It's difficult to take seriously the notion of getting rid of the MEB. So the other services (the Army) are supposed to maintain brigade HQ's and support units for those times more than a few Marine battalions are deployed to the same place? Ignoring the myriad reasons why this is a bad idea it's simply never going to happen nor should it.
The idea that a brigade is a joint HQ is misleading. A brigade commonly coordinates and supports multiple maneuver battalions. Assigning personnel from other services, or even attaching units, doesn't alter the function of the HQ and calling it "joint" misses the point. Jointness for jointness sake should not be a desired outcome.
The USMC simply can not exist as a MEU centric force. An expeditionary force focused on assault or deployment from the sea has to include operations larger than the MEU and a single maneuver battalion. Relying on a "joint" HQ staffed with non Marine's is a recipe for disaster on more levels than I want to list here but all that aside the other services are not going to pick up the bill for the essential brigade function. We're not going to have joint brigade HQ's sitting around waiting to have battalions assigned so they can deploy overseas. In case the author of that article didn't notice but Army currently operates "brigades" with permanently assigned battalions. The entire flexibility of the old structure has been gone for some time.
There are many ways the Corps can save money and operate leaner. Getting rid of excess HQ's is a fine idea. Getting rid of all of them is ridiculous and raises the question if the author also wants the supply, transportation, communications, etc. battalions all removed as well? If anything the Corps should consider whether the MEF should be kept and if so whether every division and air wing needs to be have one MEF?
Lane. you're mixing up a few apples and oranges here. a Marine Expeditionary Brigade is the size of an Army Division (+). you're talking about a Infantry Regiment comprised of four battalions (army brigades), plus a logistics regiment, plus a air group (several squadrons).
i don't even think the Army has a formation that equals a Marine Brigade. additionally Marine Expeditionary Brigades are used so infrequently that their existence is rather notional than practical.
Sol we're still talking how the Corps deploys a brigade sized ground combat element in the typical reinforced regiment. Just because the Corps has the good sense to integrate the air group, and add more logistical support, doesn't mean we're still not talking about a traditional brigade sized ground unit.
Doesn't the MEB HQ and staff come from the MEF? Does eliminating the MEB actually save any personnel? Wouldn't the MEB have to be reinvented from scratch every time the Corps wants to deploy multiple maneuver battalions with a supporting air group? Doesn't the MEB fit how the Corps operates?
I just think trying to call the MEB a joint HQ, and get the other services to staff it, is a non starter. The MEB is still a Marine HQ coordinating a traditional brigade sized number of ground troops while supporting them air and other assets. Nobody else does that and is qualified to staff that HQ. Even if the MEB was made a joint HQ and half staffed by the Army and AF what kind of disaster in waiting would that be?
The MEB is also flexible and doesn't have to be sized up to 15K. It also can be increased in size till it becomes a MEF. Sure one can call the MEB division sized but it's function is closer to an a traditional brigade, albeit with much greater support- especially air. At the end of the day why exactly would a Marine propose some part time "joint" HQ to command and support a Marine regiment? It's not even clear to me a MEF should be a joint HQ. Both should remain an echelon of Marine command, or least that's my opinion, YMMV.
not really. think about it. Afghanistan is essentially MEB territory...a reinforced MEB but closer to a MEB in formation than a MEF. but think about it ...how did the Marine Corps decide to form up? it deployed as MEF(Forward). in essence in actual wartime experience the MEF is used (basically the Division format) and for deployments you have multiple MEU's. the red headed stepchild is the MEB. call it a MEB, call it a MEF (forward) or call it a MEF(-) the real issue is that when ever the Marine Corps deploys after these wars are over will be in a joint environment with probably the Navy reverting to its usual control over Marine Forces or as part of a land campaign with the Army in the lead. anything to get the Marine Corps smaller in the head shed i'm all for. though.
don't get me wrong though Lane. i see what you're saying. we can't skimp on command and that's what you're seeing by us trashing the MEB. i guess we're talking around each other cause i don't think getting rid of the tag will cause a change in actual operations.
Sol if the function of the MEB can be filled by MEF(-) or MEF (forward) that's fine but isn't that essentially the same thing as taking part of the MEF to form a MEB? As long as the function gets fulfilled I agree it doesn't matter what it's called. The only difference is using the term MEB communicates a certain amount of information. If MEF can mean 5,000 to 50,000 Marines I'm not sure it's as useful a term?
Oh no its the 1990s Navel Gazing all over again.
