This morning’s NY Times reports that some Marine leaders, with the concurrence of some Army generals, have suggested the Corps take over US responsibility in Afghanistan under NATO command, leaving the occupation of Iraq to the Army.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 10 — The Marine Corps is pressing to remove its forces from Iraq and to send marines instead to Afghanistan, to take over the leading role in combat there, according to senior military and Pentagon officials.

The idea by the Marine Corps commandant would effectively leave the Iraq war in the hands of the Army while giving the Marines a prominent new role in Afghanistan, under overall NATO command.

The suggestion was raised in a session last week convened by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and regional war-fighting commanders. While still under review, its supporters, including some in the Army, argue that a realignment could allow the Army and Marines each to operate more efficiently in sustaining troop levels for two wars that have put a strain on their forces.

Some have suggested the significantly shorter deployment time of the Marines has created coordination problems with the Army. In addition, the recurring “relearning” problem faced by the Marines with each unit’s seven-month deployment has been criticized, since Army units tend to cycle back to Iraq faster, due to the larger number of troops fighting there.

With 26,000 Marines currently stationed in Iraq, and about 25,000 soldiers in Afghanistan, such a plan could be seen as an even trade-off. It would have the advantage of making the scheduling deployments for Army brigades somewhat easier.

As the Times article points out, advantages would accrue to each service, although the Air Force is believed to be unhappy with the suggestion, since its role in Afghanistan would be curtailed due to the Marines having their own fighter and fighter-bomber squadrons.

Military officials say the Marine proposal is also an early indication of jockeying among the four armed services for a place in combat missions in years to come. “At the end of the day, this could be decided by parochialism, and making sure each service does not lose equity, as much as on how best to manage the risk of force levels for Iraq and Afghanistan,” said one Pentagon planner.

Tensions over how to divide future budgets have begun to resurface across the military because of apprehension that Congressional support for large increases in defense spending seen since the Sept. 11 attacks will diminish, leaving the services to compete for money.

Those traditional turf battles have subsided somewhat given the overwhelming demands of waging two simultaneous wars — and because Pentagon budgets reached new heights.

Sooner or later sanity will break out in the United States, and voters will start firing the assholes currently representing the defense industry, and hiring people interested in representing the taxpayers.