Gates Orders Marine Corps Force Structure Review

[Guest SUNTZU]

Article

SAN FRANCISCO, Aug. 12, 2010 – Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has ordered a thorough force structure review of the Marine Corps to determine what an expeditionary force in readiness should look like in the 21st century.Gates gave the order today in a speech here at the Marines’ Memorial Club & Hotel as part of the George P. Shultz lecture series.

The Marine Corps review is part of a much larger effort throughout the department to understand the world as it is today and what the military needs will be tomorrow.

“All of the military services have been challenged to find the right balance between preserving what is unique and valuable in their traditions, while at the same time making the changes necessary to win the wars we are in and prepare for the likely future threats in the years and decades to come,” the secretary said.

There are questions about the mission of the Marine Corps, Gates said. Before World War II, the Marines very successfully conducted ”small wars” in the western hemisphere. The service also developed the rationale and logistics needed to conduct amphibious warfare.

During World War II, the Corps was wholly dedicated to landing on the beaches in the South and Central Pacific. America’s first offensive of World War II was when Marines landed on the beaches of Guadalcanal and began the campaign against Japan in August 1942. Tarawa, Saipan, Peleliu, Iwo Jima and Okinawa are just a few of the landings Marines made.

Since then, Marines have fought on the beaches, mountains and trenches of Korea, the highlands and rice paddies of Vietnam, and the deserts of Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan. Although many of these operations saw Marines initially projected from the sea, “they soon turned into long, grinding, ground engagements,” Gates said.

The nation does not need a second land army, Gates said, but rather forces that can deploy quickly and sustain themselves for a short period of time.

“Looking ahead, I do think it is proper to ask whether large-scale amphibious landings along the lines of Inchon (Korea in 1950) are feasible,” the secretary said. Anti-access technologies, such as more accurate cruise and ballistic missiles, will work to drive the starting point for amphibious operations farther and farther out to sea.

All will gain from a serious and balanced look at military missions, with an emphasis on balance, Gates said. “The United States will continue to face a diverse range of threats that will require a flexible portfolio of military capabilities,” he said. The military must be equally adept in counterinsurgency and full-spectrum operations. Any enemy is going to confront perceived American weaknesses, and how the military responds to asymmetric tactics must be considered, he added.

Gates said he is worried that in a time of austerity, that the Defense Department may be seen by some legislators as a cash cow to fix funding issues in other government agencies. “One of my favorite lines that I have invoked time and again is that experience is the ability to recognize a mistake when you make it again,” he said.

The United States has unilaterally disarmed four times since World War II, and each time it was a mistake, the secretary said. The United States cut its military significantly after World War II, Korea, Vietnam and the Cold War.

“After September 11th, the United States again rearmed and again strengthened our intelligence capabilities,” the secretary said. “It will be critically important to sustain those capabilities in the future – it will be important not to make the same mistake a fifth time.”

The spigot of defense spending that was turned up after the terrorist attacks is closing, Gates said. President Barack Obama has agreed to about 1 percent real growth in the base budget, but the department needs roughly three percent growth. Gates has said he will find the savings and allow the services to reinvest the money in more critical programs.

Part of this effort was his announcement of a series of efficiencies that will eliminate two department agencies and the U.S. Joint Forces Command. His initiative calls for reducing the number of contractors, eliminating 50 general/flag officers and 150 senior executive positions.

This is the first step in an effort to reshape the “corporate culture” at the Pentagon to make every dollar count, the secretary said. The culture must be agile and efficient and such that all personnel look at decisions with an eye to investing in warfighter needs, he said.

Gates worked with Secretary of State George Shultz during the Reagan administration. “For more than six years, (Shultz) and Ronald Reagan formed one of the most successful partnerships of a president and his chief diplomat in modern times, a true model for how the relationship is supposed to work,” he said.

[Defender]

Article

This ain't gonna bode well for the USMC, I bet.

[Guest SUNTZU]

This ain't gonna bode well for the USMC, I bet.

Couple interesting comments and links to other articles at the link below.

Gates Orders Marine Corps Force Structure Review (SWJ Blog)

[Guest KimberChick]

Couple interesting comments and links to other articles at the link below.

Gates Orders Marine Corps Force Structure Review (SWJ Blog)

And then there's this: Gates: Marine Corps Troop Levels to Decrease - Washington Wire - WSJ

which seems odd considering the above posted information...

