The changes the Marines have made over the last several
years have all had one [unintended?] consequence; they’ve converted the Corps from the forced
entry, kick-down-the-door, offensive organization to a wholly defensive
one. Where once they were the tip of the
spear, first-in combat force, they’re now a defensive, small unit, missile
shooting, hold-the-line force. Or, as
the Marines now phrase it, a ‘stand-in force’.
The Marines even acknowledge their defensive nature. From the Marine’s own website,
As listed in a Marine Littoral Regiment graphic, the
missions are:[2]
There’s nothing offensive about those missions. They’re purely defensive or service (gas
station) oriented. There’s no seizing
ground. There’s no forced entry. There’s no attack. There’s no hitting the enemy.
The Marines have also publicly and repeatedly stated that
they are out of the frontal assault business (see, “TheFinal Nail”).
Aside from their own words, how else do we know the Marines
have given up the offense and switched to purely defense? From their actions, of course! For example, the Marines have,
Does that sound like they have any intention of being an
offensive force? If so, they’ll be doing
it without any armor, engineering, or firepower! As it stands, they can be offensive against a
troop of angry Boy Scouts, perhaps, but that’s about the extent of it.
If the Marines aren’t going to be our offensive tip of the
spear, why do we need them? The Army can
defend as well as the Marines – better since the Amy hasn’t given up its tanks
and firepower!
If the next Commandant doesn’t reverse direction and get the
Marines back on mission, we need to abolish them. As it stands, they’re an unnecessary
duplication of effort and waste of budget.
___________________________
Stand-in Forces are defined as small but lethal, low signature, mobile, relatively simple to maintain and sustain forces designed to operate across the competition continuum within a contested area as the leading edge of a maritime defense-in-depth in order to intentionally disrupt the plans of a potential or actual adversary.[1]What a garbage collection of buzzwords! Note, however, the key words and phrases: ‘small’ and ‘defense-in-depth’. There is nothing offensive about that.
- Conduct air and surface defense
- Provide early warning to allied forces
- Set up FARPs for allied aircraft
- Eliminated tanks
- Substantially reduced artillery
- Eliminated heavy mortars
- Eliminated bridging companies
- De-emphasized large amphibious ships in favor of small LAW (Light Amphibious Warfare) vessels
You think that the U.S. Marine Corps should be ‘abolished’ after 250 years because Berger is taking the Corps down the wrong path? Because right now you can’t see a role for an amphibious assault force in a conflict with China?
ReplyDeleteCommandants come and go every four years; circumstances change; treaties and alliances are formed and reformed; today’s friends are yesterday’s enemies and vice versa; new threats and challenges arise on short notice.
The Marine Corps Is critical to our national security.
Once gone; gone forever.
You did note the "IF" in the last paragraph, right? Here's the sentence,
Delete"If the next Commandant doesn’t reverse direction and get the Marines back on mission, we need to abolish them."
I hold the Corps in great reverence but any organization that loses its way and becomes irrelevant must go. Right now, they bring nothing unique to the combat table.
The Marine Corps is widely regarded as the best light infantry force in the world. Its 200,000 men (and women of course) are an irreplaceable asset and a vital component of our National Security architecture, so
Deleteto recommend that the Navy 'abolish' the Marine Corps and permanently lose this asset after 250 years 'If the next Commandant doesn’t reverse direction and get the Marines back on mission' doesn't, in my view, make any sense whatsoever, (unless this is a deliberate use of hyperbole to make a point), especially since the chances of the next Commandant making a 180 degree change of course are pretty much zero. (I seriously doubt that the President, or the Chiefs of Staff or the Secretary of the Navy would appoint the guy who said his plan was to tear up all his predecessor's work, and spend his 4-year term doing the exact opposite).
