Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: SecDef Gates Floats Trial Balloon Of Eliminating The Marine Corps

  1. #1
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    24,412
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 61 Times in 60 Posts

    Default SecDef Gates Floats Trial Balloon Of Eliminating The Marine Corps

    I was considering posting this in the "Obama and Gates Cut The Military" thread but decided this was too big to put in there.

    Is Amphibious Warfare Obsolete?
    June 18, 2010

    When Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal watched the Marines raise the flag over Mount Surabachi he turned to General Holland Smith and said, “Holland, the raising of that flag on Suribachi means a Marine Corps for the next five hundred years.” Recent articles describing the demise of the amphibious mission suggest Forrestal may have been off by more than four centuries. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates recently addressed the Navy League Sea-Air-Space Exposition on May 10 to lay out his vision of Naval warfare and seemed to suggest that amphibious warfare, if not obsolete, was no longer central. Loren Thompson at Lexington Institute sat up and noted that “policymakers are openly questioning the relevance of amphibious warfare to future strategy, and trying to water down the requirements of “forcible entry” — capabilities that are at the core of the modern Marine identity.”

    Gates began by appealing to the departed spirits of military visionaries past and asked what would they think of the Navy and Marine corps mission today. Getting the missions right was the key, Gates argued, because in comparative terms the material dominance of the sea services was as great as ever. But was this material being used correctly?
    It is important to remember that, as much as the U.S. battle fleet has shrunk since the end of the Cold War, the rest of the world’s navies have shrunk even more. So, in relative terms, the U.S. Navy is as strong as it has ever been. … Potential adversaries are well-aware of our overwhelming conventional advantage – which is why, despite significant naval modernization programs underway in some countries, no one intends to bankrupt themselves by challenging the us to a shipbuilding competition akin to the Dreadnought race before World War I.
    What America’s enemies planned to do, he argued, was to create capabilities outside of the mission parameters of the US military. “We know other nations are working on asymmetric ways to thwart the reach and striking power of the U.S. battle fleet. At the low end, Hezbollah, a non-state actor, used anti-ship missiles against the Israeli navy in 2006. And Iran is combining ballistic and cruise missiles, anti-ship missiles, mines, and swarming speedboats in order to challenge our naval power in that region.” They were going to go ‘outside the box’. And to prevent that, Gates said, the Navy and the Marines had to look closely at two sacred cows: amphibious warfare and aircraft carriers.
    Considering that, the Department must continually adjust its future plans as the strategic environment evolves. Two major examples come to mind.

    First, what kind of new platform is needed to get large numbers of troops from ship to shore under fire – in other words, the capability provided by the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. No doubt, it was a real strategic asset during the first Gulf War to have a flotilla of Marines waiting off Kuwait City – forcing Saddam’s army to keep one eye on the Saudi border, and one eye on the coast. But we have to take a hard look at where it would be necessary or sensible to launch another major amphibious landing again – especially as advances in anti-ship systems keep pushing the potential launch point further from shore. On a more basic level, in the 21st century, what kind of amphibious capability do we really need to deal with the most likely scenarios, and then how much?

    Second – aircraft carriers. Our current plan is to have eleven carrier strike groups through 2040 and it’s in the budget. And to be sure, the need to project power across the oceans will never go away. But, consider the massive over-match the U.S. already enjoys. Consider, too, the growing anti-ship capabilities of adversaries. Do we really need eleven carrier strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one? Any future plans must address these realities.

