Thanks for the article Dave!
via Foreign Policy.
The Marines could have pushed for change 10 years ago. Following the 9/11 attacks, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld approached the Marine commandant and asked if the Marines could take on a special operations role within the Department of Defense. For the secretary, it seemed logical. The Marine Corps is designed to operate independently when necessary; it can sustain itself with a well-oiled logistics organization, and it even has its own air wings. At the time, most special operations forces resided in the Army and in Navy Special Warfare and there was an emerging shortage of operators. The Corps could have filled the gap in special forces that existed right after 9/11.This article was like a bottle of Tabascco Sauce on eggs in the morning. Just a dash makes your day, too much sets you on fire.
I read this and I was ready to punch walls. NEVERTHELESS I HIGHLY RECOMMEND YOU READ IT ALL!
My opinion.
1. The guy is obviously one of the "reformers"...by that he's one of the Special Ops or nothing. He fits well with the current Commandant's MARSOC push.
2. He either ignores or doesn't understand the role that Marine Infantry has played in support of Special Ops. He also ignores the "Special Ops Capable" role that the MEU's have played for almost 3 decades now.
3. He wants the Marine Corps to tailor itself to a supporting role for Special Ops via supporting fires....we already do it but not to the extent that he wants.
4. He wants to fight the last war. Ignoring the nations need to have a robust, capable force, that is forward deployed to handle situations like Libya...something far more likely than another Special Ops Olympics like Afghanistan.
Read the entire article but the Nation already has Rangers. If we need to conduct raids they're the go to guys. If we need to train indigenous personnel then we have the Special Forces...if used properly they can prevent wider wars (think the mess in Syria) by training rebels. Quite honestly the SEALs, MARSOC and Air Force Special Ops are the units that have ill defined roles. I guess you could say that SEALs are Maritime specialist, but MARSOC and Air Force Special Ops? I just don't know.
And that leads me to my last point. We don't need more Special Ops and SOCOM is probably too large. What happens when policy evolves to more than just raids, raids, raids?
The nation doesn't need another Ranger Battalion...doesn't need a super large Special Ops Support Unit. What it needs is a robust Marine Corps focused on mission, not on social issues or political correctness. One other thing. We can't be scared of the debate. Whether you agree with the article or with me, its a discussion that must be had.
It seems to me, that since SOCOM has become a "supportable" command, all of the services have been playing the "we can do that, too," game in an effort to gain more of the defence budget pie. Special Ops Commands used to have very specially defined missions. Green Berets train locals, Seals for raids and such, and AFSOC inserted Special Ops teams and recovered downed pilots. But the missions began to mash together. Add to that, civilian leadership using Special Ops for non-traditional roles. In 2000, when Mozambique flooded, Clinton was asked what the US was going to do to help. His reply was that he had Air Force heavy lift helicopters in the European Theatre ready to deploy there NOW to assist. This came as a surprise to the 21st SOS, THE Air Force Heavy Lift helicopter assets in Europe at the time. Most of the squadron was TDY to Germany for training. When the did deploy, they spent a lot of time carting useless things (like chalk) around just for something to do. I think they all need to go back to the drawing board, and decide what service is going to provide what, and stop the duplication.
ReplyDeletevery good points. EXTREMELY good. what i'd like to see is a serious (as in adult) conversation regarding roles and functions. no one wants to stake out territory because everyone worships at the alter of jointness, but jointness doesn't mean duplication of capabilities. and that's where we're at now. Marines training indigenous forces? really? now the Army is about to blow apart its own doctrine and establish regionally aligned brigades? are you shitting me?
Deleteits a mess and the President isn't interested in clearing it up, the JCS is occupied doing whatever they do and Hagel seems to be in over his head. i don't know where leadership on this is going to come from but we need it bad.
I'll give you an example of where it is working, in my opinion. Navy Seals used to have medics in their ranks. Not any more. They take an Air Force PJ with them. PJ's are all trained as Paramedics, and are trained in Special Ops as well...eliminating the duplication, and utilising an asset.
Deletewell that makes sense. but Navy Corpsmen are a precious asset. they have enough work to do staffing Marine Units and tagging along with Snipers, ANLGICO, Radio Recon, Force Recon and MARSOC.
Delete"They are needed, but in future conflicts they will only play a secondary role. Land forces will no longer win wars. Computers, missiles, planes, and drones will. If the Marines want to survive, we're going to have to adapt -- and fast."
ReplyDeleteAnother true believer who's seen the light and wants to convert all the heatens. I've heard multiple variations of this over the past 25 years in uniform. The next big shiny tool/technique/tactic/etc is going to be the war winner and make all previous tools/techniques/tactics obsolete. Sounds like he needs to read Fehrenbach's Law.
Wow! i don't know where that came from. i had to look up fehrenbach's law and all i could get is a DADT case.