Separately, imo one of the big issues with Berger's plans and concepts is that they've have gotten ahead of the technology needed to implement them. We don't at the moment have, for example, the sort of stealthy, high speed, long range, mobile (truck mounted), maritime strike missile that a small, self-sufficient, island-based Marine unit would need to represent a serious threat to Chinese naval forces. But we could rapidly develop these if we recognized the need and urgency, and allocated the necessary funds. Similarly we could pretty easily develop and purchase large quantities of the cheap, long-range, expendable, stealthy IA-equipped drones needed to work in tandem with the missiles to acquire the targets.
Separately again, I'm not convinced that with the focus of the Pacific, we no longer need an amphibious assault capability. In the event of a conflict with China we could realistically expect China to seize and occupy strategically located island territories in e.g. the Philippines, Indonesia or the South Pacific to interdict our communications with our allies, to preclude our using these islands ourselves, or to deny us the use of our military bases as staging posts for an attack or a counter-attack. If the Chinese have grabbed these islands, we need to be able to grab them back, which means an amphibious assault. To support these assaults, and since the old battleship fleet and its one ton shells are not coming back, we also need a new generation of far more capable LAMs for shore bombardment. And of course we need lots of other stuff too and in very large numbers, and fast.
I'm not saying that there's not plenty to disagree with in Berger's plans, but I don't think they're as crazy as you suggest they are, and for better or worse I'm pretty sure we're stuck with them. So maybe, rather than advocating for something that's never going to happen, we need to ask ourselves how we're going to improve these plans, and then make them work.
I suspect that your support of the Marines is based on emotion (you just plain admire and like them) and inertia (we've always had Marines so we should continue to have them). If it were possible for you to read your own comment as an unbiased, outside observer, you'd realize that you didn't actually offer a single EXISTING reason why the Marines should be continued! Your reasoning was entirely based on non-existent, future capabilities that might or might not someday be invented.
Delete"The Marine Corps is widely regarded as the best light infantry force in the world"
Perhaps by you but that's not a universal view. Perhaps they once were elite but it's no longer even debatable that they're now a run of the mill fighting force, if even that. Standards have been lowered, capabilities have been dropped, and non-combat factors (gender, diversity, parental leave, climate, green energy, etc.) have been emphasized over combat.
"irreplaceable"
Nothing and no one is irreplaceable. Even in WWII, the Marines were not an irreplaceable organization. In fact, the Army did as much or more of the amphibious invasions as the Marines.
"the chances of the next Commandant making a 180 degree change of course are pretty much zero."
Why would you say that? This Commandant did a 180 from his predecessor so there's no reason why the next one couldn't do the same.
"(I seriously doubt that the President, or the Chiefs of Staff or the Secretary of the Navy would appoint the guy who said his plan was to tear up all his predecessor's work, and spend his 4-year term doing the exact opposite)."
And yet, that's exactly what they did when they appointed this guy! Your own statement contradicts itself!
"they've have gotten ahead of the technology needed to implement them"
You recognize this (good for you!) and then, bafflingly, you proceed to defend the Marines by citing non-existent technologies as justification for the Marines existence! You see the inherent contradiction in that, right?
"we could rapidly develop these"
You're not going to make me cite an endless list of the technologies that were seemingly simple and yet required decades to develop or just failed outright, are you? NOTHING is developed rapidly, these days!
" we need to be able to grab them back"
You recognize that, historically, the Army has conducted the bulk of amphibious assaults, right? There's nothing about amphibious assaults that REQUIRES the Marines.
"we also need a new generation of far more capable LAMs for shore bombardment. And of course we need lots of other stuff too and in very large numbers, and fast."
So, again, by your own argument, we need non-existent technologies in order to justify the Marines? Do you recall the Zumwalt's Long Range Land Attack Projectile (LRLAP)? It was supposed to provide exactly the kind of 'far more capable LAM for shore bombardment' that you call for and it wound up being cancelled for both performance and cost failures (nearly $1M per round !!!!).
"for better or worse I'm pretty sure we're stuck with them."
So, you're arguing for the status quo despite, apparently, not supporting the status quo when it came to Berger completely changing the Marine's direction? A bit inconsistent in your logic there, don't you think?
