The Marine Corps Is Ending The ‘Assaultman’ Infantry MOS. Here’s Why

MSgt Steve Sweeney - Probably not one that you would consider "good". But ultimately we are there because the civilian leadership of our country for the past 16 years has placed us there. Many in the military have advised that we should leave and let the Afghans sort things out, others see risk in that since once again there would be a power vacuum that could be filled by (your guess is as good as mine) and we'd have to have our Marines bleed over that same ground yet again. One side prevailed, in the last Administration as well as this one, so far.

Ultimately, it is the job of the Defense Department to give the elected leadership of the country as many viable options as possible (emphasis on "viable") to respond to conditions around the globe. The next administration could pull all US forces back within the US borders and cut the force in half, but odds are a following Administration would reverse that yet again, and what would we have gained in the end?

I agree in principle with your first point - regarding prioritizing based on national interests. The problem with executing that in real time is the time it takes to reorient - in the 30 years (OK, 29 years, 10 months and 18 days) I was in, the party of the President, and hence the definition of "national interest" changed 4 times. We changed Secretaries of Defense and Services more than that. Not sure how many times the controlling party in each house of Congress changed as well. With the polar opposite views of the world, the near constant reorienting has left the military in disarray.

It takes a decade or so for a new end item to get from R&D, through production and into the force, even more for the more complicated the weapons systems. Forget how fast the rest of the world changes, our own government changes priorities too fast for any solid long-term prediction by the military regarding who, where and with what equipment we will engage next.

LTC Stephen B. - With regard to Afghanistan, personally, I think we are there for the lithium and mineral wealth... before you scoff, consider the explosion in personal electronic devices and the batteries that power those devices, and the potential for military application. Then consider the shift to hybrid vehicles and the batteries that will be needed to power those... And I actually am fine with that if someone would just come out and say it plainly instead of trying to sell us on trying to bring democracy to the peace loving people of Afghanistan. They don't call that country the graveyard of nations for nothing... Pashtunwali endures.

I also am very familiar with how the ship of state zigs and zags under different administrations. Our strength in having an elected government is also a weakness. I have see the planning profiles come and go. 1 full war, 1 regional conflict, 2 military responses (1-1-2 construct)... or whatever it was. And then in the years before I retired it was the orientation toward SOF forces, making SOF more black, and the services more "gray".. Also, the "pivot to the Pacific" and the need for amphibious forces ... or not? We are all over the map.

Maybe it is just a sense of frustration as U.S. interests are global interests and we keep trying to build the one size fits all military that doesn't fit anyone well. It is reflected in our acquisition programs too - I have first hand experience there as well. I am very familiar with the problem of flying toasters, and the movie "Pentagon Wars" rings as true today as the day it was released. (If you have not seen it and have any involvement in acquisitions, I highly recommend it - you will dig it the most). That is how we get things like the F-35... or I could give you a first hand account of a CBRN vehicle that failed dramatically, but was still maintained by the Army because they didn't want to lose the structure and facilities that came along with supporting a failed platform - and the crazy thing is, any one with a rudimentary knowledge of interferometer detectors could have told them there was no possible way the platform would meet the KPPs... But the technicians were silenced by the brass and politicians. But I digress....

MSgt Steve Sweeney - Afghanistan has a host of natural resources that, if developed and marketed freely, would possibly greatly benefit the Afghan people by way of economic growth and all the accompanying benefits of being a contributing member of the international marketplace. Whether elevating Afghanistan to an economic status equivalent of a European country would eventually get the population out of tribal-conflict mode or not - outside my area of expertise. But, (in my opinion) eventually someone will either try to take those resources by force or exploit the corrupt nature of the government to acquire them, given the strategic importance of some of them as you pointed out. Unfortunately when I see a comment like "we're only there for...." I'm reminded of the rant that we were only in Iraq for the oil - as if we were going to cart it off to enrich ourselves. I hope that initial reaction doesn't color my commentary too much :-)

Thanks for the banter on a slow snow day - and Semper Fi, MSgt!

LTC Stephen B. - No, not cart off the oil. Not about taking the oil, just about access to the undeveloped resources and infrastructure for extracting oil. And once again, I don't have a huge problem with being there for the oil if they were simply upfront about it. I don't like the way Iraq was sold on a fantasy about WMDs either. I mean, I did get to see a lot of the country, but I also had friends that didn't come home due to engaging in those fantasies. ... that may have colored my perception.

Snowy here in Virginia too... and the population is losing its collective mind. Keep the caissons rolling, Colonel.