Marines shifting out of Iraq...

[Ender]

I know there's a couple other people on this board in the military and some others who were. I was wondering if ya'll have heard about the Marines shifting out of Iraq and into Afghanistan. The current Commandant wants to focus the Marine Corps solely on Afghanistan and pull all Marines out of Iraq. It applies mostly to the other branches in that the reason for this shift is that the Marine Corps has very little training and resources for humanitarian work and rebuilding and since there is very little actual fighting going on in Iraq anymore it makes sense for us to hand it over to the Army. It seems to be somewhat of a foreshadowing of US troop withdrawal from Iraq. Would you guys agree with that last sentiment. Based on your experiences does it seem that the military is decreasing their presence in Iraq and focusing more on Afghanistan?

[Makh]

This is not new if I recall, but without being hight rank officer strategist, my opinion is they will be put to better use there. You people had not enough man, I think now all Nato has barely 50,000. We could not control the country with 120,000 so 50,000 is insufficient.

Slowly, very slowly, but surely, NATO realize they will not control the land if they do nothing about Pakistan. About that cursed border with an almost infinite pool of jihadists on other side. I am talking abouts that rock age tribes land in the northern area. Foreign warriors from various muslim countries, in both wars, have always been the major problem of Afghanistan. At least, for now, as far as I know, Talibans are not secretly supported by big foreign powers.

[collegestudent22]

We could not control the country with 120,000 so 50,000 is insufficient.

Just going to point out that the Soviets did not take over the land of the country. They were attempting to back up the current government, much like the US wars in Korea and Vietnam. In fact, their withdrawal was almost identical to the withdrawal from Vietnam by the US. Also, the US, UK, Saudi's,Egypt, China, Iran, and others backing the mujahideen is much different than a single country, Iran, (and Pakistan, if you include just not doing anything about them) backing jihadists.

That said, I don't think that the problem is so much actual control, as it is dealing with the terrorists. That means an influx of soldiers would be necessary in order to get at them in Pakistan. Furthermore, there are enough soldiers to keep the status quo, but there are not enough to increase the safety of the country. This is why there will be an influx of soldiers. Also, Iraq is stabilizing to the point where we can begin to pull some of our troops out and start handing control back to the Iraqi government.

Another problem in Afghanistan is the corruption within the government. Many government officials are allowing themselves to be bought by Iranians and that is something that also must be fought in Afghanistan, further slowing the progress that government can make for their country.

[Martin Blank]

Enough to keep the status quo? If mean the increasing rate of violence, sure. Afghanistan's government has said that they need more forces. NATO's generals have said that they need more forces. US generals have said that they need more forces. And all of them say that the needed forces are just to plateau the violence.

You seem to have this idea that the Taliban are a group of terrorists in the conventional sense -- a small team of people relying on some relatively light arms to blow up a building or shoot a few people. While they have some people that do that, the Taliban are primarily guerrillas. They excel at asymmetric warfare. To think of them as random terrorists akin to the small groups of ten that pop up in the Middle East and call themselves an army is to seriously underestimate them.

[collegestudent22]

Enough to keep the status quo? If mean the increasing rate of violence, sure.

I mean, obviously it is not moving towards the status quo ante bellum nor the votum statua, but an increasing rate of violence is not what I was referring to. I was referring to the general state of corrupt government, Taliban attacks, and general state of affairs. I was not referring to the rate of violence. Just that the force there is enough to prevent the Taliban from taking back the country at the moment, but not enough to stop them from wearing away at it.

So basically, the status quo means that it is not changing into the status quo ante bellum or the United State's votum statua.

You seem to have this idea that the Taliban are a group of terrorists in the conventional sense

Not really. I would really consider them more like the mujahideen "terrorists", performing raids, etc. The Taliban does use primarily small arms and IEDs. I haven't seen any Taliban tanks driving around....
Now what they use them for is different than a normal terrorist, because they have objectives other than "strike fear into the populace in order to get them to agree to what we want".