If I didn't know better, I'd believe you were on Berger's staff !
_______________
You clearly have a passion for the Marines and you seem to have at least some understanding of the challenges facing the US military and the Marines. Unfortunately, your defense of the Marines seems based on non-existent capabilities that they might someday develop rather than any capabilities they actually have today. Why don't you reconsider this and then offer a defense of the Marines (if you still think they're defendable) based on what they can actually do, today? That would be interesting and, possibly, informative.
You are correct about not me thing:
ReplyDeleteThe MLR concept is a poor substitute for the Army’s MDTF.
There are currently 3 Division size MDTFs (each 4 times larger than a Regiment) capable of “ theater specific employ long-range precision effects, cyber, electronic warfare, intelligence and long-range fires” and have some armor as part of the package in addition to the sheer weight of numbers.
MDTFs have organic LCUs and lift to get to the fight and can conduct both defensive and offensive operations. But they are all located outside of the FIC.
While MLR is a defensive construct, only 3rd, 4th, and 12th Marines Regiments which are hollow Regiments that rely on rotation battalions or batteries to fill their ranks are being restructured. These Regiments are already stationed in Okinawa or Guam and are inside the theater, unlike MDTFs. MORs act as the U.S.’s own A2AD capability until MDTF and the offensive capable I MEF or II MEF arrive from CONUS.
The I MEF or II MEF are still conventional Marine MEFs and they bring ground troops and aviation to accomplish the task. Tanks hat to be ditched because they are too heavy to travel, but there will be some direct fire capability for Marines. Possibilities include putting a big gun on the ACV or UGVs, but they must be able to come ashore with Marines.
And the LAV replacement. STill would be interested in Centauro II.
DeleteYou might want to check your facts. US Army MDTFs are a brigade size element. 4 Bns. No armor, no LCUS. They're still a couple of years from being fully formed and equipped.
DeleteThe Marine Corps is and always will be the tip of the spear.
ReplyDeleteRight now the Corps is increasing emphasis on its combined arms doctrine. During the War on Terror the Marines were forced to operate further from shore. This had a diminishing effect on fire support, and to compensate the Corps bulked up. In future conflicts the Marines will have robust offshore firesupport, and possibly unmanned landing vehicles to offer direct firesuport and deal with mines and detect prepared defenses that are not detectable from the air.
The proliferation of UAVs has changed the battlespace. Potential adversaries now have a method countering many of the advantages that armor provides. UAVs also give Marines the capability to deal with hard targets with a diminished footprint. UAVs also place an emphasis on concealment. A large visible force is an easy target, smaller faster units are difficult to monitor - paticularly if a unit has the full backing of a CSG.
Heavy armor increases the demands on supply chains. As the battlespace shifts from the Indo-Pacific to the far-east. Any insecurity in the fuel supplies will hurt mobility. Using tanks against adversaries with strong anti-armor capabilities is a massive misuse of resources. Paticularly when you compare the combat power of the F/A 18 vs an M1 Abrams.
These factors have made armor less effective. The Corps wants and needs greater alacrity and I am encouraged that they are being proactive in their approach to great power competition in the Pacific.
Well, that's certainly the company line, straight out of the Marine's PowerPoint presentations! You do, however, gloss over a LOT of very problematic issues the Marines face.
Delete-They've shed any capacity for high end combat by dropping armor, reducing artillery, dropping heavy mortars, eliminating bridging companies, reducing logistic units, etc.
-Smaller units are also less combat effective units. If that were not the case the Marines would need only a handful of individual soldiers to win a war. Combat is won by massing firepower, not reducing and dispersing it.
-I have no idea what 'robust offshore direct firesupport.' you're referring to. The Navy has only a few 5" guns and doctrinally won't operate close enough to shore to use them so naval gun support is not an option. A handful of attack helos and F-35Bs do not constitute a useful degree of support. A cursory analysis of sortie rates and weapons delivery capacity demonstrates that so significant aviation support is not an option. You'll have to explain what/where/how this notional 'direct fire support' will come from.
