USMC size reduction

[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 (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.

[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 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?

[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:

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?^[1]

[Lynn2]

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

The Weinberger doctrine:

1. The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.
2. U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.
3. U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.
4. The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
5. U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a "reasonable assurance" of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.
6. 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.