PDA

View Full Version : Distancing Tradition, Marines Eye Role in Special Operations



gunnyg
11-17-02, 04:29 PM
Distancing Tradition, Marines Eye Role in Special Operations
Jones: Shed the Word 'Amphibious'

washingtonpost.com

Distancing Tradition, Marines Eye Role in Special Operations
Jones: Shed the Word 'Amphibious'

By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 17, 2002; Page A17

A series of recent initiatives by the Marine Corps in response to the administration's war on terrorism represents an intensified effort by the Pentagon's smallest military service to demonstrate its continued relevance by branching away from such traditional missions as beach-landings and emergency rescue operations, according to Marine officials.

Over the past year, the Marines have moved to relieve some of the burden on overtaxed Army and Navy Special Operations forces by offering to take on more commando tasks, overcoming past resistance to assigning Marines to the Special Operations Command.

In Afghanistan, the Marines have flown troops far from support ships in the Arabian Sea, seizing an airfield about 600 miles inland near the southern city of Kandahar. And while Marine ground forces have withdrawn from Afghanistan, the Corps has left behind at Bagram air base about half-a-dozen AV-8B Harrier jets to support other service operations, despite a longtime Marine preference for keeping combat jets linked to their own ground forces.

Most recently, they have assumed command of a new task force in the Horn of Africa, sending about 400 Marines to join 800 U.S. Special Operations troops to hunt down al Qaeda members and provide security assistance and training to regional militaries.

Each of the moves has involved more of an increased emphasis on existing Marine Corps capabilities than development of new ones. And only a small fraction of the Corps has been involved. But taken together, Marine officials say, the initiatives represent a significant evolution in the Corps' focus and strategy.

"I think this is a fundamental change in the direction of the Marine Corps," said Gary Solis, the Corps' chief of oral history. "It takes us from being an amphibious force tied to the littorals and gives us a new strategic role projecting force."

In a series of interviews ahead of his departure next month as Marine Corps commandant, Gen. James L. Jones has called attention to the trend, arguing that for the service to survive, it must make itself useful to regional commanders in combating terrorists and other operations.

"Marines have to shed a 20th-century mentality -- and shed the word 'amphibious,' which is a legacy term -- and really understand the power of expeditionary warfare in support of the joint war fighter," Jones said. To this end, he added, Marines must take steps to be able to respond more quickly, project power farther and sustain operations longer.

As the smallest of the nation's military services with 175,000 troops, the Marines have often found change not only easier to come by but politically necessary.

"We've always been the stepchildren, at least in our own minds, and therefore paranoid about our survival," said Tom Wilkerson, a retired Marine lieutenant general. "We're always trying to stay a step ahead."

With the Special Operations forces of other services stressed by the administration's war on terrorism, the Marines have promoted use of their own amphibious groups, several of which are deployed around the world at any given time. These groups, each consisting of about 2,200 Marines, are largely trained for general-purpose missions but can conduct some basic Special Operations tasks, including searching and seizing ships, rescuing downed pilots and conducting reconnaissance operations. Additionally, the Marines bring a substantial amount of logistical support with them.

"For the foreseeable future, there's a requirement for more Special Operations-like forces," Jones said. "My argument is, if you already have a fair amount of those [in the Marines], don't reinvent the wheel, use what you already have."

Institutionally, the Marines have tended to stand apart from the Special Operations Command, preferring their separateness and regarding the command's creation in the mid-1980s as largely an Army operation. "The bridges between the two communities have always been extremely fragile," Jones said.

But the joining of Marine and Special Operations forces in securing a base in southern Afghanistan a year ago provided the impetus for closer cooperation. Soon afterward, Jones signed a memorandum of understanding with Gen. Charles R. Holland, the head of Special Operations Command, opening the way for Marines to contribute forces to the command for the first time.

The arrangement still faces resistance from traditionalists on both sides.

"There are people who think we're too hard to work with and we're just after their funding," Jones said. "The Marine naysayers, on the other hand, say we're a general purpose force, and if we do this, we're going to diminish our end strength and we'll be a shadow of our former selves in five years."

So far the relationship has been limited to the dispatch of a one-star Marine general and 85 Marines to Holland's command. But leaders on both sides expect the cooperation to grow. And Marine officials say they will continue to look for fresh opportunities to showcase their forces.

© 2002 The Washington Post Company

wrbones
11-17-02, 05:48 PM
As interesting a developement as this is, it's a danger to our future as well. This is something the Army has worked on for decades. The absorbtion of the Marines into their larger organisation.

It is a good thing on the surface, offering additional training and experience to those who serve. It also reveals what I believe to bo our superior training. BUT. It leaves the door open.

firstsgtmike
11-17-02, 06:43 PM
Bones,

I agree.

However, the nature of warfare has changed. Amphibious assaults are history.

Either we forge a new niche for ourselves, or as a Corps we will be relegated to ceremonial duties.

"Join the Marines, be a leader of parades."

What terrifies me is that someone "may" decide that to prove our uniqueness and superiority, we need a reenactment of Belleau Wood. And renames "Fire Teams" as "Suicide Squads".

Semper Fi,


Mike

gunnyg
11-17-02, 07:15 PM
Could happen--there have been three distinct periods in our history when very serious attempts were made to do away w/the Corps.
The first was during the presidency of Andrew Jackson, the second just prior to, or maybe just after, WW I, I forget which, and the best remembered from Harry Truman in the years just after WW II!

Ref
"THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF THE MARINE CORPS?

The U.S. Marine Corps, the oldest of this country's armed services, came into being by Act of Congress on 11 July, 1798, and was established on 10 November 1775. During the 19th century the name of the Corps was associated with romantic adventures and exotic foreign landscapes. The history of the Corps, and specific events are well known by every Marine both past and present. By the end of World War Two, the Marine Corps had a long and glorious history.

However, between the years 1946 and 1950 there were those who attempted to "legislate the Marines out of existence." The first attempt came in 1946, a bill--S.2044--was introduced in Congress, its practical effect being to reduce the Marine Corps to the status of a Navy branch, 'like the Bureau of Yards and Docks', as Marine Commandant Alexander Vandergrift indignantly phrased it.

General Vandegrift, wearing his Medal of Honor, made an impassioned speech before Congress in May 1946. His action was apparently successful that day, but the bill returned the following year together with provisions prohibiting comment by any serving officer!

Then, Brigadier General Merritt A. "Red Mike' Edson (formerly CO, 1st Marine Raider Bn on Guadalcanal, etc.) promptly resigned his commission, and contacted members of Congress personally and as a civilian. General Edson achieved his goal, but at the expense of his career. And the National Security Act of 1947 provided for the status and mission of the Marine Corps within the Department of Defense.

The third threat to the Marine Corps came in March 1948 when President Truman, himself a former Army officer, and no lover of the Naval service, appointed his old political crony, Louis Johnson as the new Secretary of Defense. Under Johnson, the budget for the Corps was reduced, including a reduction in personnel to 70, 000 Marines. Johnson further required the Corps the following year to disband specific units, cutting their strength to only ten under-strength battalions. And he (Johnson) publicly announced his intention to reduce the Corps still further.

Among other things, Johnson also forbade the celebration of the Marine Corps' Official Birthday on 10 November; confiscated the CMC's official car; and reduced the ceremonial honors entitled by the CMC. He was later forced by Congressional leaders to retract his statements, and restore the Birthday, car and honors. But even then he was not through. In June of 1950 he announced reduction of the fiscal year 1951 budget to provide for only six battalions for the Corps.

On 25 June 1950 North Korean troops invaded South Korea; on 12 July 1950 the 1st Marine Provisonal Brigade sailed from San Diego for Pusan. In November 1950 Johnson was gone, and the U.S. Marine Corps was expanding again. America was at war, and needed her Marines. And the Marines go on making history today!"
-The US Marine Corps Since 1945, Russell/Carroll, 1984, Osprey


One of the things that always seemed to save our asses was the fact that Congress was populated by many former members of the Marine Corps. And, The Marine Corps has always had a favorable relationship w/the press, which didn't hurt getting our case to the American people.

Now, who knows--these pansyasses in Congress now have no military service whatever to speak of.

Maybe Johnny Cochran could represent us in court--after all, Forrestal did say 500 years, didn't he.?

DickG

wrbones
11-17-02, 07:28 PM
Amphibious landings have been dismissed as no longer signifigant before.....


I understand that even as a tactical diversion, one was significant during the Gulf War in diverting manpower and equipment from the Saudi border.....seems that it was for that pupose alone more than once during WWII...not to mention it's use at Inchon, or delivery of logistic support during several operations in Viet Nam.

Amphibious landings, in whatever form, will be with us for some time yet to come. Just my opinion.

firstsgtmike
11-17-02, 07:54 PM
Bones,

I hope you're right. But we better start looking in other directions as well.

Inchon was 50 years ago. The tactical diversion during the Gulf War had significance, even though the troops would have come ashore in choppers.

Delivery of logistic support could have been handled by beach party personnel and longshoremen. We need to do more than provide coolie labor to the fighting forces.

Semper Fi

gunnyg
11-17-02, 08:02 PM
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/5265/sacredcow.htm


I trust you guys are already familiar w/Airborne Mikey and his endless website on the Corps, etc.--if not I can fill ya in...

DickG

wrbones
11-17-02, 08:43 PM
Looks like it never went away. I'd heard of airbourne mikey. Now I know why I never read his self serving crap before. First Sergeant, I do know and believe that we should start lookin toward the future. Tha Marine Corps has been pretty good at this for awhile now. We've invented, improved or adapted many modern principles of warfare.

Concerning the rest, I think you and I are talking at cross purposes here while saying the same or similiar things.

