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

[Peter1469]

I have talked here about the transformation of the USMC into a lighter and more agile force. It is actually a good idea if you believe the USMC's future warfighting is in island hoping in the South China Sea region. I wonder what these generals wish for the USMC: more land war in Europe, the Middle East, or perhaps mainland China? Those are the places the USMC would need their heavy tanks.

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

An influential group of over two dozen retired generals has launched a counteroffensive against plans to transform the Marine Corps, and is using their clout in a high-power pressure campaign to get Congress to slam on the brakes.
The roster of personalities includes every living former commandant, along with a slew of other retired four-star generals revered within the Corps. And all of them are bristling at different aspects of foundational changes introduced by Commandant Gen. David Berger, who aims to make the Corps lighter, faster and more capable of doing everything from electronic warfare to sinking ships at sea.







The group of retired generals includes former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, former Joint Chiefs Chair Joe Dunford and John Kelly, a former Homeland Security chief and White House chief of staff.


“This is not a fragmented effort, this is a collective of 30 some generals … including six or seven of the most senior, most credible Marines that I’ve ever worked with,” said Frank Hoffman, distinguished research fellow at the National Defense University and a retired Marine officer. Yet he also noted that Berger’s efforts have already been blessed by Congress and the Pentagon brass, so putting a stop to them now is unlikely.


The Marine Corps’ two-year-old plan represents a fundamental shift in how the Corps equips its troops and goes to war. The Corps’ 400-odd tanks have already been shifted to the Army, helicopter wings put in storage, and infantry units are being reconfigured to become smaller and more nimble.







The changes are part of a wider rethinking of how the military is funded and structured to meet China and Russia, which are challenging post-Cold War U.S. military dominance. It’s no surprise that the Corps in particular, with its mystique of grit and self-reliance, would struggle with such rapid, deep-rooted changes.

And here is the answer. They want the USMC to work with the other branches when these changes are to refocus the USMC on the Fleet. Like using Marines a thousand miles from the sea in Afghanistan....

The changes Berger is putting forward “do not meet … requirements and do not meet the needs of the combatant commander,” Anthony Zinni, a retired general and former head of U.S. Central Command, told POLITICO. “We think the cuts are far too drastic and really, greatly diminish the capability of the Marine Corps as a combined arms team and move it away from its traditional role.”

[midcan5]

Why have the Marines at all? Apology to any Marine online here but when we were young, Vietnam era, we would say/ think / opinion that all the guys who went in the Marines were the gung-ho, had something to prove. But I have known many, one volunteered for Nam three times and ended up seriously hurt on the third tour. They seemed to be more in a guard function there as today at our embassies.

[DGUtley]

....or they just want to have the flexibility for what comes along?

Chairman Maobama cut our Navy fleet size and we're in trouble now b/c of it. The world is a dangerous place.

[Peter1469]

Why have the Marines at all? Apology to any Marine online here but when we were young, Vietnam era, we would say/ think / opinion that all the guys who went in the Marines were the gung-ho, had something to prove. But I have known many, one volunteered for Nam three times and ended up seriously hurt on the third tour. They seemed to be more in a guard function there as today at our embassies.

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.

[Peter1469]

....or they just want to have the flexibility for what comes along?

Chairman Maobama cut our Navy fleet size and we're in trouble now b/c of it. The world is a dangerous place.

I expect the current Commandant would keep the tanks and aviation if he was budgeted for it. He isn't. So with the money he has, combined with the mission he sees in the future- fighting in the South China Sea region, he is creating a force for that.

If another war breaks out in the Middle East so Joe* can get his oil that he won't get here, the Army can handle it. No reason for the Marines to be that far from a beach.

[Captdon]

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

[Peter1469]

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

How would one fight in the South China Sea region?

[DGUtley]

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

We aren’t - until we need to…. For years they said big tank and land battles were over. Now look at the Ukraine…

[Peter1469]

Here is an article that warns the littoral combat teams (Navy) have too few light infantry Marines assigned to them.

