Marine Corps Drawdown, Force Structure Initiatives, and Roles and Missions: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional research reportFeb 28, 2014

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Marine Corps Drawdown, Force Structure

Initiatives, and Roles and Missions:

Background and Issues for Congress

(name redacted)

Specialist in Military Ground Forces

February 28, 2014

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

R43355

Marine Corps Drawdown, Force Structure Initiatives, and Roles and Missions

Summary

The Marine Corps characterizes itself as a crisis response expeditionary force which is task

organized and able to conduct operations across the entire spectrum of military operations. The

Corps is a “middleweight force” that is designed to fill the void in our Nation’s defense structure

between light Special Operations Forces (SOF) and heavier conventional units. The Marines’

missions are codified in U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 5063, United States Marine Corps:

Composition and Functions, and marines are the nation’s primary amphibious force, capable of

conducting amphibious assault operations in both permissive and non-permissive environments.

Marine operational forces are organized for specific tasks and consist of four elements; a

command element; a ground combat element; an aviation element; and a logistics combat

element. There are four types of Marine Air Ground Task Forces (MAGTFs): the Marine

Expeditionary Force (MEF); the Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB); the Marine Expeditionary

Unit (MEU); and the Special Purpose MAGTF.

A number of decisions pertaining to national security strategy, force structure, and declining

defense budgets have resulted in a drawdown of the active Marine Corps from 202,000 in 2011 to

174,000 by 2017. On February 24, 2014, Secretary of Defense Hagel announced that the Marines

would draw down to a 182,000 Marine active force, but if sequestration-level cuts were

reimposed in 2016 and beyond, the Marines would shrink to a 175,000 Marine active force.

The Marines have instituted a number of force shaping programs to reach the 182,000

endstrength. They believe this force level can be achieved through natural attrition as well as

voluntary separation programs where Marines who leave the service early can receive financial

compensation. Officials caution that if the Marines are required to drawdown lower than 182,000,

involuntary separation programs might need to be enacted.

The Marines have instituted a number of force structure initiatives including creating Special

Purpose MAGTFs - Crisis Response (SPMAGTF-CR) to respond to a variety of regional crises,

including attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities and personnel. In the wake of the September 11,

2012, Benghazi attack, Congress authorized 1,000 additional Marine security guards beginning

FY2014. In response, the Marines are in the process of expanding their Marine Corps Embassy

Security Group. The Marine Corps Special Operations Command (MARSOC) is also regionallyaligning its operational units and taking steps to begin deploying small MARSOC teams with

MEUs.

A sampling of academic discussions focusing on the Marine Corps of the future suggests the

Marines and Special Operations Forces (SOF) could be given the lead responsibility for

worldwide ground engagement. Another proposal suggests that Marines should operate in small,

decentralized units and that the Marines’ focus could shift to company and battalion-sized units,

the so-called “sweet spot” for joint ground forces. Others contend that more Marine major war

fighting units, such as armor, be moved into the Marine Corps Reserves and that Marine Aviation

should be reorganized.

A potential issue for Congress includes should the Marines be given the leading role in the Pacific

and should their primary focus be crisis response? Other possible issues for examination include

how much amphibious assault capability does the Marine Corps need; should MEUs be

reorganized; and should more of the Marines’ major warfighting capability be placed in the

Reserves?

Congressional Research Service

Marine Corps Drawdown, Force Structure Initiatives, and Roles and Missions

Contents

Importance to Congress ................................................................................................................... 1

Background ...................................................................................................................................... 1

Marine Corps Roles and Missions ............................................................................................. 1

Marine Corps Reserve ............................................................................................................... 2

How the Marines Organize Their Operational Forces ............................................................... 3

Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF).......................................................................... 3

Types of MAGTFs .............................................................................................................. 3

Decisions Impacting Marine Corps Size and Force Structure ................................................... 5

January 6, 2011, News Briefing with Secretary of Defense Gates and Chairman of

the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen ......................................................................... 5

March 14, 2011, Report of the 2010 Marine Corps Force Structure Review Group........... 5

January 26, 2012, Administration Major Budget Decision Briefing ................................... 6

2013 Strategic Choices and Management Review (SCMR) ............................................... 7

2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) ......................................................................... 7

Planned Drawdown Levels ........................................................................................................ 8

DOD’s FY2015 Budget Preview ............................................................................................... 8

Force Reduction and Shaping Programs .......................................................................................... 9

Force Structure Initiatives .............................................................................................................. 10

Special Purpose MAGTFs—Crisis Response (SPMAGTF-CR) ............................................. 10

Expansion of Marine Security Guard Program ....................................................................... 10

Marine Special Operations Command (MARSOC) Regional Assignments and

Potential Return to Sea ......................................................................................................... 11

Selected External Perspectives: Marine Corps Roles, Missions, and Force Structure .................. 11

The Marines and Special Operations Forces (SOF) Responsible for Worldwide

Ground Engagement ............................................................................................................. 12

Restructuring the Operational Force........................................................................................ 12

Distributed and Decentralized Forces ............................................................................... 12

Focus on Company and Battalion-Sized Forces................................................................ 13

Marine Aviation ................................................................................................................. 13

Move Selected Capabilities into the Reserves .................................................................. 14

Potential Issues for Congress ......................................................................................................... 14

Marine Corps Roles and Missions ........................................................................................... 14

