News A link for the conspiracy theorists

[russ_watters]

OMG now I have a kid telling me what a landing craft is. I have been there and done that Pengwino. The AAV's used by by the Marine reserves are a joke in the desert. The regular Marines in Iraq have the Abrams M1 A1.

Tanks are ill-suited to a force that is supposed to be highly mobile and for that reason the Marine Corps uses relatively few of them - and even borrows them from the Army (Gulf I) from time to time if they get a temporary/specific need.

The Marine Corps mostly uses lightly armored vehicles such as the http://www.hqmc.usmc.mil/factfile.nsf/7e931335d515626a8525628100676e0c/b54eb957c0d3b17a852562830058111b?OpenDocument , which is amphibious, but more suited to be used on land than on water. They are not "landing-craft" (craft who'se primary purpose is to land and dispatch troops) - the main purpose of their amphibious nature is to get that final 100yds from the amphibious assault ship to the beach, after which they are fairly typical and fully functional APCs.

The http://www.hqmc.usmc.mil/factfile.nsf/7e931335d515626a8525628100676e0c/adeb1da833ced848852562b30060c5ab?OpenDocument is the Marine Corps' equivalent to the Bradley - the basic difference being the amphibious capabilities. And the same as above applies - they are not strictly landing craft.

You are correct that a "landing craft" has essentially one purpose only - to land and dispatch troops and that the LCAC is the best vehicle for that job. There are times when an LCAC is unnecessary, however, ie, when the amphibious assault ship can get close enough to land to dispatch the amphibious vehicles without the need for the long-distance/high-speed transport of the LCAC.

Just so we're clear, you were implying that the Marine Corps is using craft designed for landing troops and not suited for fighting once on land. This is not the case.

This is not the same as Clinton's failure to provide APCs to our troops in Somalia.

 

[Smurf]

This is not the same as Clinton's failure to provide APCs to our troops in Somalia.

You just couldn't resist could you.

 

[solutions in a box]

Tanks are ill-suited to a force that is supposed to be highly mobile and for that reason the Marine Corps uses relatively few of them.

The AAV's that the Marine reserves are using have a top speed of 30 MPH in the best of conditions. In the loose sands of western iraq that top speed is closer to 20 mph. I wouldn't call that highly mobile.

Just so we're clear, you were implying that the Marine Corps is using craft designed for landing troops and not suited for fighting once on land. This is not the case.

Penguino first used the term landing craft. I only replied to his little lecture on what amphibious vehicles are.

I was implying that the Marine reserves are forced to use slow lightly armored tracked amphibious vehicles that were definitey not designed for highly mobile desert patrols.

This is not the same as Clinton's failure to provide APC's in Somalia.

You are right, this is much worse. So is the hillbilly armored Humvee situation.

 

[edward]

The reserves always get stuck with the oldest equipment.

quote:
"The vehicle fleets, in particular, are being stressed “at a very high rate,” he said. The Reserves are in the process of replacing their aging A1 Humvees with the A2 variant, but the process isn’t expected to be complete until 2009. The existing 5-ton truck fleet also is being upgraded with the medium tactical vehicle replacement.

In addition, he said, “we’re really wearing out our amphibious assault vehicles.” AAVs are tracked vehicles that can travel from amphibious assault ships, through rough seas to shore and then go deep inland with up to 21 combat-ready Marines each. The AAVs, however, are now three decades old and require a lot of maintenance."

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2005/jan/marine_reservists.htm

 

[Skyhunter]

Just drop it, guys. I appreciate the backup, Smurf, but it isn't necessary. Skyhunter - you're being childish. I made a mistake. People do that. But dwelling on the point makes you seem like you're trying to attack me and that is not acceptable here.

I was not trying to attack you. I was just trying to illicite a response.

If you don't wish to discuss it consider it dropped.

 

[Skyhunter]

This is not the same as Clinton's failure to provide APCs to our troops in Somalia.

Wasn't it George H. Bush who sent our troops to Somalia without APCs?

 

[Smurf]

See, now I'm not paticularly well informed on those paticular conflicts, but what were the current APC's specs like? Could they resist an RPG round? If not it would seem logical not to use APC, that would only protect the crew from small arms and make them very vulnerable to an RPG.

 

[Art]

I was implying that the Marine reserves are forced to use slow lightly armored tracked amphibious vehicles that were definitey not designed for highly mobile desert patrols.

Seeing as how the marines who were killed were conducting operations in towns along the euphrates river it seems likely that the amphibious capabilities were a necessity.

 

[SOS2008]

The Bush administartion has sent marine reserves to fight in the Iraqi desert in "amphibious" vehicles, hmm that sounds implausible too. It even sounds like it could be a weak conspriracy theory proprosed by some whacko liberal antiwar blogger.

nothing is as it seems

Getting back to the topic of conspiracy theories, I think the point being made by SIAB is that this can sound implausible, yet it was true. We don't know half the things that have happened IMO.

 

[russ_watters]

You just couldn't resist could you.

I got the impression that that's what was being implied. Sometimes I jump ahead in a conversation because I can predict where it's going to go.

 

[russ_watters]

Wasn't it George H. Bush who sent our troops to Somalia without APCs?

Yes, it was - when Bush sent the troops to Somalia, the mission was purely humanitarian. They supervised the handing out of food and protected the UN aid workers. It was Clinton who changed the mission to be one of botched pseudo-nation-building and therefore he is responsible for the mess that ensued.

 

[edward]

It was Clinton who changed the mission to be one of botched pseudo-nation-building and therefore he is responsible for the mess that ensued.

George W Bush Quote Nov 6 2000:

"Let me tell you what else I'm worried about: I'm worried about an opponent who uses nation building and the military in the same sentence. See, our view of the military is for our military to be properly prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place."

What goes around comes around

 

[Skyhunter]

Yes, it was - when Bush sent the troops to Somalia, the mission was purely humanitarian. They supervised the handing out of food and protected the UN aid workers. It was Clinton who changed the mission to be one of botched pseudo-nation-building and therefore he is responsible for the mess that ensued.

This is from PBS frontline archives:

US President George Bush launches Somalia intervention
Deteriorating security prevents the UN mission from delivering food and supplies to the starving Somalis. Relief flights are looted upon landing, food convoys are hijacked and aid workers assaulted. The UN appeals to its members to provide military forces to assist the humanitarian operation.

With only weeks left in his term as president, George Bush responds to the UN request, proposing that US combat troops lead an international UN force to secure the environment for relief operations. On December 5, the UN accepts his offer, and Bush orders 25,000 US troops into Somalia. On December 9th, the first US Marines land on the beach.

Bush assures the American people and troops involved that this is not an open ended commitment; the objective is to quickly provide a secure environment so that food can get through to the starving Somalis, and then the operation will be turned over to the UN peacekeeping forces. He assures the public that he plans for the troops to be home by Clinton's inauguration in January.

This US-led United Task Force (UNITAF) is dubbed "Operation Restore Hope."

Clinton takes over
Clinton, like Bush, is anxious to scale down the American military presence in Somalia and let the United Nations take charge.

UN takeover; "nation building" (UNOSOM II)
In March, the UN authorizes UNOSOM II, a UN operation with expanded enforcement power, whose mandate stressed "the crucial importance of disarmament" of the Somali people. This UN-led mission was to take over from the US-led UNITAF. The expanded operation's new mission goes beyond simply providing humanitarian relief, calling for the UN to facilitate "nation building," to get Somalia back on its feet by restoring law and order, shoring up the infrastructure, and helping to set up processes for establishing a representative government. By the end of March, 28 different nations send contingents to Somalia in support of the new militarized operation. The US officially hands over the command to the UN on May 4.

While Clinton supported this expansion of the UN's mandate, he simultaneously ordered the number of US troops in Somalia to be reduced and replaced by UN troops. By June, only 1,200 US combat soldiers remained in Somalia, with 3,000 support troops.

It seems to me that Clinton wanted to get out of Somalia from the very beginning.

Could you provide some evidence to support your assertion?

 

[russ_watters]

It seems to me that Clinton wanted to get out of Somalia from the very beginning.

Oh, I'm sure he did. And the fact that some of the things that happened happened early in his term didn't help much, I know.

Could you provide some evidence to support your assertion?

What do you mean? You just agreed with me above and provided a good quote that supports it. The last sentence, in particular, says that Clinton supported the expansion of the effort into nation-building while simultaneously reducing our presence. You cannot expand the mission while reducing the forces available to do it. The fact that the UN was supposed to take over (which, I can only guess, is your point) is irrelevant because they didn't really take over. The raid on Oct 3, 1993 was an all-US raid and it was not adequately equipped by its leaders in Washington.

 

[edward]

O.K The Clinton administration made some mistakes in Somalia, mostly in misjuding how strong the warlords had become, and not realizing that the infamous raid was an ambush financed by Bin Laudin.

Those mistakes pale in comparison to the Mistakes the current administration has made in misjudging (and or lying) about every aspect of Iraq.

 

[Skyhunter]

Oh, I'm sure he did. And the fact that some of the things that happened happened early in his term didn't help much, I know. What do you mean? You just agreed with me above and provided a good quote that supports it. The last sentence, in particular, says that Clinton supported the expansion of the effort into nation-building while simultaneously reducing our presence. You cannot expand the mission while reducing the forces available to do it. The fact that the UN was supposed to take over (which, I can only guess, is your point) is irrelevant because they didn't really take over. The raid on Oct 3, 1993 was an all-US raid and it was not adequately equipped by its leaders in Washington.

He supported the United Nations efforts at nation building, not a US effort at nation building.

What other course of action would you suggest the UN take in such a situation as the one in Somalia?

I am not saying Clinton did not make mistakes, but demonizing him is reverting to the same ideological "talking points" type of argument that doesn't contribute any value to the dialogue.

Implying that Clinton was worse than Bush is not making a positive argument.

Bush ignored the threat of terrorism for the first 9 months of his first term, and then used the attack on 9/11 to launch a war against Iraq. There is no comparison to the damage he has done to this country. He is by far and away, the worst president this country has ever had. Historically there isn't even a close second!