The Marine Corps continues to evolve to deter and, if necessary, defeat Chinese aggression in the Pacific. Force Design 2030 has placed a new emphasis on Marines as forward sensors for maritime and land-based fires. The service is creating littoral combat teams (LCTs) and the Marine littoral regiments (MLRs) to make this strategic step forward a reality. As these formations come to fruition, it is alarming to see arguments advocate for limiting the infantry presence in the LCT to a mere rifle company in favor of more “fires and FARP [forward arming-and-refueling point] operations.”1 Though the LCT must incorporate fires and FARP enablers, it needs to remain grounded in the three-company infantry battalion. Arguments to the contrary falter in the face of historical and contemporary scholarship. This does not mean the Marine Corps infantry does not need to change. On the contrary: Marine grunts must fully embrace a light infantry repertoire, mind-set, and tactical playbook to remain relevant and lethal in the future fight.
What Makes Infantry Light

Light infantry formations are distinguished from motorized or mechanized infantry by “possess[ing] no organic heavy equipment. They fight on foot, in close terrain.”2 Light infantry formations possess an attitude of self-reliance born from exceptional training and fieldcraft. Light infantry units do not “fear or resist the environment; they embrace it as shelter, protection, provider, and home.”3 They exhibit exceptional mobility on terrain that is often deemed impassable by other troops. This mobility, combined with fieldcraft and training to thrive on austere logistics, means that light infantry formations can continue to prosper even when executing operations with little to no access to resupply. Though they are trained in the use and coordination of supporting arms, light infantry formations do not rely on masses of artillery or air support.4 The compartmentalized terrain on which they fight, combined with the relatively short range of their organic weapons, means light infantry forces are masters of achieving a decisive advantage with their man-packed weapons alone. Their tactics in the offense and defense are tailored to the rough terrain that is their shelter and hunting ground.

Patrolling is the essence of light infantry combat. Outstanding mobility in compartmentalized terrain means relatively small light infantry patrols can use cover, concealment, and camouflage to defeat much larger enemy formations through surprise and shock. As suddenly as they appear, these patrols can disperse into rough terrain to preserve combat power or set the next trap. This mastery of patrolling translates into offensive action characterized by infiltration and raids and defenses based on concealed blocking positions and ambush. Though it is unlikely the Marine Corps infantry envisioned in Force Design 2030 would be the weapon of choice to single-handedly smash Chinese combined-arms brigades, an LCT could reasonably anticipate facing enemy (or proxy) conventional ground and naval forces. History suggests littoral combat teams will need to fight as light infantry to survive in the brutal terrain characteristic of many Pacific islands.

[Peter1469]

Russian Armor Losses Validate Marines’ Decision To Dump Their Tanks Says General

It depends are where and how tanks are used. The marines are focused on the Indo Pacific and tanks would get the best performance there. And they can always ask the Army to drop by and help if the situation merits it.

I[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]he three-star general overseeing the Marine Corps’ effort to reinvent itself was blunt in his assessment of why the Corps [/COLOR]divested itself of tanks[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)].

[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]“I just don’t see any need" for tanks in the Indo-Pacific region, Lt. General Karsten Heckl, the Marine Corps’ Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and Integration, said Wednesday. “And when you look at an operating environment like the Indo-Pacific, where do you see tanks playing out? Taiwan? OK. Where else?"[/COLOR]

And remember a lot of this is budget constrained. The Marines are using their budget to focus on the Indo Pacific, not the plains of Europe.

[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]The idea is to be able to better counter China in the vast Pacific, by deploying small, nimble forces able to hop from remote island to remote island or operating in highly contested sensor-rich littorals without being easily spotted and targeted. Yet one of the biggest criticisms of Force Design 2030 has been the elimination of the Marine tank forces.[/COLOR]