# Are the Marines fit for duty?



## Devildoc (Jun 9, 2016)

The article addresses the usual do-more-with-less argument along with the current problems with aviation and deployments.

Under pressure: is the US Marine Corps fit for duty?


----------



## Gunz (Jun 9, 2016)

Good article.

The Corps' troubles aren't limited to the Air Wing. There are significant problems with replacement parts for Amtracs.

The power assessments I've seen indicate Marine competence levels are still excellent, but capabilities are only marginal.

The Marines have always been an "elite" force and I wonder if smaller might be better. Heresy, I know, but the Corps tends to swell in wartime, becoming heavier perhaps than a specialized force should be. Marines are shock troops, their unique specialty are the MEUs, their capability to land a reinforced battalion anywhere, within days, complete with fixed wing and rotor air support and enough combat loaded resources to fight for a month.

But the bigger the Corps gets, the more like the Army it becomes. So why not trim it down, make it leaner? Is it naive on my part to think a smaller Corps could still handle its mission?


----------



## Marine0311 (Jun 9, 2016)

We will and always be fit for duty SIR!


----------



## AWP (Jun 9, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> But the bigger the Corps gets, the more like the Army it becomes. So why not trim it down, make it leaner? Is it naive on my part to think a smaller Corps could still handle its mission?



I disagree. You could put a million men and women in uniform without suffering quality. To do that requires an absolute adherence to the current standards and a corresponding increase in the budget for training. You can do this for practically any organization given enough time and resources.

In the real world that isn't practical and hopefully a bloated organization is smart about thinning the herd....which is usually equally impractical.

To digress somewhat, I laugh when anyone wonders why we're not as competent as we should be, especially coming off a war. That shows a grave ignorance of history. We could have quadrupled our budget over and above its levels from 2002 to 2011 and it would have changed nothing.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 9, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> Good article.
> 
> The Corps' troubles aren't limited to the Air Wing. There are significant problems with replacement parts for Amtracs.
> 
> ...


Are they self sustaining?

Being the biggest bad-ass doesn't mean anything if you can't handle the long haul.


----------



## Devildoc (Jun 10, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Are they self sustaining?
> 
> Being the biggest bad-ass doesn't mean anything if you can't handle the long haul.



The Marines have two 'platforms' of self-sustainability.  The smaller units, especially afloat like a MEU or MAGTF, are organic and are equipped to be self-sufficient for a relative short period.  Larger units that have to deployed from CONUS have much longer LOG train, and self-sufficient for a longer but not indeterminate amount of time.  The Marines were never designed to be a "long haul" force or a force of occupation.  That's the Army's job.

Parts of the problem with the Corps today are the frequent deployment cycles to more areas, and having fewer Marines with which to do them.  Congress and DoD like to think they are just another type of Army, and _that's_ what's getting the Marines into some trouble.


----------



## AWP (Jun 10, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> That's the Army's job.
> 
> Parts of the problem with the Corps today are the frequent deployment cycles to more areas, and having fewer Marines with which to do them.  Congress and DoD like to think they are just another type of Army, and _that's_ what's getting the Marines into some trouble.



I agree, but I'd be willing to think HQMC is responsible for the current state. The Army was screwed in the GWOT, mad props to Rummy for that dick. I'll bet a dollar the Corps asked for a larger presence after the 2003 invasion, was granted that "Make a Wish," and then found itself in a bad position. Now pride won't allow it to opt out and even if it did SECDEF wouldn't allow it because of the Army's burden.

This isn't an indictment of either branch, but our civilian leadership. It dug a hole deeper than the service's ability to fill. Hell, the Army had tankers doing patrols...without their tanks and other branches acting way outside of their mandates. Navy Chiefs running Army FOB's and civil affairs units, the AF throwing out ad hoc ground forces and civil affairs units, even the Coast Guard showing up in Afghanistan (maybe Iraq too, I don't know)? The Corps wasn't the only branch operating way outside its doctrine.


----------



## Devildoc (Jun 10, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I agree, but I'd be willing to think HQMC is responsible for the current state. The Army was screwed in the GWOT, mad props to Rummy for that dick. I'll bet a dollar the Corps asked for a larger presence after the 2003 invasion, was granted that "Make a Wish," and then found itself in a bad position. Now pride won't allow it to opt out and even if it did SECDEF wouldn't allow it because of the Army's burden.
> 
> This isn't an indictment of either branch, but our civilian leadership. It dug a hole deeper than the service's ability to fill. Hell, the Army had tankers doing patrols...without their tanks and other branches acting way outside of their mandates. Navy Chiefs running Army FOB's and civil affairs units, the AF throwing out ad hoc ground forces and civil affairs units, even the Coast Guard showing up in Afghanistan (maybe Iraq too, I don't know)? The Corps wasn't the only branch operating way outside its doctrine.



Totally and fully agree.  It's largely a case of getting what they (HQMC) asked for.  In GWOT the Marine leadership had a bad case of "give the mission to us if it's too fill-in-the-blank for the Army."  I agree with Ocoka, though, in that IF they 'right-sized' the Corps and went back to doing what they do, the whole issue would sort itself out.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 10, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Totally and fully agree.  It's largely a case of getting what they (HQMC) asked for.  In GWOT the Marine leadership had a bad case of "give the mission to us if it's too fill-in-the-blank for the Army."  I agree with Ocoka, though, in that IF they 'right-sized' the Corps and went back to doing what they do, the whole issue would sort itself out.


