Decimating the 9-1-1
Force
Budget Cutters Must Spare U.S.
Marines
By Rep. J. Randy
Forbes , chairman of the U.S. House Armed Services
readiness subcommittee; and Rep. W. Todd
Akin , chairman of the House Armed Services
seapower and projection forces subcommittee.
From the birth of the U.S.Marine Corps in November 1775
to the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima in March 1945 to the current pursuit of
terrorists and efforts to ensure stability in the Western Pacific,
U.S.
Marines have always been recognized as Americans willing to go
in harm’s way at a moment’s notice and stay as long as we ask them to. But that vision is at risk.
At a time when the
Marines have been in combat for 10 years, Congress and the administration
have taken to hacking away at the defense budget. For the Marines, even the
reductions already enacted threaten to cut to the bone. Americans must
recognize that the future may be one without the Marine Corps as we know
it.
Today, the Marines are 202,000 strong. The commandant says he needs
at least 186,800 to carry out the missions asked of him. But the roughly $465
billion in defense cuts enacted under the Budget Control Act will slash the
ranks to 173,000, nearly 14,000 short of the minimum
requirement.As it stands, 29,000 Marines are on
track to be separated from service. However, if automatic defense cuts
under sequestration are triggered, the Marines will be slashed to
145,000 — the smallest Corps
in more than five decades.
Our commanders will be short a staggering
41,600 Marines needed to meet requirements and 57,000 – or more than one in four — will be
pink-slipped.
But that’s just the numbers. The impact on the Corps in
terms of its capability will be devastating.
Noncombat evacuation
operations would likely only be possible in a peaceful environment;
rarely do we ask the Marines to go into an embassy to rescue Americans under
peaceful circumstances.
It would mean the end of
some Marine Expeditionary Units — the same Marines deployed aboard Navy
ships that serve to deter potential aggression and stand ready to respond
as America’s 9-1-1 force to unforeseen crises.
It would also mean
longer deployments and less time at home for those Marines fortunate enough
to keep the job they love.
It doesn’t end there. In addition to
decimating the Marines in service, these cuts would force the smaller Corps to
operate in an austere training environment.
After a decade spent wearing
down their equipment in Iraq, the Corps won’t even be able to repair or
replace the equipment they’ve been using.
At the same time, the Navy
will likely be forced to cut two carrier strike groups
and shrink its fleet of amphibious ships to less than half the current Marine
Corps requirement. This type of radical change to our ability to project
power from the seas hardly seems wise when the U.S. has been increasingly
challenged with the diplomatic hurdles necessary to secure overseas bases
and airfields.
The United States is a maritime nation and always
will be.
As the commandant observed, the Marines provide an ideal
“middleweight force” that is “most ready when the nation is least ready.” Before
leaving office, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said it best: “Our record
of predicting where we will use military force since Vietnam is perfect. We
have never once gotten it right.” In an increasingly dangerous and unpredictable
world, we will continue to need the versatility the Marines can provide, whether
we like it or not.
- from the electronic
version of DefenseNews.com