GovernmentExecutive.com

Marine Corps Commandant James Conway warned today he would not have the manpower to boost the number of Marines in Afghanistan beyond the level announced recently by Defense Secretary Robert Gates while continuing to maintain a significant presence in Iraq. The four-star general raised concerns about the stress on the Marines, many of whom have spent as much time deployed to war zones as they have at home over the last several years.

"Our Corps is not big enough to do both. We cannot have one foot in Afghanistan and one foot in Iraq," Conway said. "If there is a determination to send more Marines into Afghanistan, I certainly would respectfully request that we reduce our presence in Iraq."

Earlier this month, Gates decided to send 3,200 Marines to Afghanistan to stop an expected spring uprising by the Taliban. Gates, who is urging NATO forces to take the place of the additional Marines after their seven-month deployments are up, has said that the 3,200-troop force is a "one-time plus-up."

Meanwhile, Conway stressed the need to continue to enlarge the Marine Corps by 27,000 members and acknowledged that he may try to accelerate those efforts. For years, lawmakers have advocated augmenting the nation's ground forces, but Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., and others have questioned whether last year's commitment by the Bush administration to grow the Army and Marine Corps may be too little too late.

"There are critics that say, 'Wait a second, by the time we get those troops, even if it's 2010, there's going to be reductions of your requirements elsewhere and you probably won't need those people and we're probably not going to see another major contingency operation,'" Conway said. "Underline the word 'probable.' We don't do very well as a department or even as a nation at predicting what's going to happen." Surprise, he added, is the "one constant element" military planners must anticipate. But he did acknowledge that personnel are expensive -- comprising roughly 65 percent of the Marine Corps budget -- and that the service may not want to maintain a force of 210,000 troops indefinitely.

As his force grows, Conway said he and other service officials are trying to get a grasp of how a future Marine Corps should be equipped. During operations in Iraq, the traditionally light and nimble expeditionary units have transformed into a heavier force, largely because of armored vehicles and other gear needed to protect troops against ever-present roadside bombs.

The aircraft and ships that transport Marines and their equipment "can only carry so much, yet there is a force protection requirement out there that leadership bears for its Marines," Conway said. "What is that balance?" Advances in technology will ultimately allow the Marine Corps to cut down the weight of its equipment while providing adequate protection for troops, Conway said.

In the meantime, officials at the Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia are studying the issue to determine what the force should look like after the Iraq war.

COMMENTS

• "Captain", how can you advocate withdrawing from Afghanistan, the base from which Al Queda launched the 9/11 attacks, until the job is done? To leave now would only result in the resurgence of these terrorists, and their Taliban allies, and would result in great harm to the good people of Afghanistan, as well as future terrorist attacks. Just Saying Posted February 28, 2008 1:02 PM
• Where in the Constitution does it say that the U.S. Government is only required to maintain its military based on probabilities? The oath taken by the military and civilian members of the U.S. Government requires us to protect against all enemies, foreign AND domestic. I believe that comes directly from the Constitution. How about it, Legislative and Administrative Branches? When are YOU going to start living up to YOUR constitutional responsibilities? After all, you want us to live up to ours, even while you are busily hunting for ways to keep from paying us for the hardships we have to endure to do those little things like lay our lives on the line 24/7. Not to mention promising us things like medical benefits after we retire from the military, and then claiming that it wasn't in writing (it WAS at one time) so it doesn't count. Larry R. Doane Posted February 4, 2008 8:57 AM
• The armored vehicles General Conway speaks of are MRAPS as I am sure you are well aware.I have yet to see one brave editorial on the fact that all MRAPs are not as safe as those that have been in country since 2005.Policy and orders from the DOD have gone wrong in the largest purchase of these MRAPS vehicles since WW11.The last wounded numbers I saw were 50,000 plus.The inferior vehicles built buy Navistar and BAE that made it into the MRAPS program will add to this.Something gOt screwed up big time. Look into it and do the right thing for our soldiers. John Carswell Posted February 2, 2008 10:47 AM