    And that bring me to the third and final issue: the budget. I have in the past warned about our nation’s tendency to disarm in the wake of major wars. That remains a concern. But, as has always been the case, defense budget expectations over time, not to mention any country’s strategic strength, are intrinsically linked to the overall financial and fiscal health of the nation. … mark my words, the Navy and Marine Corps must be willing to reexamine and question basic assumptions in light of evolving technologies, new threats, and budget realities. We simply cannot afford to perpetuate a status quo that heaps more and more expensive technologies onto fewer and fewer platforms – thereby risking a situation where some of our greatest capital expenditures go toward weapons and ships that could potentially become wasting assets.
    Loren Thompson argued that it has always been about amphibious warfare vs aircraft carriers. The services weren’t going to give up their sacred cows. It was just that simply wasn’t enough money to maintain the status quo among the different services and any dispute would be won by the admirals.
    The cover story for these changes is that Iraq and Afghanistan have taught the joint force lessons that the Marine Corps must assimilate, but the real story is that the Navy doesn’t want to spend all the money needed to field a robust expeditionary warfare capability. Among other things, the Corps wants about 38 amphibious warships, more robust surface fire support, greatly enhanced vertical agility in its air wings, and a more versatile landing vehicle. …

    In fairness to those Navy leaders, there are legitimate questions about how successful future amphibious landings can be against well-armed adversaries. The advent of precision munitions and networked warfare has made opposed landings a tougher mission than they used to be. But the larger story is that there is chronic disagreement between the Navy and the Marine Corps about budget priorities, with the Navy preferring to fund what used to be called capital ships over amphibious systems. It’s handy to have the Marines around when politicians question the relevance of the Fleet to future warfare, but that doesn’t mean that admirals are willing to give up a couple of aircraft carriers to keep them happy. So General Amos will have his hands full trying to defend Marine Corps priorities against a Navy Department leadership that would prefer to spend increasingly scarce budget dollars in other ways.
    As if to refute the charge of obsolescence, the Marines held “a two-week operation called Dawn Blitz, the largest amphibious landing exercise that the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, based at Camp Pendleton, and the Navy’s 3rd Fleet have staged since before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorism attacks.” The Marines pointed out that while Gates was questioning the amphibious mission, countries like Australia have purchased LHDs instead of aircraft carriers. Whether for disaster relief or warfare, nothing could match the cost-effective mobility of armed force at sea. Least of all that other obsolete method of going into combat, airborne assault.

    In reality the littoral areas of the world have become more important to the West than ever before. From the Taiwan Straits to the Persian Gulf great littorals of the world are more vital than ever. Since successfully operating in the Brown Water will require both appropriate Marine and Naval forces. The Navy is already beginning to rethink what it will take to dominate crowded waters thronged with tankers, criss-crossed by armed speedboats and covered by anti-ship missiles. The Marines are likely to do the same. Forrestal was probably right. There will be a Marine Corps for the next few centuries — at least in some form.

  2. #2
    Postman vector7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Where it's quiet, peaceful and everyone owns guns
    Posts
    21,051
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 63 Times in 58 Posts

    Default Re: SecDef Gates Floats Trial Balloon Of Eliminating The Marine Corps

    We eliminate NASA and now hire the Russian's to get into space. Maybe they believe we could outsource the US Marines for Russian SPETSNAZ to take their place.

    By coincidence the
    Russian Military just announced an Increase in Contracted Personnel to 250,000.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


    Nikita Khrushchev: "We will bury you"
    "Your grandchildren will live under communism."
    “You Americans are so gullible.
    No, you won’t accept
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    ."
    We’ll so weaken your
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you’ll
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    like overripe fruit into our hands."



  3. #3
    Postman vector7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Where it's quiet, peaceful and everyone owns guns
    Posts
    21,051
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 63 Times in 58 Posts

    Default Re: SecDef Gates Floats Trial Balloon Of Eliminating The Marine Corps

    U.S. rethinks a Marine Corps specialty: storming beaches

    During an amphibious assault exercise at Camp Pendleton, Marines appear rusty. They haven't made such a landing since the Korean War — and some leaders wonder whether they will ever do it again.


    A landing craft skims the coastline as Marines train in a large-scale amphibious exercise at Camp Pendleton in June.
    (Don Bartletti, Los Angeles Times / June 2, 2010)

    Related


    Photos: Dawn Blitz at Camp Pendleton: Amphibious training for Marines

    By Tony Perry and Julian E. Barnes, Los Angeles Times and Tribune

    Washington Bureau June 21, 2010

    Reporting from Camp Pendleton and Washington —

    On a stretch of clean, white Southern California beach, thousands of young Marines this month charged forward from the sea, leaping from helicopters and landing craft, echoing the exercises conducted decades before when Marines trained for Iwo Jima and Inchon.

