I was reading on Marine Corps Gazette an article where they talk about the Marine Corps going down to 100,000 boatspaces. That would literally mean you're cutting the Marine Corps by more than half.
I've read some thoughts in the comments section that we should move many of our combat forces to the Reserves (this is for the Army bubbas) and the Guard should be nothing but Combat Support and Combat Service Support.
But how low can we go personnel wise before it becomes case of it being a danger to national security when it comes to our Ground Forces?
Note; Read the Gazette article here but a tidbit...
I've read some thoughts in the comments section that we should move many of our combat forces to the Reserves (this is for the Army bubbas) and the Guard should be nothing but Combat Support and Combat Service Support.
But how low can we go personnel wise before it becomes case of it being a danger to national security when it comes to our Ground Forces?
Note; Read the Gazette article here but a tidbit...
Just the other day, I was discussing sequestration with a fellow officer. After we got into the discussion of what it means for the Marine Corps, we began to imagine about what would happen if over the next several years there were further cuts to DoD. As something of a thought experiment, we asked ourselves, what would a Marine Corps with an end strength of 100klook like?This small we're not talking about a Marine Corps anymore...I don't know what we'll be but it won't be the traditional Marine Corps.
First of all, we figured you'd move Tanks, AAVs to the reserves. Then reduce the LAR Bns to 1 Company per coast, putting the rest in the reserves. Much like the old Self-propelled howitzers we moth-balled after Desert Storm, all of these vehicles are big, heavy, and have a massive maintenance and logistics footprint in both manpower and materiel terms. If we had to keep one of the two, we imagined AAV would be maintained in some sort of cadre format.
Second of all, the attitude moving the Marine Corps to throw Tanks and LAR to the reserves would be an attitude of "lighter, more expeditionary." With that, you'd probably see a gradual shift away from the 155mm in Artillery as the standard tactical artillery piece to something lighter. For example, we might move to the 105mm, while maintaining our current 120mm mortar capability.
I don't think you can change the size, up or down, of the Active component unless you take a look at the Reserve Component. And with all of the combat veterans, it would be a waste to not try and find places for them in the reserves/NG.
ReplyDeleteCurrently there are just two categories, Active and Reserve/NG. What if there were three? Active, Reserve and NG, Cat I, II and III readiness levels?
What if a six-year service option was offered?
2 years Active component and 4 years in Reserve/NG component OR
4 years Active component and 2 years in the Reserve/NG component OR
3 years Active component and 3 years in the Reserve/NG component.
What if Reserve units were organized as BCTs just like Active units?
Transfer the heavy mechanized combat arms from the Guard over to Reserve BCTs
Offer incentives to combat vets and former active duty to join.
Offer training more often than the Guard.
Organize and Train to mobilize within weeks.
Reserve units could partner/Co-locate/train on same bases with Active units.
Perhaps a Regimental system that had Active and Reserve Battalions or companies in a BCT. Rather than three combat battalions, have four. one in training, two active, one in reserve with each Active battalion rotating every years and a soldier stay with the same battalion their entire term, then they transfer to the reserve battalion.
What if NG units were never larger than battalion sized and were organized primarily as infantry or combat support? Those battalions could be trained for guarding overseas bases, convoy or rear-area security, delivering humanitarian aid, re-establish law and order after a natural disaster/war/misc. calamity. Some of those missions are done stateside so to build upon that experience and become experts at getting a city back up and running (electricity, water, sewage, shelter, food) after a disaster or war seems a better fit than training for high-intensity warfare as a BCT.
There's a lot of ways to reform the Active and Reserve components, but the status quo isn't acceptable.
i could go with all of those but the suggestion about units only dedicated to humanitarian aid would really float my boat. the units assigned to Haiti were tied up for months. we can't afford that with a much smaller force.
DeleteSorry if that is the impression my hasty writing gave, but no NG units would ever be given humanitarian missions except as a secondary mission.
DeleteNational Guard units would then be limited to certain MOS for infantry or CS/CSS units and would never be organized in units larger than battalion. Light infantry battalions, MP, Medical, Transport, Communications, Engineer, etc. because many of their core missions could be applied to a secondary humanitarian mission. When the NG is called out for a floods, hurricanes, forest fires, etc., they have transportation units for bringing food/potable water, medical unit to treat injured, infantry units to provide security, engineer units to rebuild bridges or dykes, etc. It would be closer to a militia like it
I would transfer all of the Stryker, Armor, Mech Inf, Artillery, Cavalry units from the NG over to the Reserves and organize the Reserves exactly like Active BCTs. Partner them up with Active BCTs, train together on exercises, exchange officers, etc. Once a soldier has completed their active duty service in the Active BCT, they would be transferred to the sister Reserve BCT and serve pt while they attend school, pursue careers, etc.
That's why I am all for is total integration of the State Guard and state milita units into the National Guard system. The State Guard and State Milita units would fulfil missions that are Similiar to the IDF Homefront command, Swedish Home Guard and Danish Home Guard. They would not have a combat mission, but would have a CS/CSS mission. I would bring State Guard units such as Texas, Maryland and New York State Guard Units up to National Guard standards. Those state Guard units would take on the missions such as convoy or rear-area security, delivering humanitarian aid, re-establish law and order after a natural disaster/war/misc. Even provide Medical teams to the US Military as well.
