Taking The Navy-Marine Corps Team Into The 21st Century AUTHOR LCDR Sean T. Cate, USN CSC 1991 SUBJECT AREA - National Military Strategy EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: TAKING THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS TEAM INTO THE 21ST CENTURY I. Purpose: To establish the threats to U.S. national security which can be expected to materialize in the near future and show how the Navy-Marine Corps team is best suited for the crisis response these threats will necessitate. II. Thesis: The Navy-Marine Corps team must enter the 21st century with a new vision as to its role in the national defense system based on the dramatic changes in the threat to national security, the need for rapid, sustainable responses to crisis situations and the requirement for a strong, conventional deterrence. III. Discussion: The end of the Warsaw Pact, internal problems in the Soviet Union, and the rise of Third World military forces has forever changed the national security problem for the United States. President Bush's vision of a " new world order" will probably be dominated by success of the United Nations to deal with future crises. Faced with substantial cuts in defense force structures, the United States must clearly define the future threat and structure its military accordingly. An analysis of various potential trouble spots in which U.S. interests are concerned shows that despite a diminished threat of Soviet aggression in Europe, there are still plenty of countries capable of creating a crisis such as we have seen with the Iraqi aggression against Kuwait. There is a very important point which can be taken from this study, and that is that each of these countries can come under the influence of the Navy- Marine Corps team in time of crisis. With its inherent mobility, sustainability and power projection capability, the Navy-Marine Corps team can be expected to be the force of choice called upon in a crisis. IV. Summary: Many regional crises are likely to occur before the dream of a "new world order" is realized. As a maritime nation dependent upon the seas for most of our international trade, the United States requires a Navy- Marine Corps team second to none to protect its interests. The fact that most crises we can expect will affect our maritime interests in some respect makes this even more imperative. V. Conclusions: Each armed service in the military has a role to play in our national defense. In time of war they mesh as a joint force to carry out the national strategy. A rapidly developing crisis, however, requires a response by a force which is forward deployed, mobile, combat ready and sustainable. The Navy-Marine Corps team is uniquely suited to fulfilling this roll. When force structures are cut, this fact must remain clear to our nation's leadership. We must accept nothing less than the best equipped, best trained and most combat capable Navy-Marine Corps team in the world. TAKING THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS TEAM INTO THE 21ST CENTURY LCDR SEAN T. CATE, USN, CG-7 Thesis: The Navy-Marine Corps team must enter the 21st century with a new vision as to its role in the national defense system based on the dramatic changes in the threat to national security, the need for rapid, sustainable responses to crisis situations and the requirement for a strong, conventional deterrence. I. THE NEW WORLD ORDER A. Expanded role of the United Nations B. Changes in the Soviet threat C. The peace dividend II. THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS TEAM A. Historical cooperation B. Sustained power projection C. Conventional deterrence III. CRISIS RESPONSE A. Threats to national security B. Persian Gulf conflict lessons C. Future scenarios IV. THE FUTURE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT A. Army capabilities and roles B. Air Force capabilities and roles C. The Navy-Marine Corps team 1. Naval shipping 2. Prepositioned equipment 3. The MEB and MAGTF TAKING THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS TEAM INTO THE 21ST CENTURY The sweeping changes to the world's political order which have occurred in the last two years would have been difficult for even a hermit to miss. The collapse of the "Iron Curtain", the fractious dissent in the Soviet Union, and the rise of Third World military forces have dramatically altered the national security equation which has been the cornerstone for setting the United States defense priorities. As we look to the future, a new vision of the world order, and the military's role in it, is required. The United States today is the preeminent superpower in the world. The successful prosecution of a short but decisive war against Iraqi aggression has solidified the standing of the United States in the Middle East and the world. Our historical roots as a maritime nation challenge us to determine the course our Navy-Marine Corps team must steer into the uncharted waters ahead. The Navy-Marine Corps team must enter the 21st century with a new vision as to its role in the national defense system based on the dramatic changes in the threat to national security, the need for rapid, sustainable responses to crisis situations and the requirement for a strong, conventional deterrence. THE NEW WORLD ORDER Before we can define the future role of the Navy- Marine Corps team, an examination of the changing threat to our national security is necessary. The vision of a "new world order", and how the Navy-Marine Corps team will fit in it, can be seen through the expanded role of the United Nations as an instrument for settling disputes between countries, the diminished Soviet threat (if, indeed, it has diminished) and the overall scope of our nation's military after cashing in on the "peace dividend." President Bush first enunciated the vision of the new world order in a speech to Congress reporting on the goals of the U.S.