Eight Commandants, One Message
it reads better if you are at parade rest
Yes, you could dismiss this as parochial on their and my part—but that would be a mistake.
There remains to this day no better way to project power ashore on a global scale than the self-contained capabilities that only the United States has…and we are on the knife’s edge on having enough of it to allow this comparative advantage to be there when the nation needs it.
Every Commandant of the Marine Corps since 1995 signed a letter posted over at RealClearDefense that is worth your time as it covers an unbroken three decades of professional experience at the very highest levels.
Of all the services, one could safely argue that the Marines have done better than most in their choices of top leadership. Not perfect, but on average, superb. They stick together on the important things.
As such, when they all get together to make a point, you should pause and give it a listen.
…our Nation needs a force to deter aggression, contain conflicts, evacuate noncombatants, and respond quickly and effectively to other crises and contingencies. Without this capability, bullies thrive, crises become conflicts, our citizens abroad are at risk, and our National Command Authority lacks a full range of options to deter and respond.
Correct. Next question is, “How do we do that?”
Context matters. Geography matters. Comparative advantage matters. We are a maritime and aerospace power, so…
The most common characteristic of threats to our national interests is that they occur in the world’s littorals where nearly 70 percent of the population lives within 90 miles of the ocean. ... History teaches us that persistent forward presence is the best way to deter, and if necessary, respond to threats before they become full blown crises. Naval forces have the flexibility, capability, and capacity to clearly signal United States intentions and resolve, while enabling a more robust joint and combined response if necessary. The proven solution requires forward locating both military capability and capacity, with geographic agility and the sovereignty protection of the sea as requirements.
Heck, I could—and can (and perhaps may)—write an entire national defense strategy for the USA off that quote alone, especially the emphasis I added above.
Nice international order you have there…shame if something happened to it:
Until recently, America could count on a perpetual presence of amphibious forces in the Pacific, Persian Gulf, Mediterranean (capable of flexing to the Red Sea) and occasionally along the coast of South America. It no longer does, because amphibious ships simply aren’t available. The United States also maintained three maritime prepositioned squadrons with the stocks necessary for Marine operations in the Pacific Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, and Indian Ocean, but that capability is now down by half (and will be further reduced if reported additional deactivations take place). When continual forward presence is lost, the United States no longer possesses the robust capabilities to deter troublemakers and respond to crises.
A little note about terminology. The word “amphibious” usually triggers the reply-guy trolls to say something along the lines,
Sigh. Like “aircraft carriers are obsolete” autists, this is just a theory that in actual real-world operations is simply proven false. The USMC projecting power ashore is a lot more than a floaty thingy. Perhaps if critics protested with more flecked foam it might be a more effective argument, but I will stick with the wisdom of experience.
In essence the nation needs to have enough amphibious ships to keep tailored Marine Air-Ground Task Forces continually deployed in the Mediterranean Sea, Western Pacific, and the Indian Ocean areas, while retaining additional capabilities to reinforce these areas or respond quickly and effectively to emerging crises in other theaters.
There is no more capable, available, timely, and flexible way to get your people and national will ashore than these self-deploying and expeditionary minded forces than Marines.
While fiscal constraints will continue to force tough decisions, the growing array of global and regional threats inimical to our national interests require a larger, well-resourced naval force. The Navy, with the help of the ship building industry, must replace worn out ships and correct shipyard inadequacies that for the past ten years have enabled amphibious ships to be available only 46 percent of the time.
The Navy must also take the actions needed to restore Maritime Prepositioning Force ships and recapitalize the strategic sealift fleet.
We need at least two more Maritime Prepositioning Force squadrons…and with more ships in each.
This quote is Pure Salamander.
National embarrassment or worse is only one pending crisis away.
Make no mistake, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is looking for such an opportunity, as is Iran.
Again, I will repeat myself on the points I have steadfastly held to for years.
We are a maritime and aerospace power by geography and comparative advantage.
We are a republic, not an empire, that should not have its Army garrisoning other nations abroad.
What defense funds we have available should be focused on maritime and aerospace power projection, assuming risk on our land component whose active component should be weighted in an expeditionary manner.
The vast majority of our land component, and most of its heavy formations, should be placed in the Army Reserve and National Guard to afford savings and to be properly aligned with our Founders’ wise counsel on large standing armies.
In 2025, our allies are large enough and rich enough to afford armies to secure their territories enough—back up with quick response from maritime and aerospace forces with quick response Marines and high readiness Army forces if needed, while we mobilize any Reserve and National Guard forces that may be required.
No other nation, even the PRC, has the tactical, operational, and strategic edge our sea-based Marines give the United States. The PRC knows this. That is why they are building from 40,000 to a 100,000+ strong People’s Liberation Army Navy Marine Corps (PLANMC).
If amphibious forces were archaic…I don’t think the PLANMC would be growing, do you?
We need a bunch of amphibs and we have shipyards in the Great Lakes. Here are the limits for vessels that can squeeze through the St Lawrence Seaway ("SeawayMax") and reach the ocean:
Length 740 ft (225.6 m)
Beam 78 ft (23.8 m)
Height 116.5 ft (35.5 m)
Draft 26.51 ft (8.1 m)
America has done this kind of thing before, when we're willing to build a lot of hulls fast for a war, and when we don't care whether the ships last for fifty years or only five. Remember the Liberty Ships?
Perhaps the Great Lakes shipyards can be goosed to churn out smaller amphibs. I don't think we want our Marines packed together into one or two hulking monsters when we can distribute them among a dozen per invasion beach, to complicate the enemy's task of stopping them.
We should be at least as creative as our enemy is:
https://x.com/clashreport/status/1900454822844747778
You are spot on about how we must transition much of the US Army from the active duty to the Army Reserve and Army National Guard to affect massive cost savings and reflect the Founding Father's distaste for large standing armies. By doing this, we could not only save money but actually increase the number of overall Army personnel who are trained and available for activation in the event of a national emergency. We no longer have to worry about the Soviet Union surging a mass mechanized blitzkrieg through the Fulda Gap any longer. So we don't need a large active duty Army force. We do need a smaller elite expeditionary force for contingencies. But first and foremost, we must defend the homeland against unconventional threats while using the US Navy, USAF and USMC to deal with the distant threats. I was a military intelligence analyst who served in both active duty and reserve components for 30 years, in two different services and deployed for Desert Storm, OEF and OIF. You are saying exactly what I have thought for many years on this matter.