Thread: First the Raptor, then Joint Forces command, now the Marines.

I read something about a proposed drop from 27 infantry battalions in the USMC back to the 24 they had a few years back. Not the end of the world if they could keep the reductions to just that.

The Marines can be counted upon to be very good at what they do hence their battlespace responsibilities tend to be expanded by combatant commanders who, understandably, want to appear successful. As those responsibilities grow and expectations rise, the Corps is forced to bulk up. The nature of these latest wars and the prevalence of IEDs has made heavier assets like MRAPs and Up-Armored Humvees etc. a significant portion of that bulk.

There's historical precedence for this. And also for the calls to trim down the Corps (that typically begin with complaints from senior levels of Big Army). The Marines could stand to shed some weight but Gates and the Corps' critics need to understand that if they don't want the Corps to inflate they will have to limit the scope of its combat responsibilities and lengths of deployments to the level of its mission statement.

I wince whenever Gates mentions the massive amphibious assaults of World War II--and the fact that we don't do them anymore--as a justification for cutting back the Marine Corps. Can he really be that out of touch? Obviously we don't do them anymore, we haven't done them since Inchon. The raison d'etre of the Marines for the past 4 decades has been the Marine Expeditionary Unit, the MEU, and it is the MEU-SOC that makes us unique.

"...Gates and the Corps' critics need to understand that if they don't want the Corps to inflate..."

Further inflation is out of the question. So too the current status quo. With our imminent withdrawal from Afghanistan, further reduction is the order of the day. Big Army will likely see the same or similar.

"...they will have to limit the scope of its combat responsibilities and lengths of deployments to the level of its mission statement."

Hasn't the scope of your combat responsibilities dramatically fallen with our departure from Iraq? How many battalions are there? And Afghanistan? Where are the rest? Battalion floats and stateside?

Not a criticism but it might seem your operating tempos are beginning to slowly restore themselves. Perhaps my speculation is off-the-mark but it seems that Helmand and Farah are where it's at for the USMC over and beyond your normal peace-time missions.

Correct me where I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by S-2

"...Gates and the Corps' critics need to understand that if they don't want the Corps to inflate..."

Further inflation is out of the question. So too the current status quo. With our imminent withdrawal from Afghanistan, further reduction is the order of the day. Big Army will likely see the same or similar.

"...they will have to limit the scope of its combat responsibilities and lengths of deployments to the level of its mission statement."

Hasn't the scope of your combat responsibilities dramatically fallen with our departure from Iraq? How many battalions are there? And Afghanistan? Where are the rest? Battalion floats and stateside?

Not a criticism but it might seem your operating tempos are beginning to slowly restore themselves. Perhaps my speculation is off-the-mark but it seems that Helmand and Farah are where it's at for the USMC over and beyond your normal peace-time missions.

Correct me where I'm wrong.

Depending on who you are listening to, VP Biden or Gen Conway, we may be in Afghanistan for the long haul. I do agree that at some point the services are going to be reduced in numbers, I just hope its at the appropriate time and done rationally.

We had a MEF HQ in Iraq and I've seen online quotes of over 20k Marines in Iraq at various times. With the current surge in Afghanistan, they have upgraded the HQ from a MEB (brigade) to a MEF (division) sized element and the July Marine Times has 21.5+k Marines in Afghanistan composed of 2 inf regiments (6 bns) and lots of supporting units and air. So about the same number of Marines in Afghanistan as we had in Iraq. The optempo has not slowed too much, just shifted theaters.

"The optempo has not slowed too much, just shifted theaters."

At the request or encouragement of USMC H.Q.

Your comments seem more or less in line with my suggestion that your optempos are slowly beginning to restore themselves. Marines are no longer operating in two theatres and those in Afghanistan are confined to three provinces adjacent to one another in Helmand/Nimroz/Farah.

I largely believe that we'll establish Army/Marine force levels over the next five years sufficient to sustain a support/training presence in both Iraq and Afghanistan but our direct engagement in Afghan combat operations will start falling off beginning next summer. Too, we'll begin to see combat forces withdraw from A-stan as those operations slowly reduce.

