# USMC Budget cuts:  Axing  units in Recon and MARSOC



## tigerstr (Feb 5, 2012)

Just read this in the digital version of Marine Corps Times (02/13/2012). It’s for subscribers only, so I will post the relevant parts:

2015 UNIT DEACTIVATIONS Ground combat elements: 
■ Truck Company B, 1st Marine Division 
■ 1st Battalion, 9th Marines 
■ 2nd Battalion, 9th Marines 
■ *C Company, 1st Reconnaissance Battalion **
**■** C Company, 2nd Reconnaissance Battalion **
**■** C Company, 3rd Reconnaissance Battalion*
■ 3rd Combat Engineer Battalion


Αnd…. 

“Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command also may see its planned expansion slowed as a result of the budget cuts. The two-star command at Camp Lejeune, N.C., has been growing steadily with a goal of reaching 3,800 personnel by 2014, but Hejlik, a former MARSOC commanding general, called that number into question.

“*MARSOC will not have the exact plus-up that we wanted to give them*,” he said. “The commandant is a huge supporter of MARSOC and where they’ve been and where they’re going, but they will not get the plus up in total that they were expecting.”


This if I am not mistaken, means a full *third *of regular Recon Companies (excluding Force) will be deactivated in 2015, if plans don’t change.

And MARSOC seems to get the axe too, even though it is part of USSOCOM.


*Your thoughts/opinions?* 

Is this a repetition of past practices of “Big” Corps, ea cutting back on "special" outfits after major contingencies? 

Is it a step in the wrong direction?   

My aswer would be yes to both, but I am just an outsider looking in...


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 5, 2012)

tigerstr said:


> ...
> 
> Is it a step in the wrong direction?
> 
> ...


 
It's hard to say without knowing what it was that MARSOC was expecting.  It may be that whatever it was is no longer needed, or was in the "nice to have" category.


----------



## F.CASTLE (Feb 5, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> It's hard to say without knowing what it was that MARSOC was expecting. It may be that whatever it was is no longer needed, or was in the "nice to have" category.


 
They originally wanted MARSOC up to the same strength as SEALs... I'll look around for the article and try to attach it to the thread Mara.


----------



## F.CASTLE (Feb 5, 2012)

http://kitup.military.com/2011/06/marsoc-could-grow-to-seal-strength.html

There you go mate!


----------



## Rando134 (Feb 5, 2012)

The entire Marine Corps is facing cuts. We are looking at going from 202,000 to 186,000.  So "big" Corps, as you say, is facing cuts as well. You only listed 2015, the article goes in depth about many more units.



> Is this a repetition of past practices of “Big” Corps, ea cutting back on "special" outfits after major contingencies?
> 
> Is it a step in the wrong direction?
> 
> My aswer would be yes to both, but I am just an outsider looking in...


 
We are designed to be small. I am sure MARSOC is still getting a plus, just because it is not exactly what they expected does not mean they are getting the axe as you say.


----------



## tigerstr (Feb 5, 2012)

F.CASTLE said:


> They originally wanted MARSOC up to the same strength as SEALs... I'll look around for the article and try to attach it to the thread Mara.


 
I have seen this myself, and was something that was never verified or detailed any further. On the other hand, MC Times clarifies that probable cut backs refer to the 3,800 personel by the end of 2014. This according to various statements had to do with a) going from 30+ Teams to the TOE number of 48 Teams in the three MSOBs and -thats where most slots would go- creating a very strong force of SOF Enablers (*Mara this is for you  *) in Combat Support (Intel, Fires, EOD, Commo etc.) and CSS.



Marauder06 said:


> It's hard to say without knowing what it was that MARSOC was expecting. It may be that whatever it was is no longer needed, or was in the "nice to have" category.


 
Without intimate knowledge, I cant argue with the "nice to have" thing concerning MARSOC, but cutting 1/3 of Recon Companies?


----------



## Uncle Petey (Feb 5, 2012)

It all seems pretty standard.  The Recon Company cuts we're expected.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 5, 2012)

I am sure the Marines are looking at future conflicts, and do you need to build a nit up if other assets become available.


----------



## tigerstr (Feb 5, 2012)

Just for the sake of argument.



rao22 said:


> The entire Marine Corps is facing cuts. We are looking at going from 202,000 to 186,000.
> We are designed to be small.


 
US Navy active duty strength is about 328.700 and NSW has about 8900 people. (USSOCOM Fact Book 2012) . *About 2,7%.*

With USMC at future end strength of 182.000, MARSOC at 3800 people is way smaller in comparison, as a percentage ratio to total force.  *Just about 2,1% *

( I loved the applicability of ratios when dknob posted on this thread  ) 

Army end strength is now 547.000 and USASOC has 28.500 people (admittedly counting CA,  MISO and SOF Aviation) . *More than 5%*.

Air Force end strength is around 330.000 with AFSOC having 16000 people. *Almost 5%.*

Part of this is comparing “apples and oranges” but do you see where I am getting at?


