How the Chinese threat forces the US Marines to “reinvent themselves”

Several former high-ranking Marine Corps commanders have been critical of the current leadership over plans to “reinvent” the corps. But why?

In a recent meeting at the White House, the President of the United States, Joe Biden, and the Prime Minister of Japan, Fumio Kishida, discussed the strengthening of military cooperation between the two countries and reaffirmed their commitment to ensure security in Indonesia . American Pacific region, in the midst of conflicts with China and North Korea.

But behind the scenes, the focus on Asia has sparked heated debate within one of America’s most iconic military forces, according to Jonathan Marcus, former BBC defense and diplomacy correspondent and now honorary professor at the Institute for Strategy and Security. University of Exeter, England.

At the heart of the controversy is one of the US military’s holiest institutions, the Marine Corps.

Many of its former high-ranking commanders have been critical of the current leadership over its plans to “reinvent” the company.

The crux of the matter revolves around the need to adapt the force for a potential conflict against China, a plan dubbed Force Design 2030.

Practically from the beginning, this plan was criticized by several retired generals, who went to the press to share their frustrations, which is atypical in this environment.

Retired senior officials meet regularly; speak at seminars and think tanks; as well as devising their own alternative to a plan they see as a disaster for the future of the Marine Corps.

One prominent critic is Jim Webb, a former US Secretary of the Navy and former Senator from Virginia, who served as a naval officer in the Vietnam War and ran for the 2015 Democratic presidential nomination.

In an article in the US newspaper Wall Street Journal, he described Force Design 2030 as “inadequately tested” and “inherently flawed”. He warned that the plan “has raised serious questions about the wisdom and long-term risk of dramatic reductions in force structure, weapon systems and manpower levels in units that would suffer sustained casualties under most combat scenarios.” “.

But why has this plan attracted so much criticism?

Launched in 2020 by Marine Corps Commanding General David H Berger, the plan aims to equip Marines for a potential conflict with China in the Indo-Pacific region rather than counterinsurgency wars like Iraq and Afghanistan.

The new plan calls for the Marines to fight in dispersed operations across island chains. The smaller, more widely distributed units will have a much greater impact across a wider range of new weapon systems.

Large-scale amphibious landings as in World War II or even massive troop deployments on land, as in Iraq, will likely be a thing of the past.

Cutting troop numbers and giving up all tanks are the most unpopular points so far in this new plan, so much so that some critics have even claimed that the force is turning its back on its past.

While it has close ties to the United States Navy, the Marine Corps is a separate force that grew significantly during World War II and has taken a prominent role in the recent campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Public perceptions of the Marine Corps are heavily influenced by the experience of World War II. Anyone who saw John Wayne in the 1949 feature film, ‘Iwo Jima, the Gateway to Glory’, or the more recent miniseries, The Pacific, produced by Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks, will remember large-scale amphibious operations; men attacking on land from landings and so on.

But that’s not what the new plan for the Marines provides.

His traditional role as a US military first responder, capable of tackling disparate challenges around the world, is what critics say could be undermined by the new plan with its clear focus on China and the Indo-Pacific.

So what exactly does the plan involve?

• Take down some infantry battalions – the foot soldiers –

• Replace about three-quarters of its towed artillery with long-range missile systems

• Shrink multiple helicopter squadrons

• Abolish all tanks

The money for new weapons systems, totaling $15.8 billion, will be financed by cuts totaling about $18.2 billion.

In addition to the new rocket artillery systems, there will be new anti-ship missiles that can be launched from land and new unmanned aerial systems. The goal is to equip and train the Marine Corps for a new kind of warfare that the fighting in Ukraine has already foreshadowed.

The key driver of Force Design 2030 is what the Marine Corps commander calls “distributed operations,” breaking large forces into smaller, widely distributed units, but making sure they have enough military strength to really make a difference.

Those principles have already been put into practice in the Japanese islands of Okinawa near Taiwan, where Marines stationed there will undergo retraining, according to US officials.

Military expert Mike O’Hanlon, director of foreign policy at the Brookings Institution think tank in Washington DC, dismisses the central criticism that the new focus on China could harm Navy operations elsewhere. The Marines will go where they’re told, he says, and the new strategy probably won’t have as big an impact on operations as some think.

“What really matters in this regard is the withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan in recent years – that’s the big change, whether or not (and especially before) General Berger’s vision is developed.”

Many analysts insist that change is essential for Marines to meet the challenges of the modern battlefield.

Frank Hoffman of the US National Defense University, himself a former Navy officer, says: “I think critics are looking back on a glorious past and failing to see the strategic picture regarding China and technology in a really disappointing way.”

While the Marines’ tank withdrawal has drawn specific criticism, Hoffman believes this is the right course of action. There will still be plenty of armored vehicles, he argues, but not “the heavy tanks and their tankers.”

“It is an adaptation to cover a deeper area with a more precise combination of firepower, as we are seeing in Ukraine. The force has used its aviation element to achieve this range in the past and will now have a combination of traditional artillery and a wide range of missiles that will increase the lethality and range of its firepower.”

These are all steps that many argue are justified by Ukraine’s lessons.

The utility and importance of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs); rocket artillery; and the ability to attack from great range with great accuracy were emphasized in the Russia-Ukraine war and are part of the Marines’ new plans. But the imagined battlefield is very different: not the forests and steppes of Ukraine, but chains of islands stretching across the vast expanse of the Pacific Ocean.

Force Design 2030 is an ever-evolving program. There have already been changes and there will be more. And while the direction of this program has been established, there are still huge problems to solve, especially the logistical challenges posed by a force that could be deployed over a large area.

Amphibious transport will play a key role here. And as Nick Childs, senior fellow for naval forces and maritime security at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) think tank in London, UK, explains, new types of ships will be needed.

“Relying solely on their large traditional amphibious vessels would make them very vulnerable to the types of modern weaponry they are likely to face,” he says. “Therefore, new types of smaller vessels in greater numbers will be vital for the Marine Corps to operate in a more agile and dispersed manner.”

But having more ships available won’t be easy. Smaller ones can be built quickly and in a wide variety of shipyards, but not necessarily at the required rate.

The US Navy is also in need of significant numbers of new warships and it is not known if there will be the necessary funds or production capacity.

It is the age-old problem of balancing financial resources and strategic priorities. And the crisis in Ukraine shows that old threats can reappear the moment a force takes a completely new path.

Source: Terra

Rose

Rose James is a Gossipify movie and series reviewer known for her in-depth analysis and unique perspective on the latest releases. With a background in film studies, she provides engaging and informative reviews, and keeps readers up to date with industry trends and emerging talents.