Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Time to give the Marines a overdue appendectomy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Time to give the Marines a overdue appendectomy

    FP Article

    Time to give the Marines an overdue appendectomy: Close a boot camp, get out of fixed-wing air, and even more cuts

    By Robert Kozloski

    Best Defense guest commenter

    When talking about reducing defense budgets, metaphors involving body parts abound -- cutting the fat, giving a haircut, cutting into the muscle (even to the bone), and tooth-to-tail ratios to name a few. Here is another -- the appendectomy.

    Natural evolution renders the appendix as one of those body parts humans can do without. Yet, the human body clings to it because the current model has been that way for a long time. The Marine Corps faces a similar situation.

    After a decade of war and being aware that the size of the Marine Corps would be reduced from surge-level highs, the USMC Force Structure Review Group identified that the operational "sweet spot" for the Corps of the future is somewhere between traditional army units and special operations teams.

    Institutionally committing to this sweet spot and focusing on smaller unit operations provide opportunities for the Marine Corps to deal with the fiscal pressure facing the entire DOD.

    Some options to consider:

    Eliminate Duplicative Headquarters: If divisions and wings are no longer the right size units, can they be eliminated and battalions and squadrons aligned directly to MEFs and MEBs? Could the entire 0-6 level of command in the operating forces be eliminated?

    Think Naval: Consolidate and integrate with the Navy. For example, the Navy Expeditionary Combat Command was created in response to 9/11 and maintains capabilities similar to those in a MEF. Can the two naval forces be better aligned? Should a new Naval Expeditionary Combat Element become the fifth element of the MAGTF, thus creating a true Naval Expeditionary Force? Could the Marines become the naval executive agent for Irregular Warfare for the naval services, while the Navy reciprocates for cyberspace?

    SOF Integration: Instead of duplicating existing SOF capabilities, SOCOM should assign missions to the MEU(SOC) while NAVSPECWARCOM could integrate all naval special warfare capabilities. To increase the Marines' SOF presence in the future, ANGLICO teams should replace Air Force personnel on the ground and free the USAF to commit resources to SOF aviation requirements.

    Use the Total Force: By requiring "Civilian Marines" to deploy to the field for administrative work, entire military career fields could be eliminated. Non-sweet spot units designed primarily to fight major wars should be moved to the reserves. The Marine Corps should also close the gap between its enlisted and officers. Some of the future high-end missions being considered for the Marines require a more mature and specialized enlisted force.

    Marine Aviation: The schism between Navy aviators and ground units isn't what it used to be. Could Navy tactical fixed-wing squadrons be placed in support of Marine units to get the Marine Corps out of the fixed-wing aviation business?

    Initial Accessions: Close one of the two recruit training depots. If a Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq type surge is needed, build temporary facilities at 29 Palms, CA or Quantico, VA to augment the throughput.

    Defenders of the status quo will resist any significant change to the organizational structure within the Marine Corps. This defense will likely involve using a flawed planning system, rich service history, and unacceptable risk to national security as elements of the defense. However, removing components that are no longer necessary because of the evolution to smaller unit operations may help preserve capacity and resolve long standing problems. Obviously, reducing force structure from the Marine Corps is a measure of last resort and should only be considered after efforts to resolve the excessive overhead problem within DOD have been exhausted.

    Robert Kozloski is a program analyst for the Department of the Navy and served in the Marine Corps from 1997 to 2007. He is the author of "Marching Toward the Sweet Spot: Options for the Marine Corps in a Time of Austerity" in the new ish of the Naval War College Review. The views expressed are his alone.
    This most sane cut that's hard to argue is the two Boot Camps. Both the USAF and USN have only one boot camp, and they are much larger.

    I'd favor the USMC getting out of fixed wing aviation as well. Fold that into the USN.
    Today, you are the waves of the Pacific, pushing ever eastward. You are the sequoias rising from the Sierra Nevada, defiant and enduring.

  • #2
    Why do we even need to keep the Marines? I'm genuinely curious.

    Comment


    • #3
      We need dedicated offshore troubleshooters. If they were folded into the army expeditionary warfare would wither, because the Army doesn't care about amphibious warfare too much.

