Shrinking the Corps for its own sake?
Marine Corps Maj Peter J. Munson, a C-130 driver, Naval Postgraduate School alum and self-proclaimed Middle East expert, put forward a “right sizing” argument in the Marine Corps Gazette today calling for the Corps to shrink down even farther in order to stay relevant. The core of his understanding of the proper role of the Marine Corps is this:
…the Corps must define the niche that it intends to fill in a competitive market. That niche is primarily defined by its amphibious nature, but it is also defined by highly mobile, lightweight infantry forces, task-organized (MAGTF) and scalable to conduct independent operations (to a defined upper limit), utilizing combined arms and robust command and control capabilities to “punch above its weight”, and capable of expeditionary operations in both littoral and inland areas (through use of strategic maneuver). The Marine Corps is prepared to operate independently to the extent that it is forward deployed and prepared to conduct crisis response (i.e. a MEU and nothing larger). This statement requires some work, but this should be what the Marine Corps does, period. Strip away everything that does not contribute to this niche and either trash it or hand it off to other services.
With the budget driven cancelling of the EFV the Corps has been left without an amphibious platform viable in a 21st century combat enviroment. Now correct me if I’m wrong but, once you cut out the service specific lingo and the amphibious capability, isn’t he essentially describing SOCOM? What mission falls into that field that can’t be accomplished by a Ranger Batt with specifically tasked aviation assets?
There’s over 2,500 SEALs running around who are going to be largely unemployed once the war in Afghanistan is over. You think the Navy is going to cough up their amphib raid and VBSS missions? I don’t. Marines are off ship as an operational component of the crew and they’re not coming back. The Navy has barely been able to get the Marines to maintain the Security Forces Regiment which guards, and acts as a QRF for, all the critical installations and assets, i.e. nukes.
He goes on to outline his vision for aviation which includes using only those manned fixed wing CAS which are land based, leaving the ship borne capability to UAVs and helos. At this point I’m left to wonder what the point of even maintaining a Marine Corps manned CAS capability would be. You might as well just get on the phone with the Air Force, a fact in which he makes a roundabout acknowledgement of.
My simple, enlisted, POG understanding of the Corps has always been this: we don’t need it. There is no unique national security role the Marine Corps fulfills. The Marine Corps exists because it is convenient and it is loved. That is to say it produces a culture of people with the skill sets needed to say “yeah, we can do that” to almost anything in both a frugal and impressive manner. With possible exception of the Ranger Batts the Marine Corps fields the best light infantry in the US military. Those infantry are at the core of an entire service whose culture demands that the entire service exist almost exclusively to support them at the battalion level, even company, level. The Marine Corps exists because it’s full of Marines.
Or maybe I’m saying just what Munson but reaching a different conclusion?
Category: Defense cuts, Marine Corps
The Army surrendered its only integral strategic lift capability to the Navy last year. With the exception of the 82d and 101st, the Army is out of the expeditionary game. Might as well use Marines.
I’m sorry to say that I agree with you on the Marine Corps roles. They have been used to supplement the Army in campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it was clear from the very get go that the AAVs were not suited to that environment and probably should not have been deployed.
Furthermore, the idea of an amphibious force is great in theory, but when was the last time we used it as intended? The last time there was a MEU what was in a position to do an actual assault from the sea was during the 91 Gulf War. Do you all remember that assault? Me neither. that’s because the MEUs were used as a diversionary force.
We need to ask, seriously, and without reserve, how we want to employ our forces in the future. We may not get the luxury of having our specialists in this or that. Will the day come that the Marine Corps is folded into the Army? Not if they have their way. But the relevance may fade.
Anyone with a passing interest in the Corps knows that what separates the Marines from the Army at the National Security level is that the Marines are Expeditionary in that they carry the whole package along with them: air, arty, armor, grunts and a logistical tail, all deployable in one shot and survivable until you pull them out. In fact, there was a great article to this point by an Army Capt in the Proceedings after the Marines were the first major formation into Khandahar in ’02, to be replaced by the 101st. He couldn’t get his article published at Carlyle because the uncomfortable fact to the brass was the Army couldn’t put anyone a thousand miles away from a logistical source and expect them to survive past a week or two. The Marines did it, and then the Army came in.
