Compass Points - Confusion & Confusion

America's Global Crisis Response Force

Compass Points - Confusion & Confusion

America's Global Crisis Response Force

June 19, 2024

.

For decades the Nation has counted on the Marine Corps to serve as a global crisis response force, a force that is most ready when the Nation is least ready, a first to fight force that can operate in any clime and place.

Over the last several years, actions by the Marine Corps itself have sown confusion. This confusion has seeped outside the Marine Corps. Now some observers are becoming confused. Is the Marine Corps more of an offensive force or a defensive force? Is the Marine Corps a global force or just a regional force?

Just one example of the confusion is a recent opinion piece in Foreign Affairs. The author, Robert O'Brien makes two startling suggestions. He says, "the Pentagon should consider deploying the entire Marine Corps to the Pacific." He also suggests the Navy should refurbish decommissioned amphibious assault ships and send them to the Philippines. Where would any defense observer get the idea that the Marine Corps is or should be a regional force? Where would the idea come from that the Marine Corps does not have an urgent need for all available amphibious ships?

Perhaps he got his ideas from the Marine Corps. Beginning with the Commandant's Planning Guidance in the summer of 2019, the Marine Corps began to change its focus to a smaller, regional, defensive force. In the same document, the Marine Corps said it would accept fewer amphibious ships. Now, the Marine Corps’ amphibious ship crisis is getting worse. There are not enough dollars, time, or shipyards to build or repair all the amphibious ships the Marine Corps needs.

There are an unlimited number of creative ideas about how the Marine Corps could be or should be organized. It all leads to confusion. One way to help resolve confusion is to refer to the US Code section that enshrines the Marine Corps into law.

.

================

.

10 U.S. Code § 8063 - United States Marine Corps: composition; functions

(a) The Marine Corps, within the Department of the Navy, shall be so organized as to include not less than three combat divisions and three air wings, and such other land combat, aviation, and other services as may be organic therein. The Marine Corps shall be organized, trained, and equipped to provide fleet marine forces of combined arms, together with supporting air components, for service with the fleet in the seizure or defense of advanced naval bases and for the conduct of such land operations as may be essential to the prosecution of a naval campaign. . . .

(b) The Marine Corps shall develop, in coordination with the Army and the Air Force, those phases of amphibious operations that pertain to the tactics, technique, and equipment used by landing forces

.

================

.

Some of the critical phrases are "three combat divisions and three air wings" and "marine forces of combined arms" and "seizure and defense of advanced naval bases" and "land operations." The legislation goes on to emphasize that the Marine Corp is to develop the tactics, techniques, and equipment used by landing forces to conduct amphibious operations.

Nowhere in the foundational legislation does it say anything about becoming a sitting and sensing, defensive force or abandoning the ability to conduct combined arms operations.

In two articles for USNI Naval History in 2017 and 2019, author Alan Rems reviewed the struggle to preserve the Marine Corps as an independent amphibious force. Once the Marine Corps status was safely enshrined in law, the Marine Corps began to grow as the Nation’s premier amphibious crisis response force.

Now, once again, some inside and outside the Marine Corps seem to want a Marine Corps with fewer crisis response capabilities and fewer global responsibilities.

Even if the Marine Corps did focus entirely on the Indo-Pacific region, who would provide crisis response for the rest of the globe? There would still be a need for global, crisis response. Author and Marine, Gary Anderson, explores the issue of who could provide crisis response in his article in The American Spectator, "What Will Replace the Marine Corps?"

.

================

.

Since 2019, the Marine Corps has largely abandoned its amphibious capability in favor of a limited mission of deterring or fighting a war with China in the South China Sea, all to fulfill the vision of the former Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger. The concept is called Stand-in Forces. To buy the anti-ship missiles required to carry out his vision, Berger divested the Marine Corps of all of its tanks, much of its artillery, all of its heavy engineering and assault bridging and breaching capabilities as well as significant aviation assets, But as Jones points out we still need some way of projecting naval power ashore. The question now is who will do it? There are several possibilities.

-- Gary Anderson

.

================

.

Gary Anderson goes through the options for a crisis response force. Who can do it?

1. Special Operations Forces? – skilled, but too small in numbers and light in equipment.

2. The US Army? -- large enough, but has always focused on large land operations, not smaller global crisis response.

3. US allies? -- US allies like Britain and Japan could take on the crisis response role but there would be many issues of capabilities, coordination, and control.

In the end, the author concludes with his fourth option, "There is a fourth option. That is to rebuild the Marine Corps as a worldwide force constantly ready to take action."

Confusion inside the Marine Corps about the role of the Marine Corps has created confusion outside the Marine Corps. All the confusion is leaving the Nation with no immediate option for global crisis response.

Confusion generates more confusion. Is the Marine Corps primarily an offensive force or a defensive force? Is the Marine Corps a global force or just a regional force?

It is time for the Marine Corps to end the confusion by focusing once again on global crisis response. The Marine Corps should clearly embrace the requirements of US Code Title 10 - § 8063 and should be clear that Marines can best serve the Nation and best deter China and other bad actors, not by sitting and sensing on Pacific islands, but by patrolling the seas on amphibious ships. Let there be no more confusion. When the Nation needs a global crisis response force, a force that is most ready when the Nation is least ready, a first to fight force that can operate in any clime and place, there is only one answer: Send in the Marines!

.

- - - -

.

Foreign Affairs - July/August 2024

The Return of Peace Through Strength

By Robert C. O’Brien

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/return-peace-strength-trump-obrien

.

- - - -

.

The American Spectator - 06/18/2024

What Will Replace the Marine Corps?

We still need amphibious forces conducting ground operations. The Marines aren’t prepared too anymore.

by Gary Anderson

https://spectator.org/what-will-replace-the-marine-corps/