Are the Marines ready today to confront a peer or near-peer competitor? Judge for yourself. Here are the facts: no tanks or in-stride breaching; decimated cannon artillery and assault landing craft; loss of resiliency in infantry, aviation, and expeditionary logistics; loss of amphibious lift (Navy is struggling to keep 12 ships operationally ready) and maritime prepositioning (7 ships between Diego Garcia and Guam).
And where are the operational long-range anti-ship missiles, missile launchers, and ship connectors that were going to replace the divested capabilities? They only exist on briefing slides and in brash assurances of a more ready, relevant, and capable Marine Corps made possible by a small group of clairvoyants who alone saw the future and knew what needed to be done.
Gen McAbee - My answer to your question is “no”. Sadly, this issue is bigger than the USMC alone. But, no, we don’t have the right stuff to do as you describe.
The Cuban missile crisis is an historic example of what DOD terms the Competition Continuum (CC). In a period of heightened Cold War tensions, Kruschev began establishing an offensive nuclear strike capability in Cuba a mere 90 miles from Florida. The CC shifted from heightened tension to the liklihood of war. Fast forward to today. In a period of heightened tension in the Weatern Pacific between the United States and China, if POTUS starts placing the U. S. Marine MLR SIF units, armed with offensive anti-ship missiles inside the PLAN WEZ in the inner island rings, there will be a significant shift of the CC toward armed conflict. This fact alone should end Force Design. There are superior alternatives to Force Design in the Indo Pacific. Just as in 1962 in the Caribbean, a MEB level MAGTF over the horizon in the Sea of Japan would likely be a hugely stabilizing alternative. Its ptesence in the Sea of Japan would not cause a CC shift to war. The Force Design ideology begun in 2019 does not compare well as a deterrent, or as a war fighter, with the MAGTF ideology begun in the 1950s.
Russia is a perpetual trouble maker to distract their population from their poverty, lack of opportunity and lack of Freedom. They mobilized in 1914 and made WWI inevitable. They signed the Pact with Nazi Germany and invaded Poland, Finland, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia. Their current invasion of Ukraine fits their 1000 year model.
What can the Marine Corps do to deter Russia as a critical piece of DoD. Nothing. The Corps made itself irrelevant to a conflict in Europe.
FD2030 has rendered the Corps unable to respond to any such conflicts... our MAGTF capabilities are hindered severely and we're now irrelevant to fight in most of the world's flash point spots since 2020... VISION 2035 must be implemented to restore all that FD2030 divested...
And where is the US-Flagged Commercial Sealift to deploy & sustain more than a 3 to 4 Division, light Corps (Army & Marine).
Do we know how many bombs the Air Force will need (they need commercial ships too).
Hope the Ammo Dumps in both Okinawa & Guam are over flowing.
How do you rapidly load out ammo with very limited ammo piers.
Maybe things have changed but Okinawa and Guam only had 1 ammo pier during Desert Shield and both the Marines and Air Force competed for one slow, break-bulk ammo pier.
Navy is already leasing support ships to fuel & supply the fleet.
We had 6 month to deploy US forces to Desert Shield and the Army sent a large percentage of its force from the closer Europe.
We greatly depended on Foreign-Flagged ships for Desert Shield.
For Desert Shield the Marines had 5 Brigades from 3 MPS MEBs and followed-on with 2 Phib MEBs, and we still had to depend on commercial sealift (including foreign-flagged) to deploy forces, ammo, including commercial sealift in the Assault Echelon of both Phib MEBs.
Today the number of MPS, Phib, MSC, and US Flagged Commercial Ship is way lower.
Everyone was willing to lease a ship, at a premium $, during Desert Shield with NO Air or Sea Threat.
You think the other countries will “turn on China” and lease commercial ships?
Will even Europe send its commercial fleet to the far away Pacific?
Taiwan is 6,000 miles from Long Beach and there are almost no ports in between for ship maintenance and fuel.
No ships, no steel, no skilled labor, no seaman, no recruits, and no national leadership in the Military and the US Government.
Sounds pretty hollow to me.
SteveB
Embark O & Strategic Mobility O
—>
Geography of the fleet ownership in 2023
Figure 2. Fleet market by region of beneficial ownership, 2023
Note: Commercial ships of 1000 gt and above. Beginning-of-year figures.
Just over half of the world’s tonnage was owned by Asian companies. Owners from Europe accounted for 38 per cent and owners from Northern America for 5 per cent.
It seems, the month of Oct holds a significant place in our Corps’s history.
The question is, when the next Oct call is made for Marines to mount out and go into harms way, will they be the same Marines with the same capabilities that will not only deter but defeat our future enemies? Or will they be singularly focused on one place and one mission, this becoming irrelevant when our combatant commanders look around for forces to meet their needs?
1. October 1983: Grenada - Operation Urgent Fury.
2. October 1983: Beirut, Lebanon.
3. October 1962: Cuban Missile Crisis.
4. October 1993: Somalia - Operation Restore Hope.
5. October 1994: Haiti - Operation Uphold Democracy.
I don’t been that those now in charge have ever had to deal with a real crisis. Ever since Iraq, crises have been manufactured and against fourth rate armies or rag-tag terrorists. They have never learned how to use or employ a fully operational MEU. Small minds, small operations. Semper Fi
Later analysis shoes that the Cuban missile crisis ended when back channel deal was made to remove our missile forces from Turkey in exchange for Russia, removing its from Cuba. This deal was not disclosed at the time which allowed Kennedy’s crew to say words to the effect that we stared at Kruschev and he blinked.