Until the Army becomes Expeditionary there will always be a place for the Corps, and to Congress’s credit, it’s mandated by law, which is fortunate given that the administration is pushing currently “come as you are” conflicts.
Scott, the Army was expeditionary, now it is not.
Regardless, are amphibious forces a necessity in an era when ports are not the strategic economic centers of nations?
That’s why MEU’s are based within carrier groups, usually on an LHA. It is very easy to get a MEU from ship to shore without using a port. The embassy evacuation in Beirut is a perfect example, the successful rescue of downed Air Force pilot Captain Scott O’Grady in Bosnia is another. Modern amphibious warfare doesn’t necessarily require “hitting the beach”.
@Dave,
The Army is not expeditionary, so until they are we will need the Corps. The Army re-organizing into BCT’s are a step…
And, as Khandahar in ’02 showed, traditional definitions of ports make no difference in the current world… The Marines were sent in because in the opinion of those in Command the Army could not do the mission.
I’ll also state the obvious in that for a land-locked country like Afghanistan traditional definitions of a “port” for economic purpose do not apply. The fact that the Marines have an amphibious capability is just a bonus.
Using the Corps as an offshore rescue asset doesn’t make much sense at all. The rescue of O’Grady in Bosnia was just short of a disaster several times, mostly because of the “TRAP” doctrine the Corps uses. The navy can run most short range rescue missions in littoral areas with H-60 variants,and the Air Force keeps a highly trained combat rescue force capable of long range low profile or “here comes the war” SARTF operations.In fact,the Libyan ops were covered by AF assets operating from USN platforms sitting off shore. If the Corp is operating CAS, they obviously need some rescue capability, but probably never need to consider it a primary mission when it comes to training and equipping their force.
The Army unfortunately suffers from a lot of pressure to be politically correct. It is expected to be both broad sword and scalpel. The expectations put on both the Army and Marine Corps are very different. The Army is expected to win wars, the Marine Corps is expected to win battles. The Logistical tails for the Army is expected to come from the AF, and the logistical tail for the Marines is expected to come from the Navy.
What you will see in the near future is a blurring of the Lines. The difference between the Marines and Army, in the roles that we do has blurred over the last 10 years. you notice most of the Training teams are multi-service now. There have been Army Brigades falling under Marine Command and Marine units falling under Army command (which hasn’t happened really since WWI).
There are valid point to be raised about our CAS abilities. I think the Tilt-Rotor tech should be examined further, its speed (and lack of sound) has an advantage over the rotary-wing aircraft. I also think that we need almost two different forces. We need the F-22s and F-35’s to fight the “Big” enemy. China Russia or Korea, but we need something small that goes “low and slow” for the “small” enemies like Afghanistan, at least with CAS. The reliance on Drones is actually worrisome. The recent downing of a drone by Iran (and a stealth one at that) is a sign that we should heed. They can be an asset, but should not be the fallback plan.
The Marine Corps will always do expeditionary missions. What they will NEVER do again is a forcible entry assault–because no President will ever be willing to pay the casualty count for a SUCCESSFUL assault against a defended beach, let alone risk the price of failure, unless national survival is at stake.
And if national survival is on the line…well, as a former Marine, I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit, it’s the only way to be sure.
The Marine doctrine on amphibious warfare boils down to “hit ’em where they ain’t.” The EFV was a very expensive program designed to maintain a capability that no President is willing to risk using, because the price of success will be too high.
I have nothing to add, except that this is a great post. As I told you earlier, I really enjoy your posts.
Scott:
I said “was” once, and ‘out of the expeditionary game’ once. Both have been shown to mean something along the lines of ‘is not.’ As in, the Army is not expeditionary.
The Army was expeditionary. It had its own lift, and could manage its own logistics. It had Entry, Intermediate, and Heavy combat forces. It had more ships than the Navy, and gave them away. It was getting its own medium airlift to ease dependence on the USAF – that’s gone too.
The question on ports is not rhetorical. With the loss of the Marine version of the SGT York, and a fair portion of its helicopter fleet lacking enough power to slingload stuff and carry people, how amphibious will the Marines be?
Second question: with a strategy of win-1-spoil-1, how will the MEU/MEB/MEF be augmented to win one? A MEF has 1 tank battalion, 1 LAV, and anti-tank companies? It still lacks ground transportation to handle the load.
While you Marines are busy arguing apples and oranges here, never forget the “civilian” components of the US Navy…The US Coast Guard & US Merchant Marines…..
What is the smallest unit in the Army?
When I was in, it was the MAU (Marine Amphibious Unit) which was built around a battalion. It was reinforced with it’s own arty, armor (tanks & amtracs), air support, etc. The whole thing consisted of about 2,300 men.It was self sustaining for two (2) weeks. Our next higher force is the MAB (Marine Amphibious Brigade) which was a reinforced regiment or about 4,000 men able to self sustain for a minimum of a month.
I’ll admit the thing that separated us from the Army, amphibious assault, isn’t the trump card it used be. But IMHO our saving grace is, anywhere there’s a Navy battle group, there’s at least an MAU and usually an MAB. How long would it take to get that battle group in the Persion gulf to the east coast of Africa? How long would it take to get an Army unit, of equal size and capabilities, there from Germany? Is every soldier in the Army jump qualified? Every Marine is trained in amphibious operations.
If I may paraphrase Gen Powell, “Some times all it takes, to stabilize a situation, is to have some
ships full of Marines laying off shore. It’s kind of hard to lay off shore in a C-5.”
Just for the sake of plaving along I find it quite interesting that some people seem to think that the US Army does not have landing on a defended beach in its playbook. Now how about changing the disscussion from fantasy to reality. We do not need an ambiphibous capabilíty to defend California or Alaska or Hawii or Maine or Minnesota becasue those territories are already occupied by the US military. Other countries need to have the capability to attack them and to occupy them to be a threat to our Constitution. Which countries have such a capability? I do not know if the readers who live in America have eye sight or not. When I travel through the USA I see a land in which the people of the country already have everything that they need to live a comfortable life. They really do not need international trade to survive. International trade is needed to live in an extremely wasteful manner. Of course someone will claim that we were attacked by the Muslims on Sept 11th. Would it happen again if we started minding our own bussiness? Did we not just reach the conclusion a few days ago that the vast majority of people are peaceful until the have a MOTIVE to use violence. Revenge has been known to be a motive. It is possible that for a decade maybe even two some hot heads from Arab or Muslim countries may try to launch attacks on the US. They will have enormous resources to do it it they so chose would’nt they? If past history is any guide the US would face the threat of weekly attacks as we saw after US involvment in Vietnam and Central America. How will the Marine Corp or even the Army for that matter defend us from this multitude of uncorridinated miquito attacks anyways? Is there a strategy that would be employeed by the Marines or the Army that could help? I would propropose a strategy that would help defend us from this evil and immentent threat but I hestitate to do so.… Read more »
There was a serious mistake with the paragraph format above.
Aggi maggi la terragi. Godd no one will see it.
The Marines will never go away… ever. No matter what draw downs are made or sound arguments made for their demise. It’s all about the inter-service money-pie, who is going to get what. The Marines were misused in Korea, Vietnam and the GWOT. Amphibious assault and taking ground is(was) their doctrine. The Navy is their ride. A WWII-Cold War fighting force in the 21st Century demands SMART changes and reduction of redundant forces (Delta-SEALs/Dev). The cutbacks are going to get ugly and the long knives are out.
Why does the Army have the Bradley (vs. Stryker)? Why do we have OH-58s (vs. A/OH-6)? Sold a bill of goods and stuck with them.
Ah the “military industrial complex”. Do you have any idea exactly what that means?
You’re advocating battening down the hatches and letting things happen. You forget what happened to Thomas Jefferson when he reduced the Navy next to nil. The problem is that the French and English were at war. They saw American ships as fair game, and they would press American Sailors into service and raid the shit out of our shipping. Jefferson had no ability to respond or even defend our own merchant shipping. . . so he shut everything down with a trade embargo.
It backfired horribly, caused a massive depression, and made his second term a hellish one.
So Curt there are very good reasons that your idea is complete and utter horse shit, and we know this for fact namely because it has been tried. Several times. It has worked less and less as the world gets smaller and smaller.
Yes Dock there is a proper roll in US society for conservattives and that is serving as a devils advocate.
I guess that what you are saying is that if we do not maintain a fleet of 10 Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carriers and numerous aircraft capable Amphibous Assault Carriers that the French and the English will again turn to piracy. Or is your arguement that the Iranians or perhaps even the Somalis will blockade the Straits of Hormuz? And if they do that it should be of great concern to Americans because there is not a damned thing that they can do about it other than send over 5 of our nuclear powered aircraft carriers and our Marines and bomb the hell out of Iran and landing on the coastline to secure the straights.
It is clearly obvious that building some oil pipelines to the other side of Saudi Arabia is a really looney idea because is such a technical challenge. This technical challenge expains why it has not already been done. If it were not for the technical challenge I might starat to suspect that it has not already been done because then there would be no good reason to maintain a massive military to protect a fictitious weak point on the other side of the planet.
Great post NSOM.
Crap, I just realized that a consequence of what I just wrote is that it portrays me as a real conservative.
Dock is a pier that you tie ships up to. Doc is a title that is earned through solidarity with the Line units you serve as a Medic or Corpsman.
In answer to your Querry, actually Yes. See you forget one very important fact, those Carriers are always at sea. They’re either at sea, or in the drydoc getting repaired or getting ready to deploy. That we can deploy a Carrier battle Group to a conflict area in 72+/- hours has a lot to do with the fact that they’re out there for 6+ months at a time. With 5 that would be literally impossible. And yes Iran would block the Straits. We know this because they tried it during the Iran Iraq war. Somali Pirates are already harassing shipping, and they are getting bolder straying further and further out.
The “pipeline” idea has merit on paper. Until you realize that the super tankers the Saudis use can ship more in one trip than several pipelines can in weeks of operations. In short its not technical but economic. But even if it were not should the Iranians close off the Arabian sea, and threaten all the shipping coming out of the Suez that would have major consequences for the world. The Mediterranean has depended on that canal. Its loss would be an economic disaster for most of Europe. Africa as well would suffer. Throw in the closing of the Air routes (a not unreasonable scenario) and you have a problem that may cost everyone.
I was using the Napoleonic Wars as an example. Chances are it would not be a European power that would take advantage of such an absence, but most likely China, and a smattering or regional powers. Iran, N. Korea, Egypt, among othes come to mind.
And yes actually bombing the shit out of Iran’s naval capabilities would prevent Iran from blockading the Straits of Hormuz. Unless you suggest that Iran had human/fish hybrids that can plant bombs on our ships several miles out to sea.
the consequences of what you wrote are not Conservative at all. Rather they’re very Liberal or Libertarian (with a Capitol L). A conservative would say that maintaining a strong position is vital. Its actually the one area of Government spending Conservatives don’t mind a little splurging.
Sorry Doc that was just a typo, if you have ever notices I often spell there as thier even though I know that there is a difference in meaning. It is just that sometimes my fingers do not obey my brain.
As to the pipeline suggestion. I will clarify it for you. Those piplines do not need to run to Tel Aviv or even Turkey.
No they only need to go to say for example Aden or a Saudi port on the Red Sea. Then they could be loaded on the tankers and presto the magical economic savings reapear and with those saving you will also be offered a set of 10 steak knives. And if you buy in the next 2 weeks there will be a wonderful surprise gift in your mail. All that for only 49,95 a month in Real currency. I challange you to find a better deal offered by any other company, including the CIA.