-The Marines have no viable, survivable logistics support capability for forward deployed forces. The small, slow, non-stealthy LAW is certainly not it.
-The Marines have serious shortcomings in mobile, armored, anti-air capability, self-propelled artillery, counter-battery, anti-UAV, and EW capabilities which render their overall combat capability at the very low end of light infantry.
And so on.
Feel free to address the solutions to those problems! The Marines are hand-waving them away. Perhaps you'd care to address them?
The changes being made to the Corps are not just III MEF, they are Corps wide. The tube artillery, tanks, heavy mortars in all Divisions has been decimated. The air wings in all three MEFs have been stripped of assets.
DeleteFixed wing sqdrns from 288 a/c to 180, a 62% loss
MV-22 17 to 14 sqdrns: 18% loss
Light Attacks 7 to 5 sqdrns: 29% loss
Heavy Rotor: 8 to 5 sqdrons: 38% loss
https://www.csis.org/analysis/us-military-forces-fy-2021-marine-corps
"In future conflicts the Marines will have robust offshore firesupport, and possibly unmanned landing vehicles to offer direct firesuport and deal with mines and detect prepared defenses that are not detectable from the air."
DeleteI still doubt unmanned vehicles will be useful in direct combat against a competent, well-equipped opponent, who'll undoubtedly employ jammers, hackers, and other electronic warfare units to interfere with enemy control over these unmanned vehicles.
"The proliferation of UAVs has changed the battlespace."
And competent, well-equipped opponents have adapted to these changes. Russia is employing jammers and other electronic warfare units to interfere with Ukrainian usage of UAVs, not to mention self-propelled antiaircraft guns and other air defense units to shoot them down. China is certainly taking notes and preparing her own countermeasures against US military use of UAVs.
No one wins a war by underestimating his enemy, or overestimating his own capabilities. If we don't prepare our counter-countermeasures and counter-countermeasures, our UAVs will quickly become useless.
"In future conflicts the Marines will have robust offshore firesupport, and possibly unmanned landing vehicles to offer direct firesuport and deal with mines and detect prepared defenses that are not detectable from the air."
DeleteWhat offshore fire support? You mean the meager amounts of 5" guns the Navy has put on their ships to make them look like warships? Where is this firesupport coming from? Navy missiles? They are going to be in the fight for their life. Think they will use one of their missiles on a platoon of infantry?
Unmanned vehicles? Where are they? I have seen nothing to suggest that the Corps is experimenting with any sort of thing.
The Marines have never had the type of artillary support that the Army has. Even more so since the BCT restructuring started. Are you unfamiliar with combat power that comes with a CSG?
ReplyDeleteWhat good is a $10 million dollar tank if it loses to a squad of $200,000 drones?
That direct firesupport was a typo, I did mean indirect. I do struggle posting on my phone.
In anycase it strikes me that the current organization aims to provide a collection of varrying capabilities. BCT is a rapid mobilizing force have made armored Marines a redundancy.
The new organization allows the Corps to offer a unique set of capabilites, allowing them to maintain relevance going forward.
" Are you unfamiliar with combat power that comes with a CSG?"
DeleteAre you unfamiliar with the use of a CSG? A CSG would NEVER be dedicated (tied) to one location. That's how you lose carriers (study the USS Wasp loss, for example, or the Leyte fiasco). Doctrinally, a CSG is used for interdiction of enemy reinforcements or attack elements far from the assault sight (hundreds or thousands of miles depending on the enemy's supply/attack/reinforcement lines. You need to study WWII assaults and carrier operations. The only carriers directly supporting an assault were small escort carriers. Leyte is a good example to study.
"indirect"
What indirect fire support are you referring to?
"What good is a $10 million dollar tank if it loses to a squad of $200,000 drones?"
Be wary of drawing conclusions from the utterly inept Russian-Ukraine conflict. Do you really think China is going to allow UAVs to leisurely roam the battlefield, picking out targets? Would we allow China to do that to us?
"a collection of varying capabilities."
Capabilities are good only if they're actually useful. The Commandant's missile shooting platoons, for example, have little to no combat usefulness (lacking any OTH targeting, salvo density, or resupply, and being highly visible). It's a capability, for sure, but not a useful one. The Marines are shedding useful capabilities (tanks, artillery, mortars, bridging, logistics, etc. and replacing them with worthless capabilities (LAW???, female indigenous relation teams, missile shooting, some kind of undefined ASW, 3D printing, ACV, JLTV glorified jeeps, etc.).
"The new organization allows the Corps to offer a unique set of capabilites, allowing them to maintain relevance going forward."
Add a couple of buzzwords (joint, integrated, multi-domain, etc.) and you've got a job on the Commandant's staff !
Have to agree here. The Corps has a long and impressive history. But today, capability is more important than nostalgia. Dont think I dont cringe at the thought of eliminating the Corps, but... If it continues its downward spiral into uselessness....If someone new doesn't come in and reverse Bergers idiocy... If they dont rebuild and reshape themselves into somthing actually useful... Then maybe its time to look at some options. The whole DON is a mess right now. The Marine budget could certainly be applied to other naval programs that would give more bang for the buck, and isnt that the whole point??
ReplyDeleteHow can the Marines have a credible defensive capability if they have substantially reduced artillery and eliminated heavy mortars, my understanding historical analysis has shown that battlefield causalities from ground weapons near 70 percent come from artillery and mortars plus an additional 10 to 20 percent from small arms hits, in most of the battles, campaigns, and wars of 20th century.
ReplyDeletePS Reported Ukraine is burning through ammunition faster than the US and NATO can produce it, said to be firing 110,000 155mm shells per month....a quarter of the amount used by Russia.
Actually the Russians have around ten times the number of artillery pieces as the Ukrainians and fire eight to ten times the number of shells PER DAY. Using the old Lanchesterian equations employed in old Army and Navy wargames, the Russians have roughly ten times the firepower as the Ukrainians.
DeleteOut of curiosity, I looked back through the Corps budget. Most of the 20-teens showed the Corps having a budget in the low 20 to low 30 billion dollar range. The last few years has seen that budget spike into the mid to high 40 billion dollar range.
ReplyDeleteAnd for what??? For less capability. For no armor and minimal artillery. For a "light" force that cant accomplish the basic missions of the service. As a taxpayer, I hafta say Im not happy with how those dollars are being spent. And as a navalist, I hafta say that we need a DON purge. The lunatics clearly are running the asylum, and sooner or later, lots of young people (potentially including two of my kids) will die needlessly as a result of the idiocy thats become so entrenched in the five sided fantasy factory...
Contact your congressional representatives, if you haven't already, and tell them what you want - clean sweep of Navy leadership, vastly increased oversight, elimination of the Marines, stop retiring ships early, ... ... whatever it is that you want. The fault is ours, as citizens, for not speaking out and speaking loudly.
DeleteAbsolutely!!! Ive been remiss in this but it is certainly time that the voice of common sense is heard, and that our reps understand that things are not as they should be. Sure, the military has been the long standing meme that keeps on giving, but what we've had for most of the last decade goes FAR beyond the 'ol $600 hammer... The leadership has gone way way off the rails, beyond anything we've ever seen before- its mismanagement writ large. Politics are so entrenched in the DOD that I wonder if its beyond hope, and can only pray that some taxpayer activism can help open the eyes of legislators and stop the downward spiral...
DeleteSo yes, CNO, as soon as I get past some recent family tragedy, I will write some letters. Blog commenting wont fix anything. We DO need to speak up and try to accomplish somthing. Anyone else ready to do the same???
And despite all these force cuts, overall manpower will be cut just 6% from 184,000 active duty when this began. If the Corps shrinks to 174,000 Marines by 2030 as planned it will line up with the end strength authorized in 2002, when the Marine Corps still had three full divisions and was just starting to grow after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
ReplyDeleteWho would have thought: Marine Corps' existence would now depend on a must-warmongering China. A long dragging peace will kill it.
