# A sword drawn at sea, should a Marine be wielding it?



## TheWookie (Oct 19, 2009)

I found this article interesting, it talks about using Marines more as "solider of the sea", -- to help fight pirates and other shit bags at sea.   I never went on a MEU; I hear they are high tempo, and from this article it sounds like the pace of them is about to pick up even more.   Get some, Marines.  



> Amphibious ops to become default mode for MEUs
> 
> By Gidget Fuentes - Staff writer
> Posted : Monday Oct 19, 2009 5:31:16 EDT
> ...


----------



## HOLLiS (Oct 19, 2009)

Marine are different than sailors in days of Old,  Sailors could be impressed into service, Marines enlisted.  Marines primary job was to prevent mutinies.  They served the Skipper.  (I have a friend, that I can ask, was the top ranking NCO for the Marine detachment on the Missouri.  I'll share this article with him)


----------



## Teufel (Oct 19, 2009)

MEUs always had the ability to "draw a sword at sea" before they gave up the "SOC" qual.  They should never have gotten rid of Force Recon in the first place.  If someone had actually taken a moment to do some planning they could have figured out a way to give SOCOM what they wanted without losing the Force Reconnaissance Companies.


----------



## 0699 (Oct 19, 2009)

Teufel said:


> MEUs always had the ability to "draw a sword at sea" before they gave up the "SOC" qual.  They should never have gotten rid of Force Recon in the first place.  If someone had actually taken a moment to do some planning they could have figured out a way to give SOCOM what they wanted without losing the Force Reconnaissance Companies.



Exactly.  This sounds like good news to me; the MEUs have been spending too much time in Iraq & Afghanistan lately.  They need to get back to doing what they do best.


----------



## AWP (Oct 19, 2009)

0699 said:


> Exactly.  This sounds like good news to me; the MEUs have been spending too much time in Iraq & Afghanistan lately.  They need to get back to doing what they do best.



I'm not trying to be argumentative, but to understand the above.

MEU's are spending too much time in Iraq/ Afghanistan or the Marines are spending too much time in Iraq/ Afghanistan?
Does the task structure need to be pulled from the desert or the service?

Personally, I'd much rather have the Marines over here than mech infantry or armor.


----------



## 0699 (Oct 19, 2009)

Freefalling said:


> I'm not trying to be argumentative, but to understand the above.
> 
> MEU's are spending too much time in Iraq/ Afghanistan or the Marines are spending too much time in Iraq/ Afghanistan?
> Does the task structure need to be pulled from the desert or the service?
> ...



That's an OUTSTANDING question.  Seriously.

I definitely think the MEUs are/were (I retired this year so I can't speak on what is happening now) spending too much time in AF & IZ.  The MEUs need to be that initial entry force, on ground long enough to complete a specific short-term mission or provide entry for other (larger) forces.  The MEUs should be ready & available at sea for mission such as ship recoverys, NEOs, etc.  To put them on the ground long-term weakens their ability to complete all their required missions.  I saw MEUs spend way more time getting prepared for Iraq-specific TTPs and missions than their other (MEU-specific) missions.  Understandable, as they knew they were going to Iraq instead of floating for seven months, but if we're going to insert them anyway, why pretend they're MEU(SOC) ready?

As for the Corps in general spending too much time there, I can see pros & cons to both sides, but in general (got to get back to class so I have to be quick...) I think it would be better for the Corps to not spend as much time there as we are.


----------



## AWP (Oct 19, 2009)

0699 said:


> That's an OUTSTANDING question.  Seriously.
> 
> I definitely think the MEUs are/were (I retired this year so I can't speak on what is happening now) spending too much time in AF & IZ.  The MEUs need to be that initial entry force, on ground long enough to complete a specific short-term mission or provide entry for other (larger) forces.  The MEUs should be ready & available at sea for mission such as ship recoverys, NEOs, etc.  To put them on the ground long-term weakens their ability to complete all their required missions.  I saw MEUs spend way more time getting prepared for Iraq-specific TTPs and missions than their other (MEU-specific) missions.  Understandable, as they knew they were going to Iraq instead of floating for seven months, but if we're going to insert them anyway, why pretend they're MEU(SOC) ready?
> 
> As for the Corps in general spending too much time there, I can see pros & cons to both sides, but in general (got to get back to class so I have to be quick...) I think it would be better for the Corps to not spend as much time there as we are.