Deleteif you're trying to sneak that debate into this well let me ask you this. how can a group that identifies itself by its sexual orientation...in essence it identifies itself by sex, is known to make more than the national average in salary, is catered to by many establishments by name (as in Gay friendly locales) and is indistinguishable from any other person except by either identifying themselves as being a member of that group or by displaying behaviors that indicate they are part of that group being discriminated against?
i don't care about gay issues. they've never hurt me and if anyone tried i'd simply shoot them in the face. the point however is what happens next. its not unreasonable to believe that polygamy will be next and then bestiality. once this is turned on there is no off switch.
sorry TR Ferhenbach (I suck at spelling) nothing about DADT.
Delete"you may fly over a land forever; you may bomb it, atomize it, pulverize it and wipe it clean of life—but if you desire to defend it, protect it and keep it for civilization, you must do this on the ground, the way the Roman legions did, by putting your young men in the mud. ”
wow. ok. my lack of knowledge w/r to classical military philosophy led me where it shouldn't have.
Deletethe fault is mine (too much MSNBC).
totally agree. we seem to do this habitually as a nation. i won't go over the history because you obviously know it better than me.
all that's left to say is...WELL SAID! EXTREMELY WELL SAID!
former marine here I was only a lowely Sgt but I feel this is just the natural evolution of the Corps, I have no doubt in my mind that the Army could succesfully put a Stryker Brigade on a Amphibious squadron and do the job nearly as good (avation is the biggy but if Stryker units running out of a ARG the Navy or even our own squadrons can provide air cover..) It just us transitioning from A WWII and cold war mind set to the a 21st century one.
ReplyDeleteif you're taking that stance then you're essentially saying that the Marine Corps is dead. what that reformer is actually talking about will fundamentally change the Marine Corps. like he said it will no longer be infantry centric and instead will become aviation centric.
Deletedo you think that type of Marines will live? do you think that Naval Aviation wouldn't see us creeping in on their reason for being?
Maybe it is already a dead fstering corps and we havent recognized it yet , I think it can simultaneously be seabased and avaition centric . its a healthy discussion to take a second look at our current order of battle does the current platoon, company, and battalion structure best serve our nations needs. Distributed Operations with Air based and seabased COLT's (a great name btw)with the DESRON and LCSRON/JSHV or airbased COLT's in in-theater friendly nations might provided more capacity for the nation then what we currently have. Its only a "recent" evolution that we had these large formations. The Marine Corps prior to WWII was a totally different beast. Sorry Im not understanding what you mean by "Do you think that type of Marines will live?"
DeleteGoure of the Lexington Institute wrote the best rebuttal to the guys proposition. suffice it to say that i believe that what you and he describes can best be accomplished by expanding USAF squadrons and enlarging the Rangers.
Deleteusing his plan as a guide there is no need for a Marine Corps. same with the plan to base a SPMAGTF and use aviation assets to move it around. its duplicating a USAF and US Army function and puts into question the need for having a Marine Corps.
I'm also a former Marine and I agree with Philbob about the Stryker units. IMO the natural evolution of the Marine corps are the SEALS. If I had it my way there would be no SEAL teams, but that ain't gonna happen, especially after whackin OBL.
ReplyDeleteThere is a lot of duplication in the U.S. Armed Forces which has been good over years, but we have basically been at war since 1950 and we can't afford it anymore.
As far as the author's article he is describing SEAL teams. If he wants something in between then maybe what's described in this article from the Marine Corps Gazette 1971. The author advocated going away from close with and destroy to search and attack. Interesting article please read it: http://www.mca-marines.org/files/The%20FMF-%20An%20alternative%20future%20and%20how%20to%20get%20there.pdf
Another good read is by Robert O. Work. The Marine Corps stuff starts on page 85: The Challenge of Maritime Transformation: Is Bigger Better? http://www.csbaonline.org/search/?q=robert+work&x=0&y=0
Another option is adopting the FAST platoon design for all infantry platoons, but instead the 5-man HQ section is an ANGLICO FCT and a 3-4 man HQ section commands the rifle squads and snipers. The rifle squad should also be changed to a combined arms intry platoon based on METT-TC.
gute
i am personally amazed at the "fantasy" that has built up around Special Operations.
Deleteeveryone still has visions of the Vietnam Era Special Ops guys. men heading out in group of 3 or 4...maybe 5 or 6...but small teams of guys to hunt down the enemy.
that's so false it hurts. i am not speaking ill of the dead, just looking at unit structures. want to talk about units getting hit and overwhelmed in Afghanistan? always platoon sized or smaller. always. even Sniper have grown to platoon size when going out on missions. the days of a sniper and his spotter heading out the wire are dead....just like the days of small Special Ops teams.
want to know what the real future of Special Operations is????? its Rangers. or Special Forces. but its not what the USAF is doing. every unit can provide its own Special Op qualified unit so that rules them out.
want to talk maritime special ops? Rangers and Special Forces are qualified on the mission. additionally Sailors and regular infantry can perform the task.
quite honestly and no one really wants to talk about it but regular infantry has advanced to such an extent that Special Operations really should be special. but i'll touch on it in a post.