IMV there are internal political considerations that have already taken primacy in driving this shift. Coupled with our general inability to design and implement policies for Afghanistan that can show both effectiveness and sustainability we'll see our combat forces returned over time. No doubt a strategic review is already occurring or shortly in order that'll drive the future ground force levels, composition, and forward-deployment postures.

I think we're largely out of the nation-building business in five years or so.

Also, if you read and listen to what SECDEF and CMDTMC have been saying the Corps wants to get out of the major landwar business and back to projection from the sea. To do that they need to cut manpower to afford to pay for systems.

Manpower is ALWAYS the most expensive part of a military force for the US.

Oh, and JFCOM has become redundant...it was a great idea 10 years ago when it was established but it has become an expensive laboratory which replicates a lot of things done by NORTHCOM and the Combatant Commands. The outgoing and incoming comamnders both agree it can be done away with....and I speak as a resident of Virginia.

Originally Posted by S-2

Your comments seem more or less in line with my suggestion that your optempos are slowly beginning to restore themselves. Marines are no longer operating in two theatres and those in Afghanistan are confined to three provinces adjacent to one another in Helmand/Nimroz/Farah.

I cannot really disagree with you. However, what is the standard optempo that the USMC is slowly getting back to? The drawdown in Iraq pretty much corresponded with the ramp up in Afghanistan and you can somewhat compare Al Anbar Province with RC SouthWest - both were fairly large, populous and had an active insurgency ongoing.

As a Reservist, I'm not plugged into the active community enough to know if their optempos are increasing or decreasing. However, Reserve units are still regularly getting called up for service, the location is now Afghanistan vice Iraq.

Originally Posted by S-2

"...Gates and the Corps' critics need to understand that if they don't want the Corps to inflate..."

Further inflation is out of the question. So too the current status quo. With our imminent withdrawal from Afghanistan, further reduction is the order of the day. Big Army will likely see the same or similar.

"...they will have to limit the scope of its combat responsibilities and lengths of deployments to the level of its mission statement."

Hasn't the scope of your combat responsibilities dramatically fallen with our departure from Iraq? How many battalions are there? And Afghanistan? Where are the rest? Battalion floats and stateside?

Not a criticism but it might seem your operating tempos are beginning to slowly restore themselves. Perhaps my speculation is off-the-mark but it seems that Helmand and Farah are where it's at for the USMC over and beyond your normal peace-time missions.

Correct me where I'm wrong.

You're not wrong at all. In fact, you are right.

"However, what is the standard optempo that the USMC is slowly getting back to?"

I'm projecting the start of our operational withdrawal from afghan combat coming to theatres near you next summer. In the great span of mankind's clock a mere blink of the eye away.

I hope not, time based decisions do not work too well in COIN. The decision to bring our Soldiers/Sailors/Marines/Airmen home should be conditioned based and determined in part on the ground. If the conditions are right, bring them home.

If the powers-that-be are not interested in getting the job done right and it's all about meeting a political agenda, then bring our troops home right now.

"If the powers-that-be are not interested in getting the job done right and it's all about meeting a political agenda, then bring our troops home right now."

It likely took you all of one-half a second to recognize that placing an arbitrary date to our withdrawal was akin to signing surrender papers. So too myself and every other soul with half a brain. That not only includes all those professional advisors whom sat in on the presidential discussions a year ago but (believe it or not) our president and vice-president.

Recognizing the obvious, Obama made his pointed comments before the assembled cadets at USMA anyway. Thus we can presume the "powers-that-be" heard and rejected the best advice our professional experts had to offer. They did so in favor of other considerations.

I consider this statement by Obama parallel to "peace in our time" and "peace with honor". Both ultimately empty phrases tossed to the lapping masses as bones are thrown to dogs. Obama's comments were recognized as such then and still viewed in the same manner.

I read the nuance too. By artificially raising our troop levels we could initiate a slow withdrawal process that would consume much time before even reaching our pre-surge levels much less falling below such.

Still, we're outta there. Nice tactic but it doesn't overcome the damage caused by the certainty our withdrawal WILL HAPPEN as sure as the sun rises in the east.

I agree with you. In fact, were I to have it my way, we'd have been gone in 2007.