 

In any case, and I don't think this is a problem, since GuardDog inquired about it:

 

 

GuardDog, Eddo36 was at one time in the USMC, hurt his knee and was medically discharged, and seems to have become disenfranchised with the organization ever since.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I suspected it was something like that. He said a few things to make me think he was familiar with the service and he is obviously hostile to it.

[Guard Dog]

If you want to catch up on current times and start wondering why we don't fight with sticks and arrows anymore, you got some catching up to do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

All right, that is a fair criticisim. I've been out of the service for ten years now and have not made any real effort to keep up. There is little more I can say on the subject except I think you are wrong so I'll let David Hackworth make my final point for me:

 

THE MARINES HAVE LANDED -- AGAIN

[Weiser_Cain]

I don't agree with having foreign soldiers since I don't think we should or would treat them any different than we do native troops. I'm also against immigration in general.

[Dark_Raven]

USA has weak neighbors (Canada and Mexico) so any other enemy nation that plans on invading USA will need time to move it's force into the USA, and they will be shot down from the air long before.--Eddo

 

Now that's not right, calling Canadia and Mexico weak. Especially Canadia! :angry:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Canada's vast forests make for a good shield from the north.

 

Plus Canada has their Mounties who kick ass Chuck Norris style.

[Azarkon]

use PsyOps to do psychological operations since Chinese people are under a repressive government they can be incited to revolt once much of China's military is destroyed by USA airpower. Propaganda.

 

I know you're just using China as an example but as someone familiar with the politics there I can state with confidence that this strategy won't work. The vast majority of the Chinese people do not feel repressed by the government and certainly won't rally to any "PsyOps" propaganda, sponsored by the US or otherwise. At best, the US would be able to utilize Taiwan and Tibet - but given that they represent maybe 1% of the Chinese population, there would never be any mass revolts. Thus, if a land invasion was to be planned, it'd have to be planned against the backdrop of million-men armies, guerilla and standing. I can't imagine, post-Iraq, any self-respecting military strategist depending on the contingency of people rising against their own government as the means by which to win a war. Saddam Hussein was about as bad as they come, after all - he's certainly no Hu Jintao, who commands significant popularity (moreso than Bush in the US, certainly).

 

Which is partly the reason why all this talk about the Army and the Marines is missing the forest for the trees - war with another superpower will, foremost, not be fought with volunteer forces! No great war in the history of modernity was fought between volunteer armies - conscription is a necessity of scale, and any conventional war with another great power will require conscription on a massive level. Of course, that's why many military strategists believe that the great wars of the future will not be conventional (precisely because the countries are too big to invade and conscription is too taxing on the modern life style).

 

We're getting way off-topic, by the way.

Edited January 19, 2007 by Azarkon

[Eddo36]

If you want to catch up on current times and start wondering why we don't fight with sticks and arrows anymore, you got some catching up to do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

All right, that is a fair criticisim. I've been out of the service for ten years now and have not made any real effort to keep up. There is little more I can say on the subject except I think you are wrong so I'll let David Hackworth make my final point for me:

 

THE MARINES HAVE LANDED -- AGAIN

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Umm is it me or does all that article says is that the Marines "rapidly deployed" to Aghanistan after the war ended, since the war with the Taliban was conducted and won by airstrikes and raids by special forces. The current insurgency in Afghanistan is being fought by grunts from the Marine Corps and Army, so it is no difference. You say that you think I am wrong, but I don't think you can back up that statement since this is the 21st century.

[Guard Dog]

You say that you think I am wrong, but I don't think you can back up that statement since this is the 21st century.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It doesn't matter what I say at this point. You have an axe to grind and that is your perogative. As to your original point, so far the majority have been against destroying the Marine Corps and creating a "foreign legion". I'm against it because of what I stated in my original post. As Azarkon said, were way off the path here and you an I debating the Corps relevance is pretty pointless. We are not going to agree.

[Eddo36]

use PsyOps to do psychological operations since Chinese people are under a repressive government they can be incited to revolt once much of China's military is destroyed by USA airpower. Propaganda.

 

I know you're just using China as an example but as someone familiar with the politics there I can state with confidence that this strategy won't work. The vast majority of the Chinese people do not feel repressed by the government and certainly won't rally to any "PsyOps" propaganda, sponsored by the US or otherwise. At best, the US would be able to utilize Taiwan and Tibet - but given that they represent maybe 1% of the Chinese population, there would never be any mass revolts. Thus, if a land invasion was to be planned, it'd have to be planned against the backdrop of million-men armies, guerilla and standing. I can't imagine, post-Iraq, any self-respecting military strategist depending on the contingency of people rising against their own government as the means by which to win a war. Saddam Hussein was about as bad as they come, after all - he's certainly no Hu Jintao, who commands significant popularity (moreso than Bush in the US, certainly).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I was thinking gun runs like what the US military did in Baghdad- armed convoys going through the streets into the city blasting and then they go out. But on a much, much larger scale. As in the convoys doing the gun running would be entire armored divisions, supported by airpower they would be unstoppable. Several armor divisions cut through China in multiple lines just like slicing a pie, dividing and isolating the enemy controled area to where they are flanked all around, and take the surrounded territory one at a time. It won't work without close air support, of course, but air support is had.

