Just plain dumb. Force cuts and boost-ups make no sense.

Thanks again Lee...

via Navy Times.

A comprehensive review of the Marine Corps’ size and capabilities wrapped up in December. Amos was expected to brief Gates on its findings late last month, the service’s assistant commandant, Gen. Joe Dunford, told Marine Corps Times in January after the Defense secretary mapped out an aggressive cost-savings plan to shed between 15,000 and 20,000 active-duty Marines beginning in 2015.
That announcement also included plans to cancel procurement of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, an armored amphibious troop transport long plagued by setbacks and cost overruns, and to delay development of the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter, a stealthy short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing aircraft that has encountered its own developmental difficulties.
As planned, the manpower reduction would leave the active-duty force at 182,000 to 187,000 Marines, larger than it was in January 2007 when Gates authorized the plus-up to 202,000. It raises questions, however, about the units that may be cut. As part of the buildup, the service activated numerous units that had been dormant for years, including three battalions that had fallen under 9th Marine Regiment, out of Camp Lejeune, N.C.
Those units — 1st Battalion, 9th Marines; 2nd Battalion, 9th Marines; and 3rd Battalion, 9th Marines — now belong to other regiments, with 1/9 reporting to 8th Marines, 2/9 reporting to 6th Marines and 3/9 reporting to 2nd Marines.

A couple of points.

1.  Killing the EFV?  Old news.  Accepted.

2.  Delaying the F-35B?  Old news.  Accepted.

3.  Killing 9th Marines?  Again?  One of the most fabled units in the Marine Corps?  Gonna have to think hard about that one.  But the problem with this is ... any unit that gets deactivated will be fabled.  Tough choice.

4.  Stopping at a max 182, 000 Marines?  Why that number and not 175, 000?  That has always been the traditional number and has proven to be an effective peacetime strength.  Gonna have to get some metrics on that.

Later in the Navy Times article we have this blurb...

Conway’s guidance also called for options to expand numerous capabilities, including special operations, civil affairs, cybersecurity, information operations, psychological operations and military advising.

5.  Why is the Marine Corps even bothering with Cybersecurity?  Just like Medical services, wouldn't it be better to farm this off to the Navy or Air Force?  Not accepted.

6.  Civil Affairs?  Again, why not provision this from the US Army?  Not accepted.

7.  Information Ops/Psych Ops/Military Advising?  I see the worth of having these skills but again, if we're in the midst of tight budgets why not resource these units from the US Army.  Better to have an Army detachment assigned to Marine Corps Battalions rather than having to develop these resources in house.

Military Advising is particularly bothersome.  We do that all the time with training missions worldwide.  Cobra Gold going on right now is an example.  Training with the S. Koreans was another example.  Developing a separate unit to perform this mission inside the sphere of Marine Corps Special Ops Command is a waste.  Toss this puppy back to the Army.

8.  Expand Marine Corps Special Ops?

You're gonna hate me.

I don't mind.

Why are we duplicating skill sets that already reside inside US Special Operations Command.

Force Recon is wonderful.

Even glorious.

But really?

Recon?  Navy SEALs, Army Special Forces, and Rangers already perform those missions.

Raids?  Navy SEALs, Army Special Forces, and Rangers already perform those missions.

Wikipedia gives a good overview of mission sets but the point remains.  The skillsets that are brought to the table already reside in Special Ops Command.

If General Amos is truly bold, he'll pull Force Recon back.

Not accepted.

I can't wait to read General Amos' remarks.