      Of course, the Marines like to pretend that they are Army Jr., which makes people think they are the same thing.
      Today, you are the waves of the Pacific, pushing ever eastward. You are the sequoias rising from the Sierra Nevada, defiant and enduring.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by gribbler View Post
        Why do we even need to keep the Marines? I'm genuinely curious.
        No other service branch fulfills the strategic role of a rapid-response expeditionary force with combined arms capabilities.
        "Flutie was better than Kelly, Elway, Esiason and Cunningham." - Ben Kenobi
        "I have nothing against Wilson, but he's nowhere near the same calibre of QB as Flutie. Flutie threw for 5k+ yards in the CFL." -Ben Kenobi

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Al B. Sure! View Post
          No other service branch fulfills the strategic role of a rapid-response expeditionary force with combined arms capabilities.
          They need to stop pretending they are Army Jr., if they seriously want to make that case. In which case, they need to be shrunk much more.
          Today, you are the waves of the Pacific, pushing ever eastward. You are the sequoias rising from the Sierra Nevada, defiant and enduring.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Lonestar View Post
            They need to stop pretending they are Army Jr.,
            There are doctrinal differences in the way the two branches view warfighting: the Marine Corps emphasizes decentralized decision-making, creating friction and uncertainty for the enemy by rapid and unexpected actions, etc. to an extent that I do not believe exists within Army doctrine.
            "Flutie was better than Kelly, Elway, Esiason and Cunningham." - Ben Kenobi
            "I have nothing against Wilson, but he's nowhere near the same calibre of QB as Flutie. Flutie threw for 5k+ yards in the CFL." -Ben Kenobi

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Al B. Sure! View Post
              There are doctrinal differences in the way the two branches view warfighting: the Marine Corps emphasizes decentralized decision-making, creating friction and uncertainty for the enemy by rapid and unexpected actions, etc. to an extent that I do not believe exists within Army doctrine.
              So?

              If the Marines want to paint themselves as "elite and expeditionary" they need to stop being the third biggest Army in NATO.


              If you took all the Amphibious hulls in the Navy, and assumed 100% availability, the USN would be able to move around 30k Marines at once. The USMC's planned end strength is 180k.

              So, figure we include some overhead, airwing, and MSG...let's multiply it by three...we're looking at a requirement of aorund 100k Marines...at least if we want to claim that it's a "lean mean, expeditionary machine".

              And the Army performs about as well as the Marines do in combat operations, which does not indicate that the Marines are particularly "better", doctrine-wise.
              Today, you are the waves of the Pacific, pushing ever eastward. You are the sequoias rising from the Sierra Nevada, defiant and enduring.

              Comment


              • #8
                Oh snap, lonestar just ****ing laid down the "look at the results" card. do they really achieve better results for less money because of their recruit base and operational structure?
                "I hope I get to punch you in the face one day" - MRT144, Imran Siddiqui
                'I'm fairly certain that a ban on me punching you in the face is not a "right" worth respecting." - loinburger

                Comment


                • #9
                  The Marines are the worst offenders for unnecessary capabilities, redundancy, and nostalgic notions of what their mission is. Talking about an opposed beach landing is pretty ****ing far down the rabbit hole and yet the Marines still get wet dreams about getting another go at Iwo Jima. They have gone on to organize their entire force structure around this absurd fantasy.

                  Originally posted by President Harry Truman
                  The Marine Corps is the Navy's police force and as long as I am President that is what it will remain. They have a propaganda machine that is almost equal to Stalin's.
                  Truer words have never been spoken.

                  Things like the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, the Harrier, and ESPECIALLY naval gunfire support are answers to questions which have never been asked by anyone outside of a Marine uniform, and should never have been asked by anyone.

