USMC size reduction

[GRUFFMCSCRUFF]

So by now I'm sure most people have heared about the almost inevitable coming size reduction of the Marine Corps. For those of you who haven't, here's a link (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/08/12/gates-marine-corps-troop-levels-to-decrease/) to a news article about the story.

I suppose it is a good thing to be trimming the fat and flushing the turds. But I can't help feeling a little unsure about all this. How is the down sizing accomplished? Will people be allowed to retire early, or will recruiting efforts be cut back some? Re-enlistments tougher?

Hypothetically, if you didn't make the cut (which I'm sure we will) where would you go? Army? Navy? Law Enforcement? What happens to people with families who are unable to re-enlist? I imagine I'd try and switch services if I had to, but the thought of doing it doesn't sound too pleasing at all.

Again I understand the reasons for it, I just don't know what going through this reduction might feel like.

[jetdawgg]

@GRUFFMCSCRUFF

Respect the site. Complete your profile:usmc:

[irpat54]

personely, I think if thay want to reduce something, thay should look at Government first leave the Marine Corps alone it is fine just the way it is thay already have a back log of people so it's not like there getting the low lifes. the Military should be the last thing to get cut or down sized.

[Theoldgunny]

Heck they cut us after Korea and again after Nam so if the shooting ends we get cut no big deal. If it starts again we will beef up again

[hussaf]

**** right after that Obama cat just increased the size of the Corps...odd.

[Big Jim]

Yeah...our beloved Corps does this does sort of thing to keep things "fresh"....they did it again after Desert Storm.....downsized........but Obama DID NOT increase the size of our Corps....all that MOFO did was increase our own countries' insecurities and make us fallible to everyone who wants to kill us.

[rktect3j]

What happens to people with families who are unable to re-enlist? I imagine I'd try and switch services if I had to, but the thought of doing it doesn't sound too pleasing at all.

.
I don't know why but this sounds like a sense of entitlement to me.

Just saying.

[DrZ]

After Nam, we had the typical peacetime reduction in force. HQMC decreased the recruiting quotas and got rid of the fat bodies and sh!tbirds. I don't remember people having issues with reenlisting as long as you were needed and were squared away. I do remember the BS level increasing in a peacetime Marine Corps but I believe that was to get rid of those who were just along for the ride.

[Lynn2]

I do realize this may not be a popular observation. But I see no reason why some or even many of the Corps support activities could not be done by the Navy or the Army.

Do Marines really need to be spending their time working in warehouses or ordering supplies? Doing booking keeping? Working on truck transmissions?

[Old Marine]

I do realize this may not be a popular observation. But I see no reason why some or even many of the Corps support activities could not be done by the Navy or the Army.

Do Marines really need to be spending their time working in warehouses or ordering supplies? Doing booking keeping? Working on truck transmissions?

Looks like some people think that the Marine Corps should just down size untill we are down to Rodger Recon and leave it at that. Maybe even change our name to Rodger Recon Corps.:thumbdown

[brecon65]

New slogan:
The Fewer, the Prouder, the Braver - the Marines

[Vandrel]

Usually when down-sizing occurs and people are forced to get out they are in most cases required to pay you a seperations payment which is calculated by your Rank/TIS, etc.

Buddy of mine was a Captain in the Air Force, got forced out from down-sizing and they ended up paying him about $20,000.



Do Marines really need to be spending their time working in warehouses or ordering supplies? Doing booking keeping? Working on truck transmissions?

To be a force in readiness.... yes. We wouldn't excally be able to self-sustain if we had to rely on the Army for everything.

[Lynn2]

"We wouldn't excally be able to self-sustain if we had to rely on the Army for everything."

Certainly not everything. Not most things. But maybe somethings.

That way any reduction in force is not in the combat arms area.

Its not a question of everything or nothing.

It would require some non-traditional thinking.

Sort of like the thinking that has already gone on.

How many Marines are now stationed on Navy ships as ships company for security? How many Marines are guarding the gates at the USNA now as opposed to 10 years ago?

With some combining there would be a potential economy of scale.

This would in fact work. The question is what activities would be done by others so as not to impact combat abilities.

[Quinbo]

Nobody cooks SOS better than a Marine cook and that's a fact. Contracting things out makes some sense in others it makes no sense at all.

Ships company bah hahh hahh. You have a minimum of a PO2 doing what used to be a Lcpls job. Same with the chow hall .... those contractors get paid 10 times more than a PFC on Mess duty. The difference in pay is exponential.

You're not gonna have a contractor come out and change a tank tread at 100 grand a year in the combat zone doing what a skilled sergeant could do in an hour. Or are you?

Economy of what????

I could go down through the line of MOS's and list where it is more economical to have jarheads taking care of their own then contracting. Many contractors are of the mind that Marines be the bullet sponge and contractors make all the money.

[Lynn2]

"I could go down through the line of MOS's and list where it is more economical to have jarheads taking care of their own then contracting."

But you saying it does not make it so. You are making claims. You have provided not one ounce of data or objective support.

Virtually any average manager can operate when the budget is not an issue. When people or money is a bottomless pit.

But a good manager and good management studies and good thinking are needed when the budget is restricted. When cut backs are required.

But we always did it this way. Or this is the only way I have ever seen it done. These are not solutions. Only observations based on someones limited experiences.

[Lynn2]

"Nobody cooks SOS better than a Marine cook and that's a fact."

I have eaten Navy, MC, and AirForce food. Give me an AF cook any day.

But tell me the relative cost for one year of a cooks time. An experienced cook contractor that is required to be a fully trained prior, hired under contract to cook for a year.

Vs some kid that shows up at the recruiter, goes through dep (include the recruiters time)goes to boot camp (include the time of those whop do the training). Goes to MCT. Goes to MOS school. And then hits the fleet to begin his non-combat job as a cook.

What is the exact difference in cost for a year of cooking between these two?

[Quinbo]

Which someones limited experience are you talking about?

[Lynn2]

Which someones limited experience are you talking about?

Everyones.

We make judgements based on what we have seen and what we think works. Those experiences are in fact limited.

What I am really interested is those cost figures. Because its only actual cost figures that can give an indication whether doing something one way is less expensive and maybe more effective than doing it a different way.

You have made some claims. I do not think you have the data to support them.

And I do not have the data to argue against you. Data comes from serious well thought out studies.

Then and only then would you have any clue as to whether we would be better off with Army/Navy/contractor people running the USMC warehouses or Army/Navy/Contractors doing the cooking.

I honestly see no reason why you have to have a Marine to work in a warehouse or cook eggs in many if not most situations.

[Quinbo]

We're talking apples and oranges now. I said no one makes SOS better than a Marine cook. In that context it is just as good in a GP tent as it is in a 5 star restaurant.

Back on topic .... keeping some chores in house is cheaper than contracting them out.

After the persian gulf war the Marine Corps went through a reduction in forces and went so far as to offer exit bonuses. They further went to to hold re-enlistment boards for first termers and if not competitive among your peers you were denied re enlistment.

