Quote:
Originally Posted by RJ View Post
“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.

Wilf posted:
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?
I am not speaking on the basis of any ‘insider’ knowledge, for I have no such info. So these are just some thoughts:

This mission does fit from what I heard articulated at conference a couple of weeks back about the new Cooperative Maritime Strategy -- which was that the USMC was very keen in developing the Strategy that conflict prevention be elevated to be of equal importance with warfighting. It ‘may’ also be that this mission is attached to, or related to, the USNs move to work with other naval forces to develop better partnerships with them as part of its increasing focus on Phase 0 operations (conflict prevention).

Beyond that, the article suggests that the USMC does not see being involved, or would prefer not to be involved, in any long term, ground wars in the future (if it can avoid this). Another thought is that if the era of big footprint operations will pass once the US draws down in Iraq, then this mission provides a persistent role in the Long War, which seemingly is the working title of the briefing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RJ
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.

Wilf posted: 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.
I the take point that this list is a list of ‘capabilities’. But has not the US shifted, or tried to shift, to capabilities based planning on the premise that this is the best means to be as prepared as possible for futurer risks, dangers and threats that are uncertain? ‘Bout the only thing missing in the list is conventional force-on-force, and that was mentioned elsewhere as not being a likely prospect in the short to mid term.