Should the Marines Be Given the Leading Role in the Pacific? ....................................... 14

Should the Marines’ Focus Be Primarily Crisis Response? .............................................. 15

How Much Amphibious Assault Capability Does the Marine Corps Need?..................... 16

Marine Corps Force Structure ................................................................................................. 17

Marine Forces Afloat......................................................................................................... 17

Emphasis on Battalion and Company-Sized Units............................................................ 17

Should More of the Marines’ Major Warfighting Capability Be Placed in

the Reserves?.................................................................................................................. 18

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 18

Congressional Research Service

Marine Corps Drawdown, Force Structure Initiatives, and Roles and Missions

Importance to Congress

The Administration’s proposal to reduce the size of the Marine Corps has national security

implications that Congress may consider as part of its oversight and authorizations and

appropriations roles. In terms of size of the force, Congress sets the endstrength1 for both the

active Marine Corps and the Marine Corps Reserve. Congress also authorizes and appropriates

funds needed for Marine force structure initiatives, training exercises, equipment, basing, and

infrastructure, as well as the various manpower management tools that could be used to

drawdown the force. Administration decisions about the recommended size and basing of the

Marine Corps can have a significant impact on Marine bases in a Member’s district or state,

which can also have economic ramifications for communities near affected bases. The

Administration’s downsizing and force structure proposals also can have a significant impact on

local and state defense-related industries. Lastly, Marines and their families who might be

affected by the Administration’s decisions constitute a unique element of Members’

constituencies.

Background

Marine Corps Roles and Missions

According to the Marine Corps:

The Marine Corps is a crisis response expeditionary force which is task organized and able

to conduct operations across the entire spectrum of military operations. Fundamentally, the

Corps is a “middleweight force” that fills the void in our Nation’s defense structure between

light Special Operations Forces (SOF) and heavier conventional units. The Corps provides

scalable and adaptive forces that complement the lighter and heavier forces.2

The Marines serve in a variety of capacities but are perhaps best known as America’s amphibious

force, with various Marine units embarked on U.S. Navy ships that patrol oceans, littorals, and

maritime choke points. The Marines’ missions are codified in U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 5063,

United States Marine Corps: Composition and Functions, dated January 3, 2012, which states:

The Marine Corps shall be organized, trained, and equipped to provide fleet marine forces of

combined arms, together with supporting air components, for service with the fleet in the

seizure or defense of advanced naval bases and for the conduct of such land operations as

may be essential to the prosecution of a naval campaign. In addition, the Marine Corps shall

provide detachments and organizations for service on armed vessels of the Navy, shall

provide security detachments for the protection of naval property at naval stations and bases,

and shall perform such other duties as the President may direct. However, these additional

duties may not detract from or interfere with the operations for which the Marine Corps is

primarily organized.

Endstrength is the number of military personnel needed to accomplish a service’s statutory mission. It is also the

number of personnel that a service is authorized to have by the end of a fiscal year. For additional information on

endstrength see CRS Report R43184, FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues,

coordinated by (name redacted).

U.S. Marine Corps Concepts & Programs 2013, America’s Expeditionary Force in Readiness, 2013, p. 11.

Congressional Research Service

Marine Corps Drawdown, Force Structure Initiatives, and Roles and Missions

(b) The Marine Corps shall develop, in coordination with the Army and the Air Force, those

phases of amphibious operations that pertain to the tactics, technique, and equipment used by

landing forces.3

The Marines two fundamental core missions are assuring littoral access and conducting highly

complex and difficult crisis response operations.4 In addition to these missions, the Marine Corps

has also provided security for overseas U.S. diplomatic missions since 1799 and the Marine

Corps Embassy Security Group (MCESG) is responsible for the internal security of these

facilities worldwide.5 In addition to the aforementioned missions, the Marines also have nuclear,

chemical, biological incident response responsibilities, conduct security cooperation activities,

and are responsible for presidential security and transportation missions.

Marine Corps Reserve

The Marine Corps Reserve was established in 1916 and provides trained units and individual

Marines that can be mobilized for active duty in time of war, national emergency or contingency

operations. The endstrength of the Marine Corps Reserves was at 39,600 Marines at the end of

September 2013.6 The 4th Marine Division headquartered in New Orleans, LA is the Marine

Corps Reserve division and consists of Marine infantry regiments, an aircraft wing, a logistics

group, tank units, force reconnaissance, units, and civil affairs units to name but a few of the

organizations resident in the Marine Corps Reserve. The Marine Corps Reserve saw active

service in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and

continues to participate in operations world-wide.

Size of Selected Marine Corps Units7

Marine Infantry Squad: 13

Marine Infantry Platoon: 43

Marine Infantry Company: 182

Marine Infantry Battalion: 963 personnel

Marine Infantry Regiment: 3,129 personnel

Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU): Approximately 2,200 personnel

Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB): 14,000 – 17,000 personnel

Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF): 40,000 – 80,000 personnel

U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 5063, United States Marine Corps: Composition and Functions, January 3, 2012, p. 1962.

Marine Corps Operating Concepts, Third Edition, June 2010, p. 9.

U.S. Marine Corps Concepts & Programs 2011, America’s Expeditionary Force in Readiness, 2011, p. 54.

James K. Sanborn, “Restructuring of Active Force Likely Means Big Changes for the Reserves,” Marine Corps

Times, September 30, 2013.