ReplyDeleteFor an eye-opening perspective on historical Marine Corps size, see "Marine Corps Manning"
DeleteThis is off-topic. Com, I just came across this article. Don't know if you've seen it, yet.
Deletehttps://news.usni.org/2023/04/03/former-austal-usa-executives-indicted-for-alleged-accounting-fraud-face-sec-complaint
I am fine with dropping the tanks, but sitting NSMs on an island isn't the answer. Hunting for game might involve hiding in a tree stand, but other predators hunt and move faster than or have more endurance than their prey. I get that they can see moving the NSMs and MLRS around by C-130, shoot and scoot. That part is way better than LAW/LSM. Why aren't we launching Himars dropping the launcher out of the C-130 like they are doing with LRASM. Why aren't the NSMs stretching their reach on AH-1/UH-1? Why an island? Why not distribute on EPFs and God forbid LCS?
ReplyDeleteThe NSMs need to get to an island. We need amphibious planes and some LCU 2000s and /or some dedicated LCSs with berthing on the flight deck or HSVs, not this LSM/LAW that is still 6 to 7 years away for first deliveries and will probably not be available in sufficient quantities until the end of the 2030’s.
DeleteAlso, robust cannon artillery numbers is a must in any theater where we face indirect fire or armored opponents like Korea or Iran.
"Why aren't we launching Himars dropping the launcher out of the C-130"
DeleteSo .... you're envisioning a C-130 leisurely cruising through Chinese controlled air and water to drop a HIMARS on some remote island? If you believe a C-130 can do that without being detected and shot down then we wasted a LOT of money on stealth!
"The NSMs need to get to an island. We need amphibious planes and some LCU 2000s "
DeleteSo .... you're envisioning a large, slow, non-stealthy seaplane or LCU leisurely cruising through Chinese controlled air and water to deliver NSMs on some remote island? If you believe they can do that without being detected and destroyed then we wasted a LOT of money on stealth!
Evdery war is not WW III. In a proxy war this is doable. In an air defense with even S-300s or the CHinese equivalent this is doable. There is no perfect. Good card players work the hand they are dealt.
Delete"Every war is not WW III."
DeleteThe inherent problem with this is that, as we've just seen, we spent a couple decades building a non-WWIII force and now we're left with a hollow force that is ill-equipped for WWIII. If China opts to invade Taiwan tonight, we are no longer structured for a high end, peer war.
Fighting two decades of non-WWIII left us with the LCS, Zumwalt, no MCM, no offensive mine warfare, no fixed wing ASW, no ASW to speak of, a non-functional Ford, no large caliber naval guns, no amphibious assault capability, dozens of ships retired early because they have no purpose, no air superiority fighter, no supersonic anti-ship missile, depleted inventories of all munitions, ship designs optimized for cruises rather than war, ... ... stop me when I've made my point.
The proper approach is to prepare for WWIII and then any lesser scenario can be handled as a matter of routine.
"Every war is not WW III."
DeleteBut WWIII is the only war that counts and we'd better be prepared for it. After we've met all our WWIII requirments and we still have budget money left over then we can think about spending money on low end capabilities and equipment.
Dear Navy,
DeleteOur Strategic Rocket Forces are being re-capitalized.
The USMC has shown the way forward for the Navy.
Leave WWIII to the Air Force.
Bin the USMC bring back SAC.
"But WWIII is the only war that counts and we'd better be prepared for it. After we've met all our WWIII requirments and we still have budget money left over then we can think about spending money on low end capabilities and equipment."
DeleteI still like the JFK-era concept of 2-1/2 wars. Be able to prosecute simultaneous wars with China and Russia successfully, while at the same time being able to deal with a rogue nation or terrorist group. OK, maybe that's overkill. But I'd prefer overkill to underkill=get killed. As an instructor of mine at pre-Vietnam counterinsurgency school said 55 years ago, "What will the next war be like? The one we don't prepare for."