    It was the largest and most complex amphibious exercise since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. It also could be one of the last.

    Soon after Marine recruits are given that distinctive, high-and-tight haircut, they are taught about the great amphibious assaults of the past. Those stories, a core part of the Marine identity, "are encoded in our DNA," said Lt. Col. Bruce Laughlin, operations officer for the exercise, dubbed Dawn Blitz.

    But the Marines have not stormed a hostile beach since Inchon during the Korean War. And influential military thinkers — including, most notably, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates — have begun to question whether the Marines will ever do it again.

    In a speech last month, Gates said rogue nations and nonstate movements such as Hezbollah now possessed sophisticated guided missiles that could destroy naval ships, forcing them to stay well away from shore and making any sort of beach landing by Marines extremely dangerous.

    Countries including China and Iran have guided missiles and other defenses to deter a beach landing, said Andrew Krepinevich, president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, who has written skeptically of traditional amphibious landings. Minor powers, meanwhile, could hardly resist the kind of landing the Marines practiced in Dawn Blitz, he said.

    "Where are we going to use this? Can the effect justify the rather high cost we are paying for this?" Krepinevich said.

    For more than eight years, the Marines have been fighting hundreds of miles from the sea in Iraq's Anbar and Afghanistan's Helmand provinces. They have remade themselves as experts on counter-insurgency. They have subdued and co-opted militant movements in Iraq. Now they are trying to do the same in Afghanistan.

    But in that period they have not trained on a large scale to take a beach from a hostile force, moving in darkness, using a coordinated punch of firepower from ships, aircraft and infantry "grunts" with sand and seawater on their boots.

    "A few older Marines had to dust off some old memories to snap back into it," said Maj. Howard Hall, the senior watch officer for Dawn Blitz.

    As Lt. Col. Todd Simmons, commander of the 1st Battalion, 7th Regiment, waited for his Marines to board boats for the rush ashore, he estimated that 85% had never been on a ship. Many would experience that age-old malady of troops crowded into landing craft: vomiting on their shoes as the waves bounced up and down.

    "The Marines have been doing this for more than 60 years, but it does require some practice," Simmons said.

    A few miles away, Lt. Gen. Joseph Dunford Jr., commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force and the Pentagon's choice to be the next assistant commandant of the Corps, looked pleased as he watched the exercise. But the lack of practice, he acknowledged, showed in the complexities of the assault.

    "What we're doing here is busting some rust," Dunford said.

    Marines argue that amphibious operations encompass much more than Iwo Jima-style landings, referring to the U.S. assault on the Japanese island during World War II. In fact, most operations from the sea involve uncontested landings, including humanitarian relief missions and disaster response, including January's earthquake in Haiti. Others call for evacuations of Americans from war zones, as the Marines did in Lebanon in 2006.

    "When visualizing amphibious operations, some people default to Iwo Jima or Inchon, and those are not the operations we are contemplating in the future," said Lt. Gen. George J. Flynn, the Marines' deputy commandant for combat development.

    Still, many officers concede that Gates has a point. The development of defensive technology means the Marines must rethink how they come ashore and avoid fortified beaches or landing zones.

    But many Marines believe the ability to conduct amphibious landings is what makes them different. Take away their unique characteristics, and you take away the Marines' reason for being.

    "There is a paranoia, bred into every Marine, that the Marine Corps will be made to look like the Army, and then in lean times something will get cut — the 'extra' army," said Emerson "Emo" Gardner, a retired lieutenant general who served as a close advisor to Gates.

    Given the unwavering support for the Marines in Congress, there is little chance the service would be eliminated. Nonetheless, when Gates observed last month that the Army was becoming more like the Marines, and the Marines more like the Army, the Corps began to worry.