So, MEU's/ Marines are best used as an initial entry force rather than a long-term fighting element?

I'm clearly not a Marine so I may not understand all of the dynamics, but I would argue against that for a few reasons. In interservice politics and/ or funding it wouldn't make much sense to keep a ~200K member (I think that's a rough approximation of the active duty numbers, please correct me if I'm wrong) branch around for the primary purpose of getting into a country. If they don't have a long-term mission then it becomes difficult to argue for such a large force, however well-trained and equipped, to exist. Cut it down to one division, maybe an over-sized one, and shift the assets to the Army if that is the case.

I don’t say this with an eye on being a former Army guy, I'm looking (maybe shortsightedly) at the economics of keeping such a force around. I won't argue that the initial invasion is easy though our recent experiences may convince some that it is. What I would argue is why we should expend so much of our national resources on a force that isn't committed, trained, or used in a long-term fight. (doctrinally speaking)

Outside looking in? I think keeping a 4 division force in two theaters is a bit much. Someone at the Joint Chiefs level should have stepped in some time ago and committed the Corps to one theater over the other. Of course, we’ve proven that our nation is incapable of fighting a two-front war so maybe the problem isn’t unique to the Corps, but the Corps is feeling it more than the Army? But to continue this train of thought, committing a smaller overall number of Marines (by reducing the theaters in which they are fighting) would free up other units within the Corps to focus on their key tasks, the marine environment. The challenge would be what units are sent to sea and what units are sent to the desert.

There probably aren’t any easy answers. :)


----------



## Gypsy (Oct 19, 2009)

Freefalling said:


> Of course, we’ve proven that our nation is incapable of fighting a two-front war so maybe the problem isn’t unique to the Corps,




Did you literally mean incapable...or unwilling?


----------



## SCCO_Marine (Oct 19, 2009)

*A little clarity*



Freefalling said:


> So, MEU's/ Marines are best used as an initial entry force rather than a long-term fighting element?
> 
> I'm clearly not a Marine so I may not understand all of the dynamics, but I would argue against that for a few reasons. In interservice politics and/ or funding it wouldn't make much sense to keep a ~200K member (I think that's a rough approximation of the active duty numbers, please correct me if I'm wrong) branch around for the primary purpose of getting into a country.




Your merging 2 different things & I'm not sure your understanding the article or whats being discussed clearly.

The MEU is not the Marine Corps.  The MEU serves multiple functions as well as the Corps as a whole.

The MEU is an on call Rapid Reaction Force for a laundry list of wide ranging missions, to be performed 6hrs or less anywhere in its Theater Command.

Thats why the Marines on this site are glad to see them out of Iraq & A'stan.  Not the Marine Corps as a whole but the MEU.  

The USMC as a whole has been very successful in both theaters & requested to shift to A'stan when things quieted down in Iraq & are Presently asking that their #'s be significantly increased.

What the Q?s being raised are is how does the MEU continue to adapt as the Priority of missions changes, does this become more of a focus & that less.

Also, with increasing roles in CT, Co-Pir, Co-Prolif, & other missions considered the purview of SOF how does it tackle the preparations for these missions?  

Does it de-emphasize some of its more conventional training like the TRUEX?  Then what happens when that particular MEU is called in for an Urban Raid?



The point is ANYTHING can happen on a MEU, the discussion is putting together the best Training Package B4 they embark.  

I hope that provides some clarity for you.