I do not diminish in any way the need to prepare for WWIII, nor do I believe that we are in any way prepared adequately for it. Being ready to fight and win WWIII, and having the bad guys believe that, is how we avoid WWIII.
Meanwhile we need to be able to win Cold War II. What I think we will see is a bunch of proxy wars with rogue states and terrorists, kind of what we saw in Cold War I. So preparing for low end conflict is also essential, but not at the expense of being ready to win WWIII.
Right now we are not ready for either. We've spent 20 years losing to a bunch of goat herders in pickup trucks,
" I'd prefer overkill to underkill"
DeleteWho wouldn't? Let's prepare for five simultaneous major wars and twenty minor ones! No. Make it twenty major wars and a hundred minor ones because we'd prefer overkill than underkill.
You can see what's wrong with that philosophy, right?
"Why do we need them?" Perhaps that is exactly the intention?
ReplyDeletePerhaps this is the first step to dismantling the USMC? Leftists are systematically and purposely disabling all US military services.
Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal saw the flag and is said to have remarked, “The flag raising on Suribachi means a Marine Corps for the next 500 years.”
ReplyDeleteThink he was off by about 400 years
DeleteWell, if all they are going to do is be a baby army with a baby air force, we don't need them. But there are some unique mission areas where they could have an extremely useful role. It's just that the USMC leadership does not want to go there.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately the GWOT may have taught the American people the Marines were indeed a "baby army". They became, IMHO, a sort of 101st or 82nd Airborne in capability because they went hundreds of miles from the beach, and operated for.... literally decades unconnected from their Naval roots. (I realize this is a gross simplification.) In Anbar Provence in Iraq and all of Afghanistan they were absolutely tied to the Army for CULT (heck, all distribution matters), CL III, CL I (DEFACs on FOBs which eventually morphed into a massive DLA operation thru LOGPAC) etc. In places like Fallujah, and frankly anywhere they operated, they proved their mettle as infantry, but it can be argued the Army units mentioned above would have performed as well. (Not to disparage US Army leg infantry, my respect for them and the mission they are equipped and train for is immense.) Is the current Commandants focus to put a marker down to reinforce the notion the Marines are NOT a baby army? W/O the traditional amphibious mission (which hasn't gone away from the Marines title 10 responsibilities.)
Deletehttps://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title10-section8063&num=0&edition=prelim
" the traditional amphibious mission (which hasn't gone away from the Marines title 10 responsibilities.)"
DeleteActually, a careful reading of the passage reveals that it doesn't explicitly state that the Marines must conduct amphibious assaults. The closest it comes is the passage below:
"for service with the fleet in the seizure or defense of advanced naval bases"
That could mean anything from supplying a radio operator to an Army amphibious assault effort to actually conducting an assault themselves. It also doesn't preclude the Army from conducting assaults, as they routinely did during WWII. Thus, Congress has not 'given' the amphibious assault mission exclusively to the Marines nor have they even made amphibious assault mandatory for the Marines. All they have said is, "service with the fleet in the seizure ... ". That's a very non-specific tasking to offer generalized support ('service') to the fleet.
Beyond that, the law further states:
" The Marine Corps shall develop, in coordination with the Army and the Air Force, those phases of amphibious operations that pertain to the tactics, technique, and equipment used by landing forces."
This simply says that the Marines must develop amphibious tactics useful for landing forces. It does not say that the Marines must be the landing force.
So, having dispensed with the misconception that the Marines MUST maintain an amphibious assault capability, we can proceed to dispassionately assess the Marine's overall value to the US.
FORCE 2030 = 21st Century Maginot Line
ReplyDelete=============================================
(1) defense only provides value in connection with the object being defended, whether protecting a higher value unit, a vulnerable movement within a larger operation, or a fixed target like a port or salient.
(2) Value of defended objects wax and wane over the course of a conflict.
(3) one generally doesn't get to pick the location and time where a defense is needed. Nor is the attacker obliged to make it easy for you to determine where and what to defend
(1)-(3) lead me to conclude the Marines are constructing a buzzword laden Maginot Line.