    Gates has said the job of the next leader of the Marines is to define the service's post-Afghanistan mission. And he has tapped Gen. James F. Amos, a Marine aviator, as the first fighter pilot to lead the service. With a broader view of what it means to be a Marine, Amos may prove less wedded to traditional views of contested amphibious assaults.

    Even if such amphibious landings are eliminated, the Marines still have a different approach to warfare. In counter-insurgency campaigns, for example, Marines often try to degrade militant groups, while the Army focuses on protecting the civilian population.

    "There is a lot of value in having an independent Marine Corps, simply because they do have a different view of land warfare than the Army," said retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Charles J. Dunlap, who writes frequently on the future of warfare.

    Some Marines do not necessarily disagree. But they also argue the reason they approach things differently is that they train to come in quickly from the sea, and do any task assigned to them.

    "Our nation has the right to expect us to go in any clime, any place and do anything," Dunford said as he watched the Camp Pendleton exercise. "We are not a one-trick pony."

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


    Nikita Khrushchev: "We will bury you"
    "Your grandchildren will live under communism."
    “You Americans are so gullible.
    No, you won’t accept
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    ."
    We’ll so weaken your
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you’ll
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    like overripe fruit into our hands."



  4. #4
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: SecDef Gates Floats Trial Balloon Of Eliminating The Marine Corps

    I for one, who has served next to members in all the services could never see the Marines abolished.

    Why? Because once a Marine, always a Marine. My father is 74 years old and is STILL a Marine. He's never once given up, except perhaps once he faltered a bit after my mother died, falling victim to too much alcohol and then too much fun... but, I can understand the loss of a loved one can cause people to do idiotic things for a time.

    But, like all Marines he rallied and came back. He's 74, and though has knee problems he still gets off his ass and walks around, he doesn't get any government help, other than the money in his social security he paid in, and why the hell not? That was HIS MONEY TOO!

    As the son of a Marine who won several medals in the Korean war, I can say this... that the Army will never be the Marines. That the Navy might "own" the Marines, but sailors are not Marines.

    The Air Force was born of the Army Air Corps. The Air Force has Pararescue Jumpers, who are awesome men whom are rescue swimmers and can climb mountains, dive deep seas, swim for hours without extra equipment if necessary. But they are not Marines.

    The Navy has the SEALS, who also train with PJs in some aspects. PJs when they fail a portion of the course are out, SEALS if they fail, are still SEALS. The Seals are not Marines either.

    The Joint Forces have the Delta Force. Smart men, people who know multiple languages and augment the Special Forces (all services have "Special Forces" of one sort or another). None of them are Marines.

    Marines on the the other hand can be in any service. Any Marine can join any other service, without any extra training to join. If a military person from the Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, or Army wishes to join the Marines, they can, IF they can make it through Basic Training - which is as far as I know still 13 weeks as opposed the 8 weeks most other services go through.

    Yep, you heard me, you want to be a Marine, doesn't matter what your background is, where you've been or how much training you've accomplished... you start with BASIC TRAINING all over again!

    Marines are men (and women) who storm beaches and kill other people without remorse, without compunction, and without a leash. They are the people who are America's shock troops. They are the people who WILL meet and greet any incoming ground invasion in this country, along with the rest of us who aren't Marines.

    A Marine can be an Airman, a Sailor, a Soldier, or a policeman (Mark Furhman), fireman, Doctor, Lawyer (F. Lee Bailey) and even perhaps an Indian Chief (I give you Ira Hayes - not a Chief, but certainly a famous Native American Indian and one of the men who raised the flag at Iwo Jima).

    Marines can be astronauts. Perhaps Marines can be anything they wish.... but those who want to be Marines must earn that title, and that title is not taken lightly.