Information is from Marine Corps Operating Concepts, Third Edition, June 2010 and Marine Legislative Liaison

Office. Note these numbers include attached Navy personnel: (corpsmen, religious personnel, etc.)

Congressional Research Service

Marine Corps Drawdown, Force Structure Initiatives, and Roles and Missions

How the Marines Organize Their Operational Forces8

Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF)

The MAGTF is the Marine Corps primary organizational construct for conducting military

operations. They range in size from a few hundred to many thousands of Marines and can be

embarked on amphibious ships but can also be deployed by other means. They are organized for

specific tasks and are comprised of four deployable elements:

•

The Command Element (CE) which contains the MAGTF headquarters as well

as operations, intelligence, logistics, communications, and administrative

support.

•

The Ground Combat Element (GCE) which includes infantry, artillery,

reconnaissance, armor, light armor, assault amphibian, engineer, and other forces

as needed. In the case of non-combat missions, other types of Marine units can be

substituted for combat units.

•

The Aviation Combat Element (ACE) is comprised of a variety of aircraft and

support units needed to support MAGTF operations. Types of support include

assault support, anti-air warfare, offensive air support, electronic warfare, control

of aircraft and missiles, and reconnaissance. The ACE is also capable of

providing support for humanitarian relief and disaster relief operations.

•

The Logistics Combat Element (LCE) is organized to provide a full range of

combat logistics functions and capabilities needed to sustain the MAGTF.

Types of MAGTFs

There are four types of MAGTFs: the Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF); the Marine

Expeditionary Brigade (MEB); the Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU); and the Special Purpose

MAGTF.

Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF)

The MEF is the principal warfighting organization for large crises or contingencies. During the

2003 invasion of Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom) the 1st MEF was the major Marine Corps unit

deployed as part of the U.S. invasion force. The MEF is normally commanded by a lieutenant

general, consists of approximately 40,000 to 80,000 personnel, and can range in size from one

division and an air wing to multiple divisions and air wings supported by one or more logistics

groups. The Marine Corps is organized with three standing MEFs in both peacetime and wartime,

with each comprised of a Marine division, aircraft wing, and logistics group. The 1st MEF is

located at bases in California and Arizona; the 2nd MEF at bases in North Carolina and South

Carolina; and the 3rd MEF at bases in Okinawa, mainland Japan, and Hawaii with future plans for

Information in this section is taken from U.S. Marine Corps Concepts & Programs 2013, America’s Expeditionary

Force in Readiness, 2013, pp. 12-15.

Congressional Research Service

Marine Corps Drawdown, Force Structure Initiatives, and Roles and Missions

bases in Guam and Australia.9 As previously noted, the Marine Corps Reserve 4th MEF is

headquartered out of New Orleans, LA.

Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB)

The MEB is a mid-sized MAGTF which consists of from 14,000 to 17,000 personnel and is

normally commanded by a brigadier general. The MEB is scalable and can respond to a full range

of contingencies. The MEB, when at sea, is normally embarked on 17 amphibious ships and

carries with it 30 days of supplies, meaning it can operate ashore for 30 days before it requires

resupply. The MEB is normally comprised of a reinforced infantry regiment, a composite Marine

Aircraft Group, and a Combat Logistics Regiment. MEBs do not have permanently assigned units

but instead maintain a habitual relationship with subordinate units through planning and

exercises.

Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU)

MEUs are embarked on Amphibious Readiness Groups (ARG)10 and operate on a continuous

basis in the areas of responsibility of certain Geographic Combatant Commanders. A MEU is

commanded by a Colonel, can include up to about 2,200 Marines, and deploys with 15 days of

accompanying supplies. Before a MEU deploys, it undergoes an intensive six month training

program and the MEU is then evaluated and certified for deployment. The types of operations

that a MEU is trained and equip to conduct include

•

Amphibious assault landing;

•

Amphibious raid;11

•

Small boat raid (in selected MEUs only);

•

Maritime interception operations;

•

Advance force operations;

•

Noncombatant evacuation operations;

•

Humanitarian assistance;

•

Stability operations;

•

Tactical recovery of aircraft and personnel;

•

Joint and combined operations;

•

Aviation operations from expeditionary sites;

•

Theater security cooperation activities; and

•

Airfield and port seizures.

For information on U.S. naval vessels associated with embarked Marine forces see Appendix A of CRS Report

RL34476, Navy LPD-17 Amphibious Ship Procurement: Background, Issues, and Options for Congress, by (name r

edacted).

For information on ARGs see, http://www.navy.mil/navydata/nav_legacy.asp?id=148, accessed November 7, 2013.

Raids are small, short duration combat operations against specific targets.

Congressional Research Service

Marine Corps Drawdown, Force Structure Initiatives, and Roles and Missions

Special Purpose MAGTF (SPMAGTF)

A SPMAGTF is organized to accomplish a specific mission, operation, or regionally-focused

activity. They can be organized, trained, and equipped to conduct a variety of operations ranging

from peacetime missions, training exercises, and responses to contingencies and crises. Because

of unique mission requirements, there is no set size or structure associated with SPMAGTFs.

Decisions Impacting Marine Corps Size and Force Structure

January 6, 2011, News Briefing with Secretary of Defense Gates and Chairman

of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen12

On January 6, 2011, then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and then Chairman of the Joint

Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen held a news briefing “announcing a number of decisions

and measures that mark the next major step in this department’s reform agenda.” These decisions

and measures, largely taken in response to fiscal pressures, involved a variety of cross-service

actions, including consolidating and eliminating headquarters and organizations, modifying or

eliminating weapon systems programs, and force reductions. During this briefing, it was

announced the Marines would drawdown between 15,000 and 20,000 Marines - depending on the

recommendations of a Marine Force Structure Review Group - with a goal of eventually reducing

the Marine Corps to 175,000.

March 14, 2011, Report of the 2010 Marine Corps Force Structure Review

Group13

In March 2011, the Marines released the results of a force structure review focused on the postAfghanistan Marine Corps, which was intended to preserve capabilities developed since

September 11, 2001; expand on engagement efforts; respond to crisis; and still be capable of

projecting power to respond to the most dangerous threats to the nation. In order to achieve this

desired end state, the Marines stated they would accept a degree of risk by reducing the active

component capacity “for conducting multiple, major sustained operations ashore, relying on an

operationalized reserve component to mitigate the risk.”14 Key recommendations from the review

included

•

Reduce the endstrength of the active component from 202,000 to approximately

186,800 following the completion of Marine operations in Afghanistan;

•

Resource five regionally-focused MEB command elements, with habitually

aligned subordinate elements in order to improve effectiveness and

responsiveness;

•

Reduce infantry battalions from 27 to 24;

Information from this section is taken from U.S. Department of Defense News Transcript, “DOD News Briefing with

Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen from the Pentagon,” January 6, 2011.

Information in this section is taken from “Reshaping America’s Expeditionary Force in Readiness,” Report of the

2010 Marine Corps Force Structure Review Group, March 14, 2011.

Ibid., pp. 2-3.

Congressional Research Service

Marine Corps Drawdown, Force Structure Initiatives, and Roles and Missions

•

Reduce artillery battalions from 11 to 9;

•

Reduce flying squadrons from 70 to 61;

•

Reorganize Marine logistics groups; and

•

Increase Marine Corps Special Operations Command (MARSOC)15 by more than

1,000 Marines.

January 26, 2012, Administration Major Budget Decision Briefing16

On January 26, 2012, senior DOD leaders unveiled a new defense strategy, based on a review of

the defense strategy at the time and budgetary constraints. This new strategy envisioned:

•

A smaller, leaner military that is agile, flexible, rapidly deployable, and

technologically advanced;

•

Rebalancing global posture and presence, emphasizing where potential problems

are likely to arise, such as the Asia-Pacific region17 and the Middle East;

•

Maintaining presence elsewhere in the world (Europe, Africa, and Latin

America), using innovative partnerships, strengthening key alliances, and

developing new partnerships;

•

Being able to quickly confront and defeat aggression from any adversary

anytime, anyplace; and

•

Protecting and prioritizing key investments in technology and new capabilities as

well as the capacity to grow, adapt, mobilize, and surge when needed.

During this briefing, a number of decisions related to the Marine Corps were announced,

including

•

The Marines would be a middleweight expeditionary force with reinvigorated

amphibious capabilities;

•

The Active Marine Corps would decrease from 202,000 Marines to 182,000 over

five years (2017);

•

There would be no decrease in the size of the Marine Corps Reserve;

•

This new strategy envisioned a Navy and Marine Corps that was postured

forward; and

For additional information on Marine Special Operations Command see CRS Report RS21048, U.S. Special

Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).

Information in this section is taken from U.S. Department of Defense News Transcript, “Major Budget Decisions

Briefing from the Pentagon,” presented by Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of

Staff General Martin E. Dempsey, January 26, 2012; U.S. Department of Defense News Transcript, “Major Budget

Decisions Briefing from the Pentagon,” presented by Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton B. Carter and Vice

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral James A. Winnefeld Jr., January 26, 2012; and U.S. Department of

Defense Publication, Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense, January 2012.

For additional information on the Pacific strategy see CRS Report R42448, Pivot to the Pacific? The Obama

Administration’s “Rebalancing” Toward Asia, coordinated by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Marine Corps Drawdown, Force Structure Initiatives, and Roles and Missions

•

The Marines would sustain their level of presence in the Pacific and enhance

their presence by partnering with Australia and others, such as the Philippines.

2013 Strategic Choices and Management Review (SCMR)18

In April 2013, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced that DOD would conduct a Strategic

Choices and Management Review (SCMR) to help insure that the Defense Department would be

prepared to face what he called “unprecedented budget uncertainty.”19 The three stated specific

objectives of the SCMR were to:

•

Help DOD prepare for how to deal with sequestration if it continues into

FY2014;

•

Inform the fiscal guidance given to the Services for their FY2015 through

FY2019 budget plans; and

•

Anchor the upcoming Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) which plans to assess

our defense strategy in light of new fiscal realities and the many threats and

complexities and uncertainties of this new century.

In a July 31, 2013, statement, Secretary Hagel, commenting on the results of the SCMR,

described two strategic approaches to reducing force structure and modernization that would be

used to inform planning for sequester-level cuts. These approaches would trade off capacity—

measured in Army brigades, Navy ships, Air Force squadrons, and Marine battalions—and

capability, that is, the ability to modernize weapon systems and maintain the military’s

technological edge. In the approach that would trade away size for high-end capacity, Secretary

Hagel suggested that the Marines would draw down from 182,000 to between 150,000 and

175,000 active Marines.

