North County Times October 01, 2011
MILITARY: Analysis has dire predictions for Marine Corps
By Mark Walker
The Marine Corps could shrink by more than 55,000 troops and lose a variety of equipment if a congressional committee fails to come up with a plan to cut the nation's deficit by roughly $1.2 trillion over the next decade, according to a doomsday scenario and analysis crafted by Republican staffers on the House Armed Services Committee.
If the scenario came true, it probably would prompt a debate about the Marine Corps' role in the nation's defense matrix, according to the analysis.
The six Democrats and six Republicans on the budget-cutting committee must reach agreement by Nov. 23 and have it passed by Congress or $600 billion in defense spending reductions kick in automatically.
That would be on top of $350 billion in defense cuts as part of a deal reached in late July to raise the nation's debt ceiling.
The analysis prepared for Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon, R-Missouri, says that if the automatic cuts go into effect, the Marine Corps could shrink from 202,000 troops today to as few as 145,000.
That would be the lowest number of Marines in more than 50 years.
The service also could see its version of the new F-35 jet fighter canceled, fewer new helicopters, delayed or no new amphibious landing vehicles and a reduction in the number of ships required to move Marines over the oceans and put them ashore.
Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-El Cajon and a member of the Armed Services panel, said he believes that the budget committee will fail to reach an agreement on spending reductions, triggering the automatic cuts.
"It's a very real possibility and I'm worried," said Hunter, who served combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan before being elected to Congress in 2008 and opposed the debt ceiling deal because of the potential for more Pentagon cuts.
"To think we would be able to maintain our military power on the seas under those kinds of cuts is nonsense," he added.
Hunter said Marine Corps officials he has spoken with privately also believe that the potential reductions are very real.
"I'm not going to name any names, but they're saying the cuts would be catastrophic," said Hunter, who has been a staunch supporter of the military and defense spending in the region since taking office.
Maj. Joe Plenzler, a top aide to Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos, said his boss is conducting his own evaluation of the potential impacts on troop levels, operations and equipment.
"The commandant has promised our civilian leadership that he will build the most capable force possible within the constraints of the budget," Plenzler said.
The Marine Corps represents less than 8 percent of the defense budget and is the leanest of the four services.
"I can tell you that when considering the budget, the Marine Corps gives the nation its best bang for the buck when it comes to return on investment in defense spending," Plenzler said.
Although it makes up only 7.8 percent of the defense budget, the Marine Corps provides:
- 12 percent of the country's jet fighters;
- 15 percent of its ground troop brigades;
- 19 percent of its attack helicopters;
- 20 percent of the ground forces in Afghanistan.
The analysis assumes no cuts in military pay or retiree benefits and says Pentagon spending could be slashed by nearly one-fifth overall.
If that happened, the Marine Corps could lose up to two expeditionary brigades, an at-sea expeditionary unit, a new armored personnel carrier, cuts in production of the new V-22 Osprey that takes off and lands like a helicopter and flies like an airplane, and indefinite postponement of the planned replacement of its decades-old amphibious assault vehicle.
If the number of Marines fell below 186,800, combat effectiveness could be harmed and combat deployments could be increased from seven months to a year or more.
"End strength would likely fall below 150,000, hindering the Marine Corps' ability to deploy and rotate forces with sufficient mass," the analysis concludes. "These impacts reduce the ability of the service to be the 'most ready when the nation is least ready' and call into question the role of the service."
Although the analysis ----- which also forecasts deep cuts for the other branches of the military ---- has not been challenged by Democrats, the ranking Democrat on the committee, Adam Smith of Washington, issued a statement saying Republicans have to be willing to raise taxes to stave off the cuts.
"I share their concerns, but at the same, time my Republican colleagues refuse to consider raising any additional revenue," Smith said.
"We cannot just issue dire warnings about the national security impacts of defense cuts," he said. "We must develop a comprehensive national security strategy that takes into account current and future funding and rationally appropriates our resources to best meet our challenges."
Hunter said he plans to go into the issue in depth with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta later this month when the Pentagon chief is scheduled to appear before the Armed Services Committee.
Panetta also has said that the automatic cuts that would take effect could devastate the military at a time when it continues to have more than 100,000 troops at war in Afghanistan and 50,000 in Iraq.
Chances the committee will reach a deal are not great, according to Hunter.
"I'm not optimistic," he said. "It's the reason I voted against the deal (is) because I don't think they can come up with an agreement for the savings they need to find."
Republicans were wrong to even allow the possibility of additional defense cuts to be part of the debt deal, said Hunter, who called it a "giveaway."
"A lot of people in Congress on the left and many of the new Republicans elected in 2010 have no problem cutting defense," he said.
Groups such as the left-leaning Center for American Progress and others believe there is plenty of room to cut defense spending without the kind of scenario envisioned by the Armed Services staff.
John Pike of the defense monitoring firm GlobalSecurity.org in Washington said he largely concurs.
"It's all just budget politicking in my view," he said.
Recommendations from the "supercommittee" go to Congress, which will have one month to vote on any plan it produces.
If the legislation fails, the automatic cuts would go into effect.
© Copyright 2011, North County Times