    Most importantly, Marines can be Fathers.... (Happy Father's Day, Marine!) - that was too my Dad

    I don't see the Marine Corp being disbanded. I see an outcry if they try.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  5. #5
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: SecDef Gates Floats Trial Balloon Of Eliminating The Marine Corps

    Famous Marines:

    Drew Cary
    Gene Hackman
    Montel Williams
    Pat Robertson
    Don Imus
    James Carville (ick...) LOL
    Bea Arthur (Yep, Maude!)
    Jim Leher
    Fred Smith (Founder and CEO of Federal Express)
    John Glenn (Astronaut, was a Marine Fighter pilot)
    Ed McMahon
    Oliver North
    James Baker (served under Reagan as Chief of Staff)
    Ted Williams (Baseball Player)
    Roberto Clemente (Baseball Player)
    Leon Spinks (Boxer)
    Ken Norton (Boxer)
    Harvey Keitel (Actor)
    George C. Scott (Actor, remember Patton?)
    Tyronne Power (Actor)
    Steve McQueen (Actor)
    Glenn Ford (actor)
    Robert Bork (Judge)
    Don Adams (Actor: Get Smart)
    Bob Keeshan (Actor: Clarabell the Clown and Captain Kangaroo)
    Brian Dennehy (Actor)
    Gunny Sgt R. Lee Ermey (Actor NOW... Marine first and probably still; Mail call)
    Lee Marvin (Actor)
    Art Buchwald (Writer)
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  6. #6
    Postman vector7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Where it's quiet, peaceful and everyone owns guns
    Posts
    21,051
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 63 Times in 58 Posts

    Default Re: SecDef Gates Floats Trial Balloon Of Eliminating The Marine Corps

    Gates: Marine Corps Troop Levels to Decrease

    August 12, 2010, 4:21 PM ET



    SAN DIEGO — The U.S. Marine Corps will begin to reduce its size as the number of troops in Afghanistan is cut, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said today.

    Under the strain of large deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan in recent years, the Pentagon expanded the Corps to 202,000 from 175,000. “After the surge in Afghanistan ends, the personnel will probably reduce some,” Gates said. “They think they have gotten too big.”

    Many defense experts had anticipated that the Pentagon would recommend shrinking the size of the Marine Corps, but Gates had not publicly weighed in until now on the issue.

    Gates, talking to sailors aboard the U.S.S. Higgins, was asked if the Navy was likely to grow in size. Gates said both the Navy and Air Force were unlikely to expand. There are 330,376 Navy personnel and 331,700 in the Air Force.

    He added that the Army was due to return to its original numbers in 2013, after a temporary increase of 22,000 soldiers. The current size is 566,070.

    Gates didn’t specify how large the Corps should be or whether he thought it should revert to 175,000 Marines. Marine officials said the ultimate size of the force will be tied to the size of the force the U.S. decides to keep in Afghanistan over the long term.

    Col. Bryan Salas, a spokesman for the Corps, said the Marines were about to embark on a review of the size of the service. The review is expected to be completed by mid-December.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


    Nikita Khrushchev: "We will bury you"
    "Your grandchildren will live under communism."
    “You Americans are so gullible.
    No, you won’t accept
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    ."
    We’ll so weaken your
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you’ll
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    like overripe fruit into our hands."



  7. #7
    Postman vector7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Where it's quiet, peaceful and everyone owns guns
    Posts
    21,051
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 63 Times in 58 Posts

    Default Re: SecDef Gates Floats Trial Balloon Of Eliminating The Marine Corps

    Defense chief Gates orders review of Marines' role

    Acknowledging concerns among current and former Marines that the Corps has evolved into another ground combat force, the Defense secretary aims to define the service's future path.

    August 12, 2010|By David S. Cloud, Los Angeles Times

    Reporting from San Francisco — Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates is ordering a review of the future role of the Marine Corps amid " anxiety" that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had turned the service into a "second land army."

    The review would seek to define a 21st century combat mission for the Marines that is distinct from the Army's, because the Marines "do not want to be, nor does America need" another ground combat force, Gates said in prepared remarks for a speech at Marines' Memorial Theatre in San Francisco on Thursday to a group that included retired Marines and foreign policy experts.


    Gates is on a two-day trip to California. He met with sailors onboard the destroyer Higgins on Thursday and plans to attend a training ceremony for Navy Seals on Friday.