Oh I almost forgot that conservative thingy dingy I was talking about. You may not have noticed by I slipped in to the role of a devils advocate myself. Therefore I must be a conservative.
Man, let me take a few of these. 1)”Now correct me if I’m wrong but, once you cut out the service specific lingo and the amphibious capability, isn’t he essentially describing SOCOM? What mission falls into that field that can’t be accomplished by a Ranger Batt with specifically tasked aviation assets?” None, and I would add much of the light half of the USA could also do this. Do we need an entire service dedicated to amphibious assaults? Really? Up until the begining of Korea, the Army had an entire Division that still could do this(the 7th). There is no reason for a MEU and not a A(rmy)EU. To your larger point, much of the same reasoning has been made about SOCOM for awhile. The explosion of operator(s) and their responsibilties since the eighties, has in many ways crippled the rest of our ground forces. When only operators are allowed any initiative, don’t be surprised when they are the only ones that can get anything done. If the only guys who are allowed to wipe their asses without permission is Delta force, don’t be shocked when only Delta force doesn’t have streaks in it’s underwear. The one thing that SOCOM has going for it that the USMC doesn’t, is the same thing it had on the USA in the ninties, and that simply is deniability. It’s much easier to execute when you don’t have to explain or for anyone(like political leaders) to directly take responsibilty for actions. Line units and operators are divided by inches not a chasm, it’s the little things that separate them but most civilians wouldn’t know that. To them “Special Ops” means Rambo, or American Jedi, or Captain America, something mystical beyond their understanding that political and certain service leaderships are eager to push. 2)”There’s over 2,500 SEALs running around who are going to be largely unemployed once the war in Afghanistan is over. You think the Navy is going to cough up their amphib raid and VBSS missions? I don’t.” Neither do I, but again thats how the Blob know as special ops has expanded.… Read more »
One last follow up. The only reason the USA hasn’t been more expeditionary is simply it never had to be. The Army had the two opposite sides of the ground force spectrum, something the USMC doesn’t and never will do. The USA has generally been made up of light and heavy units. That medium niche has generally been filled by the Marines. There is no reason the Army couldn’t do it though.
Curt you must think so little of Conservatives. Usually the Liberal is playing the Devils advocate. Sometimes quite literally, in the case of Sadam.
You are again ignoring the East. Your solution would assume that the Suez is no longer vital. Again, its not just oil that goes through the Suez. If either the Suez and Panama canals were to close it would cause an instantaneous world wide depression. Cargoes that took days would take weeks or months to get to their intended destinations, and American Rail Lines would have to absorb the brunt of that in the case of the Panama Canal. There is nothing in the Mid to Far East that could do the same for the Suez. You’d essentially cut most of south and east Asia off from Europe. All of your assumptions are based on the hypothetical idea that everyone is simply going to behave without the US willing to punch out a Carrier Battle Group to give them a bad day if they don’t play nice.
Consider if you will. 45 aircraft bombed Libya in 1986. The result is that Muammar was so close to being got that it scared the shit out of him. He was a good little boy (at least when it came to us) after that. now consider the Nimitz class Aircraft carrier carries almost double that amount of aircraft. Look up Operation El Darado Canyon some time.
