Optimizing the Marine Corps for small wars

[Ken White]

. . .
Using Mission Command as an analogy, the politicians should state clearly what they expect of their Armed Forces, a Mission Analysis is conducted and the bill is presented, the politicians either pay or explain to the country why they did not & let the public decide if they agree.

Pity they don't...

Channeling Norfolk, I've heard that the Marines are headed towards an MEU-SOC like effort for the BLTs; each destined for a small war or COIN locale will get specialized training and a certification of some sort.

Sounds like a good plan to me...

A guy -- or a unit that can fight a big war can fight a small one, a simple shifting of gears is all that's needed.

[Norfolk]

Channeling Norfolk, I've heard that the Marines are headed towards an MEU-SOC like effort for the BLTs; each destined for a small war or COIN locale will get specialized training and a certification of some sort.

Sounds like a good plan to me...

You know, with all this "channeling" goin' on here lately at the SWC, it sounds to me like I'm surrounded by psychics or somethin'...I think it's high time for me to invest some coin in a high-quality Tin-Foil Hat, or somein'.

[RJ]

Nomad posted - "But I’m sure that the same was said to Earl “Pete” Ellis in 1920 when he first envisioned amphibious means in the Pacific against Japan that would come to fruition some twenty-one years later. But then again, I am no Pete Ellis."

"Thoughts?"

The Corps has that "Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance Parameters" as a genitic pattern in its long view planners.

Vertical Envleopment for instance was not an Air Force or Army vision in the 60's, but a Marine one that was developing in the 50's. As a Ronnie Recon type in 1960 my unit was tasked to develop ambush tactics to lure and trap choppers into landing kill zones.

Captured me a Battalion Lt. Col. one time! Brute Krulak was the ADC of the 2nd MarDiv at the time. He thought it was very funny!

The "Anabar Awakening" seems a product of the Marine Forces in Anabar developing a friendly assist attitude and going along with Sheiks who thought that some of the sunni insurgents who were hand and glove with al Qaeda could be brought in and turned against the enemy.

In the Pacific War the Corps had 6 Divisions and 4 Air Wings and did the bulk of the Island hopping conquests.

The bulk of the Army was focused on North Africa, the Med and Europe.

The Pacific was by its nature an amphibous war stretched out over vast distances and fell to the naval service to take the lead.

Given the money and logistical support the Corps could bulk up for the multi small wars that will more than likely be the near future mode of modern warfare.

I guess the question still is , Does it wan't to belarger than 3 Divisions and Air Wings again?

[Geoff]

RJ you make an excellent point.

However if we optimise forces for a specific function, rather than train them for the wide spectrum of operations which the modern day soldier has to undertake? What happens when the COIN war is sucking up all the trained personnel? What about spreading the love (& knowledge)

Would it not be better to have specialists embedded within units, by actually incorporating different operations as part of the education and development process. Not saying that every unit must have a mountain warfare specialist, an OBUA specialist etc, but a ready pool of people who can be used in preparation for these operations and deploy to cement those lessons learnt. These individuals could then form a conduit for passing lessons learnt on the ground back to the widerarmed forces, rather than waiting for an armchair general like me to pontificate, CNN to advise and the inertial mass of bureaucracy to get in gear?

I must confess I do have a bias against too much specialisation, yes we need experts, but we should use them to spread knowledge, not hold them close and subject them to internal political wrangles - which would happen.

I feel that we need to ensure greater clarity from the political masters, not likely in my lifetime, but also the military hierarchy needs to be more forthright in its capabilities and endurance. It has been known for ages that warfighting has an increased wear and tear on men and materiel - why don't we seem to factor that in our plans? Off point but still pertinent.

Cheers

Geoff

[RJ]

Check out the article in the Marine Corps Times entitled

Marine Corps to get back to its expeditionary roots

[I've included the lead in paragraphs but this is a long article and y'all should down load it. It addresses some of the items and concerns discussed in this thread.] RJ


By Kimberly Johnson - Staff writer
Posted : Friday Feb 8, 2008 18:12:13 EST



The Corps is creating a new pre-emptive strike force unit that will put more Marines back aboard ships.

The plan, which includes creating new Security Cooperation Marine Air-Ground Task Forces, is a road map for how the service plans to fight future irregular wars and was reportedly signed off on by Commandant Gen. James Conway the week of Jan. 28.

For Marines, it means new advisory missions on top of existing requirements. And for sailors, it will mean a steady reliance on the amphibious fleet.

