Marine Corps Commandant Berger’s term of office has
ended. While that is cause for
celebration, the celebration is exceedingly short lived and subdued due to the fact
that his presumed successor, Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen.
Eric Smith, is almost certainly a clone of Berger. Berger’s number two is assuredly a near
carbon copy of Berger or else he wouldn’t have been Berger’s number two.
I hope Smith will be a better Commandant but the odds on
that are vanishingly low. We’ll see …
As far as I am concerned, the Marines didn't have a boss when they had a boss named Berger. They have totally lost their way, and they're going to end up as part of the Army if they don't figure it out soon.
ReplyDeleteThis is where Congress should have used their oversight. Military minded members of Congress have been highly critical of Berger's attempt to make the most feared combined arms infantry unit in the world into a Navy destroyer on trucks. And although there were threats to keep holding up confirmations, the hold ups were over every issue except the one they should have been looking at--whether the Berger strategy was actually any good.
ReplyDeletePoliticians need to stop punting and actually make a play.
Absolutely! To be fair, Congress has been exercising its oversight authority a bit more than in the past. They've stopped some of the ship retirements and dictated various other issues. However, they've thus far shied away from refusing to confirm flag nominations. If they don't like the woke movement in the military they should refuse nominations and fire the people they don't like (can they fire confirmed officers?). To be fair, the Democrats are generally pretty happy with it so its hard to muster a consensus about this.
DeleteComNavOps two posts before this one documenting the inability of this nations manufacturing base to support WWII-style campaigns materiel-wise.
ReplyDeleteWe can't. We'll never be able to (again) because:
1. Can't afford it.
2. Don't have the skills.
3. Don't have the will population-wise; couldn't man 5 more shipyards (or 2 more battlegroups) even if you could pay for them.
And knowing that, the USA shouldn't concentrate on (re-)playing that game. Just like we shouldn't have (didn't?) spent any time improving horse cavalry after The Civil War. "Not enough horses/saddles/sabres! Look at Picketts Ridge consumption rates! My god, man, think of the hay requirements! Logistics, I tells ya!"
Bergers' move to a coast-watcher sniper doctrine is his recognition that USMC needs to engage differently given that it can't compete (survive) in the WWII scenario which has driven strategy and tactics over the last 80 years. 100+, if you count WWI- IMHO Berger is completely wrong BUT I understand his desire to change engagement terms.
USN needs to pull out a clean sheet of paper to figure out how we'll fight the next war. And that requires defining the mission (ComNavOps core tenet, if I understand correctly). There will be NO Thunder Run to Beijing. The Battle of Midway will play out differently given Chinas' commercial fleet is completely integrated with, and leverages, the ChiComms PLAN. And drones; omigosh the drones. To mass forces is to lose them (cf Russia/Ukraine; both sides).
Three trillion dollars and thousands of casualties didn't produce a WWII victory in Iraq or Afghanistan. Two wars where the USA held a multiple materiel-production advantage- Quantity, technology and better people were all on our side. No clean victory.
I submit we should all concentrate on looking forward. And not backwards to WWII- Figure out how to fight asymmetrically because numbers, ships, men and whatever else, isn't possible in this day and age. That's fighting the last war.
And finally, let me reiterate I think Berger is/was wrong to reorient USMC the way he did. But I understand why he did it. The other services should take note.
Yours is an interesting comment that is partly wrong, partly right, and partly pointless. Before you get upset and think I'm attacking you, consider these critiques of your points:
DeletePartly right - You're correct that we need to establish a new way of fighting China which is the only war that counts and is a certainty to occur.
Partly wrong - Your central premise, as best I can interpret it, is that we can't manufacture our way to victory (meaning, an Arsenal of Democracy type approach). This is utterly incorrect. We absolutely can outproduce China but we need to make some major changes to do so. We have HUGE manufacturing capacity with one major problem: IT'S NOT IN THE UNITED STATES! We've forced our manufacturing overseas due to regulatory burdens and costs. If we bring all that back home we'll not only hugely increase our home industrial capacity but we'll simultaneously devastate China's by removing BOTH their manufacturing AND their market.