@25: Interesting points. Your points about the slashing of the leadership is perhaps one of the points that are always failed to be considered in draw downs. You might also want to note the “riverine” force of the 9th Infantry Division in the Mekong delta. The point being that if given a mission the Army is very adaptable. We also have to acknowledge that with our forces drawing down, we can no longer afford our nice cozy expeditionary packages. If the MEU forces are intended to be kept as they are, then there might well be an Army unit that has to fill that role because the Marine Corps won’t be able to fill that void. I think your point about toughness is well stated. I have always advocated (not that anyone would listen) lengthening Army BCT and making it to Infantry standards. I would also like to see Infantry school be separated and longer, but that’s splitting hairs. It does bother me when you have units deploy that do not have the mindset of “I’m here to kill the enemy” Even when winning hearts and minds, you have to be ready to put bullets through those same hearts and minds. USA’s medium brigade is the Stryker Brigade. Size and capability wise, they are between light and Heavy and have proven both effective and versatile. That does not mean they would be able to stand toe to toe with a tank Bn. And while the Light-fighters have the Javelin (love those f**king things) the idea of a light and medium tank is appealing. Also on the heavy front we REALLY need to replace the Bradley AFV/APC. They’re fodder. Go up like Roman candles when hit. you points about SOCOM are a little less coherent, but well stated. We have punted the ball to SOCOM more often than we like to admit, and the whole “classified” has saved them from a lot of the scrutiny that is paid to regular line forces. in the end though they clear a house the same way Line units do. They just have lots more… Read more »
So let us just make clear that we are talking about fighting war for oil and not to spread freedom or democracy. Second we are just taking it for granted that teh suez canal is vital to the intrests of the Iowa farmer and the McDonalds worker in Illinois. But what if we did not take that for granted? How much of what passes through the Suez canal is comming to or from Europe? Do the Europeans maintain the forces to fight their way to through the suez canal, panaman canal or straits of hormuz? If the answer is no why do you think that is? Is there anything that passes through those areas that would prevent the US society from providing adequate food, clothing and shelter, good movies and the TVs to watch them on and good books to read to all of its citizens if it had to with out a drop of oil from the ME? Of course Americans would not be able to live as they live now if no oil was comming from the ME. Do Americans lice reasonably? Even if we say OK that oil in the ME is American Oil how much longer will it be there considering the current rate that the world is using it. So does it not seem true that the people of the US are going to have to learn to live with out ME oil in the not to distant future anyways? Should we not be figuring out how to change our life style now? Even if there were new discovery’s of oil are you shure that global warming is just a scam to make money for big business? What if it is not a scam? Should people in the US be carrying on business as usual? Is a stern nanny needed in the US or is a stern nanny just another name for a bullying big brother? I myself prefer to chose my own enemies not have my enemies chosen for me. I get especially pissed off when when what someone like Clinton or Obama or… Read more »
Curt, we have yet to fight a “war for oil” if we had fought a war for oil we wouldn’t be paying $3.00/gal for gas.
Also yes it is vital to the whole country even the Midwest and deep south because everything in interconnected. Did you not notice how pretty much the world went into melt down because of an economic crisis in the US. Cut off shipping to really any part of the world and it has a domino effect.
Also “waging war” would mean we’ve fired shots in anger at them. At most there have been a few tense moments but America and the UK don’t really pay attention to Iran till they rattle the Saber. However Islamic peoples tend to have long memories. In one area I worked in there was a tribal war that had been going on since 1340. They were still killing each other over something that even their great grandparents couldn’t remember. In our case we are having War waged on us for the Crusades. Why? Well I wrote a piece on that that Zero published earlier.
When you are the biggest player on the block you don’t chose your enemies. They choose you. Why they fight is always varied but it usually comes down to simple jealousy. Iran will fight us because they *used to be* the Persian Empire. That once made the Greeks tremble and controlled most of the Near and Far East. that that was over 2000 years ago is no nevermind.
Your assume that we could do as Ron Paul states and somehow be alright. But like I said its all interconnected. Literally no one, but the US has the ability to really project power. The Libyan fiasco proves that without the US leading the way NATO is powerless. So do you propose to sit back chug along in our BioDiesel cars and watch the world implode? Because that’s exactly what will happen without a strong Daddy figure to make the kids play nice.
