First, I do not intend to offend any of my Marine brothers or ancestors with the above question. The LA Times' David S. Cloud writes about Secretary Gates' concern about the future of the US Marine Corps. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates is ordering a review of the future role of the Marine Corps amid " anxiety" that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had turned the service into a "second land army." The review would seek to define a 21st century combat mission for the Marines that is distinct from the Army's, because the Marines "do not want to be, nor does America need" another ground combat force, Gates said in prepared remarks for a speech at Marines' Memorial Theatre in San Francisco on Thursday to a group that included retired Marines and foreign policy experts. In ordering the Pentagon review, Gates was deepening a long-running debate about the role of the Marine Corps, including whether one of its main missions — amphibious assaults against fortified coastlines — has become obsolete because of the changing nature of warfare and advances in precision weaponry... I find this debate a bit silly. After all, the US Army took more beaches in WWII than the Marines, but you didn't have a whole lot of hand wringing over whether the Army was getting too sea-based for it's missions, did you? The Marines are doing well, kicking ass, and will always be needed. There should always be room for examination of roles, missions, and suitability. But we shouldn't get too worried about whether the USMC is getting too much time on the ground rather than the sea.Some of the debate might be due to an over-reaction from retired Marines protecting their amazing heritage which is understandable since a few Presidents have attempted to disband the USMC. While I'm not sure where the next amphibious assault will occur, we will need Marines floating off of a coast line prepared to go in (mostly for diplomatic reasons but also for when diplomacy fails). And there will always be a need for forcible entry missions (you have Marines, Army Paratroopers and Rangers, etc. for those). This review seems to be more about procurement than mindset. The Navy wants America to build ships. The Marines want lighter and faster vehicles. So, you get the arguments about being the USMC being too "land-based" and "heavy". Ten days ago, the Undersecretary for the Navy, Bob Work, was quoted in the Navy Times:...The Marine Corps will “more reflect its naval character,” Work said. The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have forced the Corps to focus on sustained land combat, but he noted that the last three commandants have said in their guidance that “we want to get back to our naval roots.” The result, he said, would be a “tighter linkage with the United States Navy.” Marines will begin operating from a variety of new platforms like littoral combat ships and joint high speed vessels, and “should come up with new and innovative ways to deploy Marines — in smaller packages, with distributed capabilities.” The Corps will also review its tactical aviation plans to make sure the Navy and Marine Corps “are in complete sync” and can afford what they want... The interesting thing about smaller packages of Marines is that smaller means more common equipment will be needed (instead of a squad radio, you have a team radio, etc.). Should the Marines get lighter and take on the role of Special Ops and the Army's Light Divisions (101st, 10th MTN)? Or should it stick to the primary mission of beach-head warfare? And what should happen to the Navy's 3 Riverine Squadrons? Discuss.
Read the complete post at http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Blackfive/~3/r_tQdVdF7zw/the-future-of-the-usmc-the-corps-has-evolved-into-another-ground-combat-force.html
Posted
Aug 13 2010, 03:49 AM
by
BLACKFIVE