Some military experts pointed to Wednesday's attack to note the Marines are performing duties somewhat different from those for which they are organized and equipped. The amphibious vehicle, for example, was designed to get troops ashore and is less armored than some other infantry carriers.
The article notes the Marines suffer heavier casualties as a percent of the force in Iraq:
Marines number more than 23,000 out of 138,000 members of the U.S. armed forces in Iraq, or 17 percent. Yet they have lost at least 530 of the more than 1,820 U.S. personnel who have died there, or 29 percent, Marine officials said.
Also consider that the Marines were largely out of Iraq for a while after the invasion until spring 2004 when they moved into Anbar province. So even though the Marines haven't been engaged as much as the Army, they still suffer a higher casualty rate.
And Anbar is the current focus of operations.
Plus, Marines have a tradition of "frontal assaults are fun and easy" which means they tend to suffer more casualties. I'm not ridiculing the Marines since they fight sophisticated, but their mission and equipment does lead to more emphasis on riflemen closing with and destroying the enemy.
On the other hand, comparing the Marine casualty rate to the Army rate over-states Marine casualties because the Army provides the theater logistics and support units that the Marines plug into. During Iraqi Freedom, Army units were attached to the Marines to make up for the Marine lack of "tail." So with a higher proportion of shooters, Marines would suffer a higher rate even in identical combat records.
So lack of armor is only one factor that leads to higher Marine casualty rates.
And I don't know what we can do anyway since the enemy is using larger bombs to counter our light armor:
In recent months the roadside bombs favored by insurgents in Iraq have grown significantly in size and sophistication, the officers say, adding to their deadliness and defeating efforts to increase troops' safety by adding armor to vehicles.
Yet another reason that last year's armor scandal was ridiculous. Enemies adapt. So do we.
In the end, training, tactics, and intelligence are the best ways to defeat the enemy. And going on the offensive, of course. Passive defenses--though important--must always be the last line of defense to active measures. That is correct whether we are talking strategically or tactically.
Still, I wouldn't mind if the Marines had better armor, even if it isn't appropriate for hitting the beaches. It's been a long time since Inchon, as I noted here.