In recent years, with Marines committed to a long-term presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Navy’s gator force has, at times, deployed without Marines on unique missions, such as chasing pirates off Africa or using a big-deck amphib as a floating health clinic in Asia.

But that may soon be adjusted under the new operational concept, known informally as “The Long War” brief.
The emerging “long war” will put new demands on the Corps, Conway said in the report.

“Paramount among these demands will be the requirement for Marines to train and mentor the security forces of partner nations in a manner that empowers their governments to secure their own countries,” he said.
Based on threat assessments projected through 2015, Marines face a spectrum of operations, the report said: stability and support; small wars and counterinsurgency; humanitarian assistance, disaster relief and nation-building; peacekeeping operations; combating terrorism; counterproliferation and nonproliferation; combating drug trafficking and crime; and non-combatant evacuation operations.

“There will be fewer high-spectrum combat operations that require our Marines to bring the full force of our combined arms capabilities to bear,” according to the report.
Under the “Long War” plan, Marine expeditionary units will continue to be the “vanguard” first responders of the Corps. The Corps also will forward-deploy more Marines in the Western Pacific through a combination of permanently forward-based forces and forces sourced through the re-establishment of the Unit Deployment Program.

Central to Conway’s plan is the creation of the new units — the SC MAGTFs — to handle the building of partner-nation capacity, including requirements for civil-military operations and training less-developed military forces, the plan said. The unit will be “‘eyes forward’ in areas not previously accessible to U.S. military forces,” and will be used as an operational reconnaissance asset capable of taking on some special-operations missions.

[William F. Owen]

“Paramount among these demands will be the requirement for Marines to train and mentor the security forces of partner nations in a manner that empowers their governments to secure their own countries,” he said.

Why would that be a Marine mission? It doesn't have anything to do with what Marines do. OK, they may have done it in the past, but isn't the army far better resourced to handle this?

Based on threat assessments projected through 2015, Marines face a spectrum of operations, the report said: stability and support; small wars and counterinsurgency; humanitarian assistance, disaster relief and nation-building; peacekeeping operations; combating terrorism; counterproliferation and nonproliferation; combating drug trafficking and crime; and non-combatant evacuation operations.

So if this was a threat assessment, why are they talking about "types" or "styles" of operation and not talking about the threats? I understand the article is written for folks with no military understanding, but this must be dumbing the idea down to it's bare bones.

[RJ]

I suspect someone who has read the 52 page document will share it with us and either answer your questions or someone else will.

I suspect the Ambhib Navy will support the shift and all those admirals digging up gator navy missions to keep the boats afloat and tuned up.

[jcustis]

Why would that be a Marine mission? It doesn't have anything to do with what Marines do. OK, they may have done it in the past, but isn't the army far better resourced to handle this?



So if this was a threat assessment, why are they talking about "types" or "styles" of operation and not talking about the threats? I understand the article is written for folks with no military understanding, but this must be dumbing the idea down to it's bare bones.

The Marine Corps has conducted theater engagement for a long time. There is even a Security Cooperation Center aboard Quantico that serves as the hub of sorts.

In its capacity as an amphibious-capable force, the Corps has provided a lot of bilateral training and support with many other nations facing littoral threats, like the Philippines. And since the PI has its own Marine Corps, I don't think utilizing the Army to be the lead makes sense.

Even though it may simply be a hallmark of the past, I think the Corps is just as effectively resourced to provide security training/assistance to other nations. True, we would serve as better enablers of SFers working the FID mission in the backwaters of the world, but if the Groups are going to continue to be hard-pressed as part of the Long War rotations, the gaps have to be filled somehow.

I think that there is a definite and clear distinction between a team catching a helo in to train the indigenous security forces of a state that cannot muster armor formations or air forces, and tasking a MAGTF to focus (instead of conduct as a sideline event) on bilateral exercises and security cooperation engagement that aims at maintaining professional standards within the HN military and making the country as a whole more effective a defeating forces opposed to our national interests. Back as far as 2005, the Corps has been looking at ways to leverage off its unique abilities and skill sets to help the overall fight, not to be the new game in town and break rice bowls that have belonged (and rightly so) to snake eaters with the USA.

[Rex Brynen]

Army, Marines give waivers to more felons, CNN, 21 April 2008.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Army and Marine Corps are allowing convicted felons to serve in increasing numbers, newly released Department of Defense statistics show.

...

It also allowed two people convicted of making terrorist or bomb threats to enlist in 2007, up from one the year before.

The Marines did not immediately respond to request for comment.

Well, that's one way of optimizing for the GWoT...