Marine Expeditionary Force

In the current war, the Marines are acting like a second Army. The Marines need new equipment for their new role.

The Marines should have the role of reacting fast to a threat where we do not already place Army troops and/or equipment. Where possible, they should be able to defeat small local threats, deploying battalions, regiments, and maybe an entire division, before calling on the Army for help. If a division is unable to win, we have reached the level of a war and the Army is needed. This rapid reaction Marine Corps role does not require amphibious capabilities.

In an article in Joint Force Quarterly, I argued that the Marine Corps should focus on an expeditionary role and urban warfare role instead of amphibious warfare. The traditional storming of the beaches, even updated with deep inland assault in V-22s, should be downgraded (although not abandoned). This expeditionary role, I argued, would allow the Army to avoid being lightened up too much as the current plans call for, in order to get troops to a theater quickly. Transformation apparently has no place for the Army M-1A2s that have crushed their opponents while heavily outnumbered on the road to Baghdad. The sight of Alpha Company of 3-7 Cavalry crushing an Iraqi armored battalion a couple days ago in ten minutes with just its organic weapons-and suffering no losses-should be instructive of the value of our heavy armor. We discard it at our peril.

Let the Marines focus on the smaller threats and retain the Army for high intensity warfare.

So how should the Marines equip themselves for this role?

First of all, the armored amphibious vehicles (AAVs) of the Marines are being stressed in the deepest inland advance in Marine Corps history. They are designed to get Marines ashore under armor and then get them off the beaches. They are large, too. Why shouldn't the Marines have Bradleys? Against a tougher opponent, the AAVs might be large casualty generators-more vulnerable, with more infantry capacity, and just plain not designed to advance a few hundred miles. Since 1991, the Marines have already adopted the M-1 based on their non-amphibious role in that war. In the Persian Gulf War, the Marine M-60s were deemed too old, and the Army loaned the Marines a tank brigade to bolster them in their non-amphibious mission of pinning the Iraqis in Kuwait.

Perhaps the lesson of this second major non-amphibious mission-this time deep inland driving all the way to Baghdad-is that the time to replace the AAV has arrived. The AAVs should be kept in case they are needed for an amphibious assault-you never know-but a drive inland like the '03 campaign calls for different and better equipment. The Marines need another infantry carrier

Plus, the role of the Marines has probably been less than ideal. The Army has had to use 82nd AB and 101st AB troops to secure their supply lines. If a Marine Corps focused on urban warfare had been used with the Army instead of next to the Army, V Corps could have marched north with a 2-division strike force of the 3rd ID and 101st AB while Marine regiments secured Najaf and Samawah and Karbala after the Army bypassed them. Marine infantry with armor, helicopters, and organic air support would have been ideal. If the Air Force and Navy air had also been striking the Republican Guards mercilessly as V Corps drove north, west of the Euphrates, maybe the Army pause to regroup would not have been as long. (I freely grant that even if we did have to pause longer than necessary, we are doing great to be at the Battle for Baghdad stage as we start the third week of war.)

This line of supply, urban role still would have left another Marine division equivalent of mechanized forces able to push north in a diversionary thrust. Equipped with M-1s, Bradleys for the riflemen, and LAVs for the recon elements as they have now, this force would have been better prepared to push north.

The British Basra role would remain unchanged.

Perhaps the Marines fear looking too much like a second, redundant, Army, if they adopt too much Army equipment. But the difference would be that in ordinary circumstances, the Marines would have the lead in responding to small crises (with Army airborne forces supporting) and in the early stages of a major war (again, supported by Army light forces and Stryker units). The Army would use the time purchased to move its heavy forces into place to be supported by the Air Force. Once the Army was in place, it would take the lead in winning the war. The Marines would then have the modern equipment to support the Army in a war of maneuver and firepower, able to deliver riflemen deep inland to battle in the cities or in supporting attacks as the Army knifes its way toward the ultimate objective to win the war.

The Marines have Abrams tanks already. Give them the Bradley too. If the Marines feel guilty, they can draw comfort from the fact that the Army took their LAVs (and added lots of nifty, expensive stuff).

As long as the Army and Marines take on complementary roles that create a potent combined force, there is no reason not to use the best equipment available.

[NOTE: This is from the former Defense Issues category from my original blog.]