You ever heard of bill clintons reduction in forces plan?

Additonally contractor can't grab a rifle and run to the guns.

[Lynn2]

"keeping some chores in house is cheaper than contracting them out."

OK I hear your opinion. And of course when you say "some" that means that you can almost never be wrong. Because even if one tiny tiny small thing is cheaper-----you would be correct----once you hedged.

"keeping some chores out of house with non-Marine personal is cheaper" is also a true statement.

But you only make a truly intelligent argument with numbers and data.

Because without real numbers this is nothing but your opinion based on your very limited experiences. Or my opinion based on my very limited experiences.

Both equally worthless except as anecdotal evidence.

[Quinbo]

Possibly it is just perception and not numbers crunching. Lets take sea duty for an example. A post previously manned by a PFC in the Marine Corps is now manned by a petty officer second class in the Navy. I'm fairly certain that a PO2 earns more than a PFC and the cost of his training was greater.

All that really accomplishes is, and it is a good concept, and why contrators are utilized. That young PFC is now available to fight while his navy counterpart or in some instances contractor counter part gets a larger check to go and work a 9-5.

My opinion only .... some contractors have over all bloated the defense department budget.

[BR34]

"Nobody cooks SOS better than a Marine cook and that's a fact."

I have eaten Navy, MC, and AirForce food. Give me an AF cook any day.

But tell me the relative cost for one year of a cooks time. An experienced cook contractor that is required to be a fully trained prior, hired under contract to cook for a year.

Vs some kid that shows up at the recruiter, goes through dep (include the recruiters time)goes to boot camp (include the time of those whop do the training). Goes to MCT. Goes to MOS school. And then hits the fleet to begin his non-combat job as a cook.

What is the exact difference in cost for a year of cooking between these two?

I really don't think civilian cooks get a whole lot of training to do the jobs they do in Marine Corps chow halls. All they need to know how to do is open a packet and heat it up (aside from sanitation, customer service, etc).

[The DUKE]

I thought the new age mentality was to utilize contractors in situations that could be handled by civilian personell during any one specific conflict.
So that when the said conflict was over they wouldnt have to reduce the forces by so many on account of no longer needed 3000 cooks, 5000 truck drivers, 10,000 office personel, 25000 secretaries.
That sort of thing, so that when it was over they could easily fold back into the civilian work force and we wouldnt be sending military personell out there to become civies due to no longer needing them to do what the civi contrators had done?
Also I watched a book revue this past weekend, on PBS, the author was talking about sort of the same thing in this forum.
He was telling the interviewer that back in the day Harry S. Truman had put forth the intention to disolve the USMC entirely, due to the wonder invention of the "BOMB". Harry figured that since we had this new wonder weapon and that after we demonstrated the willingness to use it to keep world peace that no one would ever again challenge us to armed conflict.
So he sent a memo to the senate to consider the abolition of the USMC in its entirety.
So I wouldnt be the least bit suprised to see something of this sort come up in the not too distant future.
I mean think about it, now we have super new wonder weapons, romote guided missles, drones, bunker buster bombs, laser guided things, stealth fighters, bombers, what do we need the Corp for anymore?
So keep you ears peeled to the goings on of DC with this in mind. We may just have become obsolete gentlemen.

[Integrity57]

I don't think those civilians working in the chow halls really make too much money, at least the ones I saw. Most of them rode the bus to work or drove beaters and didn't look like they had much money in the bank and I'm pretty sure some were ex-cons or former junkies. The ones at both RTC and NETC in Great Lakes worked for the Goodwill Organization who, judging by the chow, were probably the lowest bidders by a long shot.

[Lynn2]

"A post previously manned by a PFC in the Marine Corps is now manned by a petty officer second class in the Navy. I'm fairly certain that a PO2 earns more than a PFC and the cost of his training was greater."

Without a link to support this or explain this I have to assume this is mombo-jumbo that you pulled out of your magic hat.

Sort of like you "knowing" that a contractor cook costs the american tax payers a lot more than a USMC cook. Again without supporting data it looks alot like made up crap.

[Lynn2]

"I really don't think civilian cooks get a whole lot of training to do the jobs they do in Marine Corps chow..."

These civilian/contractor cooks are there because of a govt issued contract.

That contract spells out what skill sets the cooks on that contract must have. What training they must have before they can be placed on the contract.

They are as well trained and ready for the job as the contract specs have been written.

I use to write govt contracts (from the point of a project officer not a contracts officer) and we made sure the people bid on those contracts had the exact set of skills we needed.

That sort of thing plus cost plus a lot of other things was how we evaluated the various contract proposals.

[Intruder242]

When I went into the Marines, they were stable at about 175,000. Then Vietnam came and growth was amazing. I was in the first Marine A-6 squadron and the electronics system in the early versions of that plane were almost anightmare to keep operating. The only civilians I saw were no more than three engineers, two from Grumman and one from Litton. In that time, they also started watch our time on, if you can remember them, IBM cards. We learned a lot. We were spending around 40% of our time doing our job, keeping the birds flying. That changed quickly and moved up rapidly.
When I was in what I saw is that a LCpl had more responsiblity that an E-4/5 in the Navy. That is kind of a Marine thing and we did not man units the same. Also, as some of you may remember, at the end of 'Nam, the Marine Corp was going down the tube. That was fixed in the late 70', early 80's. We had some weak leaders then, the ones with stars on their uniforms.
Wtih technology, we should be able to reduce costs significantly. I cannot not relate to personell down sizing and I would bet that most units are close to being effeciently manned. As example, I know that F/A-18D squadrons have much fewer maintenance people than the A-6. The F/A-18 is significantly cheaper to buy (when they were bought) and maintain. One squadron has been shut down as their planes are out of time. The two seater F/A-18D's will be the first ones to get the F-35B, but when is really up in the air. The F-35 will replace almost all of the Marines tactical planes, perhaps all. I do not think they would delay this, but perhaps may have fewer squadrons.
The Marines have been through this before and will survive as they always have.
Intruder Marine.

[Beltayn]

At least in the chow hall, civilian contractors are MUCH more expensive and inefficient than USMC personnel doing the same jobs.

Lynn, your entire argument (and you aren't the first to make it) is short-sighted and naive. It is based on the concept that all the pipeline training a basic Marine goes through somehow adds up to make them less cost-effective.

