The 2011 Budget Control Act signed into law by President Obama will break the Marine Corps if the Supercommittee fails in its mission to reduce the budget deficit.
According to a report by the House Armed Services Committee, the Marine Corps will lose 57,000 of its 202,000 Marines and would “require a significant re-evaluation of the Marine Corps’ missions.”
Not only will the Marine Corps shrink to post–Korean War levels, six of 29 amphibious landing ships will be decommissioned, modernization plans for short take-off aircraft shelved, and the reset of equipment for ground forces will be postponed indefinitely.
Before the congressional supercommittee hollows out the Marine Corps, they need to know the story of the Darkhorse Regiment.
For those unfamiliar with the Marines of the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment — over a year ago 1,000 Marines deployed to the Helmand Province in Afghanistan and suffered the highest casualty rate of any Marine unit during ten years of fighting.
This week, National Public Radio featured the men, wives, and families of the 3/5 Darkhorse Regiment. This is how the Marines described their fight with the enemy:
Sgt. Daniel Robert describes it as “hell.” Lance Cpl. Jake Romo calls it “the Wild West.” Lt. Col. Jason Morris says he’d heard it described as “the most dangerous place in Afghanistan.”
The Marines of 3/5 lost 25 brothers while fighting in Sangin in Southern Afghanistan. In response to the mounting losses, the Obama administration’s first reaction was to quit. Then secretary of defense Robert Gates suggested that the Marines should have temporarily pulled out of the area:
The Marines’ top officer, Gen. James Amos, said “absolutely not.
“We don’t do business that way. You would have broken the spirit of that battalion,” Amos says.
Instead of pulling Darkhorse out, the military sent hundreds more Marines, as well as mine-clearing equipment.
General Amos was right — the Marines had to take the fight to the enemy in order to make progress. The results:
Two months went by. By January, things started to get better.
Capt. Chris Esrey remembers that getting “more boots on the deck really increased our patrolling,” while Sgt. Daniel Robert says it became easier for the Marines to get some rest.
The fighting let up. Morris says life returned: markets opened; children were on the streets.
Progress came at a price: 25 dead and 184 wounded, with 34 losing at least one limb over the course of the deployment. But the Marines say it was worth it.
“Every single Marine that was over there — and saw the beginning and saw the end — saw the 180-degree change in that place,” Morris says. “We changed it. We changed it completely.”
“It went from total war-fighting of three months to saving lives and rebuilding homes,” says Sgt. John Decker.
Even Lance Cpl. Baron, who lost one eye, one leg and some of his closest friends, agrees: “It was worth it. If I say it wasn’t worth it, what about my friends that died? I’m disrespecting them, like they died for nothing.”
The war on our enemies won’t be won by quitting, even if temporarily. And we certainly won’t win by hollowing out the Marine Corps while they are still fighting on the battlefield.
— Joel Arends is a veteran of Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom. He currently serves as a captain in the Army Reserve and as chairman of Veterans for a Strong America.
So is this is the right's answer to laying off firefighters and police officers?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUnfortunately, I think that's right.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFunny how liberals always want to lay off police officers and firefighters first---how about laying off some of those bureaucrats instead?
And maybe kicking some people off the dole?
Start with the OWS losers. They obviously produce nothing but fumes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePolice and fire are local concerns that should be paid with local taxes. The common defense is a Federal concern and should paid by with Federal taxes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, no, this is just the same game played by the statists at the Federal level - with the military in place of the local "first responders". "Uh oh! Look what will happen if we cut the budget! The military will have to be reduced. We don't want that now, do we, conservatives?"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTherein lies the problem. Everyone has a reason why they should not give up a dime of taxpayer money. I bet the teachers could write the same piece, replacing marines with teachers and so forth. Each and every department can make the same case, with more or less emotion, as we see here. The only thing they can agree on is who pays for it all.
The funny thing is the proposed cuts in federal spending are 3% of Federal spending over ten years. That's not real cuts, of course. It is a reduction in the rate of growth. In other words, instead of spending $51 trillion, the plan is to spend $50 trillion.
Yet somehow we're supposed to believe this will result in a military incapable of taking on the Girl Scouts.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBill,
So you're equating marines (and sacrificed limbs) with teachers' "summers off"? Despicable.
Tell you what - if Marines and teachers are doing equivalent work, and shouldering equivalent stress and burdens, why not have them switch jobs for a few years? My bet is that we'd lose a ton of overseas battles (only fought 7.5 months a year though - gotta keep those summers and Fall breaks), but our kids in government schools would know how to 'sit still, pay attention, read, write, add, and subtract'.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDon't be silly. He's not saying that. What he's saying is that all the talk about cuts in the world doesn't mean a darn thing because every cut impacts some program that has a constituency. The marines have a constituency. Teachers have a constituency. With more or less emotion, everyone pleads their case. Obvioiulsy your emotions overwhelmingly side with the marines.