----------



## 0699 (Feb 5, 2012)

tigerstr said:


> Just for the sake of argument.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


 
Once again, the Marines have to do more with less...


----------



## goon175 (Feb 5, 2012)

I don't understand this. All the headlines have been about cutting the usmc and army down a bit, but growing the SOF force. Now, I know recon doesn't fall under that umbrella, but MARSOC does. On top of all the talk about the important role FID/UW will play in the upcoming years, how is MARSOC not growing to atleast what it was supposed to, if not more? Me thinks this is some inter-Corps politics at play here....


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 5, 2012)

0699 said:


> Once again, the Marines have to do more with less...


Don't forget the Army and Marines were expanded by cutting Navy and AF end strength.

Planners think the next war will be a Navy show, so it makes sense to reduce ground forces.


----------



## Manolito (Feb 5, 2012)

Did the article go into vehicle cut backs? When the Corps went to war for the first time inland farther than 35 miles it took its AAV and LAV, Hummers etc. Most of these vehicles had seen a lot of use then went on to have more and more armor added to the vehicles who's suspension wasn't designed for the additional load. All of this eqquipment will be coming home very tired. does the article mention a overhaul or rebuild program for the tracked vehicles or the wheeled vehicles?
Thanks
Bill


----------



## dknob (Feb 6, 2012)

Not to sound like a dick, but do we really need all the Recon Bn personnel?
I'd say no.

MARSOC is getting an axe because it's pool of candidates is diminishing


----------



## AWP (Feb 6, 2012)

From a numbers standpoint it makes sense. You only have a finite number of Marines who could work in MARSOC or Recon. Not knowing their manning levels, I'd say this allows for all of the units to be fully manned with qualified personnel...if the system is properly managed.


----------



## Boon (Feb 6, 2012)

Yeah I don't understand this based solely on the directive that SOF would expand their numbers and have greater worldwide responsibility, while conventional military forces would face cuts.


----------



## 0699 (Feb 6, 2012)

dknob said:


> Not to sound like a dick, but do we really need all the Recon Bn personnel?
> *I'd say no.*
> 
> MARSOC is getting an axe because it's pool of candidates is diminishing


 
Why?


----------



## F.CASTLE (Feb 6, 2012)

dknob said:


> Not to sound like a dick, but do we really need all the Recon Bn personnel?
> I'd say no.
> 
> MARSOC is getting an axe because it's pool of candidates is diminishing


 

Neither of these statements has any validity behind them....  Do we really need all the Recon Bn Personnel? REALLY?! 


I haven't heard anything about MARSOCs pool being diminished, however I CAN tell you its takes fucking FOREVER to get orders to attend A&S.... If their pool is diminished, they need to look at the application process and streamline that...  However, I have yet to see anything published regarding a lack of candidates.


----------



## dknob (Feb 6, 2012)

with a cut back of tens of thousands of Marines, what's the justification to keep the Recon Bns at the same strength?? esp since Recon Battalions support the same Marine units who are getting smaller and smaller. If the Recon Bn was an asset enjoyed by all in the military I would understand, but it isn't.

It's like reducing the number of Ranger battalions from three to only two, but deciding to keep all three RRD teams in tact. Doesn't make too much sense to me.

Yeah, 20+ thousand personnel out of the 200,000 now may not seem like enough justification to cut back Recon Companies to the untrained eye. But clearly reading the article says that the majority of cuts will be from the II MEF. A large combat unit, with a good number of Recon marines within it.

So if the majority of II MEF is being cut or dispersed to the rest of the USMC, how is my statement that "we don't need as many Recon Bn guys" not valid??


----------



## 0699 (Feb 6, 2012)

dknob said:


> with a cut back of tens of thousands of Marines, what's the justification to keep the Recon Bns at the same strength?? esp since Recon Battalions support the same Marine units who are getting smaller and smaller. If the Recon Bn was an asset enjoyed by all in the military I would understand, but it isn't.
> 
> It's like reducing the number of Ranger battalions from three to only two, but deciding to keep all three RRD teams in tact. Doesn't make too much sense to me.
> 
> ...


 
Good answer.  And no, I'm not on Family Feud. 

Looking at the OP (and that's all the information I have), the two infantry battalions getting cut (1/9 & 2/9) were plus ups in the mid-2000s to the "normal" division staffing, so removing them is taking things back to the status quo.  They were part of the early war plus up from ~185,000 to 205,000 (?).  If the mission requirements of the recon battalions has changed, then I'd fully agree to drawdown companies (especially if they can't be manned anyway...), but if we're expecting them to complete the same tasks with less people things can get ugly real quick (burn-out, lack of training, etc)

It'll be interesting to see what happens.