ReplyDeleteIt's difficult to take seriously the notion of getting rid of the MEB. So the other services (the Army) are supposed to maintain brigade HQ's and support units for those times more than a few Marine battalions are deployed to the same place? Ignoring the myriad reasons why this is a bad idea it's simply never going to happen nor should it.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that a brigade is a joint HQ is misleading. A brigade commonly coordinates and supports multiple maneuver battalions. Assigning personnel from other services, or even attaching units, doesn't alter the function of the HQ and calling it "joint" misses the point. Jointness for jointness sake should not be a desired outcome.
The USMC simply can not exist as a MEU centric force. An expeditionary force focused on assault or deployment from the sea has to include operations larger than the MEU and a single maneuver battalion. Relying on a "joint" HQ staffed with non Marine's is a recipe for disaster on more levels than I want to list here but all that aside the other services are not going to pick up the bill for the essential brigade function. We're not going to have joint brigade HQ's sitting around waiting to have battalions assigned so they can deploy overseas. In case the author of that article didn't notice but Army currently operates "brigades" with permanently assigned battalions. The entire flexibility of the old structure has been gone for some time.
There are many ways the Corps can save money and operate leaner. Getting rid of excess HQ's is a fine idea. Getting rid of all of them is ridiculous and raises the question if the author also wants the supply, transportation, communications, etc. battalions all removed as well? If anything the Corps should consider whether the MEF should be kept and if so whether every division and air wing needs to be have one MEF?
Lane. you're mixing up a few apples and oranges here. a Marine Expeditionary Brigade is the size of an Army Division (+). you're talking about a Infantry Regiment comprised of four battalions (army brigades), plus a logistics regiment, plus a air group (several squadrons).
Deletei don't even think the Army has a formation that equals a Marine Brigade. additionally Marine Expeditionary Brigades are used so infrequently that their existence is rather notional than practical.
Sol we're still talking how the Corps deploys a brigade sized ground combat element in the typical reinforced regiment. Just because the Corps has the good sense to integrate the air group, and add more logistical support, doesn't mean we're still not talking about a traditional brigade sized ground unit.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't the MEB HQ and staff come from the MEF? Does eliminating the MEB actually save any personnel? Wouldn't the MEB have to be reinvented from scratch every time the Corps wants to deploy multiple maneuver battalions with a supporting air group? Doesn't the MEB fit how the Corps operates?
I just think trying to call the MEB a joint HQ, and get the other services to staff it, is a non starter. The MEB is still a Marine HQ coordinating a traditional brigade sized number of ground troops while supporting them air and other assets. Nobody else does that and is qualified to staff that HQ. Even if the MEB was made a joint HQ and half staffed by the Army and AF what kind of disaster in waiting would that be?
The MEB is also flexible and doesn't have to be sized up to 15K. It also can be increased in size till it becomes a MEF. Sure one can call the MEB division sized but it's function is closer to an a traditional brigade, albeit with much greater support- especially air. At the end of the day why exactly would a Marine propose some part time "joint" HQ to command and support a Marine regiment? It's not even clear to me a MEF should be a joint HQ. Both should remain an echelon of Marine command, or least that's my opinion, YMMV.
not really. think about it. Afghanistan is essentially MEB territory...a reinforced MEB but closer to a MEB in formation than a MEF. but think about it ...how did the Marine Corps decide to form up? it deployed as MEF(Forward). in essence in actual wartime experience the MEF is used (basically the Division format) and for deployments you have multiple MEU's. the red headed stepchild is the MEB. call it a MEB, call it a MEF (forward) or call it a MEF(-) the real issue is that when ever the Marine Corps deploys after these wars are over will be in a joint environment with probably the Navy reverting to its usual control over Marine Forces or as part of a land campaign with the Army in the lead. anything to get the Marine Corps smaller in the head shed i'm all for. though.
Deletedon't get me wrong though Lane. i see what you're saying. we can't skimp on command and that's what you're seeing by us trashing the MEB. i guess we're talking around each other cause i don't think getting rid of the tag will cause a change in actual operations.
ReplyDeleteSol if the function of the MEB can be filled by MEF(-) or MEF (forward) that's fine but isn't that essentially the same thing as taking part of the MEF to form a MEB? As long as the function gets fulfilled I agree it doesn't matter what it's called. The only difference is using the term MEB communicates a certain amount of information. If MEF can mean 5,000 to 50,000 Marines I'm not sure it's as useful a term?
ReplyDelete