We do have a disagreement concerning amphibious landings, though. New tech and new tactics have improved our opportunities and effectiveness in this area. As far as being stevedores, we've always, more often than not, provided our own logistics and support, within the confines of our inter-connected mission with the Navy.

firstsgtmike
11-17-02, 09:55 PM
Gentlemen,

I would like to suggest that you do what I just finished doing.

Follow the site to Airborn Mikey as provided by gunnyg.

Read Airborn Mikey's letter and comments.

When you have finished venting your rage and frustration, and completed mentally debating various portions of his letter, and screamed BULLSHOT at the various inaccuracies, do something else.

Read the letter a second time. Only THIS time read it through the eyes of a civilian taxpayer, who only reads the headlines, or a politician who chases opinion polls and is looking for a cause.

Read it carefully. Forget what you feel, forget what you know, forget for the moment that you are a Marine. Read it from a civilians point of view.

That letter is DEVASTATING. I pity whoever is called upon to debate, deny, or refute it in front of a Congressional Committee.

Taking it one line, one statement, one accusation at a time, and asking the "witness" "Do you deny that ..........?" "Would you care to explain your answer?"

Right or wrong, agree with it or not, the letter contained three essential elements; Cause, Effect, and Solution. It can only be responded to in a like manner, with the emphasis on "Where we are going from here."

gunnyg,

I think we'd all appreciate receiving from you a short sitrep on this Airborn Mikey.

Ad hominim is not the answer, and it will take someone with a better knowledge of history and events than I am capable of to reduce the impact of his indictment. In this instance, we are guilty until proven innocent.

I didn't need this sh*t. It's my son's birthday today.

Semper Fi

Mike

gunnyg
11-18-02, 05:46 AM
Airborne Mikey aka Mike Sparks--the following is info I received from Col Hackworth, in response to my request to him re info on this guy--Mike Sparks, a disgruntled, former Marine Lt., passed over, went to Army Airborne as a Sgt, now, a civilian/contractor at Ft Bragg.

His massive website pages, many of which are devoted to anti-Marine writings, and are the source of much dueling w/Marines, etc.

Suggestion: don't get into it w/him--it's not worth it--a Col Carlson USMC exchanged much e-mail w/him and finally dropped it in frustration.
http://vikingphoenix.com/public/rongstad/military/unitcohesion/carlson_hack_and_sparks.htm


About 4 years ago, I had received several angry e-mails from Marines who had discovered his website--ended up the big topic on Marines sites/messageboards on the Internet for weeks--some tried to get his website provider to take his sites offline--didn't happen--letters to CMC/USMC Sgt Maj, etc.--result, the SgtMaj at Ft Bragg, sais he "wished" Mikey would tone down his tone in the website--nothing happened.

Mikey turns up, now and then--like Milinet a few months ago--seeking to get a toe-hold in discussions, is usually recognized and 86d.

Too bad, the man is obviously bright, and some of his points may be worthy of discussion, but he just cannot be anything other than inflamatory/insulting toward the Marine Corps.
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/5265/

And there is also another website by another former Marine/Sparks associate...
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/6747/



DickG

firstsgtmike
11-18-02, 06:28 AM
Gunnyg,

I don't pack the gear to take Airborne Mikey on. Right or wrong, he cites too many facts, figures, and instances. He'd win, hands down. I may be crazy, but I'm not stupid.

Do any of the powers that be take him seriously and rely on his input?

I can just picture some Senator or Congressman standing up and reading that letter into the Record.

I can imagine the reception his site receives at Ft. Bragg and the animosity he receives from Lejeune. It's bad enough if he stays in the relative "underground". I shudder to think what would happen if his letter was part of a feature article in Times, Newsweek, or U.S. News & World Report.

If he's been around that long, there must have been some time when he had national exposure?

There's too much venom there. I wonder if there's more than attitde behind his being passed over. Also, was it SOP to go from Marine Lt. to Army Sgt.?

Semper Fi

gunnyg
11-18-02, 06:48 AM
firstsgtmike:

Well, like he himself says, his sites have been online since 1997, and I haven't heard of him influencing Congress yet.

But, as you also recognize, and Col Carlson also says, this guy is no dummy!
A lot of his info is factual, it is only his conclusions and the manner in which he speaks/writes that fault can be found.

I expect, the fact of the USMC "dropping" the amphib from our description would be seen by Mikey as a victory for him--in his mind.

He was passed over for captain, and had to leave the Corps--dunno if the Army gave him sergeant stripes on that basis or not.

I know that he is well known among Marines w/messageboards, etc--but I doubt that he has gotten much exposure beyond that.

I have come to the point in life where I know that others will have different opinions from mine, and maybe it isn't really my job to attempt to convince them otherwise.
But guys like this are interesting. Bottom line is, he does have the right to say what he believes, like it or not--take away his right to speak, and our right to speak goes with it.

Best
DickG