The bottom line is this. Insufficient Amphibious Shipping available to respond to a disaster at the very moment when such support could be critical in the relationship between Venezuela’s people and the US. One of the most valuable assets in an event of this nature are helicopters. Any of those?
Hospital ships? Para drops from USAF and other aircraft?
In the early1960’s there was a major earthquake in the former Yugoslavia. The first and most massive response came from US aircraft out of Germany and Italy dropping humanitarian aid via parachutes, tent cities built for the homeless, food, medical facilities. Europe took note of US capability and intent. Support from the USSR was zero.
Above and beyond the humanitarian effort was the realization of the citizens of Yugoslavia who further distanced themselves from the USSR and started leaning west. One more poker chip in the Cold War.
Humanitarian relief by US military forces is diplomacy at its very best. It is best executed from forward bases and shipping. Both areas we have neglected and dispensed with to our great detriment. Some things are just more versatile than short range, shore based missile batteries.
The US Navy needs 60 Amphibious ships and six hospital ships. How can Viking Cruise lines build 100 ships in ten years that are not significantly different than Hospital ships with modifications? The versatility of an 1100 Marine BLT cannot be replicated. I guess it is all too hard to understand.
100% agree on amphibs needed, but as we’ve seen with the Constellation-class and to a lesser extent the LPD-17 flt IIs, America’s Navy is suffering a ship-building crisis. There is simply no way to, as GySgt Hartmann might put it, to “magic” thirty more (WORKING) amphibs into existence.
At least the Corps is doing SOMETHING to meet the Southern Command’s needs, while still attempting to provide an east coast MEU to EUCOM and/or CENTCOM. I think this initiative is to be applauded; rather than saying “we’d love to do your NEO in Sudan, or humanitarian relief in Turkey, but the Navy let everyone down,” the MC is getting on with the business of getting on in SOUTHCOM. Is it ideal? Maybe, maybe not. But those Marines are answering the nation’s call.
Spot on Colonel. This statement, sums up your info the best: "Humanitarian relief by US military forces is diplomacy at its very best." This is something which is very much in need right now. In addition to the fact we are helping people in need, it is US Marines and our military doing it.
1991 was the time Our Mighty Amphibious/Expeditionary Corps had 6 permanent MEUs 3 on each coast, 2 were forward deployed, 2 were in training, 2 in recover with Air Contingency BLT if task, . WE WERE THE NATION’S ANYTIME ANYWHERE ANY MISSION FORCE. LOOK AT US NOW….FORCE DISASTER HAS DESTROYED US! WE MUST LIKE THE IMMORTAL PHOENIX BE BORN AGAIN ALWAYS DEPLOYED TO PROJECT POWER FROM THE SEA. NEVER ARE WE A DEFENSIVE FORCE …MARINES MUST ALWAYS BE AS OFFENSIVE AS HELL!
As pointed out by Captain Harry Ellsworth, in "One Hundred Eighty Landings of United States Marines 1800-1934" there are four main reasons for which Marines have landed: political intervention, punitive actions, protection of diplomatic missions, and humanitarian. While many may not see humanitarian landings as an amphibious "landing," it most certainly is. Just because the landing is not a "storm landing" (in the words of Colonel Joseph Alexander), it does not negate the importance of a humanitarian landing. This is why a landing by Marines is important in Venezuela. This is also why the Marine Corps must be a forward leaning, globally responsive, combined-arms, naval expeditionary force.
The bottom line is this. Insufficient Amphibious Shipping available to respond to a disaster at the very moment when such support could be critical in the relationship between Venezuela’s people and the US. One of the most valuable assets in an event of this nature are helicopters. Any of those?
Hospital ships? Para drops from USAF and other aircraft?
In the early1960’s there was a major earthquake in the former Yugoslavia. The first and most massive response came from US aircraft out of Germany and Italy dropping humanitarian aid via parachutes, tent cities built for the homeless, food, medical facilities. Europe took note of US capability and intent. Support from the USSR was zero.
Above and beyond the humanitarian effort was the realization of the citizens of Yugoslavia who further distanced themselves from the USSR and started leaning west. One more poker chip in the Cold War.
Humanitarian relief by US military forces is diplomacy at its very best. It is best executed from forward bases and shipping. Both areas we have neglected and dispensed with to our great detriment. Some things are just more versatile than short range, shore based missile batteries.
The US Navy needs 60 Amphibious ships and six hospital ships. How can Viking Cruise lines build 100 ships in ten years that are not significantly different than Hospital ships with modifications? The versatility of an 1100 Marine BLT cannot be replicated. I guess it is all too hard to understand.
100% agree on amphibs needed, but as we’ve seen with the Constellation-class and to a lesser extent the LPD-17 flt IIs, America’s Navy is suffering a ship-building crisis. There is simply no way to, as GySgt Hartmann might put it, to “magic” thirty more (WORKING) amphibs into existence.
At least the Corps is doing SOMETHING to meet the Southern Command’s needs, while still attempting to provide an east coast MEU to EUCOM and/or CENTCOM. I think this initiative is to be applauded; rather than saying “we’d love to do your NEO in Sudan, or humanitarian relief in Turkey, but the Navy let everyone down,” the MC is getting on with the business of getting on in SOUTHCOM. Is it ideal? Maybe, maybe not. But those Marines are answering the nation’s call.
Spot on Colonel. This statement, sums up your info the best: "Humanitarian relief by US military forces is diplomacy at its very best." This is something which is very much in need right now. In addition to the fact we are helping people in need, it is US Marines and our military doing it.
1991 was the time Our Mighty Amphibious/Expeditionary Corps had 6 permanent MEUs 3 on each coast, 2 were forward deployed, 2 were in training, 2 in recover with Air Contingency BLT if task, . WE WERE THE NATION’S ANYTIME ANYWHERE ANY MISSION FORCE. LOOK AT US NOW….FORCE DISASTER HAS DESTROYED US! WE MUST LIKE THE IMMORTAL PHOENIX BE BORN AGAIN ALWAYS DEPLOYED TO PROJECT POWER FROM THE SEA. NEVER ARE WE A DEFENSIVE FORCE …MARINES MUST ALWAYS BE AS OFFENSIVE AS HELL!
As pointed out by Captain Harry Ellsworth, in "One Hundred Eighty Landings of United States Marines 1800-1934" there are four main reasons for which Marines have landed: political intervention, punitive actions, protection of diplomatic missions, and humanitarian. While many may not see humanitarian landings as an amphibious "landing," it most certainly is. Just because the landing is not a "storm landing" (in the words of Colonel Joseph Alexander), it does not negate the importance of a humanitarian landing. This is why a landing by Marines is important in Venezuela. This is also why the Marine Corps must be a forward leaning, globally responsive, combined-arms, naval expeditionary force.