2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)20

The Quadrennial Defense Review or QDR, “a congressionally mandated21 review of national

defense strategy, force structure, modernization plans, infrastructure, budget plans, and other

elements of defense strategy,” is presently underway and is due to Congress in February 2014.

The 2014 QDR will likely have very specific guidance as to Marine Corps force size and

organization, among other things, and results from the 2013 SCMR will likely heavily influence

Information in this section is taken from U.S. Department of Defense, “Statement on Strategic Choices and

Management Review,” July 31, 2013.

Ibid.

Information in this section is taken from Donna Miles, “Senate Appoints Four Members to the QDR Panel,”

American Forces Press Service, March 6, 2013.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 1997 established the requirement for a QDR in

1997. “The Secretary of Defense shall every four years, …conduct a comprehensive examination (to be known as a

“quadrennial defense review”) of the national defense strategy, force structure, force modernization plans,

infrastructure, budget plan, and other elements of the defense program and policies of the United States with a view

toward determining and expressing the defense strategy of the United States and establishing a defense program for the

next 20 years. Each such [QDR] shall be conducted in consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.”

USC 10, §118(a). http://www.defense.gov/qdr/QDR_101_FACT_SHEET_January_2010.pdf, accessed November 12,

2103.

Congressional Research Service

Marine Corps Drawdown, Force Structure Initiatives, and Roles and Missions

decisions coming from the 2014 QDR. Congress is also required to conduct an independent

review of the QDR’s force structure and resource requirements and submit an assessment to the

congressional defense committees no later than May 2014.

Planned Drawdown Levels

In a November 7, 2013, Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) hearing on the effects of

sequestration, Commandant of the Marine Corps General James Amos testified:

The President’s National Security Strategy is optimized with a Marine Corps of 186.8K. The

BCA [Budget Control Act of 2011, P.L. 112-25] forced us to 182.1K. Our examination

determined that an end strength of 174K was the best we could do in addressing the

operational requirements of steady state deployments, crisis response activities, and potential

major combat operations, while preserving institutional health and readiness. As we actively

participate in the QDR, this is the force that the Marine Corps will use as the recommended

basis for our contribution to the nation’s defense. Based on extensive analysis, falling below

this force structure number will significantly increase risk in to our steady state security

posture, crisis response and major combat operations.22

The 174,000 Active Marine Corps endstrength figure cited by General Amos will be the Marines’

planning endstrength as the QDR process progresses. While the Marines did not offer specifics

about force structure reductions needed to reach the 174,000 active Marine endstrength by 2017,

reports suggest that an additional five infantry battalions would be eliminated and, at this force

level, the Marines would only be able to respond to one major contingency.23 Also at this level,

any planned growth in the Marine Special Operations Command (MARSOC)24 would reportedly

be frozen and the three-star Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF) headquarters—II MEF from

Camp Lejeune, NC—would be absorbed by Marine Forces Command in Norfolk, VA.25

As previously noted, Secretary Hagel in discussing the SCMR suggested Marines could draw

down from 182,000 to between 175,000 - 150,000 active Marines. Marine officials have

reportedly concluded that a 150,000 Marine force would be a “dangerously small force” and

“unviable” for accomplishing the Marine’s current mission.26

DOD’s FY2015 Budget Preview27

On February 24, 2014, Secretary of Defense Hagel held a press conference to announce key

decisions he had recommend to the President for DOD’s FY2015 budget. Regarding the Marine

Corps, Secretary Hagel noted:

Statement of General James F. Amos, Commandant of the Marine Corps Before the Senate Armed Services

Committee on Sequestration, November 7, 2013, p. 7.

James K. Sanborn, “A Force of 174,000,” Marine Corps Times, September 30, 2013.

For additional information on MARSOC, see CRS Report RS21048, U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF):

Background and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).

Hope Hodge Seck, “What Stays, What Goes at 174,000 Marines,” Marine Corps Times, November 4, 2013.

Ibid.

Information in this section is taken from Remarks by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel FY2015 Budget Preview,

Pentagon Press Briefing Room, Monday, February 24, 2014.

Congressional Research Service

Marine Corps Drawdown, Force Structure Initiatives, and Roles and Missions

The Marine Corps’ inherent agility, crisis response capabilities, and maritime focus make it

well-suited to carry out many priority missions under the President’s defense strategy.

Accordingly, if the President’s budget levels are sustained for the next five years, we could

avoid additional reductions in end strength beyond those already planned. Today the Marines

number about 190,000, and they will draw down to 182,000. If sequestration-level cuts are

re-imposed in 2016 and beyond, the Marines would have to shrink further to 175,000. Under

any scenario, we will devote about 900 more Marines to provide enhanced embassy security

around the world.28

Regarding Secretary of Defense Hagel’s recommendations on the size of the Marine Corps,

analysts note DOD opted for a higher-than anticipated active endstrength—182,000 as opposed to

174,000—perhaps suggesting the Marines had made a convincing case for their role crisis

response operations.

