Readiness of ousted spec ops unit questioned

[CommunityEditor]

From the article --

The recent expulsion from Afghanistan of the Marine Corps’ first special operations company did more than just put the relatively new leatherneck command in the spotlight. It has made many question whether the company was up to the task in the first place.

The removal of Marine Special Operations Company-Fox came sometime after a March 4 suicide attack and ambush on the Marines’ convoy in Afghanistan left at least eight Afghans dead and another 34 wounded along a highway, about a month after the company had arrived in the country.

The Marines’ response on that day is under scrutiny by at least one major investigation. The region’s top commander, Army Maj. Gen. Frank Kearney — head of U.S. Special Operations Command-Central Command — ordered the expulsion, citing concerns about the unit’s ability to conduct counterinsurgency in the area, a spokesman for Kearney said March 23.

The Army-led investigation into the incident is continuing, and officials were mum on details of the incident. A Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command spokesman said the company would rejoin the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit — with whom it deployed from the East Coast in January — and take on other spec-ops missions in the region as needed.

But conversations in some Marine circles — both active and retired — and on the Internet since the expulsion have stirred speculation about the company’s reassignment, and the Corps’ future in the world of spec ops.


Get the full story: http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news...xpelled070330/


Disscuss this incident here.

[The Universal Curmudgeon_guest]

Originally Posted by CommunityEditor

From the article --

[i]The recent expulsion from Afghanistan of the Marine Corps’ first special operations company did more than just put the relatively new leatherneck command in the spotlight. It has made many question whether the company was up to the task in the first place.

Disscuss this incident here.

Just so that all the Marines don't feel like they are being picked on, 1SO Coy (USMC) isn't the first unit to have its readiness and training level questioned in Afghanistan.

10th Mountain almost called down a deliberate shoot on allied positions due to inept communications, completely inadequate liason, and an almost total lack of understanding what it was doing (well, beyond "Hey, if'n ah calz duh artilurie an dey goez 'BANG, BOOM, BANG' den ah getz ta kill uh whol buncha whateverz. But dey probly ain' Mericun so who carez."). Fortunately there happened to be a LO from the allied force at the site where the artillery barrage was being ordered from who said (and I have it on reasonably good authority that the following is a reasonably accurate quote) "What the FUCK do you ASSHOLES think you are doing. Those are friendly troops you are about to kill.". 10th Mountain wasn't kicked out of Afghanistan, but it WAS told, in no uncertain terms, that they would be very very very very sorry if they ever did anything like that again. Considering the reputation of the Batallion that told 10th Mountain that, the folks at 10th Mountain HQ governed their future actions accordingly.

I also understand that both the Brits and Canadians aren't all that thrilled when they are told that pilots from the __(fill in the blank with the name of any state you want)__ State Air National Guard will be providing air support.

Maybe if the various branches of the US military all stopped competing with each other for fame and glory (thereby avoiding another cluster **** like Grenada) and just settled in to doing what their particular job was things would improve. The way that things are going, I fully expect to see the US Army making a bid to have its own aircraft carrier (heck, they've got aircraft, dont they) and the USN trying to slip tanks into its budget (heck, not all sailors are based on water - right).

To bad the 10th mountain is a regular army division and not a suposedly Special Operations Qualified one. You Marine jokers should stick to guarding boats and Embassies and let the Army do the heavy lifting. While in Iraq I drove thousands of miles on MSRs and ASRs and the AIF only took on shot at my convoys but EVERY time we drove through Anbar some retart would throw a flash bang at us and shoot a few "warning shots" in to one of my trucks radiators. So who's the stupid ones, calling Artillery on a suspected enemy or shooting a huge Tan truck that said US ARMY all over it?

[The Universal Curmudgeon_guest]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

To bad the 10th mountain is a regular army division and not a suposedly Special Operations Qualified one.

You might note that I didn't say that the 10th Mountain was a USMC unit, but that I said that it was a "unit". If you need me to be more specific, it is a "US military unit", but I think that you already knew that from context.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

You Marine jokers should stick to guarding boats and Embassies and let the Army do the heavy lifting.

For some reason you seem to think that I am a "Marine joker" - I'm not. I started out in the Engineers and then as my mental facilities declined slid over to the Infantry via Armour.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

While in Iraq I drove thousands of miles on MSRs and ASRs and the AIF only took on shot at my convoys but EVERY time we drove through Anbar some retart would throw a flash bang at us and shoot a few "warning shots" in to one of my trucks radiators.