Are the Marines ready today to confront a peer or near-peer competitor? Judge for yourself. Here are the facts: no tanks or in-stride breaching; decimated cannon artillery and assault landing craft; loss of resiliency in infantry, aviation, and expeditionary logistics; loss of amphibious lift (Navy is struggling to keep 12 ships operationally ready) and maritime prepositioning (7 ships between Diego Garcia and Guam).
And where are the operational long-range anti-ship missiles, missile launchers, and ship connectors that were going to replace the divested capabilities? They only exist on briefing slides and in brash assurances of a more ready, relevant, and capable Marine Corps made possible by a small group of clairvoyants who alone saw the future and knew what needed to be done.
Gen McAbee - My answer to your question is “no”. Sadly, this issue is bigger than the USMC alone. But, no, we don’t have the right stuff to do as you describe.
The Cuban missile crisis is an historic example of what DOD terms the Competition Continuum (CC). In a period of heightened Cold War tensions, Kruschev began establishing an offensive nuclear strike capability in Cuba a mere 90 miles from Florida. The CC shifted from heightened tension to the liklihood of war. Fast forward to today. In a period of heightened tension in the Weatern Pacific between the United States and China, if POTUS starts placing the U. S. Marine MLR SIF units, armed with offensive anti-ship missiles inside the PLAN WEZ in the inner island rings, there will be a significant shift of the CC toward armed conflict. This fact alone should end Force Design. There are superior alternatives to Force Design in the Indo Pacific. Just as in 1962 in the Caribbean, a MEB level MAGTF over the horizon in the Sea of Japan would likely be a hugely stabilizing alternative. Its ptesence in the Sea of Japan would not cause a CC shift to war. The Force Design ideology begun in 2019 does not compare well as a deterrent, or as a war fighter, with the MAGTF ideology begun in the 1950s.
Russia is a perpetual trouble maker to distract their population from their poverty, lack of opportunity and lack of Freedom. They mobilized in 1914 and made WWI inevitable. They signed the Pact with Nazi Germany and invaded Poland, Finland, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia. Their current invasion of Ukraine fits their 1000 year model.
What can the Marine Corps do to deter Russia as a critical piece of DoD. Nothing. The Corps made itself irrelevant to a conflict in Europe.
FD2030 has rendered the Corps unable to respond to any such conflicts... our MAGTF capabilities are hindered severely and we're now irrelevant to fight in most of the world's flash point spots since 2020... VISION 2035 must be implemented to restore all that FD2030 divested...
And where is the US-Flagged Commercial Sealift to deploy & sustain more than a 3 to 4 Division, light Corps (Army & Marine).
Do we know how many bombs the Air Force will need (they need commercial ships too).
Hope the Ammo Dumps in both Okinawa & Guam are over flowing.
How do you rapidly load out ammo with very limited ammo piers.
Maybe things have changed but Okinawa and Guam only had 1 ammo pier during Desert Shield and both the Marines and Air Force competed for one slow, break-bulk ammo pier.
Navy is already leasing support ships to fuel & supply the fleet.
We had 6 month to deploy US forces to Desert Shield and the Army sent a large percentage of its force from the closer Europe.
We greatly depended on Foreign-Flagged ships for Desert Shield.
For Desert Shield the Marines had 5 Brigades from 3 MPS MEBs and followed-on with 2 Phib MEBs, and we still had to depend on commercial sealift (including foreign-flagged) to deploy forces, ammo, including commercial sealift in the Assault Echelon of both Phib MEBs.
Today the number of MPS, Phib, MSC, and US Flagged Commercial Ship is way lower.
Everyone was willing to lease a ship, at a premium $, during Desert Shield with NO Air or Sea Threat.
You think the other countries will “turn on China” and lease commercial ships?
Will even Europe send its commercial fleet to the far away Pacific?
Taiwan is 6,000 miles from Long Beach and there are almost no ports in between for ship maintenance and fuel.
No ships, no steel, no skilled labor, no seaman, no recruits, and no national leadership in the Military and the US Government.
Sounds pretty hollow to me.
SteveB
Embark O & Strategic Mobility O
—>
Geography of the fleet ownership in 2023
Figure 2. Fleet market by region of beneficial ownership, 2023
(Millions of dead weight tons)
Chart title
Pie chart with 6 slices.
View as data table, Chart title
Asia (1199)
Europe (857)
Northern America (111)
Latin America and the Caribbean (28)
Africa (26)
Oceania (7)
End of interactive chart.
Sources: UNCTADstat (UNCTAD, 2023a); Clarksons Research.
Note: Commercial ships of 1000 gt and above. Beginning-of-year figures.
Just over half of the world’s tonnage was owned by Asian companies. Owners from Europe accounted for 38 per cent and owners from Northern America for 5 per cent.
It seems, the month of Oct holds a significant place in our Corps’s history.
The question is, when the next Oct call is made for Marines to mount out and go into harms way, will they be the same Marines with the same capabilities that will not only deter but defeat our future enemies? Or will they be singularly focused on one place and one mission, this becoming irrelevant when our combatant commanders look around for forces to meet their needs?
1. October 1983: Grenada - Operation Urgent Fury.
2. October 1983: Beirut, Lebanon.
3. October 1962: Cuban Missile Crisis.
4. October 1993: Somalia - Operation Restore Hope.
5. October 1994: Haiti - Operation Uphold Democracy.
I don’t been that those now in charge have ever had to deal with a real crisis. Ever since Iraq, crises have been manufactured and against fourth rate armies or rag-tag terrorists. They have never learned how to use or employ a fully operational MEU. Small minds, small operations. Semper Fi
Later analysis shoes that the Cuban missile crisis ended when back channel deal was made to remove our missile forces from Turkey in exchange for Russia, removing its from Cuba. This deal was not disclosed at the time which allowed Kennedy’s crew to say words to the effect that we stared at Kruschev and he blinked.
Activating the Marines was not decisive.