#28 1)”You might also want to note the “riverine” force of the 9th Infantry Division in the Mekong delta.” That is more riverine operations then amphibious assault. If memory serves me right that was only one brigade in the 9th Infantry Division anyway and those soldiers had no special training for it. 2)”If the MEU forces are intended to be kept as they are, then there might well be an Army unit that has to fill that role because the Marine Corps won’t be able to fill that void.” My point was this in theory could happen, there is no reason the Army couldn’t do this if nessary, it has in the past. I doubt the USA really wants it though because it simple has more then enough on it’s plate as it is. Second, if you strip this from the USMC what do the Marines actually do? They would be a service without a mission. 3)”I have always advocated (not that anyone would listen) lengthening Army BCT and making it to Infantry standards.” I agree in principle but it would never work, because too many people wouldn’t meet the standard. This will always be a week point in the Army because of it’s sheer size. Utilitarianism will always trump combat effectiveness outside the combat arms. Bet on it. Making sure the support troops know how do defend themselves will always have to be the minimum of acceptence. 4)”I would also like to see Infantry school be separated and longer, but that’s splitting hairs.” I agree completely. That would be another huge post in itself. Suffice to say as long as that additional time is used for the learning of new skills and not post grab-assing then by all means do this. Contary to popular myth this is not an era defined by technology but skill and inititaive. The gadgets are reeinforcing this, not dispelling it. This is something do many BabyBoomers can’t seem to grasp, every issue is seen through a monetary, matieral, or personal prism, but rarely skill. 5)”Even when winning hearts and minds, you have to be… Read more »
Just for the sake of playing along I find it interesting that some people seem to think that amphibious assault Is the only page in the Marine Corps’ playbook.
Someone said earlier that “with possible except” of Ranger Rgts “the Marine Corps has the finest light infantry of any branch of the US military”. Aren’t the Rangers considered an elite outfit? How many Ranger Rgts does the Army have vs. how many Rgts are there in the entire Marine Corps? Remove your elite Rangers and what’s left? Remove our Amtracs and what’s left? Three (3) Divisions worth of Rgts deemed on par with the Army’s elite Rangers. Someone also mentioned the Army’s recruit training needs to be extended and their marksmanship skills improved. Hmmm, let’s see, who has a longer recruit training regimen and who produces, on average, better marksmen than the Army?
Courteous Curt, I never said a word about assaulting a defended beach. I simply asked which unit is more quickly/easily deployable? A MAB already at sea with a Naval battle group or a BCT home based in Europe? It’ a very simple question with a very simple answer.
Yat Yas 1833,
I do not understand why you are pointing that out to me.
Sometimes people just deserve to have Peroxide rubed in to thier scratches.
There is still more things to point out that show why we do not need Forward Force Projection for the US military.
This idea that it would be some sort of problem if the Panama Canal or the Suez Canal or the Straits of Hormuz were taken over by forces hostile to the US is just Tom Sawyer foolishness.
What percenent of trade to the US is carried by US flaged ships O N E PERCENT or T W O percent!!!! Hhahahaha neither is the right answer it is YERO fucking percent because the US does not even have a Merchent Marine any more, Every ship that had ever been once sailed by real US sailors, not counting warhships has long since either been Liberian or Panamanian flaged, except for warships and it will only be a few years until even the warships have contract crews.
So for a hositle government to stop trade to the US they would have to board every ship and examine every shiping manifest. Even then avoiding the local sanctions would be extremely easy. Just use a shell company in a non US country to ship the goods.
This the world is an unsafe place mime is so stupid that it is extremely criminal. The high ranking people in the miliatry and press that promote it should be tied up in a cage filled with vultures.
Their leadership has proven so embarrasing that the honor of not only the human spieces is at stake but even the honor of the planet. Bees are committing mass suicide becasue they are so ashamed of producing honey for humans.
Courteous Curt, check your math. My mother-in-law is the purser on a US flagged tanker in a fleet of US flagged tankers manned by US merchant mariners. Anecdotal? Yes, but you said “all”.
#32 “Just for the sake of playing along I find it interesting that some people seem to think that amphibious assault Is the only page in the Marine Corps’ playbook.” Outside of putting down shipboard mutinies it’s the only unique function. Enlighten us.
