Posted on 10/25/2020 8:08:11 PM PDT by Mariner
US Marine officers are notoriously dismissive of those who talk about strategy. "Strategy?" a Marine who served in Vietnam says. "Here was our strategy: hey-diddle-diddle, straight-up-the-middle."
The description rings true: The Marine Corps' most famous fights were straight-ahead affairs that gave the Corps its most celebrated moments: at Belleau Wood (in World War I), at Tarawa, Iwo Jima and Okinawa (in World War II), at Inchon (during Korea), at Hue (in Vietnam) and, most recently during the battles for Fallujah, back in 2004. Now, it seems, all of that is changing.
In August of last year, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger published his Commandant's Planning Guidance, a detailed recasting of the Marine Corps' force structure.
By any measure, Berger's guidance marked a breathtaking shift away from the service's urban combat focus and its follow-on mandate of "countering violent extremists in the Middle East" to a "great power/peer level competition, with special emphasis on the Indo Pacific…"
The shift, Berger admits, is sweeping: "from inland to littoral, and from non-state actor to peer competitor." The guidance reduces tank companies (from 7 to 0), artillery batteries (from 21 to 5), infantry battalions (from 24 to 21), amphibious vehicle companies (from 6 to 4), helicopter attack squadrons (from 7 to 5), and the number of F-35Bs in its air squadrons.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Fill in those blanks General. Then responsible people can weigh the merits.
“Too few details” I agree. Not enough info in this for anyone to make a valid criticism or to validate the changes.
Complete nonsense.
The Marine Corps always had competent generals, and they were *not* dismissive of strategy.
In my view, it is because they were so effective, they were given some of the most difficult tasks, where there was no alternative to direct action instead of flanking or indirect.
Changes have been stated, disbanding armor and severely limiting “ the King of Battle ( Artillery)”, in exchange for unmanned technology which simply has not been designed and fielded yet. Sounds like a hatchet job on the USMC.
That shift to the littoral, Indo-Pacific was the direction all of DoD received.
My guess is that the new force structure is intended to permit rapid deployment of Marines to SE Asia to dispute or control large areas of sea and littoral. For example, to bolster the USN and the Philippines or Vietnam against Chinese naval and air forces. Such a capability would greatly complicate Chinese strategic planning.
“My guess is that the new force structure is intended to permit rapid deployment of Marines to SE Asia to dispute or control large areas of sea and littoral.”
Great.
Now, what mission tasks will be abandoned? What new weapons platforms/designs are required? When and how will they be integrated into the Corps? How long will it take?
I agree - the claim that Marine officers are “notoriously dismissive of those who talk about strategy” told me that the joker who wrote the article doesn’t know what he’s talking about. It’s actually the opposite, and Marine gnerals such as Al Gray were way ahead of the power curve in terms of strategic thinking.
I see a shift to what the Marines do best and adjusting the TOE for the Pacific which they know very well historically and training for and forward deploying currently. Armor belongs with Army for the far inland battles.
“Sounds like a hatchet job on the USMC.”
Perhaps. But, I have been hearing lots of Scuttlebutt about returning The Corps to their historical core mission of Littoral Combat. Securing a beachhead. And, relinquishing the more modern mission of in-country inland combat back to the Army.
So, I need to learn more detail before I render judgment.
One new mission that the MarineCorps has recently organized for, and have begun training for in Hawaii, is to rapidly deploy small teams, that will be verylow
Guadalcanal wasn’t just straight up the middle. It was up/down/sideways/head-on.
...very low signature, to deliver Intermediate Range missiles- like ship killers for Anti-Access/Area Denial in the South China Sea.
'Hey, China. Do you want the blueprints for our latest aircraft carrier?'
If we have plans to fight China why are they being reported in any publication?
Taiwan. South China Sea.
And by having a light and politically savvy footprint, such new model forces can deploy more quickly with less negative impact on local public opinion. Indeed, the Marines might deploy a unit to Cam Rahn Bay with a colonel of Vietnamese extraction as liason with the locals. At their best, the Marines are capable of such cleverness.
And in the Mideast against Iran.
Theres times when “straight up the middle” works, and there’s situations where you have to go all “Sun Tzu” on their ass. The trick is to know when to use what, and to have the tools to do it. This seems to be removing usable options from the menu.
CC
To be fair, the current Abrams is so heavy, only one can be brought ashore per LCAC. The current Paladin 155 isn’t a lot lighter. Neither is air-droppable either. That’s a big problem with getting critical mass of forces to the beach quickly.
Well, there is the toy car and mortar wagon.
Not sure I think much of this “strategy” and claims that Marines have not used it in the past but that they are the most “intellectual” of the branches. Something seems amiss.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.