----------



## dknob (Feb 6, 2012)

0699 said:


> Good answer. And no, I'm not on Family Feud.
> 
> Looking at the OP (and that's all the information I have), the two infantry battalions getting cut (1/9 & 2/9) were plus ups in the mid-2000s to the "normal" division staffing, so removing them is taking things back to the status quo. They were part of the early war plus up from ~185,000 to 205,000 (?). If the mission requirements of the recon battalions has changed, then I'd fully agree to drawdown companies (especially if they can't be manned anyway...), but if we're expecting them to complete the same tasks with less people things can get ugly real quick (burn-out, lack of training, etc)
> 
> It'll be interesting to see what happens.


I found a second source before I posted which I confused with the original link. Sorry for the confusion:

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/new...uts-may-slash-additional-marine-units-013112/



> Published late last year, the force structure review called for the reduction of about 15,000 Marines, including some 7,000 from East Coast units. The rest would be spread across the service. II Marine Expeditionary Force, based at Camp Lejeune, N.C., will take the biggest hit, with the MEF’s three-star headquarters downgraded to a two-star command, and the 9th Marine Regiment deactivated along with its three infantry battalions.
> The Corps also will deactivate the 8th Marine Regiment headquarters, redistributing its three infantry battalions under II MEF’s surviving regimental headquarters, 2nd Marines and 6th Marines.
> 
> Hejlik said it’s unclear which additional infantry battalion may be cut or whether it will be based on the East Coast or the West Coast. Infantry battalions also are based permanently at Camp Pendleton and Twentynine Palms in California and at Marine Corps Base Hawaii.


----------



## tigerstr (Feb 6, 2012)

Manolito said:


> Did the article go into vehicle cut backs? When the Corps went to war for the first time inland farther than 35 miles it took its AAV and LAV, Hummers etc. Most of these vehicles had seen a lot of use then went on to have more and more armor added to the vehicles who's suspension wasn't designed for the additional load. All of this eqquipment will be coming home very tired. does the article mention a overhaul or rebuild program for the tracked vehicles or the wheeled vehicles?
> Thanks
> Bill


 
Nothing in the article about this. However IIRC,  after the recent demise of the EFV, there are plans to give AAVs a new lease of life and to create a new amphib tracked vehicle down the road, but a much less ambitious one than the EFV. Again IIRC, regarding wheeled vehicles there are continuing plans for the MPC (Marine Personel Carrier), but I am not sure what the plans are regarding the fleet of Hummers compared to the JLTV project.

I have read that the Army will concentrate efforts on the JLTV, (vice upgrades to the Hummer fleet) but I am not sure if Marines are on the same boat.


Hope this helps a little.


----------



## tigerstr (Feb 6, 2012)

0699 said:


> the two infantry battalions getting cut (1/9 & 2/9) were plus ups in the mid-2000s to the "normal" division staffing, so removing them is taking things back to the status quo. They were part of the early war plus up from ~185,000 to 205,000 (?). If the mission requirements of the recon battalions has changed, then I'd fully agree to drawdown companies (especially if they can't be manned anyway...), but if we're expecting them to complete the same tasks with less people things can get ugly real quick (burn-out, lack of training, etc)
> 
> It'll be interesting to see what happens.


 

Actually three (decided) to four (probable) Infantry Battalions will be axed, bringing the Infantry force either to the level it was before the plus-up ( 24 Battalions) or at 23 Battalions.

So to concur with your point, how does this justify axing 1/3 of Recon Companies, as this looks like? Except if this has to do with raising the number of Platoons in each remaining Company, which would not be all that unusual. 

Regarding MARSOC, according to the same article, cutbacks won’t be on the CSO side but on enablers. I quote:

«Meanwhile, at MARSOC there are ongoing plans to expand the command’s number of small special operations teams from 30 to 48. Officials there expect to see growth slowed in the effort to recruit and train *special operations capabilities specialists*, the combat support Marines who hold expertise in areas such as intelligence, dog handling, joint terminal attack control and even truck driving and plumbing, a source said».

Its to early to say but if these cutbacks prove significant, it would be a pity, since MARSOC has/had plans to put special emphasis on enablers in order to create a strong “MAGTF” like concept for Marine SOF.


----------



## 0699 (Feb 6, 2012)

dknob said:


> I found a second source before I posted which I confused with the original link. Sorry for the confusion:
> 
> http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/new...uts-may-slash-additional-Marine-units-013112/


 
I don't know that many will be surprised by 9th Marines going away. IIRC, it was kind of expected that they were only being stood up to provide a command element for 1/2/3 9 because of the war. With Iraq done and Afghanistan going away soon, it's time to put those units back in storage until needed again. Hell, during 04-07, 2MARDIV didn't have the equipment sets at CL to fully support all its subordinate units. T/E equipment was handed from battalion to battalion; there were basically enough sets in CL to train with and that was it. On a side note, it made equipment readiness hell. 

