Corps’ initial cuts foreshadow diminished core capabilities
The Marine Corps announced today that it will be forced to cut four infantry battalions and a staggering twelve flying squadrons, along with three associated Headquarters units. This is in order to slim down by 20,000 service members as necessitated by the first half trillion dollar cut in defense spending. In 2007 the Marines began to reform the storied battalions of the 9th Marine Regiment. The Marines reconstituted the Regiment’s three battalions and put them into the command structure of other Regiments, avoiding the need to stand up a new HQ unit. My guess is that they’ll again decommission these battalions.
At the same time this news was hitting the wires came the announcement that the Army will be dipping into traditional Marine Corps territory by joining in on Pacific theater oriented “forced entry” training as the Marines resume focus on that, long neglected and traditional, modus operandi. From the Army Times:
The two services are planning a series of exercises likely to take place in North Carolina, where tens of thousands of soldiers and Marines are based at Fort Bragg and Camp Lejeune, which are located just 90 miles apart. With the future security environment uncertain, and an end in sight to combat operations in Afghanistan, the services are discussing ways to leverage complimentary capabilities, said Lt. Gen. Richard Mills, the Corps’ deputy commandant for combat development and integration who serves also as commander of Marine Corps Combat Development Command in Quantico, Va.
“As we look at new strategies, as we look at potential areas of operations in the Pacific, I think it’s very natural that the Marines and the Army discuss it … should we have to go somewhere where people don’t want us to go,” Mills said.
The article goes on to talk about how the Marines and Army have conducted many joint operations and training exercises in the past (duh) but the reality is that this is an alignment in the strategic relationship between the two services, not seen since the Second World War.
With baseline, not war, funding cuts already causing the cancellation of the Marine Corps’ only viable amphibious vehicle, the EFV, and a toxic combination of contractor bloat, politics and defense cuts imperiling the F-35B the Marines may be soon left in a situation where their MEUs have no ship to shore combat vehicle and no organic fixed wing support, nor enough bodies to go around even if they did.
It’s also worth bearing in mind that this is only the first round of cuts for this coming decade. Should the efforts of hard charging, military friendly, Congressmen like Buck McKeon fail and looming sequestration come to pass you can expect twice these cuts. Because of the anti-military Progressive Democrats and anti-spending libertarian Republicans even if sequestration is averted you can expect more cuts on the margins, and soon.
If that does happen we might find that Obama has fulfilled his promise not to create a “hollowed out force”. True to his word we’ll have a “no show force”.
Category: Defense cuts, Marine Corps, Politics
Translation–half the equipment you saw in the Marine video downthread will either not exist or be in such a state of disrepair as to be nearly ineffective.
Wonder how many lives this will cost our Marines. Not that this administration will give a shit.
I totally see this not biting us in the ass in the near future.
I just don’t understand the crazy pants Libertarian who is against military spending. While I am not for just blowing trillions the reality is that a professional force is required.
the idea to NOT have a standing army is passe in that we can no longer rely on an ocean to give us fair warning of attack. Missles can launch from any where and threats from one person can be as devatating as from an army of 200,000 by today’s standards.
A standing professional force is a necessity of the modern age.
They didn’t mention any of this in “Towards the Sound of Chaos”.
#4 Adam_S
This IS the Chaos they found in all that smoke.
would the international community give us “legal basis” to do this? maybe they want us to keep a strong military to keep them safe? or not to weaken us? Maybe the good Senator Sessions could ask Secretary Panetta that question.
The only thing I can figure out is that the MiC (Muzzy in Chief) WANTS us to be weak.
What reason could he possibly have for doing othewise?
Fellas, comrade banana is huts keeping a campaign promise! ‘Member he issue he would be the pepsident of change? Here’s your change!? Winston Churchill said it best, “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” They have done this after every conflict and when the next conflict happens, they’re caught with their pants around their ankles.
