October 10, 2007: The eerie quiet from Iraq

Something strange may be going on in Iraq. According to our peace-loving, Bush-bashing friends at the NYT - Marines Press to Remove Their Forces From Iraq.

Come again... The Marines want to leave Iraq, apparently for Afghanistan? Why? The Marines always want to go where the action is. Could it be we are actually winning the Iraq War? What would that mean? Bad news for neocons, I guess....

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

Could be any of several things.

The most straightforward answer (as the article points out) is that you have the army deployed in two actions, one of which is shared with the marines. It would be logistically easier to move all the marines to Afghanistan-- then each service would be in just one area. Far less complicated in terms of command and resupply. In terms of troops commmitted in each area, and by each service, nothing changes, just a less tangled logistical train.

On the other hand, if the commanders on the ground see Iraq as lost (either because we're losing it on the ground or losing support due to anti-war politicking at home), they may be protecting their service. Whatever Clinton/Obama/Pelosi/Reid say, their anti-war constituency will push (are pushing) for a hasty pullout. But they might (at least initially) keep us in Afghanistan.

So I wouldn't read more into the article than interservice rivalry, combined with questions about what the political leaders will do, combined with genuine concern for streamlining operations.

I'm not a guy who subscribes to your view that either party would have done the same thing in the same circumstances. Decisions that seem inevitable in retrospect can be very opaque when you're facing them.

Posted by: Wellspring at October 11, 2007 5:48 AM

Oh common Roger, we all know it was Joe Wilson that went to Iraq to find out if blackwater was selling yellow cake.

Wilson's wife had to beg off. She's pitching a book deal.

As soon as blackwater black-ops were exposed Chaney and Patreus had to back off.

"Iraq is lost", Commander Harry Reid said so. That's why the marines are getting out. ;)

BTW Roger, wouldn't Totten be a good fit at Pajamas?

Posted by: Lem at October 11, 2007 6:50 AM

Blackwater and Niger.

I can't put my finger on it. But as CSI to the stars Henry Lee once said "Something wrong".

Posted by: Lem at October 11, 2007 7:01 AM

Noticed that, did you? I had the same thought (although, as a member of an Air Force and Navy family, I must fulfill family obligations by also noting that Jarheads like places with good press coverage and the recent suspicious silence about Iraq can't be comforting to that urge.)

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at October 11, 2007 7:07 AM

As is usual with the Times, AP and others, it is
the headline which is misleading. After reading the article I would have made the headline:

MARINES EAGER TO PRESS FIGHT AGAINST TALIBAN NOW THAT IRAQ IS SLOWING DOWN.

Posted by: TedM at October 11, 2007 9:30 AM

Haven't read the article yet, but a tangential thought occurs to me based on TedM's comment:

The Marines are trained to be shock troops, an aggressive, attacking force that is always thinking about moving forward, taking the fight to the enemy. You use them where resistance needs to be broken (cf. storming the beaches at Iwo Jima, etc.). They are not garrison troops; they are not designed to hunker down (a problem with how they were employed in Lebanon in '83 and, at certain times, in Vietnam), nor are they designed to keep a quiet sector quiet.

Anecdotal and statistical signs point to Iraq quieting down in the face of the Surge. If Iraq is going to be more about garrison and civic affairs duty in the future, then I suspect the Marines understand that that's better left to the Army.

Posted by: Doug S. at October 11, 2007 1:09 PM

Email This Post