Getting rid of 8th Marines does surprise me, as it destroys a lot of our ideas about what constitutes a regiment/division. While I understand the need to reduce HQ elements IOT fully man the infantry battalions, they need to be careful that it doesn't detroy the regimental identity (I know Marines that spent over half their career in one regiment; not quite like the British system, but close) like the Army did with theirs.  Although we're mandated by law to have 3 active divisions and 3 active air wings, nothing dictates the size of those units.  3MARDIV has effectively been a small regiment since 9th Marines was stood down there.



tigerstr said:


> Actually three (decided) to four (probable) Infantry Battalions will be axed, bringing the Infantry force either to the level it was before the plus-up ( 24 Battalions) or at 23 Battalions.
> 
> So to concur with your point, how does this justify axing 1/3 of Recon Companies, as this looks like? Except if this has to do with raising the number of Platoons in each remaining Company, which would not be all that unusual.
> 
> ...


 
This sounds very dangerous to me. If MARSOC isn't manned with the support elements needed to perform their missions, you'll end up with unknowns when you throw together a Marine-heavy JSOTF.


----------



## Manolito (Feb 6, 2012)

0699 said:


> I don't know that many will be surprised by 9th Marines going away. IIRC, it was kind of expected that they were only being stood up to provide a command element for 1/2/3 9 because of the war. With Iraq done and Afghanistan going away soon, it's time to put those units back in storage until needed again. Hell, during 04-07, 2MARDIV didn't have the equipment sets at CL to fully support all its subordinate units. T/E equipment was handed from battalion to battalion; there were basically enough sets in CL to train with and that was it. On a side note, it made equipment readiness hell.
> 
> Getting rid of 8th Marines does surprise me, as it destroys a lot of our ideas about what constitutes a regiment/division. While I understand the need to reduce HQ elements IOT fully man the infantry battalions, they need to be careful that it doesn't detroy the regimental identity (I know Marines that spent over half their career in one regiment; not quite like the British system, but close) like the Army did with theirs. Although we're mandated by law to have 3 active divisions and 3 active air wings, nothing dictates the size of those units. 3MARDIV has effectively been a small regiment since 9th Marines was stood down there.
> 
> ...


I sure see your point I have to wonder if the Marines will go back to a coastal fighting force? If they stay inland like they have for the last ten years they need to rethink their complete support program including fuel delivery from the coast etc. Very interesting to see how this comes out. I have some Navy friends being notified they will not be allowed to re-enlist when their date comes up. I also hear people are bieng let out if they just drop a request.
The entire supply chain management has to change if it is going to support both the Army and the Marine Corps.


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (Feb 6, 2012)

The Corps (at least when I was getting out back a few months ago) seemed to wanna be getting more focused on the amphib/MEU stuff and being the 911 force that can respond anywhere there is a MEU. 1/1 when I was with them was slated for Afghan then changed to a MEU float, and 3/1 after I got back from Afghan with them was changed from going back there to a MEU float. Marines have almost always acted as the tough fighting, elite shock troops of the military. Put a enemy in front of us, tell us it needs to be destroyed, and it happens (it's also why we can't have nice things lol).

To the MARSOC thing, and this is just an opinion and observation of the Corps from past experience, but even with the commandant's support, the idea of a "elite unit" within the Corps has always been something that irked a lot of the higher up's since the idea is the Corps is ALREADY a elite fighting force, and having a elite within a elite breeds trouble and takes away from the idea of the Corps already being elite according to them. Can't forget the Corps was the only branch that declined to hand command of it's units like recon and force recon to SOCOM command in the 80's because they didn't like the idea of Marine's being commanded by other branch leaders. Rumsfeld is the one that pushed that the Corps join the club and add a unit to SOCOM. I think having elite units like recon and force recon have always unsettled the more conventional unit commanders despite the need for such units, and a unit like MARSOC just irkes em a bit further. Personally I always had good experiences with guys from Recon and such units! Were they spit and shine polished the way SNCO's ALWAYS want Marines to look? No, but they were good at their jobs and that's what I respected. Became more and more about public image and (often) dumb standards than being a good warrior by the time I decided to get out.


----------



## 0699 (Feb 6, 2012)

Manolito said:


> I sure see your point I have to *wonder if the Marines will go back to a coastal fighting force*? If they stay inland like they have for the last ten years they need to rethink their complete support program including fuel delivery from the coast etc. Very interesting to see how this comes out. I have some Navy friends being notified they will not be allowed to re-enlist when their date comes up. I also hear people are bieng let out if they just drop a request.
> The entire supply chain management has to change if it is going to support both the Army and the Marine Corps.


 
God, I hope so. It's what we do and what we're good at. As I understand it, we got involved in Iraq for two reasons. 1) It was the only war in town. Marines want to get into the fight and that was where the fight was. 2) We were told to do it, as the Army at the time was too understaffed to support all their commitments. Not making commentary, just what I was told. IMO, we never should have gotten involved in that type of mechanized, far-from-the-ocean warfare. It's not what we do, it's not part of our core competencies, we aren't designed logistically to support it, and the Army is capable of doing it far better than we will ever be. If we allow ourselves to get dragged into being a smaller version of the Army, then what's the point? The Corps might as well disband and roll all Marines into the Army.

Like Orville Reddenbacker (sp?) said "Do one thing and do it better than anyone else."



