Posted on 03/25/2022 1:45:03 PM PDT by Wuli
Deference to senior command is a hard-wired tradition in elite military organizations, and nowhere is that tradition more honored than in the U.S. Marine Corps. But what happens if a policy coming from the top of the chain of command is insufficiently tested or intrinsically flawed? Where is it written that a subordinate or former commander can set aside deference and demand a second look?
For more than two years many of the Marine Corps’ finest former leaders have struggled with this dilemma as they quietly discussed a series of fundamental changes ordered, and in some cases already implemented, by Gen. David Berger, the current commandant. Among Marines there are serious questions about the wisdom and long-term risk of dramatic reductions in force structure, weapon systems and manpower levels in units that would take steady casualties in most combat scenarios. And it is unclear to just about everyone with experience in military planning what formal review and coordination was required before Gen. Berger unilaterally announced a policy that would alter [as follows]
• Elimination of three infantry battalions from the current 24, a 14% reduction in frontline combat strength.
• Reduction of each remaining battalion by 200 Marines, taking an additional 4,200 infantry Marines from the frontline combat capabilities.
• Elimination of two reserve-component infantry battalions of the present eight, a 25% reduction of combat strength.
• Elimination of 16 cannon artillery battalions, a 76% reduction, to be replaced by 14 rocket artillery battalions, for use in “successful naval campaigns.”
• Elimination of all the tanks in the Marine Corps, even from the reserves.
• Elimination of three of the current 17 medium tilt-rotor squadrons, three of the eight heavy-lift helicopter squadrons, and “at least” two of the seven light attack helicopter squadrons, which were termed “unsuitable for maritime challenges.”
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
Knee-cap the nation’s premier fighting force just when things are getting dicey. Yeah, that makes sense. NOT!
The goal is to fight in the Pacific.
Take an island, jump to the next.
If Gen. Berger’s new ideas were well thought out and tested, we would be seeing 90% of retired generals enthusiastically supporting them instead of expressing concern. But the realities of brutal combat and the wide array of global challenges the Marine Corps faces daily argue strongly against a doctrinal experiment that might look good in a computerized war game at Quantico.
Twenty-two four-star generals deserve to be listened to. For the good of the country, let’s hope they will be.
“The goal is to fight in the Pacific. Take an island, jump to the next.”
In 1942, that was indeed the case.
China agrees with you.
Telephone call sometime during late January, 2020:
(Secretary of Navy) General Burger I have been directed by the Commander in Chief to approve your proposed recommendations along the following suggested lines...
Take them without attack helos, medium helos, artillery, tanks, and much fewer infantry. Infantry lead by and filled by women. But they will be supported by high tech information units filled with Berger’s “Marines” that never attended boot camp. And what is this island hopping archipelago you speak of?
Any other bright ideas?
Oh, and don’t forget, USMC Amtracs are forbidden from water operations, even for training. They can only be used for “war emergency”.
The USMC will have no landing craft, no organic fire support, no naval gunfire support, and nothing but the highly unsuited F-35 moonpig for this “island hopping” campaign.
The USMC is being sodomized by Berger.
I know that this will be unpopular but the Marines have suffered serious mission creep and have grown beyond their true need. Their purpose it to be the marine infantry in support of Navy operations. Much of what the Marines now do independently of the Navy should properly be done by the Army. Why were the Marines deployed longterm in Iraq and Afghanistan? Afghanistan does not even have a coastline. We do not need two armies. The Marines should be downsized to support Navy operations; their original mission. Leave the rest to the Army.
My grand daughter is 2nd year USNA. I find this discussion interesting. Marines is one of the USNA service options.
Don’t you mean late January, 2021?
Trump was still President (and is still my President) in January, 2020...
Oooops...of course. I unwisely ignored the little voices in my hear. Thanks.
ok, I am on a roll - hear=head.
“China agrees with you.”
I doubt that very much.
China is not the naval power Japan was in 1941. Nor does China have all the islands that were either Japanese or Japanese controlled. Thus, in WWII our Marines were pivotal for our Pacific strategy, which was to slowly squeeze Japan by taking control of Pacific islands that could support airfields. Our Marines were absolutely essential for that purpose.
In any fight with China, such “island hopping” would not be so essential, as we already have assets in countries that are far closer to China than any of the islands were to Japan in WWII.
Under today’s strategy, our Marines are our initial assault and hold troops, and there are none better. More often than not, the Marines’ objectives would likely be targets somewhat removed from population centers. Once the objective is taken (say, an airfield or a strategic bridge), the larger US Army forces can come in and operate from there. In that respect, the idea is similar to what took place in WWII. Besides, the total active duty USMC manpower is only around 180,000.
The days of storming the beaches ala Peleliu, Tarawa, Okinawa, etc. I think are over.
Technically, once she gets her commission, there is the possibility of transferring to any uniformed service.
I had considered it. As an Army MP Captain, I had looked into the possibility of transferring to USAF OSI. It's not common, but nor is it as rare as you may believe.
DOD INSTRUCTION 1300.04 INTER-SERVICE AND INTER-COMPONENT TRANSFERS OF SERVICE MEMBERS
Interesting, thanks.
The testicles are no longer needed...
Off with them!
Marked to read.
Some of these reforms are just part of modernizing. Artillery to precison guided rocket artillery for instance.
What I don’t see in the bullets is that the Marines plan to have 3 Marine Littoral Regiments, designed to go in on smaller ships of smaller units of 75-100, and fire anti ship missiles...shoot and then scoot to other areas...The Philippines and other island chains are ripe with areas to do this.
Some of these reductions will be in regard to these new Chinese aimed concepts. Google Marine Littoral Regiments. One is in the development phase now and 2 more are planned.
Good move. Berger saw the writing on the wall: survive by getting back to its roots plus get after the adversaries’ navies.
Small units deployed to maritime chokepoints with anti-ship missiles, security of forward naval bases, wrecking havoc on enemy naval logistics and bases, while retaining amphibious raid, NEO, and other MEUSOC missions.
The USMC Mission Essential Task List has been modified.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.