-led coalition assembled in Saudi Arabia to deter further Iraqi aggression following its seizure of Kuwait. In this speech he said: A new partnership of nations has begun, and we stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward a historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times...a new world order...can emerge: a new era - freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, east and west, north and south, can prosper and live in harmony. (2) The United Nation Charters' purpose of "maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations and the principle of equal rights and self-determination, and encouraging international cooperation in solving international economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian problems" is the umbrella by which we legitimize this "new world order." When the nations of the world are united in purpose, as was seen in the Persian Gulf crisis, international disputes can be resolved. The birth of the new world order is seen in the progress of arms control agreements, deescalation and resolution of many Third World conflicts, including the restoration of Kuwait's sovereignty, the so-called "Velvet" revolutions in Eastern Europe and U.S.-Soviet agreements on German reunification, Iraqi sanctions, and other issues. (6: 3) These watershed events have led to the end of the Cold War and allow for a reordering of security priorities. The collapse of communism and the end of the Cold War by no means ends rivalry in international politics. A non- communist Soviet Union still has the potential to create regional instabilities and democracy is not assured of replacing socialism there.(4: 89) The Soviet Unified Military Doctrine, developed in the 1920s, embraces two concepts of military power; the socio-political, and the military-technical.(6: 3) The Soviet military build-up under Brezhnev defined the military-technical aspect of doctrine. Under Gorbachev, it is the socio-political aspect which is most dynamic. (6: 4) Marshal S. F. Akhromeyev, the retired Chief of the General Staff and an advisor to Gorbachev, has stated that three principles, "demilitarization, democratization and deideologization" will be the basis of the Soviet Union's new security system. (6: 7) Any shift of Soviet military power to a completely defensive structure will take at least ten years according to their estimates. (6: 9) While we wait for such a transformation to occur, how will we structure our forces? Dr. Robert Kaufman of the Heritage Foundations says: The history of the Cold War demonstrates that the American people will bear the burden and pay the price of global leadership so long as American statesmen articulate the rationale for internationalism. The rational is indeed convincing. To retrench substantially now, or even in the future with the Cold War won, would merely risk repeating the historic mistakes of the 1920s, when the United States retreated into isolationism. (4: 96) Despite this, a rush is on to slash the military budget and produce a "peace dividend." Senator Jake Garn (R-Utah) of the Subcommittee for Defense Appropriations said: We hear so much about the so-called "peace dividend." I would suggest that over the last 45 years the peace dividend has been peace itself, and that there has been a very direct correlation between a strong NATO and a strong United States and events that have taken place" (vis-a-vis the end of the Cold War).(11: 6) In view of these admonitions, social and political realities must also be faced. The perceived reduction of the Soviet threat combined with a variety of social ills at home will cause cuts in our force structure and military outlays. While many of the world's citizens view a strong, self-confident America as the best hope for freedom, justice and democracy in the world, we must ensure our own house is in order if we are to claim to be the leader of the free world. Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney has attempted to structure the future military based on six requirements essential to maintaining our national defense. These are: First, the political changes in the Soviet Union have not decreased their capability to wage global nuclear war. Proliferation of nuclear weapons to other countries, further, requires maintenance of a capable nuclear deterrence. Second, the system of alliances and forward deployed forces is key to our strategies. Any cutbacks in these areas will be made carefully and cautiously. Third, the maintenance of a reinforcement capability in the continental United States, both active and reserve, to bolster deployed forces when required. Fourth, the United States is a maritime nation and we have the best navy in the world. There is no reason to give that up. Fifth, maintain contingency forces to conduct operations such as the Panama "Just Cause" scenario. Sixth, research and development which drive our technology base and which has made our weapons systems the best in the world. (11: 17-19) These six requirements for our future military will drive how the Navy-Marine Corps team will be structured into the next century. THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS TEAM The Navy and Marine Corps, deployed around the world, provide the United States with a unique ability, based upon our national defense requirements, to influence global events in support of our historical objectives of peace, freedom and democracy. With their staying power and tactical advantages, the long reach of the Navy-Marine Corps team contributes to stability in many ways while offering a diverse and flexible force to the far reaches of the "Seven Seas." The roots of the Navy-Marine Corps team trace back to the very origins of our country. Born in the American Revolution, it has matured into the most diversified and effective fighting