JohnnyBoyUSMC said:


> The Corps (at least when I was getting out back a few months ago) seemed to wanna be getting more focused on the amphib/MEU stuff and being the 911 force that can respond anywhere there is a MEU. 1/1 when I was with them was slated for Afghan then changed to a MEU float, and 3/1 after I got back from Afghan with them was changed from going back there to a MEU float. Marines have almost always acted as the tough fighting, elite shock troops of the military. Put a enemy in front of us, tell us it needs to be destroyed, and it happens (it's also why we can't have nice things lol).
> 
> To the MARSOC thing, and this is just an opinion and observation of the Corps from past experience, but even with the commandant's support, the idea of a "elite unit" within the Corps has always been something that irked a lot of the higher up's since the idea is the Corps is ALREADY a elite fighting force, and having a elite within a elite breeds trouble and takes away from the idea of the Corps already being elite according to them. Can't forget *the Corps was the only branch that declined to hand command of it's units like recon and force recon to SOCOM command in the 80's because they didn't like the idea of Marine's being commanded by other branch leaders*. Rumsfeld is the one that pushed that the Corps join the club and add a unit to SOCOM. I think having elite units like recon and force recon have always unsettled the more conventional unit commanders despite the need for such units, and a unit like MARSOC just irkes em a bit further. Personally I always had good experiences with guys from Recon and such units! Were they spit and shine polished the way SNCO's ALWAYS want Marines to look? No, but they were good at their jobs and that's what I respected. Became more and more about public image and (often) dumb standards than being a good warrior by the time I decided to get out.


 
It's not just about turning over Marines to other services or commands. Deep down the Corps is a very insular service. Whenever something like MARSOC rears its head, the question asked by a lot of people in the Corps is "What does this do for The Corps?" Recon Bn and Force are well understood and provide a known capability to the MAGTF. MARSOC on the other hand provides nothing to the MAGTF or FMF. Just the opposite actually, it creates a requirement for the Corps to administratively support (boot camp, MOS schooling, work spaces, housing, medical, etc) MARSOC without returning any direct combat capability to the Corps. AFAIK, MARSOC will never belong to the Corps in a tactical sense; you will never see a MARSOC element being used as part of a MAGTF. They will always be part of the JSOTF operating under the guidance of the SOC theater element, even if embarked on Naby amphibs. Not comparing MARSOC to ANGLICO, but the same thing has happened to ANGLICO repeatedly. Because the main purpose of ANGLICO is to act as a fires support liasion element between the MAGTF/ARG and other services (US Army or foreign military), whenever the budget starts getting cut ANGLICO is disbanded because they provide very limited (obvious) benefit to the Corps.

I remember when MARSOC was first sold to the Corps. It was said that 0321s would go to MARSOC for 4-5 years and receive a lot of HSLD training at the expense of SOCOM, then return to the FMF and share that training with other Marines. I knew right away it was BS, as the Army had seen how difficult it is to maintain SOF capabilities without it being a full-time MOS.


----------



## tigerstr (Feb 7, 2012)

0699 said:


> God, I hope so. It's what we do and what we're good at. As I understand it, we got involved in Iraq for two reasons. 1) It was the only war in town. Marines want to get into the fight and that was where the fight was. 2) We were told to do it, as the Army at the time was too understaffed to support all their commitments. Not making commentary, just what I was told. IMO, we never should have gotten involved in that type of mechanized, far-from-the-ocean warfare. It's not what we do, it's not part of our core competencies, we aren't designed logistically to support it, and the Army is capable of doing it far better than we will ever be. If we allow ourselves to get dragged into being a smaller version of the Army, then what's the point? The Corps might as well disband and roll all Marines into the Army.
> 
> Like Orville Reddenbacker (sp?) said "Do one thing and do it better than anyone else."
> 
> ...


 
But understanding Recon did not stop the Corps axing  the three Recon Companies. Its probably a good thing *they have to* support MARSOC since its a USSOCOM asset. I contend that two factors come in to play. First the dislike of "special" units in a Corps that is considered "elite" and second the argument that these types of special outfits take good people away from the regular units.

I think its actually a love-hate relationship. Look at Force Recon. They were practically disbanded in 2006 and roled back in D Companies of Recon Battalions (not the first time this has happened in their history), when MARSOC was establisled,  only to come back when Corps found out that they have no control on what MARSOC does, even when elements are embarked with a MEU.

IMHO, Recon, FR and MARSOC have already proven their worth during the WOT and can all be very usefull in IW environments, so cutting back on them is probably not a wise decision.

On the other hand its a good thing that now Officers get a secondary MOS of Recon Officer and another one of "SO" Officer with certain established prereqs.


----------



## goon175 (Feb 7, 2012)

> I remember when MARSOC was first sold to the Corps. It was said that 0321s would go to MARSOC for 4-5 years and receive a lot of HSLD training at the expense of SOCOM, then return to the FMF and share that training with other Marines. I knew right away it was BS, as the Army had seen how difficult it is to maintain SOF capabilities without it being a full-time MOS.