We also have another huge advantage China and that is that we're part of a global economy which provides both resources and markets for us. Yes, China is currently part of that global economy but in the event of war, we'll remain part of the global economy whereas China will be eliminated from it. The major producers, suppliers, and markets are almost all Western/US leaning and will cease interactions with China.
You've also incorrectly understood massing. Massing is a constant in war. Now, you have to do it correctly which neither Ukraine nor Russia is doing which is why I constantly warn against drawing conclusions from that conflict (which you appear to have done despite my warnings!).
Pointless - "I submit we should all concentrate on looking forward. And not backwards" That's a pointless platitude that offers no path forward. What, specifically, should we be doing to 'look forward'?
"USN needs to pull out a clean sheet of paper" Again, this is a pointless platitude that offers no remedy. What, specifically, should go on this clean sheet of paper?
In summary, you dimly see the problem with our CURRENT situation and want change but you offer no specific solutions. Give me some specifics! As an example, I've offered you the solution to our production/industrial shortcomings. Now, do the same for some of your other concerns such as the direction of the Marine Corps, our approach to future war, etc.
You've somewhat identified the problem, now offer the solution!
"...looking forward. And not backwards"
DeleteI dont want to misinterpret this... But Im going to suggest that looking forward, in many ways ( next gen weapons, transformationalism, "future growth space", modularity concepts, etc...) have been mistakes. Ive said it a few times that often, answers to our problems lie in the past. From warship design, weapons density, and manning, to tactical, strategic, and logistical planning, I feel there's lots more useful info and examples back aft than ahead. So Id agree with a clean sheet concept, but Id heavilly rely on the past to help shape it, rather than futuristic, unproven ideas and concepts.
I submit we can't outproduce China BECAUSE OF 'regulatory burdens and costs'. Said costs drove manufacturing out of this country and will keep manufacturing out of this country. Those are the people we've all voted for, repeatedly, and they implement policies which ratchet ever towards regulation. Increases the cost(s) of doing business.
ReplyDeleteYou can't build another shipyard. There's no coastline unaccounted for. You can't hardly build new plants for missiles and aircraft. Combination of NIMBYism,Fed/State/Local regulations plus the EPA seal that deal.
Nobody should build a new plant, given the spastic way Congress funds platforms (a few this year, more next year, fewer than the previous year 1 in year 3) because ROI becomes riskier. How can you plan or invest given uncertain orders over an indeterminate time horizon?
Also, in addition to regulatory burdens, we can't afford it. USA has added $1Trillion to the national debt since Congress lifted the ceiling less than 2 months ago. That's not sustainable.
Not enough obstacles? We can't man the forces we have now. One of my assumptions is that we can't conscript people into service OR factories. The national culture isn't what it was in the 1940s.
My original point was the WWII model of producing hundreds of ships and thousands of aircraft is over, done and never to be repeated. We better start thinking about alternatives.
My alternative, solution if you will, is what I've documented elsewhere in your blog. And can't find despite searching-
1. Sea Control: Interdict shipping lanes; nothing in or out of China. Know where that falls apart? What happens when we Harpoon a Greek or Venezuelan freighter? You say China will be eliminated from the world economy? Nope. No more than Russia has been stopped from shipping oil today. Unless you get ruthless. Only have to sink 2-3 ships before shipping becomes uninsurable. Do we have the will? And before you point out 'over land to China' you ought to pull out a globe. None of the 'Stans has a peer air defense capability that can stop USAF.
2. No more land grabs. We don't have the will go 'go Roman' on civilian populations. We can't impose our values on other cultures. Instead, execute governments (Air Force mission) and deal with the senior surviving General. "Play ball or you're next. At which point we'll contact the next surviving Colonel."
3. Concentrate on longer range missiles which can be launched outside of shore defenses. Launch in volume. Range being far more important than speed; no hypersonics for the Navy. I'd rather have another 1,000 miles in range over and above what our missle ordinance has now.
4. Unmanned is critical. Mines are unmanned. MALDs are unmanned. Ocean Recon is unmanned; no reason the P-8 community can't be unmanned. SOSUS can be automated; if it hasn't been already. Your strongest argument against unmanned platforms, to-date, is lack of Damage Control and Maintenance. My counter is, 'But cost that out one vs. the other.' Do we know that losing platforms because of non-existent damage control isn't cheaper than manning with?