force in the world. One of the earliest missions assigned the fledgling team, carried out in the Tripolitan War of 1801-1805, clearly demonstrates the vital necessity to a maritime nation of having a Navy-Marine Corps team that is second to none. In 1780, the Pasha of Tripoli began to exact tolls from the merchants plying the Mediterranean. His Barbary Pirates would enforce this restriction on trade. Non-compliance was met with seizure of vessels and imprisoning of crews. In 1801, the Pasha increased the amount of tribute to be paid and became even more ruthless in enforcement. President Jefferson enacted policy prohibiting payment of the tribute and sent the Navy-Marine Corps team "to the shores of Tripoli" to end the violent attacks on U.S. merchantmen caused by this unacceptable restraint of free trade. Through a campaign of boarding pirate ships, conducting amphibious raids to free prisoners in the Pasha's prisons, coastal bombardment of enemy fortifications and a blockade of Tripolitan ports, the threat of the Barbary Pirates was forever removed from the Mediterranean. A more recent mission of the Navy-Marine Corps team has been the protection of U.S. citizens abroad who become caught up in local civil unrest. Marines have been called upon to evacuate U.S. citizens in Guatemala (1954), the Dominican Republic (1965), Liberia (1990), and Somalia (1991). In addition, they stood ready to evacuate citizens, including then Vice-President Richard Nixon, during civil unrest in Venezuela in 1958. The presence of a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) off the coast of Burma in 1989 prompted that government to open its airports to allow escape of foreigners. (10: III-8) Admiral Charles R. Larson, the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Pacific Command addressed three principles to guide future decisions on defense and they immediately summon up visions of the Navy-Marine Corps team. The principles, as he states them, are: First, we are and will remain a maritime nation, and the oceans of the world are our lifeline. Second, our basic mission is to deter aggression. Weak forces encourage aggression; strong ones do not. Third, when you have something that works, as we do today in our naval forces, be glad of it, and protect it.(7: 18) Sea-based power projection forces, including amphibious ready groups and carrier battle groups, are forces which bring multidimensional capabilities to our defensive structure. Their inherent mobility and sustainabilitymake them crucial to the defense of American interests in those parts of the world where basing facilities for ground forces are not to be found. The Unites States, by necessity, is a maritime power. Virtually all of our foreign trade is conducted by seaborne means. (7: 13) The vital lifeline of our nation rests on the safety and security of our maritime forces. The Navy-Marine Corps team is forward deployed around the world, ready to protect our maritime commerce. The amphibious assault capability to project air and ground combat power from the sea is crucial for conventional deterrence in the likely trouble spots of the world. The Navy-Marine Corps team brings unique qualities to bear across the spectrum of potential conflict. From low intensity to high intensity operations, the Navy-Marine Corps team is capable of dealing with the threat. It has the ability to affect events ashore through its air, naval and ground combat capabilities. The relative strength of a deployed MEU gives it superiority over many potential adversaries, and when backed by carrier aviation it becomes one of the strongest forces anywhere. It is uniquely capable of responding to, and defending against, a sudden attack and can fight effectively once engaged in hostilities. As such, the Navy-Marine Corps team is a "go anywhere, do anything" organization that can't be matched by any other service and presents any potential adversary with a force it must gravely concern itself with before launching any mischief. CRISIS RESPONSE A brief look at the new world order and how the Navy- Marine Corps team may fit in to it has been given. Before a discussion of the future Defense Department is undertaken, a look at the likely threats to our national security from future scenarios is required. The world is becoming multipolar, and economic and military power is becoming increasingly diffused, particularly in the Third World. (7: 9) Our nation's security policy boils down to three areas of concern: "the nation's relative military and defense standing vis-a-vis other states and alliances, its foreign relations position, and its defense posture and ability to resist hostile or destructive action."(10: II-1) Today, there is only one true threat to the very survival of the United States, and that is a global war with the Soviet Union escalating from conventional to nuclear annihilation. Other threats, less serious though still important, loom as obstacles to achieving the new world order. Regional instabilities, such as the recent Iraqi conflict are certain to tax our security posture. Many areas, particularly in the Third World, have conditions such as overt poverty, undisciplined governments and other instabilities which make them ripe for conflict. When their conflicts collide with our national interests, national security can be threatened. Terrorism is always looming as a potential threat to our national security. Much is made of the success of individual acts of terrorism, such as the bombing of the Pan Am fight over Scotland, but the reality is that these acts are so isolated in nature that, though they capture our attention and provoke our anger, they really pose no concrete threat to our national security. This is not to say it is not possible for terrorism to threaten the national security. There are many scenarios in which the terrorist can achieve strategic