All over the country in all different venues people are saying the same things. We have to cut spending! But not grandma's medicare. But not my mortgage deduction. But not my child tax credit. But not my kids Pell grants. But not the marines! Get it?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Marine Corps has more than a constituency, it has a Constitutional mandate. Teachers, not so much.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI emphatically agree with you. There are a few brilliant teachers. But there is almost no serviceman worthy of anything but our admiration and respect.
Our military is why we are the dominant country worldwide, and why China hasn't made more moves in southeast Asia.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe have a LOT of room to cut in the Pentagon, and don't let anyone tell you differently. Like the rest of the federal government, the Pentagon spends too much and does too much. I'm not talking about wartime equipment and manpower costs. I'm talking about normal operations.
The Marines specifically SHOULD shrink significantly. They're too big and do too much. They've become a second army, no matter how much they protest. The Marines should not be able to operate independently... they should be tied at the hip to the Navy. And yet this is how they justify land based KC-130's.
If it can't take off or land from a ship, the Marines shouldn't have it. Period.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The Marines should not be able to operate independently... "
Uh. I wonder why the Marines have used the word "expeditionary" for the better part of the last 100-years?
Your thesis would also come as quite a surprise to the Marines of 6th Marine Regiment who, for more than five months, fought alongside the Army's 2ID and French forces as they battled to push the German's out of of France - more than 150-miles from the nearest Naval ship, culminating in one of the most storied Marine Corps victories in its long history at the at Battle of Belleau Wood.
Is there any place on the internet where you regularly share with the public your musings on military doctrine, because this stuff is dynamite?
I mean, I don't believe I have read anything funnier in years.
And, once you're finished talking about the Marine Corps, perhaps you could move to another subject you clearly know nothing about.
Physics? Do you have anything "interesting" to say on Multiverse Theory or the large hadron collider?
I'll sit back as I wait for the hilarity to ensue.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't care that they fought 150 miles from the nearest ship in WWI. They shouldn't have. Services have roles. Marines are supposed to be small, elite amphibious infantry forces operating from naval groups. Why send them 150 miles inland? That's what armies are for.
Despite your weak sarcasm, I reiterate my main point: a smaller government means a smaller military, with reduced roles and reduced redundant capabilities. It is absolutely hypocritical to slash the welfare state (which we SHOULD do) and then ignore the military industrial complex. The founders distrusted large standing military forces for good reasons.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"military industrial complex"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour OWS is showing.
"Your OWS is showing."
Opposition to leviathan government and the national security state isn't OWS. It's inherently conservative. Look in the mirror before you sling names.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd, it is *not* hypocritical to "slash" the welfare state and ignore the military. The military *is* the largest portion of the "discretionary" spending, but it is overwhelmed by entitlement spending. As a matter of fact, that mandatory spending is 4 times what we spend on the military. (I won't even mention that whole constitutionality thing.) If we cut the military spending to $0, it still wouldn't eliminate the deficit this year. If we only cut entitlement spending in half, the deficit would poof out of existence.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat a supremely silly statement: "If it can't take off or land from a ship, the Marines shouldn't have it."
As to whether the Marines should shrink in manpower, that's a decision that should be made based on *doctrinal* considerations, and funding should _follow_, not cut the force then ask for a doctrine that might fit their new diminished abilities.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Everyone has a reason why they should not give up a dime of taxpayer money. "
Did you even think about this sentence before you hit "enter"?
We aren't talking about the Marine Corps giving up a "dime". We're talking about the Marine Corps giving up more than a quarter of its total fighting force.
Will the Department of Education be giving up a quarter of its labor? How about the Department of Transportation? HUD? Labor?
There is a Constitutional mandate for the federal government to provide for the comment defense. There is no mandate for the Department of Education or Labor.
That's not real cuts, of course."
Not a real cuts? So, these 57K Marines are only going to pretend to be deactivated, retired or dismissed?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThanks for proving my point.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAmen to that. And to the commenters who say Afgh is lost or of no consequence so let's retreat...
Our son recently returned from Helmand and was with the 3/5 Marines mentioned in the NPR story and the main post above. He's not a big cheese, but is very smart, first in his boot camp class of 600.
He says if we skedaddle from Afgh, the badguys will have free launch-space into Pakistan, and would grab its nukes. Have you any doubt, dear skeptics, that AlQuaeda would find a way to use them? Bring them in parts into a large city and set a timer, for example. They are itching for a 911 redux.
It is so naive to think we can leave -- we have to do what we did in Germany, Japan, Korea -- that's what a superpower Does. We're the adults, usually.
I don't relish the thought of more sons & daughters blown up over there, but who wants to find out what AQ would do with no boot on its throat.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse