This from the Lexington Institute...Loren Thompson's latest is a must read. Go
here for the full text...this snippet caught my eye.
After nine years of fighting in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, a
fashionable idea has taken hold in policymaking circles that amphibious
warfare is largely a thing of the past, and that the Marine Corps needs
to focus on other missions more vital to the prosecution of
unconventional conflicts. It's true that Marines have been spending
less time afloat and more time away from the sea -- see Frank Oliveri's
cover story, "Beyond the Beachhead," in this week's Congressional
Quarterly Weekly -- but that is probably just a temporary
phenomenon. Most of the world's population still lives within a one-day
ride from the beach, and America's security (not to mention its
prosperity) depends on having assured access to that narrow band of
littoral real estate.
But technology is advancing quickly, and the Marine Corps can't
credibly conduct amphibious operations today with weapons designed for
the Nixon era. That's why it is replacing its legacy aircraft with
systems such as the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor and F-35B fighter that have
the vertical agility to takeoff and land on a dime. A similar
transformation is required in its ground vehicles, so that instead of
being sitting ducks that require warships to deposit them within range
of enemy guns ashore, they can use the sea as a maneuver space to hit
the beach from over the horizon whenever and wherever it is most
advantageous.
EFV was designed with that need in mind, so it has three times
the water speed and twice the armor of existing amphibious vehicles. A
single EFV can transport an entire 17-person rifle squadron ashore, and
then quickly penetrate inland at the speed of an M-1 tank without having
to use the roads where improvised explosives are often planted. That's
a complicated mission profile requiring a versatile vehicle, and the
Commandant of the Marine Corps is adamant that no suitable alternative
to EFV exists. Government testers previously complained that the
vehicle needed to be more reliable, but it is now exceeding reliability
goals, so the question is whether the Obama Administration is going to
spend the money necessary to keep America in the amphibious-warfare
business. If the answer is "no," it doesn't take a lot of imagination
to figure out what that means for the future of the U.S. Marine Corps.
Face it, Obama doesn't like the very idea of the Marines. The Obama-left doesn't think America can be trusted to wield that power responsibly. So if we aren't capable of kicking down the doors of some country that opposes us ... then that's a feature, not a bug.
ReplyDeleteObama would like to defang the US military and turn it into just another bloated public sector jobs program. Less breaking things and killing people, and more diversity awareness training and humanitarian assistance.
i dunno where you get that idea anonymous, Obama admint has given everything Gates has wanted and Gates is one of the best SecDef's we have had in a generation or more. while i agree the with the above article trying to say obama wants to defang the military has no relevance to this article nor do you cite any evidence to back your claim. now i am not an ideological leftist or rightist (i do lean left but wont defend everything done by the administration) but when you make assertions, please try to give evidence.
ReplyDelete