The Marine Corps mission statement is to provide the US with amphibious expeditionary warfare. The issue I see with that is in modern times this mission statement has become obsolete.
Amphibious operations will always be needed, but forcible entry by storming beaches doesn’t work like it did in WWII, long range missiles can counter an entire beach assault with the push of a button. Since we no longer storm beaches, that takes a huge chunk of the Marine Corps mission away. Amphibious invasions today mean bombing the shore and moving forces on shore or inserting through helicopter from a MEU, neither of those require a Marine Corps as bombings can be handled by the Air Force and Navy and helicopter insertions require helicopters (Army, Navy, and Air Force) and infantry (Army).
The Marine Corps is still an expeditionary force in readiness. There are MEUs afloat as we speak that can “park” anywhere in the world ready to conduct combat operations and handle limited scale warfare within 18 hours. The issue here is that MEUs are never called upon to be used as a “first to fight” tool for the US. Special operations forces are always first to fight, Army Airborne units and specialized units such as the 10th Mountain are either second or invade along side the Marine Corps. If something went down in North Korea right now expect to hear special operations forces and Army Airborne units were first to assault, followed by a MEU.
I understand the Marine Corps isn’t supposed to fill a direct niche, to break it down the Army handles land warfare, the Navy handles maritime warfare, and the Air Force handles air superiority, I know there pretty much isn’t anything else to fill. But historically the Marines have filled an important role, we have always needed a force in readiness and the ability of forcible entry, especially from sea. But that role is no longer valid as there are plenty of other and better forces in readiness (special operations/Airborne) and forcible entry doesn’t really exist in modern warfare, especially from sea. To top it off when it comes to straight Army vs Marine infantry you can throw out propaganda but statistics show the Army is better.
So what is the modern/future purpose of the Marine Corps? Am I missing something? Do you think the role the Marine Corps plays is nearly as important as other branches, or are they reverting back to their pre-WWII days where they were “those other military guys” like when they were guarding ships. This question certainly isn’t intended to bash on the Marines, just get a better understanding of their role in modern times and how necessary they are in todays conflicts.
Thanks in advance.
Categorized | Affiliate Marketing 101
Modern/future Marine Corps (10 Points)?
Posted on July 13, 2012.
The Marines ability to respond at any moment is what makes them so useful. 10th Mountain can be there faster, but if it has to stop for fuel, an MEU can ultimately be more efficient. The Marine Corps’ potential ability to send a small ship to infiltrate enemy territory and heavily sabotage enemy weapons and equipment makes them a vital part of our military strategy.
amphibious warfare since the invention of the cannon has involved bombing/shelling a beach before sending in ground troops.
MEUs are the marines ONLY expeditionary element, marines like to talk like the whole corps is an expeditionary force but that’s just not true. also they cannot park anywhere in the world, they’re a naval force and there are plenty of land locked countries. good luck getting an MEU to a country that is far inland on all sides.
the 10th mountain isn’t by nature a rapid deployable unit. while airborne units always have an element on DRB status the rest of the army divisions rotate deployment-ready status.
as of now the future of the marines is to return to a fully expeditionary role. their general has been complaining about marines having to take part in occupations and wants it to revert back to that. honestly that would be a good idea, keep the MEUs and scrap the rest. or to save money scrap the usmc, create another army division or convert one to having an “amphibious” designation, and have its battalions rotate through sea duty. im sure someone will press the argument “well, army divisions don’t have fixed wing air craft” so just to head it off: yeah, but the navy does. and a navy f-18 is just as capable as a marine one. it looks like a nice little package deal but logistically and effectively there’s no difference in providing your own air support vs another branch doing it.
____- actually the marines still exist because they spend more on advertising themselves than any other branch, even at the expense of their own servicemembers (like the marine that got busted for double tapping on the news. you’ll never see that happen to a soldier because we don’t allow the news media to tag along on raids). this is also responsible for the wide spread misinformation about the usmc. everything from civilians thinking that “every marine is a rifleman” meaning that every marine participates in combat and is infantry, to some seriously hard core cheerleaders thinking that the first day of usmc boot is harder than the entire SF selection process. the downside of that (aside for misinformation never being a positive) is reflected in their 1st term reenlistment rate. recruits join up thinking they’re going to be some elite force, realize they’re just another conventional branch, then hate the rest of their service obligation and get out hating the corps. PR is a two sided sword.
alex- actually if you look at the time frame airborne troops can be there faster than MEUs can. MEUs boast being able to be anywhere within 24 hours. airborne units can be there in 18. loading, flying over, and dropping airborne troops is far from painstaking and slow. all troops on DRB status are within a 2 hour recall. meaning in formation with their gear ready within 2 hours. during that time pallets and other heavy drops that are already rigged to go are being loaded onto aircraft, and issuing parachutes does not take long at all. troops can get on their rig on the plane, and there are very few places in the world that are longer than a 15 hour flight. the 18 hour time frame is very realistic and has been done numerous times.
The Marines have one of the best concepts in combine arms applications. This is why they are still around. Put them out in the amphibious group- they have ground (including special operations supporting the MEU), logistics and air (fixed and rotatory wing aircraft) all under one commander. This is useful when there is a crisis or potential crisis and you don’t know what can happen. Because they are pre-deployed, they can respond to multiple types of operations immediately. No other branch has that capability. The US Army did in WW2 but when the Army Air Corps became the Air Force, then their combine arms didn’t match the Marines. If the branches worked that well together, there wouldn’t be a need for Marines.
You may not know but there were numerous attempts to disband the USMC from the American Revolution up to the end of WW2 and into the Korean War. I’m not kidding about this either. The best time to have gotten rid of the Marine Corps was during the end of WW2 and the Korean War. However, the USMC adopted the combine arms tactic (MAGTF) and the Army doesn’t match that ability- that’s why the USMC is still around. If the Army did have the capabilities of the Marines and more, do you really think the Marines will still be around? Two different branches having the same missions and capabilities? Not a chance- the Marines will be the first to go!
Use the Army and Airforce for the obvious conflicts and save the Marines for low scale operations or anti-piracy ops.
The fact that marines are quick to deploy is correct but they also establish a quick combat effectiveness not seen in other branches. Their role is first responding shock troops, emphasizing the word shock. That role has forced the marines to have higher standards in combat effectiveness through more thorough training. They are not meant for sustained deployment alone as they simply do not have the logistical ability. They capture initial assets as needed and hold the fort while the army deploys their airborne troops. Special forces on the other hand tend to use asymmetrical warfare in terms of deploying ahead of the main troops. Their job is to create chaos and disorder to prevent the effective mobilizing of enemy forces. Even with the height of technology for our military, the airlifting of airborne units is still painstakingly slow and not cracked up to be. The fictional invasion by the Russians portrayed in the video game MW3 is a good example and would be impossible. The Russians, with their current logistic ability, would only be able to barely have a few battalions as the initial invasion force, much less an entire army. The point is, for the foreseeable future, a quick acting force such as the marines is more than necessary. The fact that a force that can hit hard and can deploy as fast as they can is a priceless tool in the us military.