The Political Chase

Redeploying the Marines

Maybe it’s due to the late hour or the fact that I’ve been running well below par physically for the past several days, but I’m having trouble grasping what the real substance is in a piece the Times has headlined today. The piece is about the alleged advantages of shuffling the Marines and the Army around from their current positions in Iraq and Afghanistan. My best guesses now are: (1) the changes are strategic, but more realistically administrative shuffling due to a new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs; (2) a tactical shell game to obfuscate the number of troops in Iraq; (3) or a more sinister plot to enhance flank positions around Iran. Iran is directly between Iraq (east of Iraq) and Afghanistan (west of Afghanistan). See a map here. 

There is another possible scenario — positioning more troops in Afghanistan to support an escalated effort to attack al-Qaeda along the Afghan-Pakistani border.  President Bush actually focusing on Public Enemy No. 1? That makes too much sense and thereby could not possibly coexist in George Bush’s strategy to dominating the world. There is too much oil in Iran and Iraq for the Decider to be distracted with less trivial items such as Osama bin Laden.

Summarizing, the Marines have about 25,000 troops in Iraq (current total U.S. troops = 160,000) and none in Afghanistan (current total U.S. troops = 26,000). The idea is to move many, if not all, redeploy the Marine troops from Iraq to Afghanistan and maybe move the existing troops in Afghanistan (Army & Air Force) to Iraq, although that’s not specifically stated in the piece. According to the Times, the Marines are self-sustaining (air, ground, logistics, support, etc.), whereas the Army is co-dependent on other branches of the military for air support, logistics, etc.

The Marines are reportedly pressing for the pea-shell-game-move, but it is “still under review.” Those supporting the change (no clear buy-in from the Army yet), have said the “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.”

Oddly enough, in one paragraph of the piece there is an implication Defense Secretary Gates and other high military muckity-mucks may be supportive of the move and discussed the plan “in a session last week convened by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and regional war-fighting commanders.” However, a few paragraphs later a somewhat contrasting statement is made.

Mr. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have not spoken publicly about the Marine concept, and aides to both officials said no formal proposal had been presented by the Marines. But the idea has been the focus of intense discussions between senior Marine Corps officers and other officials within the Defense Department.

Further confusing the matter, the Times stirs the mix with these statements regarding Gates, his knowledge, and what has been presented.

The Marine Corps concept was raised last week during a Defense Senior Leadership Conference convened by Mr. Gates just hours after Admiral Mullen was sworn in as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

During that session, the idea of assigning the Afghan mission to the Marines was described by Gen. James T. Conway, the Marine Corps commandant. Details of the discussion were provided by military officers and Pentagon civilian officials briefed on the session and who requested anonymity to summarize portions of the private talks.

I presume that is more detail on the earlier statement about a meeting on the proposed changes that was “convened by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and regional war-fighting commanders.” The salient point may be that the meeting was called by Gates “just hours after” Mullen, the new Chairman of the JCS was sworn in.

OK, so maybe it’s just a bit of administrative shuffling due to Gen. Peter Pace’s demise and the subsequent rise of Mullen, but if that’s the case, it seems quite weak for a top of the fold story.

There is a lot of fudging with respect to what Gates and other high muckity-mucks are doing, have been told, various meetings being called, and implicit approvals accompanied by somewhat conflicting denials. I’m a cynic, therefore I don’t put much credence to the administrative shuffle notion. There is one passage that may support it, but it’s far too ambiguous to limit it’s scope to administrative shuffle.

[T]he idea represents the first tangible new thinking to emerge since the White House last month endorsed a plan to begin gradual troop withdrawals from Iraq, but also signals that American forces likely will be in Iraq for years to come.

What do you think?