Force Reduction and Shaping Programs

Reportedly, Marine officials believe they can achieve active duty cuts without having to force

Marines out of service before their contracts expire.29 To date, the drawdown has reportedly been

achieved through normal attrition and early out incentives; including premature retirements and

cash buyouts which have permitted the service reduce active endstrength by about 5,000

personnel per year.30 In order to retain key capabilities such as special operations and cyber

operations, cuts would primarily come from infantry and artillery battalions and aviation

squadrons.

Marine officials suggest, however, if force cuts are accelerated or if the Marines are required to

cut to a 150,000 active endstrength, that involuntary measures would need to be taken in addition

to voluntary programs currently being used.31 Some involuntary measures include

•

Ending a “de facto” guarantee of 20 years of service for all enlisted Marines who

reach the grade of staff sergeant;

•

Convening an early retirement board for senior enlisted Marines;

•

Using enlisted retention boards to cut Marines before their contracts expired;

•

Ending a 20 year service promise to all Marine officers who make the grade of

major; and

•

Selective Early Retirement Board for lieutenant colonels and colonels.

Ibid., p. 6.

James K. Sanborn, “A Force of 174, 000,” Marine Corps Times, September 30, 2013.

Ibid.

Information in this section is taken from James K. Sanborn, “Cutting to 174,000—Or Below,” Marine Corps Times,

October 28, 2013.

Congressional Research Service

Marine Corps Drawdown, Force Structure Initiatives, and Roles and Missions

Force Structure Initiatives

As the Marines drawdown, a number of force structure-related initiatives are underway or under

consideration. These initiatives are seen as a means to address both a post-Afghanistan world and

reduced force levels resulting from budgetary constraints.

Special Purpose MAGTFs—Crisis Response (SPMAGTF-CR)32

In the wake of the September 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. diplomatic personnel and facilities in

Benghazi, Libya, DOD reportedly approved the creation of a new 550 person Marine crisisresponse force centered on a reinforced Marine rifle company, six MV-22B Ospreys and two KC130J Hercules tanker planes. This unit is under the control of the Commander of U.S. Africa

Command (USAFRICOM) and has elements based in Moron Airbase in Spain and Sigonella

Naval Air Station in Italy. This response force is not reliant on U.S. naval ships and is designed to

be able to fly quickly for missions such as embassy reinforcement to humanitarian assistance. In

July 2013, during a period of intense tension in Egypt, this unit was reportedly put on alert to help

secure the U.S. embassy in Cairo or to help U.S. citizens leave the country, if required.

Reports further suggest that additional SPMAGTF-CRs might be stood up for South America and

the Middle East as well. It is not known if these additional SPMAGTF-CRs be smaller than 550

personnel, where they will be stationed or when or if these units will be established. In all cases,

these SPMAGTF-CRs are not viewed as replacements for MEUs or other Marine forces but are

instead envisioned as assets that a geographic combatant commander can call upon with little or

no notice to help respond to a potential crisis or in the aftermath of an attack or humanitarian

crisis.

Expansion of Marine Security Guard Program

As a result of September 11, 2012, Benghazi attack, Congress authorized 1,000 additional Marine

security guards beginning FY2014.33 From a CRS Report:34

A provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, P.L. 112-239

[Title IV, Subtitle A, Section 404] directs the Secretary of Defense to grow the Marine

Security Guard Program in order to increase the number of detachments at U.S. embassies,

consulates, and other diplomatic facilities by up to 1,000 Marines during fiscal years 2014

through 2017, and reassess program’s focus on the protection of classified information. The

measure also requires the President to separate the Program’s budget request from that of the

Marine Corps as a whole, and it requires reexamination of the Marine units’ rules of

engagement.

Information in this section is taken from Dan Lamothe, “3-Star Details New Marine Crisis-Response Force,” Marine

Corps Times, April 21, 2013; Dan Lamothe, “Crisis-Response Force Put on Alert for Egyptian Unrest,” Marine Corps

Times, July 15, 2013; Gina Harkins, “U.S. Crisis-Response Force Coming to Central, S. America,” Marine Corps

Times, August 29, 2013; and Dan Lamothe, “Preparing for Chaos,” Marine Corps Times, September 30, 2013.

Gina Harkins, “Expert: USMC Embassy Guard Boost Will be Tough,” Marine Corps Times, December 21, 2012.

CRS Report R42834, Securing U.S. Diplomatic Facilities and Personnel Abroad: Background and Policy Issues, by

(name redacted) and (name redacted), May 7, 2013, p. 20.

Congressional Research Service

Marine Corps Drawdown, Force Structure Initiatives, and Roles and Missions

These additional guards are to be assigned to the Marine Corps Embassy Security Group in

Quantico, Virginia and will augment the approximately 1,200 Marine security guards currently

assigned to U.S. diplomatic facilities in over 130 countries.35 In theory, these Marines are to be

used to increase the size of the Marine Corps Security Detachments at embassies and consulates

in what the State Department deems high threat countries. Given the potential and current levels

of unrest in some countries in the USAFRICOM and USCENTCOM regions, it is likely that

additional Marines will be sent to U.S. diplomatic facilities in selected countries in Africa and the

Middle East. A report suggests that three such posts already identified for enhanced Marine

presence include Juba, South Sudan; Casablanca, Morocco; and Freetown, Sierra Leone.36

Marine Special Operations Command (MARSOC) Regional

Assignments and Potential Return to Sea37

The Marine Special Operations Command (MARSOC) is a component command of the U. S.

Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) and constitutes the Marine Corps’ contribution to

U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF). MARSOC is reportedly realigning the responsibilities of

its three operational battalions to better support geographical combatant commanders. As part of

this realignment, the 1st Marine Special Operations Battalion (MSOB) from Camp Pendleton, CA

will align to the U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM) region while the 2nd and 3rd MSOBs out of

Camp Lejeune, NC will align with USCENTCOM and USAFRICOM respectively. These units

are to receive appropriate language and cultural training so they will be better attuned to their

areas of operation. In another initiative designed to get special operations forces back at sea with

MEUs—a common practice prior to September 11, 2001 when Navy SEALs would deploy with

MEUs—MARSOC began training with the 11th MEU to facilitate future deployments with

Marine expeditionary forces. A timetable for when MARSOC units will be integrated with

deploying MEUs has not yet been made public and the relationship with Marine Force

Reconnaissance units (who had assumed special operations missions in the absence of the Navy

SEALs) has not yet been established.

Selected External Perspectives: Marine Corps Roles,

Missions, and Force Structure

While there has been a great deal of Marines Corps introspection as to future roles, missions, and

how the force should be structured, other institutions are also examining these very same

questions. Far from a purely academic exercise, this examination is bounded by the budgetary

constraints facing the Marine Corps and its sister services. A sample of some proposals that might

merit future discussion includes

Gina Harkins, “Expert: USMC Embassy Guard Boost Will be Tough,” Marine Corps Times, December 21, 2012.

Gina Harkins, “Marine Security Guards Stand Up New Posts in Africa,” Marine Corps Times, June 28, 2013.

Hope Hodge Seck, “MARSOC Battalions Get New Regional Assignments,” Marine Corps Times, September 30,

2013, and Dan Lamothe, “MARSOC Returns to Sea with the 11th MEU,” Marine Corps Times, June 9, 2013.

Congressional Research Service

Marine Corps Drawdown, Force Structure Initiatives, and Roles and Missions

The Marines and Special Operations Forces (SOF) Responsible for

Worldwide Ground Engagement38

This article in Joint Forces Quarterly, published by the National Defense University, proposes that

U.S. SOF and Marine MAGTFs should be the lead instruments for land engagement operations

with other countries. Engagement activities are viewed as both indirect and preventative in nature

and run the gamut from training other nation’s military forces, participating in military exercises,

and other activities which involve constructive interaction between U.S. and foreign military

personnel. In terms of land-oriented engagement operations, the U.S. Army is focusing a

significant level of effort in world-wide engagement activities - particularly aspiring to operations

in the Asia-Pacific region - in order to “prevent” future conflicts and, if unable to prevent a

conflict, at least “shape” its outcome.

The article’s authors argue that U.S. SOF and Marine MAGTFs should instead take the lead in

DOD engagement activities on land. They contend that SOF and the Marines “both possess

capabilities and cultures for early and successful initial ground engagement in the exceedingly

complex, unpredictable, and unstructured world that confronts the U.S. military.”39 They envision

the Marines and SOF undertaking such engagement activities designed to avoid larger and more

costly interventions. The Marines, they suggest, are optimally configured in their expeditionary

role to provide rapid response not just to engagement opportunities but to humanitarian crises,

traditional power projection operations, and forced entry operations if required.

Restructuring the Operational Force40

Distributed and Decentralized Forces

A study conducted by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (2008) and an article

in the Naval War College Review (2012) propose the Marines improve their ability to operate

with smaller and more independent units in a highly distributed geographic manner. These small

teams would be designed to be highly mobile and capable of conducting low-signature

amphibious landings and could also designate targets for airstrikes as well as naval gunfire and

missile strikes. These smaller, distributed units could be ideal in dealing with pirates and small,

non-state terrorist organizations and would be well-suited for conducting raids and other short

duration operations. In a less lethal role, these units could also conduct train-and-advise

operations with friendly military forces operating in a remote field environment. These types of

units could also meet the U.S. strategic intent of conducting “light foot print” operations

whenever possible.

Information in this section is taken from Kevin D. Stringer and Katie M. Sizemore, “The Future of U.S. Landpower,

Special Operations Versatility, Marines Corps Utility,” Joint Forces Quarterly (JFQ), Issue 69, 2nd Quarter 2013, pp.

84-90.

Ibid., p. 87.

Information in this section is taken from Robert P. Kozloski, “Marching Toward the Sweet Spot: Options for the U.S.

Marine Corps in a Time of Austerity,” Naval War College Review, 2012 and Dakota L. Wood, “The U.S. Marine

Corps: Fleet Marine Forces for the 21st Century,” Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Washington, DC,

2008.

Congressional Research Service

Marine Corps Drawdown, Force Structure Initiatives, and Roles and Missions

Focus on Company and Battalion-Sized Forces41

Both the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments study and the Naval War College article

support and expand on the findings of the Marine’s 2010 Force Structure Review Group study42

which contends the Marines should occupy a “sweet spot” with respect to joint forces, lying

between an Army regiment [in actuality this would be an Army Brigade Combat Team (BCT) as

the Army does not typically organize for combat as a regiment] and a special operations team

(about a platoon-sized organization). This “sweet spot” is further defined as the company to

battalion level and the authors suggest the Marines should emphasize company and battalion level

operations and should focus their efforts and resources at this lower level of employment. This

lower level emphasis could not only address DOD’s “light foot print” aspiration but might also be

more cost efficient in an era of budgetary constraints. The recent creation of SPMAGTF-CRs

built around a reinforced Marine rifle company could prove to be a model for this lower level

focus. In terms of Marine forces afloat, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments43

suggests the creation of a littoral operations MAGTF consisting of a reinforced Marine rifle

company embarked on an LPD-1744 amphibious transport and two or three Littoral Combat Ships

(LCS).45 The author contends that this particular force mix would be well-suited for the types of

operational challenges likely to be faced by the Naval Services in the future.