----------



## 0699 (Oct 19, 2009)

Freefalling said:


> So, MEU's/ Marines are best used as an initial entry force rather than a long-term fighting element?
> 
> I'm clearly not a Marine so I may not understand all of the dynamics, but I would argue against that for a few reasons. In interservice politics and/ or funding it wouldn't make much sense to keep a ~200K member (I think that's a rough approximation of the active duty numbers, please correct me if I'm wrong) branch around for the primary purpose of getting into a country. If they don't have a long-term mission then it becomes difficult to argue for such a large force, however well-trained and equipped, to exist. Cut it down to one division, maybe an over-sized one, and shift the assets to the Army if that is the case.
> 
> ...



SCCO Marine may have said it better than I did.  The MEU is just the smallest step of the MAGTF organization (not counting SPMAGTFs for now) and was designed with a certain mission scope in mind.  For larger missions, you'd use a MEB or MEF.  The MEU was never designed to be a part of a larger land-based strategy.  The way the 15th MEU was used in AF in 2001 was an appropriate MEU mission.  The use of the MEUs to prosecute the land wars in IZ & AF are not appropriate missions, by doctrine.  If you want to send Marines in to conduct those missions, a MEB or MEF would be the appropriate size unit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAGTF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Expeditionary_Unit

When I was in IZ in 2005, we had several MEUs come in theatre.  From a logistic perspective, they were a bigger PITA than they were worth, because they didn't have the logistical footprint required to support themselves (30 DOS...) and required other units to provide them support.

The Corps doesn't only supply MEUs to the nation's arsenal.  Right now there is a MEB in AF and a MEF(-) in Iraq.

The Corps has specific doctrinal missions as directed by DOD.  Most of what we've been doing in IZ & AF is outside the scope of those missions and has been done to 1) get us in the fight and 2) provide extra forces to supplement the Army's success in completing their doctrinal missions.  My concern is that we're raising a generation of Marines that does an outstanding job at executing those missions, but has never done an amphibious assault or MPF off-load.

Lastly, the Commandant tried to "get" AF as a MC AO.  Didn't happen. :)  Like anything else in DOD, politics played a big part...


----------



## AWP (Oct 19, 2009)

I'm tracking now. Being an outsider it is sometimes harder to pick up on the nuances of the intent of one's post. Thank you for taking the time to respond.

And Gypsy, "incapable" is the correct word IMO.


----------



## 8'Duece (Oct 19, 2009)

Outstanding thread and great questions that are answered. 

Sitting back and reading this is very informative if you've not served in the Corps.


----------



## Hitman2/3 (Oct 19, 2009)

0699 brought up a very good point about a generation of Marines being good at one thing but not being as well trained in the other potential rolls. Looking at it from the recon side you have newer 21's who are great at urban combat, urban and desert recon, and mounted patrols, but aren't quite as well versed in the amphibious side of amphibious recon. Not a problem in the short run but when these junior Marines become the guy responsible for teaching the next generation how to rig a zod for a helo cast or perform a beach recon, we're going to loose the knowlege and possibly the capability. The same could be said for the Corps as a whole. We are focusing so much on the threat in our current AO that certain skills are being neglected.


----------



## Teufel (Oct 20, 2009)

0699 said:


> That's an OUTSTANDING question.  Seriously.
> 
> I definitely think the MEUs are/were (I retired this year so I can't speak on what is happening now) spending too much time in AF & IZ.



Here is the real question I have always asked myself.  How could we afford to dedicate 3 battalions on the west coast (11th, 13th, 15th MEUs), 3 battalions on the east coast (22th, 24th, 26t MEUs) and 2 battalions to the UDP cycle (31st MEU) while most battalions were stretched so thin they were doing a one to one dwell time ratio.  It is better now, but back in OIF III-V it didn't make a whole lot of sense.  Think about all the MEUs that ended up going into country anyway.  I understand the purpose of a MEU in peacetime; it makes a lot of sense to forward stage an infantry battalion with all the supporting arms they would need to establish a beachhead.  



Freefalling said:


> So, MEU's/ Marines are best used as an initial entry force rather than a long-term fighting element?