Army (and AF) cops escorting log convoys driven by AF and Contractors kept the Marines in Western Iraq supplied.
When Iraq was going to hell CMC suggesting they leave Iraq and only do Afghanistan was probably a good idea, except they made it look like a power play and got slapped for it.


----------



## Teufel (Jun 10, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Are they self sustaining?
> 
> Being the biggest bad-ass doesn't mean anything if you can't handle the long haul.



Who is self sustaining nowadays?  Contractors have handled the bulk of our logistical requirements overseas for the decade or so.


----------



## Devildoc (Jun 10, 2016)

Teufel said:


> Who is self sustaining nowadays?  Contractors have handled the bulk of our logistical requirements overseas for the decade or so.



Which raises an interesting point.  One of the reasons we went to contractors doing this type of work was to reduce the "tail-to-teeth" ratio, but it's still about the same.  I wonder why.

Now it's been a long time since I was part of a MEU, but recall it to be self-sustainable for 30 days, which really isn't too much longer than a long FTX.


----------



## AWP (Jun 10, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> When Iraq was going to hell CMC suggesting they leave Iraq and only do Afghanistan was probably a good idea, except they made it look like a power play and got slapped for it.



I am sincere when I say this, even if I've been "slapped" for it before, but I firmly believe the Marines should have taken OEF-A and left all of Iraq to the Army. Plus the Corps up with Guard light infantry as needed or maybe put one Army division on a brigade rotation, but give that war to the Marines. I think the resurgence of the Taliban would be checked, even if partially, and we wouldn't see the explosion of violence from 2006 to the present. It would still be bad and probably require Soldiers, but I don't think it would reach the dire levels we saw by 2010-2011. 25th ID was an abortion and left the 173rd scrambling to undo their mess. Too late and here comes the TB back in 2006.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 10, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I am sincere when I say this, even if I've been "slapped" for it before, but I firmly believe the Marines should have taken OEF-A and left all of Iraq to the Army. Plus the Corps up with Guard light infantry as needed or maybe put one Army division on a brigade rotation, but give that war to the Marines. I think the resurgence of the Taliban would be checked, even if partially, and we wouldn't see the explosion of violence from 2006 to the present. It would still be bad and probably require Soldiers, but I don't think it would reach the dire levels we saw by 2010-2011. 25th ID was an abortion and left the 173rd scrambling to undo their mess. Too late and here comes the TB back in 2006.


I semi-agree with you, if for no other reason than the way the Army decides who is deploying where.
@Freefalling what happened with 25th ID?


----------



## Marine0311 (Jun 10, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Totally and fully agree.  It's largely a case of getting what they (HQMC) asked for.  In GWOT the Marine leadership had a bad case of "give the mission to us if it's too fill-in-the-blank for the Army."  I agree with Ocoka, though, in that IF they 'right-sized' the Corps and went back to doing what they do, the whole issue would sort itself out.



Agree. The USMC is needed to "fight wars and win battles " and for it to go beyond that yeah sure it can be done but stretches the force.


----------



## AWP (Jun 10, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> @Freefalling what happened with 25th ID?



2004 - 2005, 25th ID's division staff and Div. Commander ran OEF-A. I think this was when we had a two star for the Army portion and a three star for the whole country. At the time 2nd BCT, 25th ID was in Iraq and taking a beating. The 25th's division commander, Eric Olsen, subsequently, fall 2004, quietly passed the word that his units weren't to take casualties.

Division History | 25th Infantry Division Association



> The 25th Infantry Division Headquarters, Division Artillery Headquarters, the Aviation Brigade, Support Brigade and the 3rd Brigade Combat Team deployed to Afghanistan in February-April 2004 for a one-year tour of duty.



You had the bulk of the division in Afghanistan, 3rd BCT down south, DIVARTY was "infantillery" in RC-East plus the aviation and support brigades. I know 3/116 Infantry, VAARNG was based in Ghazni and had the entire province. I'm not sure if any other maneuver elements were in country, but I know another Guard BN or two and a Marine BN (2/3?) were around in 2005.

Sorry for the drift, back to the 25th. The quiet order was conveyed during Olsen's "Eagle Flights" around country and was even conveyed to the "Stonewall Brigade"; that battalion promptly said "fuck that" and kept doing its job. The 25th units stopped patrolling or when they did they were short patrols in quiet areas. I confirmed all of this with the VA guys, some from the 25th who were pissed, and contractors working for the Army. The 25th gave up in Afghanistan.

Fast forward to the spring of '05 when the 173rd took over in RC-E and the aviation component came from our brigade in Germany. They were shot up within weeks. Some of their Blackhawk crews blasted the 25th. "Quiet my ass" "They said there was no threat" as we stared at doors and panels with bullet holes. They had those stacked up on Steel Beach near the maintenance tents. The 173rd had a patrol out near the PK border when it spotted a 40-ish animal pack train...in broad daylight. They weren't trying to hide because there weren't any Americans in that valley for months. One of their JTACs told me they were briefed the country was quiet and their deployment would be boring.

Nope.

2/3 and 3/3 Marines set up in the J-bad/ N2K region in the spring/ summer of 2005. That led to Red Wing and Luttrell's patrol.

The country was rotten in '05 and no one talked about it. By '06 they couldn't hide it and I place the blame for most of it on the 25th. They quit the war with 6+ months left in their deployment.

Olsen picked up a third star.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 10, 2016)

Sad.
$th of the 25th was leaving Iraq when I did my last deployment, they seemed pretty squared away (unlike 1st Cav).


----------