All of that is my approach to China. The rest of the world, well, that's different. That's where you still need USMC. And the Army. We likely will have to put boots on the ground in Panama, Cuba and Venezuela. Orient ground forces towards those missions. And make sure they have Navy transport.
Western Hemisphere becomes an American lake. Hands-off UK, Australia and Japan or you'll have to deal with us.
The rest of the world can fend for itself.
5 nations will go nuclear over the next 5 years. You want the over or under?
"I submit we can't outproduce China BECAUSE OF 'regulatory burdens and costs'."
DeleteAt this moment, that's absolutely correct. However, that's not new information. We've known that and discussed it at length. What we're looking for are solutions. What do we need to do to regain our industrial base?
On the military side, you've offered some solutions albeit it highly debatable solutions. For example, you mention blockade (although you call it sea control) but you don't address the fact that every ship devoted to a blockade is one less available for the main combat - presumably defending/retaking Taiwan. How do we impose a global blockade AND conduct active combat operations with a fleet of just 180 combat ships that is decreasing rapidly?
You mention unmanned and cite an example of an unmanned P-8. Whether manned or unmanned, they'll cost exactly the same. These are large, slow, non-stealthy aircraft ... what we call non-survivable targets. P-8s, whether manned or unmanned, will have a life span measured in minutes in the combat zone. How will losing scores of incredibly expensive P-8s help us?
You mention thousand mile missiles. What will be the launch platforms since we don't have many/any bases within a thousand miles of expected operating areas?
You mention land grabs but, to be clear, the US doesn't seize and keep land. We invariably leave and/or relinquish control after relatively short periods of time. The concept of sequential decapitation of enemy leadership is perfectly valid and I've posted on that in the past.
"Sea Control: Interdict shipping lanes; nothing in or out of China."
DeleteYou forget China is a CONTINENTAL power, bordering many nations with which she may conduct trade OVER LAND. How will naval interdiction stop Russia from shipping supplies in and out of China? Afghanistan? Pakistan? Cambodia? Remember, two of these nations are NUCLEAR POWERS, able to attack US forces if not the US itself if they're willing to risk the consequences.
"Concentrate on longer range missiles which can be launched outside of shore defenses."
Is there any guarantee you can fit the resulting missile into our ships, and be certain your opponent has no missiles that outrange ours? Remember, a war against means one in which China has local advantages in logistics and transportation, e.g., to move long-range missiles from factories to near-shore launch positions.
"Range being far more important than speed; no hypersonics for the Navy."
Speed makes it more difficult to intercept the incoming missile. I argue speed and range are BOTH IMPORTANT.
"Unmanned is critical."
Only so long as we can maintain command and control over these unmanned assets. As the Russians are currently demonstrating, electronic warfare can prevent this, making these unmanned assets USELESS.
"Mines are unmanned."
Mines don't need constant monitoring, and are immune to electronic warfare. On this, I agree.
"bordering many nations with which she may conduct trade OVER LAND."
DeleteTechnically true but practically false. What do Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Cambodia have in the way of either industry to manufacture things that China needs/wants to trade or what do they have in the way of a consumer population to consume trade goods from China? The answer is nothing. While, yes, China borders those countries, there is no significant, beneficial trade to be had with them and certainly no useful war trade to help China sustain a war with the US/West.
So, technically true but practically false.
This is one of China's major vulnerabilities. China has very few USEFUL trading partners other than the West and they will instantly lose all of those in a war with the US.
China has domestic industries to produce her own computer chips, turbine and diesel engines, steel and composites for vehicle hulls and airframes. What she needs from Russia and Afghanistan are oil, rare earth elements, and other raw materials- admittedly with difficulty, due to poor roads and railroads, but China initiates the Belt and Road initiative to improve them YEARS ago.
DeleteAs for the West, you need to do more research on how Russia and its allies- and Russia still has them- are reacting to our attempts to "punish" her. India is now using Chinese yuan to pay for Russian oil; others are undergoing a process of "de-dollarization," i.e., they're outright stopping the use of US dollars in their own economies, which then hurts ours. In short, China can survive without trading with the US and Western Europe, if necessary.
