How two dozen retired generals are trying to stop an overhaul of the Marines

[Peter1469]

Update:

USMC Force Design 2030: Threat Or Opportunity?


Recap:

He [current Commandant] made it his top priority to bring the Marine Corps more into alignment with both the changing character of war and international security environment, and he announced a plan called Force Design 2030 to accomplish this aim.

But today, a group composed primarily of disaffected retired generals vehemently disagree with the General Berger’s overall vision of a future Marine Corps–so much so, that they are mounting a sweeping public relations campaign to stop him from getting it off the drawing board.[iii] While the Commandant is in no way obligated to listen to their complaints, the thoughts and inputs of retired Marines, particularly general officers, have long been valued by serving Commandants (the same can be said of all service chiefs). But this campaign takes “input” to an unsettling degree. The retired generals have made their objections known to General Berger and are expecting him to heed their preferences to preserve the status quo. Up to this point, Berger has not done so–or at least not enough for their liking. They therefore decided to “seek legislation that would halt the [Commandant’s] ongoing efforts until a more thorough requirements-based future is reviewed.”[iv]


There is a term for this approach: a shake down. There is nothing remotely like this behavior in Marine Corps history.

As a result, he arrived as Commandant with some broad preliminary judgments about both the future and Marine Corps force design, which he offered in his planning guidance. Among them, four stand out to me.

Judgment 1: The future Marine Corps must be organized, trained, equipped and postured to conduct distributed operations.

Judgment 2: The Chinese anti-access/area denial threat in the Western Pacific is the “pacing threat” for a future naval expeditionary force in the precision strike regime and calls for a different set of amphibious capabilities.

***

Translated, III MEF would become a force capable of operating inside the Chinese anti-access/area-denial network from the first day of any future conflict

Judgment 3: Given expected budgets, pursuing any new force design would require the Marine Corps to divest some legacy programs and force structure to invest in needed future capabilities.

Judgment 4: The urgent requirement to adopt Marine Corps force design for the future operating environment meant change must start immediately; “essential to charting our course in an era of strategic fluidity and rapid change will be the effective integration of professional wargaming in force design…”

[Captdon]

Embassy duty is one small part of what Marines do. A $#@! load of Marines bled and died in Iraq and Afghanistan. The first and second Battles of Fallujah were as brutal as WWII combat.

This doesn't make a case for having Marines. Why do we need two Armies?

[Captdon]

How would one fight in the South China Sea region?

It won't be storming the beaches. The Army can invade if need be.

[Peter1469]

This doesn't make a case for having Marines. Why do we need two Armies?

We only have one Army.

Marines work for the fleet as naval infantry.

[Peter1469]

Originally Posted by Peter1469
How would one fight in the South China Sea region?

It won't be storming the beaches. The Army can invade if need be.

Can you be more specific than invade? Invade what? How?

[Peter1469]

Now some retired Marine colonels are piling on. I still maintain that the Commandant's plan is the best choice, considering funding limitations.

Send in the Marines? Reconsider Force Design 2030 beforehand


Through this plan’s implementation document, Force Design 2030, the Corps has embarked upon a dramatic revision of its force structure by giving up significant infantry, fire support and bridging capabilities; all military police battalions; all tanks; and a considerable number of tilt-rotor, light-attack and heavy rotary-wing squadrons.

Further, the Marine Corps has reorganized some traditional Marine units into what are called “stand-in forces,” whose mission is “to operate across the competition continuum within a contested area as the leading edge of a maritime defense-in-depth.” These small units, armed with anti-ship missiles, are to occupy positions on islands from which they hopefully can sink enemy ships that come in range.

As military professionals, we write to share our very serious concerns that Force Design 2030 is a flawed operational concept in that it is narrowly focuses on fighting a specific type of engagement in a specific region, but more importantly in that it changes the very reason the Marine Corps has existed for over 246 years.

***


Force Design 2030 created stand-in forces, which are intended to be relatively small, highly mobile, lethal units that are to operate within the enemy’s “weapons engagement zone,” primarily in the Western Pacific. A stand-in force is specifically organized, trained and equipped for a narrow range of defensive missions in a maritime environment. Again, a stand-in force lacks any flexibility in mission capability. It is a one-trick pony.

Marine Corps units have “fought in every clime and place,” and they are ready to deploy anywhere they are needed, anywhere around the world.

[blackjack21]

The marines are focused on the Indo Pacific and tanks would get the best performance there.

Maybe in Korea tanks might be useful? In Vietnam, they often sank in the mud. I think we'd be better off with perhaps some Spooky/Spectre modifications to V-22s for troop support. I think getting rid of the heavy tanks and getting more amphibious equipment makes more sense in the South East Asia area. Any direct conflict between US and Chinese forces would likely be in places like the Spratly Islands. I doubt tanks would be helpful there.We know how the Russians fight, and we know the Air Force has been trying to get rid of the A-10 forever. We should transfer Marine M1s and Air Force A-10s to Poland and get them trained up for future fights with Russia.

This doesn't make a case for having Marines. Why do we need two Armies?

The Marines are naval infantry, not an army. That the Pentagon has been using them interchangeably is a separate question. The reality is that our military isn't big enough to do what it wants to do. For beach defense of Taiwan, amphibious operations, etc., you need Marines.

It won't be storming the beaches.

The landing at Inchon during the Korean War was precisely storming the beaches. Taking the Spratly Islands would be precisely the type of thing that would involve storming beaches.

[Cletus]

For beach defense of Taiwan, amphibious operations, etc., you need Marines.

Why?

[MisterVeritis]

The Marines have no real purpose any longer. We aren't going to send troops off a ship.

Forced entry will always be a legitimate mission.

[MisterVeritis]

This doesn't make a case for having Marines. Why do we need two Armies?

Training.

Let the marines conduct forced entry operations. Once we have a beachhead the Army can roll ashore and provide the relevant combat power to engage and defeat whatever enemy is present.