It neglects several things;

-You are doing a one-year verses one-year comparison, but lumping the entire training pipeline on the Marine side of the scale. It would only be fair if you do a 4-year comparison, because the training a Marine receives last them their entire enlistment. And the longer a Marine serves, the less relevant their initial training costs are.
-Civilian contractors are just that, civilians. They are only motivated by getting through the day, and doing just enough to avoid getting fired. There is very little you can do to even get them to do a basically thorough job that any PFC with good NCO direction can accomplish.
-Civilians rate a massive amount of entitlements. Not just things like medical and dental insurance, vacation days, the ability to randomly call out sick and screw over a Marine watch, the ability to just not show up to work several times before real punitive action, but mostly the fact that they simply do not have anything holding them accountable other than the desire to not lose their job.
-A civilian contractor working in the chow hall does not care about mission accomplishment. If their shift is over, they leave. If some vital equipment goes down, it doesn't have anything to do with them. If a plane full of grunts about to deploy breaks on the runway and we suddenly have 500 hungry Marines in line, they are on break, and don't give a damn, because you CONTRACTUALLY can't take their break away from them.
-The cooks who ARE Marines are forced to pick up all the inherent slack where the civilian contractors drop the ball on these things, massively increasing the work-load on the individual Marine over what it should be with a full Marine crew working a Mess Hall. The civilians rate what they rate, and won't do a damn thing more than they have to, whereas it is OUR responsibility to get the job done whatever that takes. Those two objectives inherently screw over the Marines. Marines take care of fellow Marines and work together. Civilians are there to leech off the Marine Corps, and are barely even accountable to it, only to the letter of the contract.
-Chow Hall civilians are paid a LOT more than people think. Almost every civilian who I work with earns $20-25/hour or more, extra if they work nights, extra if they work weekends, extra if they work holidays, extra if they work early morning. For doing a job a Private with good NCOs could do three times better.
-Civilians have no concept of what "clean" means in Marine Corps standards, and The Contract does not elaborate. What this effectively means is that everything they are responsible for, we have to do again, the right way, every day. And they get paid for it.

And, most importantly...
-The biggest strength of the Marine Corps is it's cross-trained versatility. Cooks know how to operate ECP vehicle check points, or man convoys. We can stand post, or rapidly be called upon to respond to threats to a base or FOB as part of a QRF. Cooks cross-train more than any other MOS, and regularly fulfill the duties of Supply, MIMMS clerks, Admin, Motor T, Bulk Fuel, and countless other MOSs in a field environment, in addition to our own responsibilities. My unit, which is wing and about as POG as you can get, recently did a massive field op where we set up an entire FOB with everything necessary for it's operation, and then cooked chow for a bunch of brass. At the end of the inspection, a SSGT called over everyone for a big Food Service picture and the Major standing next to him stopped, absolutely astonished to discover that every single Marine in the entire operation was a cook, to include the Marines posting security with M240s and cammi paint.


See, Lynn, it is possible (depending on how you choose arbitrarily to tally the math) that you could create some matrix showing that the cost of one Food Service Marine is more than that of one civilian contractor. Fine and dandy.
But you are missing one very important fact:
One Marine is worth FIVE civilians, when it comes to accomplishing the mission.

Tally that in your budget.

Semper Fidelis.

[Quinbo]

"A post previously manned by a PFC in the Marine Corps is now manned by a petty officer second class in the Navy. I'm fairly certain that a PO2 earns more than a PFC and the cost of his training was greater."

Without a link to support this or explain this I have to assume this is mombo-jumbo that you pulled out of your magic hat.

Sort of like you "knowing" that a contractor cook costs the american tax payers a lot more than a USMC cook. Again without supporting data it looks alot like made up crap.

Not mumbo jumbo magic .... see resume.
While I was on barracks duty our base was turned over to the Navy. My post as corporal of the guard was turned over to a CPO. I trained him. Yes it is a personal annecdote but real and requires no internet google links to support.

Fairly certain a chief makes more than a Corporal and yet he would be performing the same job. Are ya picking up what I'm laying down?

[Big Jim]

Hey Bulk, my brother....we ALL know from experience Marines have been doing alot more with alot less than all the other branches....and even accomplishing ANY task and mission set before us with next to nothing. Anyone who has been in or around the Corps should know that.....and Lynn should know that too...its just sad that he believes what he does and thinks more cutbacks should happen.

But should we expect any less from someone who isn't a Marine? We have proven that we don't need the creature comforts of a soft civilian life like the Navy or Air Force has to make us better Marines or to help us accomplish any mission any better than we already do. We already know we are the toughest there is and can do anything because we've done it.

[Lynn2]

"Civilian contractors are just that, civilians. They are only motivated by getting through the day,"

Something that no Marine is ever accused of I am sure.

Well I guess if you say so then it must be true. You claim this or that and offer NOT ONE supporting number, data, study, or link. Its all...."its true because Bulkyker says so"

Because you claim something means-----that you claim something. And nothing else.

I have not made an argument. I have asked questions. Or I have raised questions.

I have not made an argument because I do not know what the answer is. I may know some little of what should be studied or looked at in terms of cost or savings or contracting out. But that does not mean I know what the answer will be.

And the reason? I have no idea what numbers or data a study group would come back with after looking at some of these truly complex issues dealing with contracting out.

It might make sense. It might not. It might make sense sometimes and not others. But you only have a real guess after a serious study of the issue.

Unlike you I rely on numbers and data. Not self-made pronouncements based on---"I say its so"

In short I try to look at this stuff as a professional would. Not as a cheerleader would.

[Quinbo]

Face palm .....

Ok a cook just gave you an accurate description of what day to day life is working with contractors. Another "me" gave you an accurate description of what it is like to be replaced someone of a lower pay grade with someone of a higher pay grade.

The ultimate plan of hiring contractors was to free more Marines to fight. General Gray came up with that plan. Let contractors wash the dishes and guard the gates. It is just silly to think that plan is more financially efficient.

Can we say haliburton???

[Beltayn]

Its all...."its true because Bulkyker says so"

You realize that I AM a cook? I have a rather intimate understanding of how the civilian contract functions and the implications of it. Why would I make his stuff up?


Something that no Marine is ever accused of I am sure.
"Just doing the minimum" for a civilian contractor and "just doing the minimum" for a Marine are massively different because of the different level of accountability. A Marine can't just say "I quit!" if they feel they are being worked too hard. And if you honestly think that a Marine cook can skate very much at all, even if they want to, you have an unrealistic understanding of what it is we actually have to accomplish.

If a civilian skates and doesn't bother doing their job completely or correctly, absolutely nothing happens, except maybe a manager chewing their ass at most. They know that the Marines will simply have to come in behind them and do what they didn't bother to, what they thought they could get away with leaving for us.
If the Marines don't do our jobs, fellow Marines do not eat, or even get sick, we all get NJPed, lose money, lose rank, get sent to the brig even, and we cannot just say "screw you" and leave, we are there at the pleasure of the Marine Corps for as long as they choose to keep us.

So yes, there is a huge difference.


I have not made an argument. I have asked questions. Or I have raised questions.

I have not made an argument because I do not know what the answer is. I may know some little of what should be studied or looked at in terms of cost or savings or contracting out. But that does not mean I know what the answer will be.

And the reason? I have no idea what numbers or data a study group would come back with after looking at some of these truly complex issues dealing with contracting out.

It might make sense. It might not. But you only have a real guess after a serious study of the issue.

A) You are not the first person to raise the question. It is not new or innovative out-of-the-box thinking. It has been studied to death over and over.

B) It is NOT something there is a definitive, scientific answer for, because there are a large number of factors that are unquantifiable in dollars. So whatever the bias of the study group, the more the results will turn out exactly how they expect them to. It depends entirely on what factors you arbitrarily decide to quantify, and which you ignore as "not important or relevant".

[Danny C Smith]

I really don't have much to offer here.
Being a "simple" GRUNT.
I'll tell you all one thing though.
The United States Marine Corps WILL live on.
It just will.
Our gun club has been in action, as we all know, longer
than this Nation has been "officially" a Nation.
You gotta be kiddin' me.
Do any of you think, or believe that we are going away?
Think what you want. I ain't buyin' it.
My .02

Semper Fi.

[Lynn2]

&quot;Just doing the minimum&quot; for a civilian contractor&quot; <br />
<br />
Some of the hardest working people I have ever seen in my life have been civilian contractors. <br />
<br />
And some of the unhappiest eat the apple...

[Lynn2]

"It is NOT something there is a definitive, scientific answer for, because there are a large number of factors that are unquantifiable in dollars. So whatever the bias of the study group, the more the results will turn out exactly how they expect them to. It depends entirely on what factors you arbitrarily decide to quantify, and which you ignore as "not important or relevant"."

I agree 100% with this statement of yours.

[Quinbo]

So Lynn ...
Do you concede that although it may be more tactically intelligent to let a civilian cook the eggs or a sailor to guard a gate that it is not finacially responsible to do so?

[AAV Crewchief]

I don't know why but this sounds like a sense of entitlement to me.

Just saying.


That's horse****. Have some compassion. The Army will probably take folks who want to cross over. They have been taking folks in the AF as a program called From the Blue to the Green was created just for that. What's BS is that we aren't even done fighting the wars we are in and Obama/Gates wants to downsize.

[AAV Crewchief]

A lot of that COOK/CONTRACTOR **** is going on with KBR in Iraq and other places. I remember in 03 when I was at BIAP and the guy running the little flight area chowhall was making 175k per year and...

[irpat54]

A lot of that COOK/CONTRACTOR **** is going on with KBR in Iraq and other places. I remember in 03 when I was at BIAP and the guy running the little flight area chowhall was making 175k per year and expected to do even better if he extended in place doing the same thing for another 365 days? Now, why don't we get rid of guys making this kind of jack and keep the combat trained force we have developed?

just one thing to say about that:thumbup::thumbup:

[Lynn2]

So Lynn ...
Do you concede that although it may be more tactically intelligent to let a civilian cook the eggs or a sailor to guard a gate that it is not finacially responsible to do so?

Nope I do not.

And I do not because I have never studied the issue. Making management decisions for an organization is something I did for a living. Assuming this is better that that without some serious study is just plain bad management. As is just going on your gut.

Now what is the cost of that contractor to the American people? Rather easy to figure out. Its all spelled out in the contract.

But what is the cost of that Marine cook? That I have no idea. And I bet no one else in this discussion does either.

Salary? Sure. That is easy.

But the cost of training before they enlist and after?

Cost of their housing. Food. Electricity they use. The water they use. The office space they work in. Uniforms. . Regular retirement. VA disability. Travel. Bonus. Their on-going medical care while in the service. Money for the wife. Medical care for the wife and kids. Etc etc etc etc.

All that and more goes into the cost of one US Marine.

And it is that overall cost you would have to use in comparing a Marine cook to a Contractor cook as far as the money it costs for one or the other.

[irpat54]

Nope I do not.

And I do not because I have never studied the issue. Making management decisions for an organization is something I did for a living. Assuming this is better that that without some serious study is just plain bad management. As is just going on your gut.

Now what is the cost of that contractor to the American people? Rather easy to figure out. Its all spelled out in the contract.

But what is the cost of that Marine cook? That I have no idea. And I bet no one else in this discussion does either.

Salary? Sure. That is easy.

But the cost of training before they enlist and after?

Cost of their housing. Food. Electricity they use. The water they use. The office space they work in. Uniforms. . Regular retirement. VA disability. Travel. Bonus. Their on-going medical care while in the service. Money for the wife. Medical care for the wife and kids. Etc etc etc etc.

All that and more goes into the cost of one US Marine.

And it is that overall cost you would have to use in comparing a Marine cook to a Contractor cook as far as the money it costs for one or the other.

but at least with a Marine, wether cook, or mp, or AC tec. you know that if the crap hits the fan you have another triger puller on your side and not someone whos looking for someone to hold his or her hand.

[USNAviator]

Drastic cuts outlined in think-tank report



By Dan Lamothe - Staff writer


<form id="hidden"> <input id="headline" value="Drastic cuts outlined in think-tank report" type="hidden"><input id="url" value="http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/07/marine_cuts_071310w/" type="hidden">An independent team has made a series of recommendations to Congress to reduce future Defense Department budgets, in light of the country’s growing deficit — including big cuts to the Corps.
</form> The team, dubbed, The Sustainable Defense Task Force, was tapped for the project by a bipartisan group of lawmakers. Their suggestions could reduce defense spending by $960 billion from 2011 to 2020.
Ideas include:
• Roll back the size of the Army and Marine Corps as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down. The U.S. could save $147 billion over the next decade by reducing the Army’s end strength from 547,400 to 482,400 and the Corps’ from 202,000 to 175,000, the task force says.
• Reduce the number of maneuver units in the Army and Marine Corps. The task force suggests reducing the number of Army brigades from 45 to 42 and the number of Marine infantry battalions from 27 to 24. Doing so would contribute to the $147 billion in savings as the services reduce their end strengths.
• Delay or cancel development of Navy variants of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The U.S. could save $9.85 billion from 2011 to 2020 by canceling the purchase of JSF jets for the Navy and Marine Corps and buying more affordable F/A-18 jets instead. Doing so would leave the Corps without jump jets once the AV-8 Harrier leaves the service, but the task force argues that capability “has not proved critical to operations in recent wars.”
• End the fielding of new MV-22 Ospreys. The Corps could save $10 billion to $12 billion over the next 10 years by buying new MH-60S and CH-53K helicopters, analysts say. The K variant of the CH-53 is not expected to hit the fleet until at least 2015, but the Navy began replacing outdated CH-46 helicopters early this century with the MH-60 on amphibious assault ships.
• Kill the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program and field cheaper alternatives. The Corps could save at least $8 billion in the next decade by refurbishing cheaper, existing amphibious assault vehicles instead of continuing development of the yet-to-be-fielded EFV, the task force says.
• Reduce military recruiting budgets. The task force does not provide a service-specific breakdown, but says that with a military drawdown underway, the U.S. will not need to spend as much money finding new recruits. Recruiting budgets could be reduced by $5 billion over the next decade.
A smaller Corps

Some of the proposals — killing the EFV to save money, for example — are hardly new. But the report also includes a second set of proposals authored by Benjamin Friedman and Christopher Preble, analysts at the conservative Cato Institute in Washington.
In a five-page section at the back of the task force’s 56-page report, the two analysts propose a “strategy of restraint — one that reacts to danger rather than going out in search of it.” If adopted — a big “if” — it would result in deep cuts to the Army and Marine Corps, with the Army reduced from about 560,000 soldiers to 360,000, a 36 percent reduction, and the Corps reduced from 202,000 Marines to 145,000, a 28 percent decrease. The cuts would make the Corps smaller than it has been at any time since 1950, when there were about 74,300 Marines on active duty before the U.S. took an active role in the Korean War.

[Lynn2]

"but at least with a Marine, wether cook, or mp, or AC tec. you know that if the crap hits the fan you have another triger puller on your side and not someone whos looking for someone to hold his or her hand."

Yes indeed.

That becomes a part of managements decision making process as they look at this issue.


You do not need a trigger puller Marine cook at Camp Pen. You did not need them at the DaNang airbase. You did not need them at Camp Reasoner outside of DaNang.

But there may be many places you do need them. That is above my pay grade.

But if that contractor cook does end up being cheaper--- and it could ---- would you rather have a Marine cook or a cheaper cook and the money saved spent on an 0311 trigger puller?

Which option makes the Corps a better combat organization?

[irpat54]

about the proposed defence cuts, these guys are on drugs, thay have to be! talk about clueless, (in my opinion), the one thing that got us into trouble and brought down the wtc was reacting and not acting.

[irpat54]

"but at least with a Marine, wether cook, or mp, or AC tec. you know that if the crap hits the fan you have another triger puller on your side and not someone whos looking for someone to hold his or her hand."

Yes indeed.

That becomes a part of managements decision making process as they look at this issue.


You do not need a trigger puller Marine cook at Camp Pen. You did not need them at the DaNang airbase. You did not need them at Camp Reasoner outside of DaNang.

But there may be many places you do need them. That is above my pay grade.

But if that contractor cook does end up being cheaper--- and it could ---- would you rather have a Marine cook or a cheaper cook and the money saved spent on an 0311 trigger puller?

Which option makes the Corps a better combat organization?

I just think it could become a lagistical paper pushing nightmair, we all know how these things can get way out of hand with paper work

[Beltayn]

While contractors seem reasonable in the current context of our strategic environment, many of the possible combat scenarios the Marines are designed to be able to be called upon to deal with are not the same.

It is one thing to talk about civilian cooks making omelets for you back in garrison in conus. It is a completely different matter to talk about the theoretical tactical environment of a forced landing against a well-equipped, organized, and active foe in a volatile environment.
The Marine Corps is distinct from the other branches in that we are the President's own sucker punch. He has the power to deploy us anywhere in the world, to attack anyone, within 72 hours (or as little as 24), for up to 90 days without any support or requiring the permission of congress. We are designed to be able to insert and engage anyone, rip a foothold away from their control, and then as a highly mobile force push out and destroy all major strategic targets and castrate the enemy's ability to wage war until our heavy support and large-scale regular army "main force" arrives to commit and consolidate our advances. All by ourselves.
To be able to accomplish this mission, unique to the other branches we have everything we need to operate independently. Our own air wing of close-support gunships, cargo planes, to strike fighters. Our own special forces. Our own amphibious fleet. And our own logistical system. Bullets, Beans, and Band-Aids.

Also uniquely among the branches, we have the doctrine of every Marine being a capable infantryman as becomes tactically necessary. We maintain that readiness with regular training for all MOSs, and frequently place non-combat arms Marines in roles where they need to exercise those skills.

In a future battlefield, against potential foes that are sadly not far fetched, we may find ourselves in a situation where the Marine Corps is fighting against a numerically superior and technologically equivalent/superior enemy, far from home and without tangible strategic support from a war-weary country lacking in political will to commit fully.
In such a scenario, we will need our full logistical self-support capability, and we will need to be able to provide it ourselves. We will also need that logistical base to have the flexibility to provide actual combat support to our infantry against an enemy that does more than skulk behind rocky outcrops and blow up IEDs.

Can you imagine how differently the fighting retreat from the Chosen Reservoir would have gone if the Marines had been all combat arms and were forced to rely on civilians or another branch for their logistical base?

Sure, making a jack-of-all-trades organization is expensive, when you only look at things from an individual level, but that flexibility is our greatest organizational strength. Taking it away by subcontracting it out would be like taking the carriers away from the Navy, or the planes away from the Air Force.

You don't look at how the last war was fought to figure out what you will need for the next one.
If we need to reduce in size, or save a few more million, then fine. But cuts should be evenly across the board, not by stripping the Corps of it's support element.

[Beltayn]

But what is the cost of that Marine cook? That I have no idea. And I bet no one else in this discussion does either.

Salary? Sure. That is easy.

But the cost of training before they enlist and after?

Cost of their housing. Food. Electricity they use. The water they use. The office space they work in. Uniforms. . Regular retirement. VA disability. Travel. Bonus. Their on-going medical care while in the service. Money for the wife. Medical care for the wife and kids. Etc etc etc etc.

All that and more goes into the cost of one US Marine.

And it is that overall cost you would have to use in comparing a Marine cook to a Contractor cook as far as the money it costs for one or the other.

I'd argue that cost is easy to determine, because you can come up with statistical averages for all the factors you mention and come up with a good assessment.

It's BENEFIT that is not so easy to quantify, and comparing costs of two options is useless without also comparing relative benefits.


You do not need a trigger puller Marine cook at Camp Pen. You did not need them at the DaNang airbase. You did not need them at Camp Reasoner outside of DaNang.

But there may be many places you do need them. That is above my pay grade.

And where is that cook going to get stationed exactly? Where are they going to train and maintain/advance their abilities within their MOS, if not in garrison? Support units have a deployment rotation and "home" duty station just like any infantry battalion, and they don't just sit with their thumbs up their asses when in conus.

[Lynn2]

"I'd argue that cost is easy to determine, because you can come up with statistical averages for all the factors you mention and come up with a good assessment."

For sure. Its not rocket science. But a real budget type would need to do this. Someone that does this sort of thing for a living.

You raised some good issues in that post above.

[Beltayn]

It would be an interesting report to read, definitely.

[Lynn2]

It would be an interesting report to read, definitely.


And of course any discussion of size has to go along with a discussion of mission. Current mission and future missions.

The wars we have fought in the past 58 years have looked a lot different than WW1, WW2, or Korea.

[DrZ]

If you look at the Commander Dan's post.... what you will see if how the think tank outlines savings but also cuts the legs out from the services. This type of thinking is why the F4 was utilized for 36 years, the A4 for 47 years, the A6 for 34 years, and the F8 for 42 years. Any cutbacks of this nature will cost jobs in the civilian world as well. How many people are currently working on the MV-22 or the F-35? The F-35 has stealth capabilities whereas the F-18 stealth signature is relatively large in comparison. America will be behind other countries in technology AGAIN.

If our government wants to save money.... QUIT SUPPORTING ALL THESE OTHER COUNTRIES with our billions. Keep the money at home. Put together a jobs program that makes sense. Get the lazy idiots off the welfare rolls and quit creating generations of sit on their butt and let the taxpayers support them. Tighten up our borders and quit allowing illegals to enter in an uncontrolled manner. THIS IS WHERE OUR THINK TANKS SHOULD BE SPENDING THEIR TIME CONCERNING PROPOSED BUDGET CUTS. The above will show a much higher dollar savings that cutting our military strength.

Cutting our military strength has never been a good concept. History has shown repeatedly how the US has to run to rebuild our military when a situation turned bad. We rushed to rebuild the military when the government discovered Vietnam was not going to be a walk in the park. The Military <but mainly="" the="" army=""> (not pointing a finger at any branch) under trained the troops to hustle them out into a combat zone. They were under-trained, inadequately armed, and improperly armored. This cost the US more than 50K KIA and 250K WIA.

Our think tanks are looking at a bottom line in dollars. Bottom lines do not take into account what happens when a different scenario than predicted occurs.

Do we need everyone we have now? Perhaps not but America has enemies who has sworn to destroy us. They strike us on our soil but only occasionally because they know we can AND WILL bring our armed forces to bear if we are provoked. Our military strength and advanced weaponry, perhaps counter-intuitively, are a deterrence to war.

Damn.... jumping off the soap box now.</but>

[jetdawgg]

So by now I'm sure most people have heared about the almost inevitable coming size reduction of the Marine Corps. For those of you who haven't, here's a link (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/08/12/gates-marine-corps-troop-levels-to-decrease/) to a news article about the story.

I suppose it is a good thing to be trimming the fat and flushing the turds. But I can't help feeling a little unsure about all this. How is the down sizing accomplished? Will people be allowed to retire early, or will recruiting efforts be cut back some? Re-enlistments tougher?

Hypothetically, if you didn't make the cut (which I'm sure we will) where would you go? Army? Navy? Law Enforcement? What happens to people with families who are unable to re-enlist? I imagine I'd try and switch services if I had to, but the thought of doing it doesn't sound too pleasing at all.

Again I understand the reasons for it, I just don't know what going through this reduction might feel like.

You are an E1 since 2006?:usmc:

[Lynn2]

Maybe we can do with a smaller military if we stop starting wars that do not need to be started.

Vietnam and Iraq are two that come to mind.

The wrong wars started for the wrong reasons that end up costing us trillions of dollars and 1000's of lives for us and millions of lives for others. Pizz poor policy decisions.

You can say all you want about enemies out there. But we create enemies as well as anyone.

When is the last time we actually fought a war that really needed to be fought?

[Vandrel]

Iraq wasn't a war that needed to be started?

I'm sorry but I was there and saw the **** hole that Hussain created, how people were treated like animals and women were raped by thugs "because they could".

While the reason for going in was WMD's, and nothing relating to the matter was disclosed and mentioned after we invaded it was only the tip of the iceberg that was known as Iraq pre-invasion 2003.

I won't comment on Vientnam, I wan't there. But to pretty much say that Iraq wasn't our war to fight and that we shouldn't have been there is a joke. The entire country was happier then dog **** to see us when we rolled up in there. The political goatrope that's gone on for years now since then has been the downfall of stability in Iraq.

[Quinbo]

Cuttinng our military equates to taking a knife to a gun fight. We avoid war in many cases because we brought the biggest dog to the fight. Crippling our military by cutting its strength invites others to try and take us on. The war machine unfortuneatley is an important part of our economy. The next step is to bring our boys home and rebuild. That also serves as a vital part of our historical economy.

Because Bulkyker says so.

[Lynn2]

"Crippling our military by cutting"

Its not an either or world we live in. You can cut without crippling.

And Iraq? Its cost us 3/4 of a TRILLION dollars so far and counting. And how many lives?

I am sorry that so many around the world live in pizz poor conditions and have bad ugly leaders. But we have neither the money nor the people to correct it all.

Iraq was a mistake. A giant mistake. Not worth the lives we have given. Not worth the trillion dollars plus it will end up costing us.

And you can say all you want about the bad conditions those people lived in. But one heck of a lot of civilian deaths were cause because of the war and because of American fire power.

A hard expensive lesson and a policy that makes sense we forgot all to soon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_Doctrine

The Powell Doctrine states that a list of questions all have to be answered affirmatively before military action is taken by the United States:


Is a vital national security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security) interest threatened?
Do we have a clear attainable objective?
Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
Is there a plausible exit strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit_strategy) to avoid endless entanglement?
Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
Is the action supported by the American people?
Do we have genuine broad international support?<sup id="cite_ref-0" class="reference">[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_Doctrine#cite_note-0)</sup>

[Lynn2]

Another smart Republican policy maker that has been forgotten or not listened to:

The Weinberger doctrine:

The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.
U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.
U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.
The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a "reasonable assurance" of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.
The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort.

[Quinbo]

Cuttinng our military equates to taking a knife to a gun fight. We avoid war in many cases because we brought the biggest dog to the fight. Crippling our military by cutting its strength invites others to try and take us on. The war machine unfortuneatley is an important part of our economy. The next step is to bring our boys home and rebuild. That also serves as a vital part of our historical economy.

Because Bulkyker says so.


I helped you out a little Lynn ... picking half a sentence out of a paragraphical comment seems to be your forte. I just thought I would give you a hand by including the rest of what I said.

[Lynn2]

"picking half a sentence out of a paragraphical comment seems to be your forte."

I have neither the time nor the interest to comment on ever single point made by every single poster.

Saying that a war economy is somehow good for our economy is nuts. A stupid statement. Tell that to all the moms and dads going to bed tonight with sons or daughters maimed or killed in the past few years to further this "war economy" you tout so highly.

That 3/4 of a trillion dollars we have spent so far in Iraq is money pizzed down a black hole. Money we will never recoup nor get anything remotely worthwhile from. And that is just Iraq. Making the owners of Blackwater filthy rich is a small point to be won. But a point I will give you.

Think of the jobs programs we could have for OUR people. The VA bennies for OUR troops. The roads for OUR drivers. The schools for OUR kids.

3/4 of a trillion dollars to the over a trillion dollars we will soon have spent just in Iraq could buy a lot of US products and take care of a lot of US people.

We are bankrupting our future and wasting lives on unneeded wars we do not need to be fighting.

[Quinbo]

Lynn if I argued that beavers ate tree bark you would counter with beavers should contract the tree cutting to hampsters. Ohh no the beavers are destroying our forests .. ohh my. Course you'll just clip the hampsters part out and say hamsters would do a great job of cutting down trees for the beavers.

[Lynn2]

Lynn if I argued that beavers ate tree bark you would counter with beavers should contract the tree cutting to hampsters. Ohh no the beavers are destroying our forests .. ohh my. Course you'll just clip the hampsters part out and say hamsters would do a great job of cutting down trees for the beavers.
\
I disagree with you not because I think you are stupid. But because your ideas are stupid for our country.

A nonsense statement above that could have been written by a moron. And you wonder why I do not address every point you make?

And not one comment from you about the "war economy" you think so important.

Not one comment about that 3/4 and soon to be a trillion dollars we have spent in Iraq and how that is good for the US.

Not one comment about how well you think those US lives lost have been well spent.

What you counter with is hampsters and beavers.

[USNAviator]

You are an E1 since 2006?:usmc:

Jetdawgg

I think that's the standard profile. He's hasn't been respectful enough to bother to fill in his own profile. At least that's my take on the situation.

[Quinbo]

Well beavers build better dams than hamsters or so I'm told.

[NoRemorse]

I liked this thread better when we were talking about SOS

[gungygal48]

http://comptroller.defense.gov/rates/fy2009/2009_k.pdf

The above website provides a schedule of military composite standard pay and shows how to compute the annual, hourly or daily value of DOD service members based on rank.

If you are interested in determining the "value" or "cost" comparison of a military mbr with a contractor counterpart the schedule will help.

FY10 rates were not available or I haven't been able to find them - FY09 should give you a good estimate.

[jetdawgg]

Jetdawgg

I think that's the standard profile. He's hasn't been respectful enough to bother to fill in his own profile. At least that's my take on the situation.

Makes me wonder who he is.....:usmc::mad:

[Lynn2]

http://comptroller.defense.gov/rates/fy2009/2009_k.pdf

The above website provides a schedule of military composite standard pay and shows how to compute the annual, hourly or daily value of DOD service members based on rank.

If you are interested in determining the "value" or "cost" comparison of a military mbr with a contractor counterpart the schedule will help.

FY10 rates were not available or I haven't been able to find them - FY09 should give you a good estimate.

Interesting. Thanks GG48.

But from this:

"The annual DoD composite rate includes the following military personnel appropriation costs: average basic pay plus retired pay
accrual, MERHC accrual, basic allowance for housing, basic allowance for subsistence, incentive and special pay, permanent change of
station expenses, and miscellaneous pay. Includes a per capita normal cost of $5,560 for MERHC accrual -- see Tab K-1."

It does not appear that any training related costs are included? Bootcamp or MOS schools or any other training that AD people are prone to do.

It looks like they are costing out only fully trained and ready to go troops?

[Danny C Smith]

I liked this thread better when we were talking about SOS

Me too.
All of the "brainy" stuff I really don't understand.
I do get the point though. In my own simple way.

[Quinbo]

There is no realistic way to quantify a reduction in forces verses replacing them with contractors. Take away the Marines and get a bunch of guys that read soldier of fortune. Regardless of whether it is stacking boxes in a warehouse or frying eggs. Somebody has to do it.

If you erase a Marines job and replace it with a civilian counter part then the money spent is probably equal.

My opinion ... if you draw down the MC numbers and then replace them with civilian contracts you are not saving a dime in the long run.

If the powers that be decide we don't need X numbers of umpty fratz mos and cut their numbers then so be it. If they are replaced by civilian contractors that was a waste of red tape.

[USNAviator]

Makes me wonder who he is.....:usmc::mad:

Me too Jetdawgg. Odd, starts a thread then vanishes without comment. In the words of General Custer when confronted with a superior force at Little Big Horn, "WTF?"

[FattyTheFerret]

So by now I'm sure most people have heared about the almost inevitable coming size reduction of the Marine Corps. For those of you who haven't, here's a link (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/08/12/gates-marine-corps-troop-levels-to-decrease/) to a news article about the story.

I suppose it is a good thing to be trimming the fat and flushing the turds. But I can't help feeling a little unsure about all this. How is the down sizing accomplished? Will people be allowed to retire early, or will recruiting efforts be cut back some? Re-enlistments tougher?Probably a bit of all that.


Hypothetically, if you didn't make the cut (which I'm sure we will) where would you go? Army? Navy? Law Enforcement? What happens to people with families who are unable to re-enlist?Think about it; if a marine with a family in incapable of getting a job elsewhere and his only recourse is to stay in the military, is he really a quality individual that we need to around?


I imagine I'd try and switch services if I had to, but the thought of doing it doesn't sound too pleasing at all.

Again I understand the reasons for it, I just don't know what going through this reduction might feel like.

It's gonna be tough but we're part of the defense budget and the belt needs to get tighter. Size reduction, however, is only a small part of it. A lot of the culture of waste within units, a lot of the failed weapons systems that are pushed through defense subcommittees simply because it gives the factory workers in a particular district a steady paycheck, the idea that despite having more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined we need yet another one...a lot of stuff should be taken care of before focusing on troop reduction.

Still, money spent on personnel is a significant chunk of the two thirds of a trillion dollar defense budget. It's a start.

[FattyTheFerret]

personely, I think if thay want to reduce something, thay should look at Government first leave the Marine Corps alone it is fine just the way it is thay already have a back log of people so it's not like there getting the low lifes. the Military should be the last thing to get cut or down sized.

Newsflash: The Marine Corps is the Government.

[FattyTheFerret]

Our gun club has been in action, as we all know, longer
than this Nation has been "officially" a Nation.

So has the army and navy. :p In fact, both are older than we are.

[revleo]

do not forget our history bro we were first established by the continental congress and we were named as a Corps of marines to serve on ships of the line we were actually mentioned before both the army and the navy so technically we are the oldest service which is why i have always had a problem with being a department of the navy as is written but semantics right and as for all the rest of this enlightening discussion i cannot add to to the fine comments that have already been made we are a self sustaining unit that does our own clean up and all the rest do any of you want to wait for some zoomie to decide when to drop close air support when you are pinned down or do you want a fellow marine who will die trying to get you support easy enough to answer for me as for cooks all of us who have spent time in the suck have spent some hours working a chow line rotate other MOS's through chow duty at a greater rate and have a select few in the chow MOS to supervise them there contract problem solved and less guy sitting on their asses shooting the **** in the barracks

[Vandrel]

do not forget our history

They don't teach that kind of knowledge anymore at boot camp.

[June 1975]

They don't teach that kind of knowledge anymore at boot camp.

When did they quit? How is it that any Marine believes that the army & navy are older than the USMC? Our birth and continued existance was always a point of pride in the "old days".

[Lynn2]

"The Army is the oldest U.S. Military service, officially established by the Continental Congress on June 14, 1775. The Army is also the largest U.S. Military Service."

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/generalinfo/a/military101.htm

[Integrity57]

The Navy was established October 13, 1775, about a full month before the Marine Corps.

[Kegler300]

The only time I was concerned with "size reduction" was back when we had to wear those skimpy, tight-ass pt shorts...http://thesquadbay.com/forums/Smileys/classic/salute.gif

[Wrench3516]

:evilgrin: This might have some relevance to this thread:
(For me the last two paragraphs says it all!)
The Few. The Proud. The New Marines?

<ABBR class="published updated" title=2010-08-13T22:22:02-05:00>Updated: 4 days 21 hours ago</ABBR>
<!-- new addthis code -->
Andrea Stone (http://www.leatherneck.com/team/andrea-stone) Senior Washington Correspondent

AOL News
WASHINGTON (Aug. 13) -- Declaring "the maritime soul of the Marine Corps" is at stake, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has ordered a review of the seaborne service that since 9/11 has functioned more like a "second land army."

In a speech (http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1498) in San Francisco, Gates spoke of "anxiety" over the future role of the service after nearly a decade of fighting on land in Afghanistan and Iraq. He said some feel the Corps has "become too heavy, too removed from their expeditionary, amphibious roots and the unique skill sets those missions require." Though many Marines are battle-tested, some "may never have stepped aboard a ship."
http://o.aolcdn.com/photo-hub/news_gallery/6/8/680919/1281734929876.JPEG US Navy / Getty Images
U.S. Marines embarked aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Peleliu in the Indian Ocean board a Marine Corps helicopter on Thursday. Defense Secretary Robert Gates wants to see the Marine Corps return to its amphibious roots.


Gates did not say Thursday whether the force structure review, to be led by Navy Secretary Ray Mabus and Gen. James Amos, the incoming Marine commandant, will result in "the few (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzccgMy0P6s)" becoming fewer after bulking up (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/end-strength.htm) in recent years. But in a separate session with sailors aboard the destroyer USS Higgins, the Pentagon chief said the Corps had "gotten too big (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/12/world/la-fg-gates-speech-20100813)" and would be trimmed.

That prediction is in line with a larger overhaul (http://www.aolnews.com/article/defense-secretary-gates-blasts-military-spending/19469040) that Gates detailed this week. It will involve belt-tightening (http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/defense-secretary-robert-gates-says-belt-tightening-will-eliminate-major-command/19586734) across all the services and at the Pentagon to wring out $100 billion in savings over the next five years.

The days of storming Iwo Jima (http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0219.html) are long gone. Marines still belt out "From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli (http://kids.niehs.nih.gov/lyrics/marine.htm)," but as they learned in Somalia, where journalists beat them ashore (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ssi/media2.pdf) in Mogadishu, times have changed.

Marines deployed aboard Navy ships remain the go-to ready forces in a crisis. Unlike the Army, they are lightly equipped to move quickly ashore by sea or air to conduct evacuations, relief operations or initiate combat. Traditionally the first in, they also are usually the first out, replaced after a few weeks by heavier Army troops trained for the long haul.

That "unique ability to project combat forces from the sea under uncertain circumstances -- forces quickly able to protect and sustain themselves -- is a capability that America has needed in this past decade and will require in the future," Gates said.

About 1,000 Marines flew in to the Afghan desert from ships more than 400 miles away in the Northern Arabian Sea to start the war against the Taliban in October 2001. Almost nine years later, though, 20,000 Marines are still fighting in that landlocked country, doing a job nearly indistinguishable from their soldier brethren.

"These warriors are writing a new chapter in the Marine Corps roll of honor with their blood and their sweat," Gates said.

Despite the Corps' storied history (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usmc/history.htm) as the Navy's on-board landing force, the Pacific campaign of World War II was the only period in history when the service focused almost exclusively on amphibious assaults. The last major combat landing was during the Korean War at Inchon.

"It is proper to ask whether large-scale amphibious assault landings along the lines of Inchon (http://www.marines.com/main/index/winning_battles/history/missions/inchon_landing) are feasible," Gates told an audience that included retired Marines. "New anti-ship missiles with long range and high accuracy may make it necessary to debark from ships 25, 40 or 60 or more miles at sea."

Beach landings have become so rare that the Marines made headlines (http://www.gazette.com/articles/marines-99772-amphibious-military.html) in June when the Corps put on an amphibious training exercise at California's Camp Pendleton.

Meanwhile, military observers questioned Gates' concern about blurring the lines between soldiers and Marines.

"They are a second land army -- and a third air force, by the way. That's not necessarily a bad thing. It provides a competing way of operating. What could be more American than such a competition?" said Thomas Ricks, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security and author of "Making the Corps (http://www.amazon.com/Making-Corps-Thomas-Ricks/dp/0684848171)," about how Marines inculcate their culture at boot camp.

"I wouldn't make a lot of changes to the Marines right now. They tend to be very handy in the first phases of wars -- Guadalcanal (http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/guadalcanal.htm) in World War II, the Pusan Perimeter (http://www.koreanwar-educator.org/topics/pusan/) in Korea," he added. "I'd make bigger changes in the Army, really taking seriously the mission to train foreign security forces. And I'd look for really big savings more in the support areas than in the teeth area."

But Andrew Bacevich, a national security expert at Boston University and a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, said the Marines have become an "example of the redundancies that permeate our defense establishment. ... Redundancies can be good as long as you can afford them. We no longer can."

Anthony Cordesman, a defense analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, cautioned against too much tinkering with an organization established by the Continental Congress in 1775.

"The reality is, when you have one of the most successful combat units in the world," he said, "you do not conduct fascinating social experiments to see if you can transform it into something else."

[FattyTheFerret]

do not forget our history bro we were first established by the continental congress and we were named as a Corps of marines to serve on ships of the line we were actually mentioned before both the army and the navy so technically we are the oldest service which is why i have always had a problem with being a department of the navy as is written but semantics right and as for all the rest of this enlightening discussion i cannot add to to the fine comments that have already been made we are a self sustaining unit that does our own clean up and all the rest do any of you want to wait for some zoomie to decide when to drop close air support when you are pinned down or do you want a fellow marine who will die trying to get you support easy enough to answer for me as for cooks all of us who have spent time in the suck have spent some hours working a chow line rotate other MOS's through chow duty at a greater rate and have a select few in the chow MOS to supervise them there contract problem solved and less guy sitting on their asses shooting the **** in the barracksI'm quite familiar with our history but it's inaccurate to say we're older. The US Army was created 14 June 1775, the US Navy was created October 13, 1775. Yeah, we're technically older than the country itself but then again so are they. :p
They don't teach that kind of knowledge anymore at boot camp.
Sure they do, but I guess adding the rest of the information is bad for marines, isn't it?
When did they quit? How is it that any Marine believes that the army & navy are older than the USMC? Our birth and continued existance was always a point of pride in the "old days".
Because it's the truth. Maybe some marines are hard headed enough to believe all the recruiting BS that permeates this place sometimes but some of us actually prefer facts to fauxtivation.

[June 1975]

The army was disbanded by act of congress on 2JUN1784. The navy was disbanded in 1785. Marine Corps lore says that we were never disbanded, and thus are the oldest branch of the military. (Congress probably considered the Marines disolved by the disbanding of the navy).

[Quinbo]

The Marine Corps was disbanded in April 1783 and reactivated 11 July 1798.

10 November 1775 is still considered our official birthdate.

[June 1975]

Makes me wonder how much of what we were taught as MCRD was total BS!

[FattyTheFerret]

Makes me wonder how much of what we were taught as MCRD was total BS!

A lot. Pretty much everyone from Dan Daly to Chesty Puller has been credited with "we're surrounded....they won't get away this time!".