If Not The Marines, Then Who? -- Roger S. Galbraith, L.A. TimesSome say training for D-Day-style beach assaults is no longer necessary. So what kind of relevant crisis response force should the U.S. assemble?
In this age of sophisticated, cheap anti-ship missiles, I understand why one might question the need to assemble hundreds of ships for an Inchon-style beach assault or thousands of ships for another D-Day. As The Times reported in its June 21 article, "U.S. rethinks a Marine Corps specialty: storming beaches," assaulting a defended beach is seen as a thing of the past. If that is the only perceived mission for the Marine Corps, then why do we even need a Corps?
Well, if not a Corps, then what do we need?
Read more ....
Hat Tip: Permissible Arms
My Comment: Permissible Arms is right .... this is a snappy comeback to this article.
1 comment:
Since there's no current shortage of well decks - present and planned - amphib capability is and will be a primary function of the Marines - via Navy.
The MEUs ARE the (heavy) rapid response force of NATO. No they will not now fight their way on shore a la Okinawa. Although they probably could. What they possess is the best organic capability to transfer the immediate means of heavy combat AND immediate supply infrastructure on to shore over any other unit on the planet.
Carriers strike groups are great, but with all the massive capability, their role is limited. EG: limited vertical lift and no ship to shore transfer.
If you need an Air Force, call a carrier group. If you need an Army, Navy AND Air Force, call a Marine Expeditionary Unit.
Post a Comment