So it would appear that you agree that 1SO Coy isn't the only US military unit that is "slightly" defective in training levels.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

So who's the stupid ones, calling Artillery on a suspected enemy or shooting a huge Tan truck that said US ARMY all over it?

A good question.

Of course the answer sort of depends on whether the "suspected enemy position" is actually a known, identified, and mapped allied position where known allied troops are carrying out a known operation that has previously been approved and noted all the way up and down the chain of command (and who aren't even shooting in your general direction) or not - doesn't it?

It might also sort of depend on what the "huge tan truck that said US ARMY all over it" was doing - mightn't it?

As a soldier, anybody that would start out a comment by disparaging the marines is insulting to me. If it says "U.S." in front of it then it is good. I love the US Army and and proud to be a soldier. I also love that my fellow citizens choose to serve our republic in the Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. Anybody that thinks the Army and Marines are in competition is just an idiot. They have different missions, different capabilities, and anybody who feels the need to think one is "better" than the other is just a weakling in mind and probably in body. I am a rifleman in the US Army. I am proud as hell that I am in the US infantry. I consider Marine infantrymen my brothers. I consider Army logistics specialists as soldiers serving my nation, and I am proud of them. I love the US Air Force for what it can do for me and for my nation. Without the US Navy - the most dominant navy in the history of humanity - we wouldn't eat regularly - hell, we wouldn't be deployable in the first place.

As for the "who is tougher / harder/ better trained" and all that crap, a wuss marine is a wuss. A wuss soldier is a wuss. If you are good at your job then you are good at your job. If your unit is good then it is good. If not then it is not. You can't tell that by learning only if it is the USMC or US Army involved - and anybody that thinks you can is a civilian or a first-term newbie with his head up his fourth point of contact.

A few years ago, on June 14th, a marine told me "Happy birthday, Army." I have always been impressed by that. Idiots like the knucklehead who started out calling the Marines names do not represent the Army. Anybody that has ever been under fire knows that you love anybody on your side, and the Army and Marines are on the same side.

Hooah.

[ENGINE1DECKGUN]

Well written, look at Fallujah, brothers all. Semper fI

If so well trained, why did they then travel down a road for several miles shooting at civilians? You do not win a counter-insurgency by killing civilians. You do just the reverse -- you increase the support for those who want the Americans out of there. You make the fundamentalists stronger, and the moderates weaker. This shoot first and ask questions later did not work in Vietnam, and it will not work in Muslim countries. There is a disconnect between the generals and the men actually on the ground. Not enough time spent in training soldiers to deal with civilians. American policy makers and military leaders would do well studying the defeat of the insurgency in Malaya by the British.

[CommunityEditor]

Latest update: http://www.militarytimes.com/news/20...igation070411/

[The Universal Curmudgeon_guest]

Originally Posted by CommunityEditor

Latest update: http://www.militarytimes.com/news/20...igation070411/

It is somewhat difficult to know what to make of "... has determined that special operations Marines accused of killing civilians after a suicide bombing in Afghanistan last month used excessive force ..." and "... concluded that the Marines’ response was “out of proportion to the threat that was immediately there, ...” especially when coupled with "referred the case to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service for a broader inquiry".

It could mean that the investigator has formed the opinion that "culpable acts" were performed, and it might also mean that the investigator has formed the opinion that no one will believe that "culpable acts" were NOT performed UNLESS there is a fuller, and more public inquiry.

I'm not sure which of the two is the worst. If the first, then the reputation of the US military (amongst Iraqis) is going to be further(?) degraded. If the second, then the reputation of the US military (amongst Americans) has already been degraded to the point where people aren't likely to believe that a "normal" investigation is going to come anywhere near revealing the truth.

The one thing that, I suppose, we could conclude is that the investigator decided that there was an odour more than vaguely reminiscent of three day old fish about the affair and wasn't about to put HIS career on the line by signing off with anything that could be remotely confused as a definative statement on the affair.

Actually, I expect that we could also predict that the shit (if shit there be) will fall on the enlisted personnel (maybe an NCO or two) to the point where there won't be any left over for "seniour management".

When the powers that be sent MSOC to take on the Taliban they should have realized Marines always attack to the "sound of the gun"....no pussyfooting...just overwhelm them by fire and manuever. Sometimes
innocents get caught in the mix....a tragic outcome of war. If they wanted to check ID's of those doing the shooting/bombing they should have sent the MP's. If you want to kill the enemy and break up their stuff....
send the Marines!