Turf War: Business as Usual

Another turf war reported inside the DoN (soon to be DoN&MC, but no one is talking about that yet)...

Marine Corps officials for some time have grumbled about the Navy not buying enough amphibious transport ships. These vessels are essential for Marine deployments, officials contend.

Marines argue that they need more amphibious ships to respond to crises around the world and for humanitarian operations. Other ships in the Navy’s budget, such as attack submarines, are less urgently needed because they only are useful in major wars against naval powers.

“We need to think how we spend our money,” said Lt. Gen. James F. Amos, deputy Marine commandant for combat development and integration. Maybe the Navy ought to consider buying fewer submarines, he suggested. “You can probably contain the Chinese fleet and wreak havoc with just five or six attack subs.”

If the Marines want more amphibious ships, then why have they accepted the proposed Sea Base? These turf battles are starting to look silly. The Marines are not wrong, but if they want more amphibious ships, maybe they should use the 18 billion planned for the Sea Base that isn't joint and can't support a full MAG before calling for fewer submarines.

Insert phrase about having your own house straight before calling out someone else's.

And btw, based on the new maritime strategy, I have a suggestion for the Marines coming later this week. I think the Marine Corps officials cited above have a good case based on the new strategy, but it needs to be developed if it is going to meet the requirements as laid out in the strategy. Business as usual, including the current Sea Base plan, doesn't fit well into the strategy as is, (despite what Winter said last week) at least the way I read it. If you read between the lines (like we are asked to do) of the new Maritime Strategy, it doesn't look like a call for a single Sea Base, rather distributed FOBs at sea.

More on that later.

Anyone looking for change in business as usual should avoid reading any comments made last week at the 12th annual Expeditionary Warfare Conference, because you will be disappointed. I do think reconsideration is coming despite so many comments otherwise last week though. Lessons from both wars are yet to make their way into the planning guidance documentation in full force yet, but they will.