[mikegideon]

This ain't gonna bode well for the USMC, I bet.

Gonna have to wait and see his plan. I didn't get that feeling so much reading the article. The role of the Marines has been discussed since the end of WW2, and they're still here.

Edited August 13, 2010 by mikegideon

[Guest KimberChick]

Gonna have to wait and see his plan. I didn't get that feeling so much reading the article. The role of the Marines has been discussed since the end of WW2, and they're still here.

I kinda gathered from it that they are looking to return USMC to its roots, away from a duplication of duties the Army's soldiers can and are already performing.

[mikegideon]

I kinda gathered from it that they are looking to return USMC to its roots, away from a duplication of duties the Army's soldiers can and are already performing.

Yep, and maybe I wasn't too clear. I'm expecting them to downsize troup levels at some point. Just didn't get the feeling that the Marines are going to go away.

[jgm219]

It's just a revival of the classic, beaten to death arguement of why do we need two branches for land operations. The Marine Corps provides vital naval operations that the Army and Navy cannot provide without using special operations. I know that goes without saying. Last time I checked, the Corps was said to last another five hundred years after Iwo Jima so that gives them another 435 years on their "experation date". The Corps'll go no where else but to war or humanitarian missions when needed. God bless our Marines and thank you for what you do is all I can say .

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Downsizing the troops should be off the table. Marines don't need to be cut.

Don't they usually get the leftovers and make them work for years longer?

[Daniel]

Article about this over on Black Five.

BLACKFIVE: The Future of the USMC - "the Corps has evolved into another ground combat force"?

[Guest HvyMtl]

Sadly, the Marines are used as Army II. There is still the crucial need to be able to deploy rapidly, establish a beach head, hold the beach head, and expand the beach head, so the Army can come in and finish the job.

Yet, we use them as Riflemen, not Marines. This smacks of "mission creep" and the need for a larger Army.

To put it in basic terms, the Marines are supposed to be the first responders, quickly followed by the Army. They are not supposed to be used exactly like the Army, and stay in position for years.

So, yes, a rethink needs to occur.

[wjh2657]

The heart of the "real" Marine Corps is the Marine Amphibious Unit (MAU) and the Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) or whatever they may call it any one time. With the whole Corps kept to a workable size (175,000 when I was in), these are quick reaction and politically expedient forces for countering revolutions and pop-up political problems. It is meant to be integral to the Fleet . This far flung pre-positioned force has a mission that can be met only by a force that has its philosophical basis in both ground and sea based traditions and tactics.

Afghanistan and Iraq are a long ways from the beach, as was "my war" VietNam. Yes, the Corps will need a re-structuring after this mess, just as it did after Nam. It will and it will return to its original mission.

Did I pull this off WiKiPedia? No, I base it on thirty years active duty experience with the USMC . I served 6 years in VietNam and served on five MAUs (Floats).

When the world ends, the Almighty will have His Marine Gunny turn off the lights!

Master Gunnery Sergeant (MGySgt) of Marines, Retired

Edited August 14, 2010 by wjh2657

[towerclimber37]

The heart of the "real" Marine Corps is the Marine Amphibious Unit (MAU) and the Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) or whatever they may call it any one time. With the whole Corps kept to a workable size (175,000 when I was in), these are quick reaction and politically expedient forces for countering revolutions and pop-up political problems. It is meant to be integral to the Fleet . This far flung pre-positioned force has a mission that can be met only by a force that has its philosophical basis in both ground and sea based traditions and tactics.

Afghanistan and Iraq are a long ways from the beach, as was "my war" VietNam. Yes, the Corps will need a re-structuring after this mess, just as it did after Nam. It will and it will return to its original mission.

Did I pull this off WiKiPedia? No, I base it on thirty years active duty experience with the USMC . I served 6 years in VietNam and served on five MAUs (Floats).

When the world ends, the Almighty will have His Marine Gunny turn off the lights!

Master Gunnery Sergeant (MGySgt) of Marines, Retired

well said!!

I don't see the Marines going away. I DO foresee politicians doing their best to muck up the exquisite preparedness that the Marines put themselves in.

sadly, that's the way it normally is and sadly, politicians ALWAYS fight as if they are fighting in their last war, even though those who study war caution against that sort of thinking.