    In ordering the Pentagon review, Gates was deepening a long-running debate about the role of the Marine Corps, including whether one of its main missions — amphibious assaults against fortified coastlines — has become obsolete because of the changing nature of warfare and advances in precision weaponry.

    Gates is seeking $100 billion in budget savings from the military services and Pentagon bureaucracies, though he intends to invest the money in weapons programs. Given the unwavering support for the Marines in Congress, there is little chance the service would be eliminated or see its budget significantly reduced.

    Gates noted that anxiety about the future of the Marines stems from the "perception … that they have become too heavy, too removed from their expeditionary roots."

    In a question-and-answer session with sailors aboard the Higgins earlier in the day, Gates said, "I think they've gotten too big," and he predicted that the service would shrink in coming years.

    Such statements only intensify worries among serving and retired Marines about the future. But Gates sought to reassure his audience that he continued to see a major future role for the service.

    The review will be conducted by Gen. James F. Amos, the incoming Marine commandant, and by Navy Secretary Ray Mabus. The Marines are a component of the Navy Department.

    The review, Gates said, would make recommendations about what "expeditionary forces in readiness would look like." It "should not lose sight of the Marines' greatest strengths," he said, including "a broad portfolio of capabilities" and its adaptability.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


    Nikita Khrushchev: "We will bury you"
    "Your grandchildren will live under communism."
    “You Americans are so gullible.
    No, you won’t accept
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    ."
    We’ll so weaken your
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you’ll
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    like overripe fruit into our hands."



  8. #8
    Postman vector7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Where it's quiet, peaceful and everyone owns guns
    Posts
    21,051
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 63 Times in 58 Posts

    Default Re: SecDef Gates Floats Trial Balloon Of Eliminating The Marine Corps

    Was listening to Savage yesterday on the way home about this subject; he kept on asking the question, why?


    Here's the broadcast.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


    Nikita Khrushchev: "We will bury you"
    "Your grandchildren will live under communism."
    “You Americans are so gullible.
    No, you won’t accept
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    ."
    We’ll so weaken your
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you’ll
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    like overripe fruit into our hands."



  9. #9
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    24,412
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 61 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: SecDef Gates Floats Trial Balloon Of Eliminating The Marine Corps

    Yep, caught Savage on this. Good to see some light getting shined on this.

  10. #10
    Postman vector7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Where it's quiet, peaceful and everyone owns guns
    Posts
    21,051
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 63 Times in 58 Posts

    Default Re: SecDef Gates Floats Trial Balloon Of Eliminating The Marine Corps

    Meanwhile:



    Gates wants to drop $14 billion Marine landing-craft program

    By Craig Whitlock and Greg Jaffe
    Washington Post Staff Writers
    Wednesday, January 5, 2011; 10:54 PM


    A long-troubled $14 billion program to build a landing craft for the Marine Corps is destined for the chopping block, defense officials and analysts said Wednesday, part of $100 billion in savings that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has pledged to squeeze from the Pentagon's budget.

    Gates is scheduled to meet with congressional leaders Thursday to outline how he intends to save the $100 billion over the next five years by cutting weapons programs, Pentagon overhead costs and other portions of the Defense Department's massive bureaucracy. Gates announced in June that he would press the military services to find the savings with the incentive that they would be able to reinvest the money in programs essential to the current war effort and military modernization.

    "The secretary will not only announce how much money we have saved and where we have saved it, but what new investments this will allow us to make," said Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon's spokesman. "This will be as much about investments as cuts."

    His push to impose thriftiness on the Pentagon is part of a strategy to protect the military's budget from deficit hawks and others on Capitol Hill. Even some Republican leaders - traditionally fierce supporters of the military - have recently suggested that the Pentagon will no longer be immune from efforts to shrink the ballooning federal deficit.
    Gates has warned against cutting the level of defense spending, saying the Pentagon needs to increase its budget by a few percentage points each year to safeguard national security.