 
Sounds eerily familiar to Abrams Charter back in the 70's. Put guys into a high speed unit and have them return to the big army to make the rest of the Army better. 25 years or so later, the only guys that regularly returned to the big army were the officers. It's a good concept in theory, but in reality it doesn't work.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 7, 2012)

0699 said:


> It's not just about turning over Marines to other services or commands. Deep down the Corps is a very insular service. Whenever something like MARSOC rears its head, the question asked by a lot of people in the Corps is "*What does this do for The Corps?*" Recon Bn and Force are well understood and provide a known capability to the MAGTF. MARSOC on the other hand provides nothing to the MAGTF or FMF. Just the opposite actually, it creates a requirement for the Corps to administratively support (boot camp, MOS schooling, work spaces, housing, medical, etc) MARSOC without returning any direct combat capability to the Corps. AFAIK, MARSOC will never belong to the Corps in a tactical sense; you will never see a MARSOC element being used as part of a MAGTF. They will always be part of the JSOTF operating under the guidance of the SOC theater element, even if embarked on Naby amphibs. Not comparing MARSOC to ANGLICO, but the same thing has happened to ANGLICO repeatedly. Because the main purpose of ANGLICO is to act as a fires support liasion element between the MAGTF/ARG and other services (US Army or foreign military), whenever the budget starts getting cut ANGLICO is disbanded because they provide very limited (obvious) benefit to the Corps.
> 
> I remember when MARSOC was first sold to the Corps. It was said that 0321s would go to MARSOC for 4-5 years and receive a lot of HSLD training at the expense of SOCOM, then return to the FMF and share that training with other Marines. I knew right away it was BS, as the Army had seen how difficult it is to maintain SOF capabilities without it being a full-time MOS.


 
Maybe they should ask what does this do for the Theater Commander vice what does this do for the Corps?


----------



## 0699 (Feb 7, 2012)

SOWT said:


> Maybe they should ask what does this do for the Theater Commander vice what does this do for the Corps?


 
Maybe.  Or maybe I'm not just saying what I want to say correctly.


----------



## Manolito (Feb 7, 2012)

SOWT said:


> Maybe they should ask what does this do for the Theater Commander vice what does this do for the Corps?


 SOWT I sure hear what you are saying but the Marine Corps does not have the support system in place to support troops inland so if you give the area commander the Marines you are also giving him the responsibility to feed and clothe the Marines as well as provide their fuel and ammo because they are not made up to support a battle inland. I am not smart enough to know what is best but I am pretty well versed in the supply chain management of the Corps and the support of her tracked vehicles. The corps has a force afloat that has been set up to do one thing very well. Land take the first miles of dirt and hold for Big Army to arrive. The load manifests of the ships are not even close to inland warfare or sustained warfare. Time will tell how this goes and it will go what ever way the budget goes.


----------



## goon175 (Feb 7, 2012)

Well, with focus apparently shifting to the PACOM AO, the USMC should have plenty of things to keep itself busy.


----------



## Uncle Petey (Feb 10, 2012)

Recon Battalions will shrink with the times and expand with the next war.  This is the cycle post-every war.  As far as Recon Battalion being necessary, absolutely.  The MEF and Division need the Recon assets. What that means is more MEU's  and getting back to past mission sets.  My personnel feelings about Recon as a whole (especially Force Recon) is this: Recon Battalions are essentially the Ranger Battalions for the Marine Corps. Not the same in every way and way different  in many mission sets, but still the same-ish. The Big Marine Corps needs a group of pipe-hitting bad ass's that can go to a troubled AO and take some heat off of the Local units.  Essentially a group of fireman to put out fires.

The USMC needs a Division/MEF level asset that  can on a moments notice deploy to a trouble spot and fuck shit up.  If you guys are aware of GySgt Blonders Force platoon from 1st Force, thats exactly what they did. 2/7( a huge AO and not much logistical support) was having a rough time in western Afghanistan. The MEF sent that platoon over in two weeks. They proceeded to  lay some serious hurt down on the Taliban out west.  As a former 0321 now 0372 I am very proud of those guys.  I saw them frequently out there, they are solid professionals.

http://www.mca-marines.org/leatherneck/video/gysgt-brian-blonder-awarded-navy-cross


----------



## tigerstr (Feb 11, 2012)

Good post. I am sure members of this board are very familiar with the actions of the particular FR Platoon ;)


----------



## F.CASTLE (Feb 11, 2012)

Uncle Petey said:


> As far as Recon Battalion being necessary, absolutely. The MEF and Division need the Recon assets. What that means is more MEU's and getting back to past mission sets. My personnel feelings about Recon as a whole (especially Force Recon) is this: Recon Battalions are essentially the Ranger Battalions for the Marine Corps.