The whole concept of the MEU is to forward stage a battalion to immediately respond (within 6 hours) to any worldwide contingency i.e. the Scott O'Grady rescue, the USS Cole recovery, security following the Beirut bombing, the invasion of Afghanistan, the evacuation of American citizens from Lebanon, humanitarian relief during the Sri Lanka and Indonesia Tsunami, etc etc etc.



Freefalling said:


> In interservice politics and/ or funding it wouldn't make much sense to keep a ~200K member (I think that's a rough approximation of the active duty numbers, please correct me if I'm wrong) branch around for the primary purpose of getting into a country. If they don't have a long-term mission then it becomes difficult to argue for such a large force, however well-trained and equipped, to exist. Cut it down to one division, maybe an over-sized one, and shift the assets to the Army if that is the case.
> 
> What I would argue is why we should expend so much of our national resources on a force that isn't committed, trained, or used in a long-term fight. (doctrinally speaking)



America keeps the Marine Corps around because America wants a Marine Corps.  The Marine Corps has a great track record (not to mention a great PR machine) and a history of making do with less. The Marine Corps budget for 2009 was 24.9 billion.  The total DOD budget for 2009 was 651.2 billion.  This puts the Marine Corps at 3.8% of the entire DOD budget.  In comparison, the Army received 140.7 billion (17%), the Air Force received 143.9 billion (22%), and the Navy received 124.4 billion (19%).  The Army has 10 active duty divisions so that puts the cost of each Army division at 14 billion (2.1%) a piece if you divide the total Army budget by the number of infantry divisions they can put on the deck (I know this isn't that accurate of an equation but bear with me).  The Marine Corps has 3 active duty divisions at 8.3 billion a piece (1.2%).

Here is another fun fact, the Army has 302 generals (with 548,000 active duty personnel) while the Marine Corps has 80 (with 200,000 active duty personnel).  This puts the Army at 1 General per 1,800 soldiers, and the Marine Corps at 1 per 2,500.  Coincidence?  By the way there are 279 Generals in the Air Force (1 per 1517 airmen), and 216 Admirals in the Navy (1 per 1099 sailors)


----------



## TheWookie (Oct 20, 2009)

Teufel said:


> America keeps the Marine Corps around because America wants a Marine Corps.  The Marine Corps has a great track record (not to mention a great PR machine) and a history of making do with less. The Marine Corps budget for 2009 was 24.9 billion.  The total DOD budget for 2009 was 651.2 billion.  This puts the Marine Corps at 3.8% of the entire DOD budget.  In comparison, the Army received 140.7 billion (17%), the Air Force received 143.9 billion (22%), and the Navy received 124.4 billion (19%).  The Army has 10 active duty divisions so that puts the cost of each Army division at 14 billion (2.1%) a piece if you divide the total Army budget by the number of infantry divisions they can put on the deck (I know this isn't that accurate of an equation but bear with me).  The Marine Corps has 3 active duty divisions at 8.3 billion a piece (1.2%).
> 
> Here is another fun fact, the Army has 302 generals (with 548,000 active duty personnel) while the Marine Corps has 80 (with 200,000 active duty personnel).  This puts the Army at 1 General per 1,800 soldiers, and the Marine Corps at 1 per 2,500.  Coincidence?  By the way there are 279 Generals in the Air Force (1 per 1517 airmen), and 216 Admirals in the Navy (1 per 1099 sailors)




OUT-fucking-standing, nice job with the math, can't argue with that.  And I agree with 8'Duece in that this thread has brought out some good info, nice work by all.


----------



## Teufel (Oct 20, 2009)

Yeah.  The worst part is that the Marine Corps really tries to stay at around 3% of the budget for some reason.  It's good to be lean and all but sometimes we overdo it.  I do like that our ratio of troops to generals is pretty good...too many generals and you start running into problems.