“In 2007 the Marines began to reform the storied battalions of the 9th Marine Regiment.” There in North Carolina right? Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t the USMC do the same thing at Pendleton in Califonia? Weren’t three additional infantry battalions stood up, minus the regimental headquarters, for Iraq/Afghanistan? Are they slated to survive? I just read that the USMC was also looking to cut some of their tanks as well. It had something with the FT. Benning Armor school Marine detachment. Sorry can’t remember where I saw it. I think their Tank battalions were each slated to lose at least a company. “With baseline, not war, funding cuts already causing the cancellation of the Marine Corps’ only viable amphibious vehicle, the EFV, and a toxic combination of contractor bloat, politics and defense cuts imperiling the F-35B the Marines may be soon left in a situation where their MEUs have no ship to shore combat vehicle and no organic fixed wing support, nor enough bodies to go around even if they did” You didn’t mention that the Ospry is not as capable an airframe that it is slated to replace. It’s an expensive, laws of physics defying death trap, that will also eventually be scrapped. Though The USMC likely won’t have the budget to replace it with a feasible rotary machine when it happens. Eh, F-35B JumpJet would be a lose but not crippling. There is no reason that the USMC couldn’t go keep the Harrier for the time being. Especially since we have picked up a few additional ones from the Brits recently. “The article goes on to talk about how the Marines and Army have conducted many joint operations and training exercises in the past (duh) but the reality is that this is an alignment in the strategic relationship between the two services, not seen since the Second World War.” This might very well be but I think there may seem more there then actually is. An annoyance is what the USMC is to the Army not a threat, which is the opposite view of the Marines.… Read more »
Cedo,
I’m not sure about the West Coast stand up. You might be thinking of the 4th Marine Regiment. It doesn’t actually control any of it’s three battalions operationally but the HQ unit is in Oki where it hosts/supports other units on rotation through the Pacific.
The Marines have been trimming tanks for some time now. The guys I did a stint with from 8th Tanks all got turned into grunts and recon.
As for Schadenfrede, I’ll count the Corps lucky it isn’t the Army right now. Mark my words, when all is said and done they’ll shave over 100,000 guys, and the Army has never been as good at slimming down as the Marines. Too many collateral duties and big ticket items.
Also, you leave my MARPAT alone.
“I’m not sure about the West Coast stand up. You might be thinking of the 4th Marine Regiment. It doesn’t actually control any of it’s three battalions operationally but the HQ unit is in Oki where it hosts/supports other units on rotation through the Pacific.” Yeah I was, just looked it up. My question is so the east coast will have 9 infantry battalions, but the west coast will keep 12? I don’t know seems sort of lopsided but maybe thats part of the pacific shift or something.
That 4th regimental headquarters is something that could be axed.
“As for Schadenfrede, I’ll count the Corps lucky it isn’t the Army right now” Really? 20 years ago, heck maybe even 10 if this happened I’d agree but the Army is frankly in a far better position then the USMC is. Since the late 1950s the Marine Corps justification has centered around its amphibious assault capability. Its eroding from budgetary issues, the advancing technology access deniabilty of our enemies, poor equipment choices of the USMC, and, increasingly the SEALS.
“Mark my words, when all is said and done they’ll shave over 100,000 guys, and the Army has never been as good at slimming down as the Marines.” The USA’s mission portfolio has always been much larger then the USMC’s. Second the Army has to maintain many functions that the Navy provides for the Marines(like the Medical Corps and some logistical support). The CSA just announced the Army would be going back to a 3 battalion brigade amongst other organisational possibilities. The chief of Staff also took an oblique shot at naive overreliance of AIR-SEA battle pushed by the USN & USAF. No Marine flag officer has done anything similiar.
There is resiliance and a healthy torque that has returned to the service about its role. The Army’s combined arms training is now being supplemented with irregular missions relearned over the last decade. Its the Marines who are saying how will we function in the immediate future.
“Also, you leave my MARPAT alone.” Whew, as long as you have priorities.
“Too many collateral duties and big ticket items” Not in the immediate future.