 
I had wanted to say something very similar when I first commented on this thread to dknob , however I was a bit skiddish. I didn't want to get into a long argument over comparing Recon to Rangers. (No offense dknob, but I didn't want to offend a brother in arms and Ranger with a comparison, or detract from this thread if it turned into a debate over that) That being said, not only do Recon units support local units, but they are also capable of maintaining a large section of AO themselves, as 1st Recon demonstrated in Sangin.


----------



## Brian1/75 (Feb 14, 2012)

Uncle Petey said:


> Recon Battalions are essentially the Ranger Battalions for the Marine Corps. Not the same in every way and way different in many mission sets, but still the same-ish. The Big Marine Corps needs a group of pipe-hitting bad ass's that can go to a troubled AO and take some heat off of the Local units. Essentially a group of fireman to put out fires.


You know, this confuses me. The main complaint coming from Marine brass about MARSOC was not having control of them and losing a bunch of good Marines. This eventually brought about the return of Force, but the Army doesn't have anymore control over the Ranger Battalions than Marines of MARSOC. As far as I know, a Ranger platoon has never been handed over to a battlespace commander or some division-level command for his personal use. I get needing recon assets. The Army still has LRS units in some shape or form. And sometimes they are used as pipe-hitting bad asses instead of reconnaissance. But is it really that hard to ask some level of commander higher than yours for SOCOM elements? You might not get handed fellow Marines and instead receive SEALs or something. I just feel Marines are completely against jointness. This was apparent to me operating in Marine AOs. I wasn't even anywhere near the level to interact with Marine command, but it was apparent by the buffoonery that would go on at night after we arrived that we were not welcome. Is it so crazy to think Marines might be quelling fires for the Army and vice-versa?


----------



## goon175 (Feb 14, 2012)

Oh jeez...we could start an entire other thread on BSO handovers alone...lol


----------



## Teufel (Feb 14, 2012)

Uncle Petey said:


> Recon Battalions will shrink with the times and expand with the next war. This is the cycle post-every war. As far as Recon Battalion being necessary, absolutely. The MEF and Division need the Recon assets. What that means is more MEU's and getting back to past mission sets. My personnel feelings about Recon as a whole (especially Force Recon) is this: Recon Battalions are essentially the Ranger Battalions for the Marine Corps. Not the same in every way and way different in many mission sets, but still the same-ish. The Big Marine Corps needs a group of pipe-hitting bad ass's that can go to a troubled AO and take some heat off of the Local units. Essentially a group of fireman to put out fires.
> 
> The USMC needs a Division/MEF level asset that can on a moments notice deploy to a trouble spot and fuck shit up. If you guys are aware of GySgt Blonders Force platoon from 1st Force, thats exactly what they did. 2/7( a huge AO and not much logistical support) was having a rough time in western Afghanistan. The MEF sent that platoon over in two weeks. They proceeded to lay some serious hurt down on the Taliban out west. As a former 0321 now 0372 I am very proud of those guys. I saw them frequently out there, they are solid professionals.
> 
> http://www.mca-marines.org/leatherneck/video/gysgt-brian-blonder-awarded-navy-cross


 
I agree but I think the problem we are facing is that throughput issues are making HQMC pressure BRC/RTC to drop standards and produce more 0321s.  These cuts should force the Marine Corps to stop giving recon battalions battlespace and start using them more like they should be used.  Master Sergeant Blonder is one of my best friends and I am very familiar with that deployment.  That is the way Recon Marines should be utilized.  It's really about humanitarian assistance operations; Force Recon Marines help bad people get to Muslim heaven.


----------



## tigerstr (Feb 14, 2012)

Teufel said:


> Master Sergeant Blonder is one of my best friends and I am very familiar with that deployment. That is the way Recon Marines should be utilized. It's really about humanitarian assistance operations; Force Recon Marines help bad people get to Muslim heaven.


 
Nicely put, in more ways than one...


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Feb 14, 2012)

Teufel said:


> I agree but I think the problem we are facing is that throughput issues are making HQMC pressure BRC/RTC to drop standards and produce more 0321s. These cuts should force the Marine Corps to stop giving recon battalions battlespace and start using them more like they should be used. Master Sergeant Blonder is one of my best friends and I am very familiar with that deployment. That is the way Recon Marines should be utilized. It's really about humanitarian assistance operations; Force Recon Marines help bad people get to Muslim heaven.


 
...stealing those last 2 lines!


----------



## Uncle Petey (Feb 16, 2012)

I hope Recon will not lower standards. I think with the reduction in Companies you'll see it get more competitive.  My buddy in Force tells me about what there doing as of late. It sounds pretty bad ass. Force is definitely getting back to the good old stuff but with a modern flavor.