 

There will be no front line, rather the battle lines are the cuts the convoy makes in China like cuts through pie, as heavily guarded logistics lines (also guarded with airpower) that can be moved as needed.

Edited January 20, 2007 by Eddo36

[Azarkon]

The US does not have enough manpower, conscription or no conscription, to divide and isolate a country the size of China. The sheer logistics would spread the lines of armor so thin that entire regiments would be able to move through the gaps. Besides, they know their land alot better than you, and there are many hills and forests in China to hide in.

 

Considering that the US can barely divide and isolate in a country the size of Iraq (actually, it's more the opposite, with the insurgents in the country side and the US being hemmed into strategic points) despite having 130,000+ troops there, I really can't imagine how it'd work for China, which has something like ten times the landmass, twenty times the population, and sophisticated military weaponry.

 

The sort of tactics you're arguing about sounds like something straight from the US invasion of Iraq - but then Saddam's standing army barely did any fighting prior to the transition into guerilla warfare, and once guerilla warfare began the US started losing ground. For a conflict between major powers, the US won't simply be able to waltz in and shock & awe the enemy into submission. In fact, the US wasn't even able to do this in Vietnam - despite utilizing some of the most destructive non-nuclear weapons ever invented.

 

I can't, therefore, see how think tanks would still consider the strategy viable as a means of conquest. Warfare has moved on since the days of trench captures and blitzkriegs - today military conflict between major powers is waged by proxy and technology, and battles are fought between guerillas and occupiers. In such an environment, beating the enemy on the battlefield is no longer what determines victory in a war - being able to occupy, rebuild, and effectively deal with an invasion's aftermath is.

 

And really, in this arena, the US can't even wage an effective campaign in Iraq, much less tackle the billions of China.

Edited January 20, 2007 by Azarkon

[Eddo36]

That's the reason I suggested an American Foreign Legion. Manpower without conscription. There would be no shortage of qualified able-bodied fighters wanting to get into the US. Maybe even half the Chinese army.

 

And what better organization to discipline them than the USMC.

Edited January 20, 2007 by Eddo36

[Azarkon]

Mercenary (and I call them mercenary because their loyalty would clearly be to the organization, and not the nation) armies of the size you imagine would play very well into a future dominated by mega-corporations and their private armies. But in terms of how it'd help America, I'm highly cynical. Such a blatant display of imperialist overtones is bound to unite the world against the threat posed by the US, and though the French Foreign Legion is renowned as an elite fighting force, it is kept so by virtue of being relatively small and focused in its objectives. What you seem to want the Foreign Legion to do (ie be the bulk of an invasion against massive countries like China) precludes such a criteria, as you'd have to favor quantity over quality.

 

It's also highly questionable whether granting citizenship to such a large body of soldiers is in the American public interest. With small, elite armies you can keep the membership down to a premium and elect only the best for citizenship. With a massive army - the size of which can defend the US empire - the situation is alot more complicated and you could easily descend into the "unruly masses" category of Legion composition, which would leave a bad taste in people's mouths both in the US and where the Legion is deployed.

 

And of course, the larger the army becomes, the harder it is to control. If the French Foreign Legion should revolt, not much would happen because it's not capable of doing significant damage beyond its immediate deployed vicinities. But if an army the size you imagine should revolt, the results could be catastrophic. Course, you might argue that USMC discipline would keep the Legion in order, but my impression of large mercenary armies in history is that they tend to go sour, sooner or later, and eventually contribute to the decline of the empires they served.

Edited January 20, 2007 by Azarkon

[metadigital]

That's the reason I suggested an American Foreign Legion. Manpower without conscription. There would be no shortage of qualified able-bodied fighters wanting to get into the US. Maybe even half the Chinese army.

 

And what better organization to discipline them than the USMC.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"no shortage"?

 

Really, you do sabotage your own arguments, when given enough space to type them out.

 

Talking about the US even contemplating a conventional war with China is beyond silly.

 

For a start, both nations have stockpiles of (secret!) germ warfare. The first thing either country would do is try to decimate the other with fatalities, and (even moreso) overload the infrastructure will the ill. (The M-16 was designed not to kill, but to maim a human body on a grand scale, so as to keep the medical facilities busy.)

 

But even this is total fantasy. The US wouldn't attack China, because China would never give them a reason to: the Chinese were expert diplomats when Europeans were still fighting each other for the best animal skins to wear. And the US isn't going to mount an offensive attack on China. What a way to destroy their nation.

 

China will use the capitalism to become pre-eminent. (Chinese culture has always incorporated whatever innovation has been brought to it.)

 

The real battle for this century, I feel, will be for the government of China: they have already admitted that they are no longer communist; now they say they are a building a socialist marketplace ... but really it is just a capitalist country. Therefore the government can't defend its one-party policy. That is what will be interesting: the next change of government in China ...

[Guard Dog]

To add to what Meta said (which I agree with by the way), China has had MFN status with the US for over 14 years now. Our economy is so entertwined with theirs neither could afford to be enemies. Haier, LG, Container, just to name a few are all Chinese owned companies that do most of their business in the US. Tens of thousands of Chinese are employed in manufacturing contracts with US companies. All of those businesses weild a lot of influence in both governments. There will not be a war.