----------



## 0699 (Oct 20, 2009)

I think it was Krulak the elder who said in his book _First to Fight_ (and I paraphrase...) that we have a Corps for two reasons.  1) America loves Marines and 2) we're cheaper than the Army.  He said when either of those reasons go away, the Corps will disappear...


----------



## 08steeda (Oct 20, 2009)

I have learned a lot about the Marine Corp reading this. It sounds like the MEU's would be able to make a huge difference on the High Seas with this huge issue around Piracy! Seems they are the best equiped to be Anti-Pirates!!!

I have wondered why a country (not necessarily the USA) didn't put some Marine type Combat troops into the theater and provide some ship based air support  then pre-position platoons on a few high target cargo vessels! Then have a rapid reaction force readily on hand to lend support. I don't think we are using the Navy or Marine ships that much in Afghanistan or Iraq, right?

Now go kick some Pirate A_S!!!

Thanks for the education folks!


----------



## BravoOne (Oct 20, 2009)

Damn! Teufel dropped a lot of science there! Makes perfect sense to me.


----------



## TheWookie (Oct 20, 2009)

08steeda said:


> I have wondered why a country (not necessarily the USA) didn't put some Marine type Combat troops into the theater and provide some ship based air support  then pre-position platoons on a few high target cargo vessels! Then *have a rapid reaction force readily on hand to lend support*. I don't think we are using the Navy or Marine ships that much in Afghanistan or Iraq, right?



I was told FAST Company had some missions related to what you're talking about, maybe a FAST guy, or someone else from here can add to that.  From a Marine side, I think FAST and/ or MEU's are perfect to fight piracy, but I wonder who's paying for all of this?  :doh:  Of course we could just drop in some SEALs when the situation dictates and spare the long-term cost.  ;)  Gotta love them shooters.  But why does it also always have to be us (the US) paying and fighting for every conflict?  

And where's the oil money from Iraq?  But, I digress.

I think some of the responsibility for protection of commercial vessels has to lie with the vessel itself.  But that's just my two cents.


----------



## Hitman2/3 (Oct 20, 2009)

I'm actually surprised that more shipping companies and or countries haven't opted for contractors. 8 to 10 trained shooters on a cargo ship could handle almost any rag tag group of pirates. I would also think that the bill would be well under what a company would have to pay in cargo, and lives even over the long term. Just a thought.


----------



## CBTech (Oct 20, 2009)

Hitman2/3 said:


> I'm actually surprised that more shipping companies and or countries haven't opted for contractors. 8 to 10 trained shooters on a cargo ship could handle almost any rag tag group of pirates. I would also think that the bill would be well under what a company would have to pay in cargo, and lives even over the long term. Just a thought.



I would do it on the cheap too. Put me on a boat for 80K a year, I'll provide my small arms, they need to come up with the MK-19 and Ma Deuce. Oh yeah, they would also need to supply the bbq grill and 1 year supply of beef and Coors.

All this pirate shit has a really easy military answer; SBT 12,20, and some good ol' hate. Maybe we could remind the liberals of thier favorite guy, JFK, and his role with PT 109.


----------



## Teufel (Oct 20, 2009)

08steeda said:


> I have learned a lot about the Marine Corp reading this. It sounds like the MEU's would be able to make a huge difference on the High Seas with this huge issue around Piracy! Seems they are the best equiped to be Anti-Pirates!!!
> 
> I have wondered why a country (not necessarily the USA) didn't put some Marine type Combat troops into the theater and provide some ship based air support  then pre-position platoons on a few high target cargo vessels! Then have a rapid reaction force readily on hand to lend support. I don't think we are using the Navy or Marine ships that much in Afghanistan or Iraq, right?
> 
> ...



That's pretty much what a MEU provides.  The problem is when we are dealing with an opposed boarding/ IHR, the US will generally want someone a little more high speed/specialized to do the job.