“Someone said earlier that “with possible except” of Ranger Rgts “the Marine Corps has the finest light infantry of any branch of the US military”.” The Marine author said that a was challenged.
“Someone also mentioned the Army’s recruit training needs to be extended and their marksmanship skills improved.” This does not make anywhere near the impact that you think it might. Second, the difference in recruit training time is not that different. Third, your making our points for us, a problem easily correctable.
“Hmmm, let’s see, who has a longer recruit training regimen and who produces, on average, better marksmen than the Army?” Contrary to popluar myth there are some pretty sucky USMC shooters and some great USA ones. Again, the difference is tiny at most not overwhelming. Point taken but correctable.
“I simply asked which unit is more quickly/easily deployable?” Well that would a Airborne BCT.
My point is that the USA could easily assume all of those tasks.
Curt, how exactly do you plan to project long range bombers without tankers? Those tankers can’t fly all the way around the world. That’s just air-power, but how about ships. Well aside from Carriers and Subs they run on gas. Doing UNREPs would become massively difficult without regional bases for the Navy. You’d have to refuel the refueling fleet. How about the Army and Marine Corps you can still project power without foreign bases right? yes and no. Your ability to project power is greatly diminished. Also that “anywhere in the world in [insert number] hours”. Imagine our embassy in upper-kamikazistan is in danger of being over run. How exactly do you propose we reinforce that position?
So let me see if I understand you correctly, you are asking how would we reinforce a consulate in Uganda that is in danger if we do not employee millions of people, and spend trillions of dollars per year to handle this inevitable situation?
What is more likely in the next few years a really big quake in California or Arkansas or some Ameicans being taken hostage like they were in Iran somewbere in the same time span.
Now if America were your house and the world your yard since you seem to like to think of it that way would you like to spend your insurance money on the house or the yard?
NOw I read that the US wants to keep 15,000 soldiers in Kuwait. A force of that size is good for only one thing. To help evacute the US embassy in Iraq. I think that when Americans travel abroad they should not expect eny help what so ever from the US government if they get themeselves in to trouble. The sole exception should be to have their passport replaced if it is lost or stolen. It is the job of the taxpayers to babysit Americans who have the resources to travel to far away places, and yes Tijajuana is to far away. But what about those who are actually working for the US government. Well if the only legitimate jobs that our Embassies and consulates have is to provide emegency passport service the number of Americans working overseas for the goverment does not need to be very large. If by chance an American working for the US government gets kidnapped and held for ransom that employee should be grateful knowing that the US government will send one hostage negotiator to the country to where it is believed that the American government employee is being held to work with that countries local law enforcement to free the American unharmed. NO RANSOM will be paid. No demands will be met. So if any employee is captured he was three possible ways out. Kill the captors, persuade the captors to release them, committ suicide. There is a fourth possibility and that is learning to accept the fact that you are weaking America’s enemies by making them feed you. The money spent on that could have been used to make an IED. The kidnapped person would be a martyer. I imagine that some people with a street gang mentality will be really turned off by what I just wrote. Tough shit. The fact of the matter is that there are almost 200 countries on this planet. Many of them have embassies all over the globe. How many of those countries mantain military forces with a global reach to be able to rescue an Embassy?… Read more »
I seem to recall some story in about a plague in Egypt that lasted for 40 days. I seem to recall some story about Jesus that lasted for 40 days. I seem to recall some story about Mohammad that lasted for 40 days. The siege of Yorktown lasted for 40 days. The battle at Stone Mountain lasted for 40 days.
The battle at Bellue Wood lasted for 40 days. THe Battle of the Bulge lated for how many days? I am sure that this is a sign that all of my opponents should surrender.
If the Corps is so useless and unnecessary, then how come they are the only ones who actually fight in the major battles. Fallujah, Al Nasyrah, Mosul, and Baghadad, yes the Army helped but the Marines were the major force even though they are a only less than half the size of the Army. Marines are fighthing in Helmand and Sangin, presently. The Army is essentially supporting the Marines. The Army should be folded into the Corps, not the other way around.