----------



## tigerstr (Feb 17, 2012)

Well it seems that cut backs to MARSOC wont be that small and will not involve just the enabler side of the house. Same source, here, latest info:

"_MARSOC was set to grow by 1,100 personnel by 2014, with enough elite critical skills operators and support personnel — called special operations capabilities specialists — to form 48 teams. However, in Amos’ report to the House Armed Services Committee, a 30-page document submitted ahead of Thursday’s hearing, he says MARSOC now is authorized to grow by just 821. *The planned number of spec-op teams also has dropped from 48 to 32*, according to the document, which was obtained by Marine Corps Times ahead of Amos’ testimony._
_Amid plans to restructure the force and downsize, MARSOC and Marine Corps Forces Cyber Command have been two areas slated for growth in coming years"._

Checked the actual testimony on line and it says that MARSOC will provide 32 MSOTs *in* *FY 2013:*

"_MARSOC will provide a total of 32 employable Marine Special Operations Teams in FY13 while establishing the staff of the Marine Special Operations School, maintaining a targeted dwell ratio and continuing creation of a robust language capability. Based on our Force Structure Review of last year and a programmed end strength of 182,100 Marines, I have authorized an increase of 821 Marines in MARSOC_".

So the cut back is in the range of *25%* against projected growth, but the 32 teams total mentioned by MC Times, might not be correct, if there is further growth in 2014-15.


----------



## hvgc (Apr 30, 2012)

MARSOC is growing, period. the reality is every day, week, month, year will be new and changing. Something that was said 3 months ago in regards to MARSOC may be kaput tomorrow. MARSOC will grow and will the missions. to what extent is still to be seen... pending Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Philippines, HOA etc...


----------



## sunnysun (Jun 6, 2012)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX




EDITED BY PARDUS.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jun 6, 2012)

sunnysun said:


> It seem's as though recon bat, possibly being eleminated in favor of JSOC wishes to the alternative of MARSOC ?


 
What?


----------



## Crusader74 (Jun 6, 2012)

sunnysun said:


> It seem's as though recon bat, possibly being eleminated in favor of JSOC wishes to the alternative of MARSOC ?


 

Welcome to the forum. Please as per rules you signed up to, provide an intro before posting again.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 6, 2012)

sunnysun said:


> It seem's as though recon bat, possibly being eleminated in favor of JSOC wishes to the alternative of MARSOC ?


 
That comment doesn't even make sense.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Jun 6, 2012)

Holy shit, he's back...  Now claiming to be from TN!!!


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 6, 2012)

SkrewzLoose said:


> Holy shit, he's back... Now claiming to be from TN!!!


 
Do we know this guy?


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Jun 6, 2012)

Negative, Sir.  Thinking it might be our good buddy Kyle.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Jun 6, 2012)

Stupid double post...


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 6, 2012)

SkrewzLoose said:


> Negative, Sir. Thinking it might have been our buddy Kyle.


 
:)  Could be, but I've been trying to screen things a little closer before we allow new members.  We'll give this guy the benefit of the doubt for now.


----------



## sunnysun (Jun 7, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> Could be, but I've been trying to screen things a little closer before we allow new members. We'll give this guy the benefit of the doubt for now.


 Shure I'll review the posting rules I agreed two. Thank's guy's for directing me in the proper direction,after I thought about it, my posting was kinda cryptic. appologies if anyone was offended by negitive content !


----------



## sunnysun (Jun 7, 2012)

Hello. I am new to the board, glad to find such a resource as this cummunity here. My military expirence was USMC as a 92day reservist/officer candidate. I am in the process of completing my education, hence graduate degree; with the career goal of employment as a civilian in a support role to JSOC group's. The USMC will alway's be dear to my heart,from my expirence with them Oo-rah.


----------



## sunnysun (Jun 7, 2012)

sunnysun said:


> Hello. I am new to the board, glad to find such a resource as this cummunity here. My military expirence was USMC as a 92day reservist/officer candidate. I am in the process of completing my education, hence graduate degree; with the career goal of employment as a civilian in a support role to JSOC group's. The USMC will alway's be dear to my heart,from my expirence with them Oo-rah.


 I hope to become a learned member of this community, in preperation of a future defence career in my life. Highly motivated in what I may come to learn from yall expirence operator's !


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Jun 7, 2012)




----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 7, 2012)

sunnysun said:


> Shure I'll review the posting rules I agreed two. Thank's guy's for directing me in the proper direction,after I thought about it, my posting was kinda cryptic. appologies if anyone was offended by negitive content !


 
sunny, I don't think you possess the maturity, interpersonal skills, ability to follow instructions, or sufficient mastery of the English language to be a meaningful contributor here.  There are many other SOF-themed websites that might be more your speed.


----------



## Teufel (Jun 7, 2012)

I can't find the words.


----------



## pardus (Jun 7, 2012)

I just need one word, RETARD.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Jun 7, 2012)

That was a change from the norm, Pardus...I was expecting "cunt".


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (Jun 7, 2012)

It's expected I mean with the drawdown, still leaves something of a sour taste in my throat.


----------



## FatGrat (Jun 7, 2012)

pardus said:


> I just need one word, RETARD.


 
After recently returning from a 50 mile Apppalachian trail hike in TN, I'd say 'ol "Sunny" has about 50 points on the rest of the population. And I speak with more experience than I'd like to.


----------