                  Originally posted by Lonestar
                  I'd favor the USMC getting out of fixed wing aviation as well. Fold that into the USN.
                  This is literally the single most baffling capability that the USMC has to me. All the other stuff can mostly be summarized under Iwo Jima wet dreams or "force independence" or whatever but as far as I can tell USMC Hornet squadrons don't deploy except attached to Navy carrier air wings.

                  edit: and GOD FORBID you try to use their uniforms; the ****ers actually copyrighted (maybe patented? not sure) their stupid camouflage pattern and thew a ****ing hissy fit when other service branches tried to use their cammies. Talk about one team, one fight.
                  Last edited by regexcellent; May 7, 2013, 23:29.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I think:

                    Marines focus on elite, expeditionary, drops down to ~60k with ~40k in reserve (air wing becomes drone wing)

                    Marines have bases in okinawa and US only

                    Navy takes over air/sea

                    I have put even less thought into the army

                    but:

                    Army is split primarily between South Korea and US, can leave legacy in Europe
                    Expand Reserves
                    Decrease Active (by 1/2? heavy primarily in Korea, Light/Med split)
                    Expand drones/decrease expensive strikers (cheaper vehicles are fine for light mobile groups)

                    Navy:
                    Keep

                    AF:
                    Keep?

                    Obviously this will only be good once we leave Afghanistan and Iraq.

                    JM
                    Jon Miller-
                    I AM.CANADIAN
                    GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I would drop the 10 divisions to 5

                      with 2 heavy, 1 medium in korea

                      1 light in europe

                      1 medium in the US

                      I would keep the extra regiments/etc (so that is like another light division or two)

                      I would remove the stryker type and replace it with drones

                      JM
                      Last edited by Jon Miller; May 7, 2013, 23:50.
                      Jon Miller-
                      I AM.CANADIAN
                      GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by regexcellent View Post
                        They have gone on to organize their entire force structure around this absurd fantasy.
                        Not really. They are incredibly bloated for that. The USN doesn't have the lift for more than 30k Marines, assumign 100% availability.

                        So the Marines are larger so they can "get some" and play at being Army Jr.



                        and ESPECIALLY naval gunfire support are answers to questions which have never been asked by anyone outside of a Marine uniform, and should never have been asked by anyone.
                        SEALs called in naval gunfire support in Somalia in 2009. The Australians and Polish provided NGFS to the British during OIF.
                        Today, you are the waves of the Pacific, pushing ever eastward. You are the sequoias rising from the Sierra Nevada, defiant and enduring.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Jon Miller View Post
                          Army is split primarily between South Korea and US, can leave legacy in Europe
                          ...How many soldiers do you think are in Korea? Because the answer is "not many".
                          Today, you are the waves of the Pacific, pushing ever eastward. You are the sequoias rising from the Sierra Nevada, defiant and enduring.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I know, but other than korea and 1 division in the US and maybe 1 light division in europe, I am not sure why we need an army.

                            I understand the need for elite expeditionary force, at least as far as the navy can carry

                            I understand the need for a navy, and the argument for force projection navy

                            I understand the need for an airforce

                            I understand the need for reserves

                            JM
                            (I will give the specialities for free, which is basically another light division in the US)
                            (If this would spook n korea too much then move the medium to hawaii and the light to the US mainland)
                            Last edited by Jon Miller; May 8, 2013, 00:05.
                            Jon Miller-
                            I AM.CANADIAN
                            GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Jon Miller View Post
                              I would drop the 10 divisions to 5

                              with 2 heavy, 1 medium in korea

                              1 light in europe

                              1 medium in the US

                              I would keep the extra regiments/etc (so that is like another light division or two)

                              I would remove the stryker type and replace it with drones

                              JM
                              5 divisions is too few. Probably would be more like 8 divisions. Maybe you could move some to reserves/national guard. The first thing to cut is the 82nd airborne. There is no ****ing reason for the army to have a whole goddamn division on jump status.

                              Getting rid of the Strykers would be retarded because they've been a resounding success. Replacing them with drones makes even less sense since they accomplish completely different missions. The Stryker brigades have a huge amount of firepower compared to an ordinary light infantry brigade. Everyone I've talked to who's used Strykers says they're awesome. The New Zealanders use similar type vehicles for their armor, and not long ago the Canadians were looking to replace their armor with Stryker/LAV type vehicles. They wound up getting used Leo 2s instead.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X