Marines are in an uproar over Amphibious Ships but Berger's mistake by calling for fewer might doom the Corps...

 Note.  I didn't realize it at the time but Berger's call for 31`instead of 38 amphibious ships might be the biggest blunder in the history of the Marine Corps.  He focused so completely on the Pacific that he forgot that the rest of the world matter too.  Now its too late because the Office Of The SecDef believed what he was selling.

via Marine Corps Times

At office of the secretary of defense’s (OSD) direction, the Navy plans to pause its successful dock landing platform (LPD-17 Flight II) shipbuilding program and accelerate the decommissioning of its dock landing ships (LSD-41/49) early. If the dock landing platform ship line is not continued, the amphibious fleet eventually will decline to 25 ships when the last of the dock landing ships are gone.

Marine leadership is now fixated on maintaining 31 ships. A Marine official recently commented that the size of the Navy’s amphibious fleet left the Corps ­unable to respond to the earthquake in Turkey. He used the occasion to reinforce the requirement: “31 is the number.”

The problem is, the Navy currently has 31 amphibious ships. A listener would be forgiven for some confusion: A 31-ship fleet is inadequate, but a 31-ship fleet is what the Corps must have?

As the crisis in Sudan demonstrates, 31 ships are not nearly enough. A fleet that small does not support the Corps’ needs, including deployments of sufficient Marine expeditionary units. These ­forward-deployed units provide flexible forces for a variety of routine operations like engagement with allies and partners and presence in troubled areas. The ­Marines, vehicles, aircraft and other equipment are uniquely suited to respond to earthquakes, typhoons, noncombatant evacuations and other contingencies. But they can do this only if they have the ships from which to operate.

Read the entire article here 

If you read Marine Corps Twitter the talk now is which mission the Marine Corps will no longer perform.

I can't help but think that Berger knew what he was doing by calling for less amphibious ships.  He myopically focused on the Indo-Pacific and has basically stated "fuck the rest of the world, the other services can handle it".

With that in mind I can't help but wonder if Sudan wasn't a trial run for the new crisis response force...SOCOM.

The capacity for action will definitely be smaller but they will be able to fly the flag.

Think about what we've seen.

An earthquake in Turkey and the Navy sent an aircraft carrier.  A huge ship but displayed much less capability than our allies that were flying in supplies.

The evacuation in Sudan.  They only got out "important officials" and we had to rely on allies and even the Chinese to handle the bulk of getting nationals out.  Much less capacity but it did work to a certain extent.

Is this Berger's parting gift to the Marine Corps?

A Marine Corps that is no longer ready when America is least ready?

A Marine Corps that is no longer America's 911 force?

I get a chance to talk to some of the bubbas at Ft Polk and ran across some SNCOs from the 82nd.  Did you know that they also do HA/DR?

Is that the future?

SOCOM in the lead with the 82nd or 101st or other light fighters serving in the capacity that the Marines once did?

Ships are agnostic.  They don't care who is sleeping on a bunk.  They don't care who's eating in the galley.  With the advent of alternative shipping, with air transport seeming to equal what we're able to put on the ground (remember the 82nd will soon have tanks, the Marine Corps not so much) with ships, I don't think its a stretch that Force Design 2030 will soon see the nation divest itself of the USMC.