DeleteSeveral comments regarding Paralus above. I can only speak for the Marines, but I had over 25 years in the SMCR and have some inside knowledge:
ReplyDeleteEveryone who enlists has an 8 year commitment now. Initial 3-6 years of active duty and remainder IRR. The reserve has recruiters who attend the TAPS classes and push the SMCR option, and the bonuses available for affiliating with an SMCR unit.
Many of the ideas are just unrealistic.
1. Increasing Reserve/Guard training and mobilizations will destroy any ability to maintain a civilian job or go to school. We already saw the massive unemployment faced by returning Reserve/Guard units, not to mention the cost shifting to municipalities that saw large portions of their Police/Firefighters deployed. As an acting 1st Sgt, I saw dozens of Marines who had their deployment orders pulled at the last minute, after they had already told their employer they would be gone for a year. Most were told their job was filled, or they were laid off. USERRA is a joke.
2.Most of the reservists are combat vets too.
3. Relegating units to second tier missions destroys morale and leads to an exodus too. We were always augmenting someone else because no unit could deploy whole after the initial surge.
4. We already have reserve units clustered around active duty bases, but we have too few bases that are clustered too close together-some parts of the country would have no reserve units at all under such a plan. The average I&I staff spends more time on community events and funerals than training the Reservists. So much for community outreach and bridging the civilian/military divide.
5. Moving heavy armor to the Reserve/Guard is great for reducing costs but lousy for maintaining proficiency. Too little time for maintenance or training. Air squadrons have the same issue, but they have large active duty cadres and pilot officers are usually better positioned in their civilian jobs to take off the time needed.
6. The USMCR is downsizing too. Last year an order came down to strictly enforce T/O billet requirements. There were plenty of good units that were overstrength, with a surplus of SNCOs and officers, and some poor units that were under. All those extra people were drilling as excess at a unit close to home, but deploying with other units to make up their shortfalls. They were told to find a matching billet, didn't matter where, and the travel was on you if you were a GySgt or below. In many cases, since the USMCR promotes by OccField vs MOS, there was no matching billet, and those Marines were involuntarily dropped to the IRR. Some were dropped as soon as they returned from a deployment.
All for now.
well thats freaking depressing. i have no experience at all with the reserves but that doesn't sound good. i don't know what the answer is but it seems like moving deck chair isn't going to be enough.
Deletedrastic reorganization seems to be called for.
If John is speaking for the USMCR, then it is the same in the USAR. No more double slotting, tighter APFT, Height/Weight, PME. Lots or reservist had problems with employers, and it was worse for those who are on multiple deployments. I know some on their SIXTH deployment. And that is the reserves! Tiering money or funding levels kill units. Who want to serve in a sub standard unit? You could get away with it in the CS or CSS, but not combat arms.
ReplyDeleteJohn, I agree that USERRA is a joke, but that is a larger societal question. As long as we allow companies to 'reorganize' and layoff vets, it has no teeth. It's the same with any ADA, FMLA, OSHA etc. As long as an employer doesn't overtly say or do something that indicates their intention to violate the law, they will weasel out of their obligations.
ReplyDeleteLet's be honest, the IRR program is just a list and the contact information isn't even accurate much of the time. I am suggesting that the whole AC/RC/IRR system needs to be revamped which is why I suggested a six year service obligation with IRR only as the logical first phase of conscription. Maybe it could even be tweaked into a 2yr AC/2yr RC obligation but I am just proposing the ideas for further debate.
As for further training of reserves more often than NG units, that could be tossed aside entirely if we revamp it with the expectation of AC and RC duty. If there is steady influx of soldiers coming off of Active duty and are already trained in their MOS, there'd be no need to train more often apart from being mobilized for a war.
As for crowding around existing bases, I agree. But we've been doing BRAC on and off for 20 years. We have to ask if it is too dangerous to have so many units based at so few bases. Fort Hood, Fort Bragg, Fort Benning, Joint Base McChord, etc. are easy targets for WMDs. Perhaps part of BRAC should be to look at suitable locations for AC/RC BCTs, spread around BCTs in areas of the country. There is a lot of government real estate out there so how do we balance the units geographically? Do we move a few BCTs back to Fort Riley or Fort Carson and pair them with Reserve BCTs that would be located in the region?
I think the mistake we make is trying to shoe-horn in new ideas in an outdated personnel system. If were are going to change the size of the force, why not use opportunity to question if we can do it differently than what we've done for 50 years.
One thing is for sure, if the personnel cuts are coming are worse case scenarios, we will not be able to fight an Iraq-scale war. Forget about a Pacific pivot, we won't be able to support or defend any of our allies. A military that small would not be able to execute anything but most limp-dick foreign policy.
A war with North Korea or Iran would be beyond our capability apart of limited strikes. We just won't have the numbers.
Mongo no use grammar.
DeleteMan, sorry for my shit verbage