success. So far, though, terrorism is a painful annoyance we hope will go away. Negotiations on limits to conventional and nuclear weapons currently are not going well. This, coupled with conventional weapon proliferation to many countries and concerns about nuclear proliferation, can pose obvious threats. With more countries acquiring more weapons, more leaders may be tempted to initiate conflicts. The drug wars are also a potential threat to our national security. If nothing else, they point out the porous nature of our borders and the difficulty of preventing smuggling. Crime in our streets and increased violence in our society can often be traced to the scourge of drugs. This area could be our most serious internal threat to national security. The biggest regional security threat to the U.S. has just been played out in the Persian Gulf. Iraq's takeover of Kuwait and subsequent threat to Saudi Arabia became a direct challenge to our vital interests in the region. Many lessons, both political and military, will be learned in analysis of this crisis. The introduction of U.S. forces to the gulf region, and the logistics build-up which accompanied it, was impressive. One thing that must be remembered though, is the unique situation this build-up occurred in. Ideal port and air facilities, which the enemy didn't challenge during the build-up, were available for the introduction of forces to the region. A five month defensive stalemate allowed our forces to build strength and acclimate to the region. The rapid introduction of the Navy-Marine Corps team contributed to this stalemate, and time, in this case, worked to our advantage. A more aggressive opponent could make things more difficult in the future. Perhaps the biggest emerging reality of Desert Shield and Desert Storm is that the American people fully expect partners to share the costs associated with controlling regional conflicts. "Allies are a clear prerequisite to any regional collective security, both to share the burden of fighting and to establish a satisfactory regional security arrangement after the contingency is over."(1: 18) No small effort was made by President Bush and Secretary of State Baker to form the allied coalition and then hold it together. The future may hold scenarios which are not quite so obliging to our preparations for warfare. A recent study by the Institute for Defense Analysis lists 48 possible sites for future conflict which may involve U.S. interests. Significant in the study is the fact that "few of the nations in the world are landlocked, and most of these are not likely sites for the use of force by the United States."(10: IV-5) Europe and the Soviet Union were not considered in the study though assimilation of Eastern European countries into the free world community could cause some friction. It should be no surprise that all major Middle East countries, along with North Korea, Cuba, Peru, Pakistan-India and Vietnam are high on the list. Mexico, faced with rapid population growth and a fragile political-economic infrastructure, could be the first nation in two centuries to seriously threaten our border integrity. (10: V-5) The flow of illegal aliens and drugs across the border currently tax the limits of our law enforcement capability. Should a serious natural or man- made catastrophe bring ruin to the Mexican economy, a staggering flood of refugees could challenge our ability to handle them. Predicting where and when future conflicts may occur, or the exact nature of the threat they will pose to our national security, is highly speculative at best. One thing that does seem clear, however, is that our nation will face some stiff challenges and possible threats to security before the new world order envisioned by our leadership is obtained. The likelihood that our military forces will have to be committed in response to these challenges seems certain. THE FUTURE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT The dynamic world situation has created a wholesale reevaluation of defense requirements. It is certain our military forces will be reduced in size, if not capability. Changes in our force structure to achieve short-term monetary savings can have serious long term consequences if the strategic implications and costs of such moves are not adequately understood. (7: 10) In attempting to clarify the new world order and the possible crises which may occur before it is realized, the strategic consequences of arbitrary cuts in defense are apparent. The future Defense Department will need to have a clear vision of the capabilities and roles of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. The Navy-Marine Corps team of the future must be the most capable arm of defense, as the scenarios presented indicate that its unique capabilities for rapid, sustained response will make it the service of choice in crisis situations. The United States Army is facing force reductions from 28 divisions (18 active) to 18 divisions (12 active) by fiscal 1995. (Note: These and subsequent figures on future force structure are based on analysis of several sources.) As our nation's land force, the Army has primarily been forward-based, capable of carrying out our strategy of deterrence. The success of this strategy now allows us to draw back from a forward-based posture, though some forces, naturally will remain on the front lines. The Army's AirLand Battle doctrine is currently under review due to the changes in the world situation. Conventional arms control agreements and the high cost of modern armies will combine to shrink the battlefield of the future. It is how the Army will fight on the "less dense, less-structured battlefield" of the future that will "characterize warfare by 1995 and beyond." The principle of mass at the tactical level will require "rapid mental and physical action" by the commander due to the diminished size of his forces.(9: 3) Ironically, this is precisely how the Marine Corps has long fought its battles: a small but potent force challenging a determined aggressor. The Army's analysis of the AirLand Battle future further states "the more open battlefield places a premium on mobility, agility, flexibility and rapid generation of combat power."(9: 10) Again, this could just as well be a textbook definition of the Marine Corps' proven capabilities. The Army is not going to become a second Marine Corps by any means. Its heavy mechanized and armored forces are required for many defense scenarios of the future. It must be remembered, though, that introduction of these forces into a theater, if they are not already forward-based in or near that theater, will take some time and considerable air and sealift. The Army's light infantry and airborne divisions lack much in the way of sustainability. In most future scenarios, the Navy-Marine Corps team will be required to rapidly respond to the situation and maintain it to allow for introduction of follow-on forces. The United States Air Force, fresh from the decisive victory in the Persian Gulf, will also face its share of cuts. Tactical fighter wings will shrink from 36 (24 active) to 26 (15 active) by 1995 and the number of strategic bombers will drop from 268 to 181 in the same period. Nowhere else are the advanced technology gains in military hardware more evident than in the field of aviation. Stealth technology and "smart" weapons demonstrated in the Gulf War have made believers out of many skeptics. Although our future forces will be smaller in number, they should be more versatile, lethal and sustainable. The Air Force mission of lifting the Army to the theater of operations will require secure airfields from which to operate. Once again, the Navy-Marine Corps team, arriving on the scene with combat power projection and sustainability which can't be matched, will play a key role in securing and defending advanced airfields pending arrival of follow-on forces. The Navy is expected to shrink from 545 to 451 ships by 1995. The Marine Corps' manpower will drop from nearly 200,000 to 171,000 in the same period. Whereas cuts for the Army and Air Force can be attributed to the end of the requirement to defend Western Europe, the Navy-Marine Corps team will face taskings and missions undiminished by these changes. The task at hand is to meet our current and future challenges with a smaller but more capable force. Naval shipping and aircraft being built today can be expected to have lifetimes of 30 or more years. The dramatic changes in technology over only a few years would rapidly make these systems obsolete if not for the periodic modernizations we incorporate into their life cycles. Our future capabilities must always keep a step ahead of any potential adversary. Crisis events will cause our forces to deploy on short notice. The sustainability of the force, more so than size, will be the key to success.(8: 14) Maritime Preposition Shipping (MPS) gives us flexibility for response to various regions of the world. When MPS is married up with the Navy- Marine Corps team, a small but strong, capable and sustainable fighting force is ready to meet the challenge. The Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF), composed of one or more Marine Expeditionary Brigades (MEB's) deployed on naval shipping, provides a "total combat capability" able to react in a short time.(5: 5) The MAGTF'S role in future operations, particularly joint or combined operations, will be to pave the way for introduction of follow-on forces. The capabilities of a MAGTF to influence events ashore give the Navy-Marine Corps team a broad reach capable of handling many contingencies. Each service has its role to play in our national defense. The unique capabilities of each branch of the armed forces inherently requires them to mesh in times of war to carry out the overall strategy. The many changes facing the world today and in the future will likely lead us down the road to military confrontation. The Navy-Marine Corps team's role in our national defense will be as a leading deterrent; a strong, rapid and sustainable force able to implement our national strategy globally so long as we maintain the vision necessary to maintain it as our preeminent fighting force. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Brown, Lt.Gen. Frederic J. "AirLand Battle Future: The Other Side of the Coin." Military Review, February 1991, pp. 13-24. 2. Bush, George H. W. Presidential Address to the Joint Session of Congress. Washington: 11 September 1990. 3. Cheney, Dick. Annual Report to the President and the Congress. January 1991. 4. Kaufman, Robert G. "A Paradigm for a Post-Postwar Order." Naval War College Review, Winter 1991, pp. 83-97. 5. Kelso, Adm. Frank B. Report by the Chief of Naval Operations on the Posture and Fiscal Year 1992-1993 Budget of the U.S. Navy. Washington: 14 February 1991. 6. Kipp, Jacob W. "Soviet Military Doctrine in the Post-Cold War Era." Military Review, December 1990, pp. 3-15. 7. Larson, Adm. Charles R. "National Interests and Naval Forces in the 1990s." Naval War College Review, Winter 1990, pp. 9-18. 8. McManus, Michael D. and Frederick M. McNamee. Relationships Between Mobility, Sustainability, and Firepower. Bethesda, MD: Logistics Management Institute, 1991. 9. Silvacy, Maj.Gen Stephen. "AirLand Battle Future: The Tactical Battlefield." Military Review, February 1991, pp 2-12. 10. Stein, Peter et al. Force Structure Alternatives Phase I. Alexandria, VA: Institute for Defense Analyses, 1991. 11. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Appropriations. Subcommittee on Defense. Department of Defense Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1991. Hearing. Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1990.