    Analysts said that if Gates has his way, the Pentagon budget will rise slightly in 2012 to about $554 billion, excluding the costs of fighting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. That would represent about a $12 billion decline from what the White House had projected in a long-term defense spending plan last year. The White House will unveil the precise figure next month.

    "By my reading, this is not a cut in buying power," said Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute, an Arlington County-based think tank that tracks military procurement. "It is clear from these changes that it is easier to find savings by cutting weapons systems than it is to closing bases or reducing military benefits."
    Defense officials and analysts said they expected Gates to announce Thursday that he will kill the Marine Corps' Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, a $14 billion program to develop an amphibious landing craft that one analyst called "a tank on water skis."

    The landing craft has been on the drawing board for two decades, and the Marines have sunk $3 billion into the project. It has hit repeated delays in testing, and projected costs have soared. The lead contractor is General Dynamics, based in Falls Church.

    The vehicle is designed to enable Marines to reach a coastline from as far as 25 miles offshore. But Gates and other skeptics have questioned whether the project is still relevant given the changing nature of warfare. Although the Marines historically have trained for amphibious landings, they have fought almost exclusively on land in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    "Clearly, the vehicle has not passed its tests," said T.X. Hammes, a retired Marine colonel and senior research fellow at the National Defense University. He said it makes more sense for the Marines to modernize the amphibious assault vehicle used reliably for decades.Other defense officials and analysts said they hope Gates would make good on his pledge to reduce the Pentagon's dependence on contractors and trim benefits programs that have swelled in recent years. Gates has said that soaring health-care costs, especially for military retirees, are "eating us alive" but that Congress has rejected his efforts to scale back.

    "He's trying to make sure the Department of Defense doesn't turn into a benefits shop that occasionally kills a terrorist," said Arnold L. Punaro, a retired Marine Corps general and a member of the Defense Business Board, which has advised Gates on his spending plans.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


    Nikita Khrushchev: "We will bury you"
    "Your grandchildren will live under communism."
    “You Americans are so gullible.
    No, you won’t accept
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    ."
    We’ll so weaken your
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you’ll
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    like overripe fruit into our hands."



  11. #11
    Postman vector7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Where it's quiet, peaceful and everyone owns guns
    Posts
    21,051
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 63 Times in 58 Posts

    Default Re: SecDef Gates Floats Trial Balloon Of Eliminating The Marine Corps

    Are These The Last Days Of The U.S. Marine Corps?


    By Michael Snyder, on August 11th, 2013



    Are the current personnel cuts the beginning of the end for the U.S. Marines? Could these actually be the last days of the U.S. Marine Corps? A decade ago, such a notion would have been absolutely unthinkable, but times have changed. The Marine Corps was already in the process of drawing down from a peak of 202,100 Marines to 182,100, and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is warning that the sequester cuts may force the Army to be cut down to a size of 380,000 and the Marine Corps to be cut down to a size of 150,000. Unfortunately for the Marines, even larger cuts may eventually be coming. Many in the Obama administration and in the Pentagon are now openly questioning whether there will be an important role for the Marines to play in the future. After all, the U.S. military has not conducted a major amphibious landing since the Korean War. As our politicians look for even more ways to cut military expenses in the years ahead, the Marines may end up being very tempting "low hanging fruit" that the bureaucrats can't resist. And unless another major conflict erupts, it seems clear that more cuts are probably coming. In fact, even the New York Times admits that "deep reductions" to the U.S. military have long been an important goal for Barack Obama.

    So does Barack Obama plan to go after the Marines? Well, for now Barack Obama is publicly praising the Marines. In fact, Obama made the following promise to the Marines during a recent speech at Camp Pendleton...

    "After all you’ve given to our nation, you have to know your nation will always be faithful to you."
    Will Obama keep that promise?

    Well, considering his track record perhaps you should not hold your breath.

    In any event, the Marine Corps brass is certainly bracing for very deep budget cuts right now. Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Jim Amos says that the Marine Corps is going to do "the very best we possibly can" with what they are given...

