The Marine Corps has just
released the 2017 unclassified version of “Littoral Operations in a Contested
Environment”. I began reading this with
great interest, hoping to have many heretofore puzzling and contradictory
doctrinal conundrums explained. For example,
I’ve been reading statements by Marine leadership that in order to effect a
landing, they must first land and secure the landing area. That’s a Catch-22 if I’ve ever heard one!
Unfortunately, I was
absolutely stunned by a sentence in the opening paragraphs defining the scope
of the document. From section 2.
(Scope), 2.b.1/2 describes the range of operations that the document applies
to. At the low end are what are described
in 2.b.1 as “Crisis Response Operations in Uncertain Environments” which
include humanitarian assistance, evacuations, and embassy reinforcements –
generally non-combat or occasionally very low end combat scenarios. At the other end of the range, 2.b.2
describes “Contingency Operations in Hostile Environments.
The latter, presumably
describes actual combat … war. However,
the following statement casts severe doubt on how much combat/war this entire
concept applies to.
“…major combat operations (MCO) and campaigns versus
peer competitors are beyond the scope of this concept.”
What??? Major combat operations and peer combat are
not covered by this concept? Are the
Marines really saying that their capabilities and this concept are not useful
in a peer war? That’s what it seems to
be saying – that none of the littoral capabilities described in this document
apply to actual war?!
Did the Marines really just
develop an entire concept that has no applicability to peer war? Did they really just acknowledge that they
have no role in peer combat?
I can’t believe that’s what
was intended but I see no other way to interpret it. All I can hope is that it was just a very
poorly worded sentence but given the Corps’ trend towards lightness, they may
be acknowledging that they are no longer a serious warfighting
organization. I’ve got to get a
clarification on this.
I’m not going to go any
further in analyzing this document for two reasons.
- Until I understand the actual scope of the
document, I can’t perform a valid assessment.
- The rest of the document is garbage that reads
like a generic sales brochure to Congress.
"Until I understand the actual scope of the document, I can’t perform a valid assessment."
ReplyDeleteWhen has a lack of understanding ever stopped you before?
That's too good to delete!
DeleteI scanned this yesterday when I saw it on USNI...Why bother trying to debunk it. This is just a slick advertising offering at its core..
ReplyDeleteTypical 21st century USMC self serving point-paper to justify its existence and its budget, paying only lip service to the US Navy and absolutely no joint ness/interoperability with the USA/USAF. Like they didn't exist....
All their hi-level "brainstorming" is only done through the USMC stove pipe with themselves as centerpiece and self supporter...like they alone work for the Commander in Chief... Anyone who can't see that wears red only...
Astutely, here they go again recognizing a gap/lack of resolve in the other military services response (slow to non-existent) to the threats out there like nuclear threat/nuc modernization, PRC advances, Russian hegemony, etc. and taking advantage of their one-way Navy relationship to shuttle them around and have the USN spend ship construction dollars for their relative niche role... Remember their "From the Sea", circa mid 90's after the Cold War ended and during the Clinton admin? Same script, updated.
Of course Congress and the American people love the USMC.. who can say no to them? They have Mattis, Kelly and Joe D and they know it! They have the F-35B, the V-22, the H-53K and the C-130J. Soone their budget alone to support this aviation fleet alone will rival that of the USAF!
b2
"Why bother trying to debunk it"
DeleteHence, my point 2. in the post!
Just to be clear, I don't debunk, I analyze. All too often that becomes debunking given the very poor quality of professional military thought prevalent today but debunking is not my goal - analysis is.
Of course analytics always win, right? Debunk and analysis are often synonymous in my simple mind..
DeleteYou miss my larger point too or avoid it on purpose, I'cant blame you, its untidy. That point is the USMC is off the reservation, outta the box, IE, attempting to strategize war theorugh their own prism when they have no such role for strategic warfare granted them for the reason they were formed .. That said, when they see a niche they will carve out whatever they can at the expense of the other services...especially the Navy or even the Army.. It is what they do in the "modern age" since they were left out of the ground offensive of GW-1 when they floated around on the ARG as diversion...Now they have 4 star generals up/down the foodchain.
In summary, the Marine Corps is not complementary in nature re their role(s) or even their own doctrine, they are warfare role predatory for their own sakes... Gotta respect that but you also have to tamp it down when it bites the hand that feeds them... just call me an old fashioned squid..
b2
"You miss my larger point too ... That point is the USMC is off the reservation"
DeleteI'm not missing your point. In fact, I couldn't agree more. If you've been following the blog for any length of time, I would have thought that came across clearly!
I love what the Corps once was. I hate what it's become. I'd like to see it go back to its roots. Those statements guide my posts.
I was hoping to see a translation of the document
ReplyDeletefrom Marinese to standard english here.
Fig 2 on page 11 is amazing, no wonder opposed landings
are out, staff meetings would take all your time.
There's nothing substantial in the document to translate. It's a pure garbage sales pitch. I was hoping to see some actual operational, doctrinal, and tactical thoughts but there are none.
Delete