Budget is policy for the Navy and sort-of for the Marines

It is good to see Galrahn back in the game. And again he leads the discussion with very important topics. With the U.S. in ever more debt trouble, the discussion of the direction of the Marine Corps has even more significance.

Ashton Carter states that he wants to do more with less or whatever he said earlier. I kind of forget sometimes because most of what he says doesn’t count for much. And with his new job of finding more budget efficiencies, the results will be much like Elmer Fudd trying to bag Buggs Bunny.

His job of looking for extra pennies won’t get too far with the Marines because they have some serious political clout on the Hill. Carter can almost hear the Korean War-like cat calls from the enemy if he is trying to reduce the USMC.

For example, you probably think the following graphic is a North Korean propaganda poster.

You would be wrong. It is actually the lobbying power of the USMC faithful showing how dangerous Gates and Carter will be to the future of the Corps if this-defense-budget-itis gets out of control. That is Gates on the right. Or maybe it is Carter. I forget.

But should the Marine Corps be untouchable when you have fantasy advertisements for the Corps like this that make good viewing right when the in-debt U.S. federal budget is going to rip down defense big time? No they shouldn’t and here is why.

The Marines should only be used for work that they do best. That is anything near the water. For the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have Marines doing non-amphib, non-littoral jobs that could be done by the Army. If Gates is so in love with this-waritis, he should be able to see that real easy. It is the Army and not Marines, Sailors pushed in to ground roles and USAF pushed in to ground roles, that should get most of the defense pie.

So if you have Marines running around doing Army-like duties, you probably don’t need all those USMC slots and instead need more Army slots.

As for amphibious warfare; how soon we forget Tarawa, Iwo Jima and Okinawa. With today’s weapons, an amphibious landing will be even more deadly. The U.S. Navy seriously under-invests in anti-mine warfare. And today, there are all kinds of cheap mines to seed littoral access to beaches. Not only that but there are all kinds of ways where a variety of easy to get gear from the Chicom Sears catalog, can make the U.S. look really bad on CNN and diverge quite a bit from wild assumptions made on pretty PowerPoint slides that say “anti-access” or “joint forcible entry”

And then you have simple inconveniences like this.

Don’t worry though, we will always need Marines. For exactly what and when though is the question many are afraid to ask. While the USMC is going out and buying useless gold-plated hardware that makes one afraid to deploy it least it gets lost in any real combat because it costs so much, it is the Navy that is really dropping the ball.

Today, with so many battleships in the fleet, any other “combat ship” needs more realistic skill-sets. That is, something that can move personnel around, carry supplies, recover or launch an occasional helicopter and also be affordable. Idiotic moves like the DDX, Littoral Combat Gyp and the F-35, take money away from other resources that are a heck of a lot more useful.

Again, don’t worry. Carter or no, right or wrong, the Marines will get their fief. And the Navy is going to have to be a lot more serious about trying looking relevant. When you see pirates being hunted down by a cruiser, something is seriously wrong. Just don’t expect Elmer Fudd to bring in the big win for the American taxpayer.

Now everybody stand up right now and sing the Halls of Montezuma. I said sing it you bastards.

Advertisement