    Amos said he assumes the Corps’ planned shift to more operations in the Pacific will continue, but the size of the force and the number of missions it will be able to undertake will be reduced if the budget cuts stay in place.“We’re going to do less with less,” Amos told the House committee.

    “That doesn’t mean we’re going to do it poorly or we’re going to do it inadequately. We’ll do it the very best we possibly can.”
    Unfortunately for the Marines, they are being given less and less these days.

    You see, the cuts to the Marines did not start with the sequester. The truth is that plans to reduce the size of the Marines started very early in the Obama administration. For example, the following are recommendations for cuts that came from the 2010 Force Structure Review Group report...

    • A 13 percent drop in ground combat forces, including an 11 percent reduction in infantry, 20 percent reduction in cannon artillery and a 20 percent reduction in armor
    •A 16 percent drop in fixed-wing tactical aviation squadrons
    • A 9 percent drop in logistics
    • A 7 percent drop in Marines assigned to non-operational billets
    • And a 12 percent drop in the civilian work force.

    And back in 2010, Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated that the Marines had "gotten too big" and he also publicly questioned the future of the Marines...

    "All of the military services have been challenged to find the right balance between preserving what is unique and valuable in their traditions, while at the same time making the changes necessary to win the wars we are in and prepare for the likely future threats in the years and decades to come,” he said. “Looking ahead, I do think it is proper to ask whether large-scale amphibious landings along the lines of Inchon [the Marine’s invasion of the Korea peninsula in 1950] are feasible."
    Of course part of the problem for the Marines is that they are still considered to be a part of the U.S. Navy. The following is from a recent Fiscal Times article...

    The Marines, while considered a separate branch of the military, are actually part of the Navy. They’re often referred to as the “infantry of the Navy.”

    “The Marines don’t have a separate fiscal existence. They are a wholly owned subsidiary of the Navy,” Adams said.
    When it comes time to cut the Navy budget, it is often the Marines that feel the most pain...

    But the Navy has authority over the Marine’s personnel budget–expected to be $12.9 billion in 2014. This means that Navy brass can decide how it pays to train, house, feed and maintain readiness of the troops.

    Because of this, according to Adams, the Marines often find themselves the victims of Navy spending fights.
    And right now the U.S. military is experiencing a spending squeeze that they have not felt in many, many years. In addition to personnel cuts, a whole host of other Marine programs could be cut back significantly because of the sequester...

    Fewer F-35B Joint Strike Fighters, MV-22 Ospreys, AH-1 Cobras, and UH-1 Hueys. No Marine Personnel Carrier. Maybe no Joint Light Tactical Vehicle to replace the Humvee. 8,000 fewer Marines on active duty. The Marine Commandant has put all that on the table as part of his proposal to the Defense Secretary’s Strategic Choices and Management Review. If sequester goes into effect in its full 10-year, $500 billion glory – and all signs so far are it will – then Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos stands ready to sacrifice almost everything except the Amphibious Combat Vehicle and combat readiness.
    As the size of the U.S. Marine Corps gets whittled away, we need to be very careful that we do not lose a very important part of our culture. The Marines have a very special place in U.S. history, and we should never forget the blood that so many of them shed to defend our liberties and our freedoms.

    Unfortunately, our liberties and our freedoms are being eroded at an astounding pace today, and even the Marines themselves are quickly becoming an endangered species.

    After surviving the Japanese and the North Koreans, it is a shame that many old vets may have to watch the Marine Corps that they love fall victim to Barack Obama and the bureaucrats.

    The few and the proud are rapidly becoming fewer, and it just doesn't seem right.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


    Nikita Khrushchev: "We will bury you"
    "Your grandchildren will live under communism."
    “You Americans are so gullible.
    No, you won’t accept
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    ."
    We’ll so weaken your
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you’ll
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    like overripe fruit into our hands."



  12. #12
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: SecDef Gates Floats Trial Balloon Of Eliminating The Marine Corps

    Can you imagine the outcry if he suddenly cuts them?

    No, this won't go well for him.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •