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.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