It's all just going to be bypassed. They're taking themselves out of the fight.
I don't even see the fight as being in the Pacific. Especially post-2021's Fall of Kabul, I feel the front has moved far, far from the First Island Chain and is to be found in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. And will expand south and west from there into West Africa.
Marine Corp is on the wrong foot.
By about 2028 it'll be obvious that conflict will be in the Indian Ocean and they'll recognize the need to rearm for an offensive & amphibious fight. Which is why the Army (and Navy) will use the next five years to zero out the USMC's capital budget.
Not really worth worrying about. It's five years too late to have fixed this.
Not sure I agree with everything you said but it's an excellent comment nonetheless!
DeleteMy biggest point of departure would be your assessment of the fight taking place largely outside the E/S China Seas. In contrast, I see Taiwan as the (initial) focal point of a war since China cannot afford to leave Taiwan intact and viable, for a variety of political, cultural, and strategic/military reasons (can't allow an enemy base in their backyard). Taiwan must be the first thing to go, from China's perspective. Do you see a military strategy for China in which they can allow Taiwan to exist (basing, staging, sensing) during a war with the US?
That aside, your overall assessment that the Marines have structured themselves into irrelevancy is correct.
If/when a China war expands beyond Taiwan, I like your observation about the Indian Ocean as a focal point.
Very nice comment!
As always, thank you for the kind words and for maintaining and moderating a [rare] site where ideas are debated and discussed.
DeleteThis would require a longer post, as subject matter is inherently more ambiguous than whether Force 2030 is a bad idea.
Briefly, in the wake of Kabul and Kiev:
[1] The value of the package we once provided (deterrence, rule of law, stable reserve currency, advanced weaponry and electronics) is impaired
[2] The value of adopting _neutrality_ to countries on the borders of the Competing Empires of China and US has increased.
Not disarmament, not alliance, but _neutrality_.
[3] The changing self-interest of countries that suddenly find themselves placed on the border much sooner than they expected (like Saudi Arabia and the Arab League) is not getting the analysis it deserves.
[4] I don't think it's rational to believe the outcomes for the next war, guided by our Priestly Class at the Department of State, and executed our Warrior Class at the Department of Defense, will turn out well for the host country. Or any better than it has turned out for Afghanistan, Iraq, and Ukraine.
[5] I think Taiwan, if the choice is to be the next host country for war or, for example, sign a 99 year lease proving the PLAN with access to deep water port of, say, Kaohsiung, will rationally choose the latter.
"The value of adopting _neutrality_ to countries on the borders of the Competing Empires of China and US has increased."
DeleteNeutrality works if the US wins the resuting war. However, if China wins, neutrality is just a delayed imposition of vassal state condition. China won't respect neutrality any more than it has respected territorial boundaries, now, for the Philippines, Vietnam, India, etc.
"sign a 99 year lease"
The problem with that is that China doesn't want a port in Taiwan. China has plenty of ports in the region. China wants ALL of Taiwan, totally subservient (conquered) for political and other reasons.
CCP would go to war if Taiwan (i) formally declares independence or (ii) becomes a US client state. Those are clear lines, but neither event appears likely. And, as is my point above, each appears *much* less likely than in July 2021.
ReplyDeleteCurrent CCP exercises only demonstrate to all observers, local & remote, in a wholly low risk way to all involved, that Taiwan and the US are unable and unwilling to keep the Sea Lanes of Communication (SLOC) to Taiwan open and that Taiwan's continued prosperity and independence is wholly at the sufferance of the CCP.
At least that's how I read it. You appear to differ.
Personally, I think it would be in Taiwan's long term interest to start a naval and air fight this very weekend, but my personal views not related to how the situation actually develops.
Just read an article about the army's proposed new watercraft. I'm not an expert, but looking at what the Army is looking at they may soon be giving the marines a "lift into action" or even absorbing / replacing the marines!
ReplyDelete