----------



## Teufel (Oct 20, 2009)

Hitman2/3 said:


> I'm actually surprised that more shipping companies and or countries haven't opted for contractors. 8 to 10 trained shooters on a cargo ship could handle almost any rag tag group of pirates. I would also think that the bill would be well under what a company would have to pay in cargo, and lives even over the long term. Just a thought.



The ships don't want to escalate the violence.  Right now it's a pretty "painless" business transaction.  The pirates show up, the crew gives up the ship, the pirates wait for payment and give back the ship.  If the crew resists, the pirates will take a much more aggressive stance and probably kill the crew, and still hold the cargo for ransom.


----------



## 7point62 (Oct 21, 2009)

Hitman2/3 said:


> I'm actually surprised that more shipping companies and or countries haven't opted for contractors. 8 to 10 trained shooters on a cargo ship could handle almost any rag tag group of pirates...



x2 but I'd bet 2 to 3 trained shooters with the proper weapons would suffice, to make it even more cost effective.

I'm biased, but I think the MEUs are a brilliant concept, the _raison d'etre_ of the Corps. The MEU is what makes us Marines. The MEU is what makes us different. It keeps our toes webbed, our feet in the water. With all due respect to MARSOC, its mission seems redundant of the special operations units already in existence from other branches. I'm not saying Marines are not _needed_ in SOCOM...I'm saying the MEUs better define our unique capabilities from the other branches.

(I almost had my ears ripped off on an MEU liberty in San Juan. Now _that_ was unique )


----------



## SCCO_Marine (Oct 27, 2009)

08steeda said:


> I have wondered why a country (not necessarily the USA) didn't put some Marine type Combat troops.





Hitman2/3 said:


> I'm actually surprised that more shipping companies and or countries haven't opted for contractors. 8 to 10 trained shooters on a cargo ship could handle almost any rag tag group of pirates. I would also think that the bill would be well under what a company would have to pay in cargo, and lives even over the long term. Just a thought.




We did in early '03.  Small Craft sent a 45man Det along w/ Kilo 3/8 to FAST Det 5th Fleet Bahrain to break into 15man teams led by E-5/Sgts to provide a Physical Sec. on civilian ships carrying DOD cargo thru the Suez, HOA, & the Strait of Hormuz.

Its was very effective but labor intensive (logistically) & you can't guard every ship.

Before entering port you have to break done, store the weapons, & provide arrangements to disembark your security team to be "basically guarded" by the port nation prior to entering their waters until the ships business is done or the sec. detail is flown out.

It was much cheaper for the Shipping Co.'s to pay to insure the crew & cargo.  The potential for incidence w/a sec. crew is high & Int'l Shipping Laws a very tricky.


----------



## SCCO_Marine (Oct 29, 2009)

SCCO_Marine said:


> It is much cheaper for the Shipping Co.'s to pay to insure the crew & cargo.  The potential for incidence w/a sec. crew is high & Int'l Shipping Laws are very tricky.



But IMO 2 military options I've heard that have potential but are still some ways out are:

1) Targeted raids fr/ an Amphibious Platform like the MEU, even if its just guys Lasing Airstrikes, they're to comfortable in their little pirate villages.  

You could park a MEU off the coast & run fully supported mission after mission up & down that coast.

These guys are not extremist & not dedicated to any cause, for them its just easy money. Make hurt, just alittle, they'll switch to another illegal trade.  They're making a living in the bubble caused by the US's full attention focused on the GWOT.



2) Would be something Navy RADM Victor Guillory proposed at the Surface Navy Association luncheon back in March.  That the USMC train & assign Rifle Plts in the mission of Non-Compliant/Hostile VBSS. 

Now granted he's proposing this as a future mission as the USMC's (SC MAGTF) & USN's Global Fleet Station (GFS) concepts come on line & come together.

He proposes Dispersing Rifle Co's attached to LCS's to assign one Plt per Comp. as the VBSS platoon. 

B/c the LCS has the speed & stamina to chase down any pirate skiff there's no real need for the logistical burden of helo's.  Only the investment in the E-RHIB for boarding which he proposes the Navy pay for.


----------