AEI website notes that 19% of China's GDP is linked to exports. In other words, China depends on foreign markets to generate significant amounts of money. Most of those exports go to the West and would be lost to China in a war.
DeleteYes, China has industries but, again, a significant portion are dependent on foreign orders and foreign raw materials. As one example, in 2021, China imported $430B of semiconductors of which 36% came from Taiwan. That entire semiconductor import would be lost to China in a war.
China needs foreign markets more than foreign markets need China. The US can replace any manufactured good it gets from China. China cannot replace the Western export market.
China is waging economic war with the US. The attempt to replace the dollar is one battle being fought in that war. The US needs to wake up and fight back.
"China needs foreign markets more than foreign markets need China."
DeleteAnd she's getting them in South America, the Middle East, Central and Southeast Asia. We won't win this war if we keep underestimating our enemies- or if we keep driving potential allies to the other side.
"The US needs to wake up and fight back."
We're fighting back INCOMPETENTLY, which is worse than not fighting at all. For example, wouldn't Russia be a critical ally in any hypothetical Sino-American War? Shouldn't we do all we can to win over Russia- throwing Ukraine to the (Russian) wolves, if necessary, to get her on our side and against China's?
Instead, what are we doing? SIMULTANEOUSLY making enemies of Russia and China, guaranteeing both nations will ally with each other and AGAINST US in a hypothetical Sino-American or Russo-American War.
The problem with Smith is he thinks and probably had a hand in driving some of this with his own thinking. Why we'd want to replicate Imperial Japan in WWII is beyond me; Sure we need to defend our own areas, but at same point, he or Berger could have looked to for instance add some anti-ship missile capability to his existing inventory of weapons rather than remove arty and tanks. He did not play a shell game of removing worthless positions to make up for it, rather he made entire weapon systems in his eyes worthless overnight, to which adding them back will take many months of pain. Don't think you need tanks as much? Put them in the 4th division then for reserves. Ditto Arty and some choppers. But the premise our choppers are too short haul, well, news flash, these distances are not good for anybody's choppers or our Osprey's, and we don't see a load of C-130's procured which would have been the right play. the LAW ship is a joke, a massive waste of $, either convert the Spearhead class which can move more than a company of Marines and some vehicles, and quickly, or just buy dirt cheap old LST's and convert them to what is considered acceptable for a 10-15 year lifespan (and I have no idea what is left out there, there is a reason people stopped making LST's). The new smaller Marine carrier is just a slow, easy target, and yes, the Chinese will sink every damn ship in a shipping lane around contested areas. Let's not pretend a country that could round up a few million Uighurs and herd them into camps that would make the North Koreans proud are really going to worry about unrestricted warfare on any and all ships. I'd feel better if Berger wanted to convert some old LA class into troop carrying subs, at least the asset was paid for, does not have to be used to death, only in certain situations, and get a few more years of life outside of a very stealthy asset. It would have sounded crazy but it would be rational. Now we will strand our own assets to be dealt with at the leisure of the country that is going to probably win round 1 in any engagement and we will have to claw back territory.
ReplyDeleteThe shame is our General Officer Corp is a train wreck! I have little confidence in any leadership across the Services!
ReplyDeleteI have been trying to figure out how he "fairy-dusted" the logistics of this thing when he supposedly "war gamed" it. How were these disaggregated groups getting resupplies? Where were the extra missiles coming from? How were they getting the fuel for the equipment necessary to perform these tasks? How were they going to keep their electro-magnetic signature down so it wasn't "seen" by enemy forces? How was he planning on moving these forces around? Why did he not bring the Navy into the planning of this since he was going back to the roots of the Corps by pursuing a Naval campaign. Seems to me the Navy might have a say in this idea.
ReplyDeleteThis is where I am a bit fuzzy. In a scenario of a destroyer firing anti-ship missiles at an opponents ship....how many missiles would be fired at said vessel to overcome its defensive counter measures? I am guessing it is more than two. And that seems to be the number of missiles on this "NMESIS" system the Marines are touting. Which goes back to, where is the resupply of missiles coming from and how are they relaoding while keeping electro-magnetic signature down?