Marine Aviation46

In “Marching Towards the Sweet Spot: Options for the U.S. Marine Corps in a Time of

Austerity,” the author acknowledges the contentious issue of Marine Aviation, noting that

questions as to the need for the Marines to have their own dedicated air arm have been in

existence since the post-World War II unification movement and continue to this day. The

Marines have argued the justification for having their own tactical air force is the “uniqueness” of

the Marine Corps combined arms team and if their air arm was reduced or eliminated, the other

services would have to fill the void.

Given DOD’s current and anticipated fiscal austerity, one suggestion would be to eliminate “highend” fixed wing aircraft such as the F-35B short takeoff and vertical landing variant of the

Lightning II multi-role fighter47 and instead rely on Navy aircraft for fixed-wing close air support.

Aside from fixed-wing air support, in keeping with the Marines’ focus on smaller infantry unit

operations, a more affordable mix of tactical air support might be adopted, using rotary-wing,

unmanned platforms, and modified cargo aircraft such as the KC-130J Harvest Hawk gunship

Ibid.

See “Reshaping America’s Expeditionary Force in Readiness,” Report of the 2010 Marine Corps Force Structure

Review Group, March 14, 2011.

Dakota L. Wood, “The U.S. Marine Corps: Fleet Marine Forces for the 21st Century,” Center for Strategic and

Budgetary Assessments, Washington, DC, 2008, p. xv.

For additional information on the LPD-17 see CRS Report RL34476, Navy LPD-17 Amphibious Ship Procurement:

Background, Issues, and Options for Congress, by (name redacted).

For additional information on the LCS see CRS Report RL33741, Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program:

Background and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).

Information in this section is taken from Robert P. Kozloski, “Marching Toward the Sweet Spot: Options for the U.S.

Marine Corps in a Time of Austerity,” Naval War College Review, 2012.

For additional information on the F-35 see CRS Report RL30563, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program, by

(name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Marine Corps Drawdown, Force Structure Initiatives, and Roles and Missions

variant or modified MV-22 Ospreys might be pursued. This new mix might be more in keeping

with the types contingency operations that the Marines are more likely to face in the future as

opposed to major theater wars which many experts feel are a much more remote possibility.

Move Selected Capabilities into the Reserves48

Some analysts believe the Marines are attempting to balance three identities: a forward-deployed

amphibious force; the small-wars force of choice; and a force that fights the nation’s major land

wars. Some believe that twelve years of conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the Marines were

tasked to function as a second land army, made the Marines “become too heavy, too removed

from their expeditionary, amphibious roots, and the unique skill sets those missions require.”49 If

the Marine Corps opts for a more expeditionary, crisis response type of force, many of the

capabilities needed for fighting a major land war could be shifted to the reserve component. The

Marine Corps Reserves have been touted as a success story during Operation Iraqi Freedom as

they did not require an extensive train up period to achieve an acceptable level of operational

effectiveness. Some of the major warfighting capabilities viewed as candidates for being moved

into the reserves include tank, artillery, and aviation command and control units that support

wing-level task forces.50In addition, fixed-wing Marine aviation units needed to support major

theater operations could also be moved to the Marine Corps Reserve as operations of this nature

have historically permitted time to buildup forces.51

Potential Issues for Congress

Marine Corps Roles and Missions

Historically, eras of declining or constrained defense budgets have served as “forcing functions”

ushering in changes in service’s roles and missions and force structure. Perhaps in the current era

of sequestration, redundancies between the Marines and the Army are an issue worth

examination.

Should the Marines Be Given the Leading Role in the Pacific?

The Administration’s 2012 strategic shift to the Pacific region could present an opportunity to

both focus resources and eliminate redundancies. The U.S. Naval Institute notes:

Former Marine Corps deputy commandant for aviation Lt. Gen. George Trautman agreed

that the service will return to its traditional role in the vast stretches of the Pacific. “The

presence of strength breeds prosperity and peace,” he said.

Information in this section is taken from Robert P. Kozloski, “Marching Toward the Sweet Spot: Options for the U.S.

Marine Corps in a Time of Austerity,” Naval War College Review, 2012; Dakota L. Wood, “The U.S. Marine Corps:

Fleet Marine Forces for the 21st Century,” Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Washington, DC, 2008;

and Marc Gunzinger, “Shaping America’s Future Military, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments,

Washington, DC, 2013.

Gunzinger, p. 47, quoting a Secretary of Defense Robert Gates lecture.

Kozloski, p. 29.

Ibid., p. 31.

Congressional Research Service

Marine Corps Drawdown, Force Structure Initiatives, and Roles and Missions

The Marines have been in the Pacific theater continuously over the past 70 years to keep the

peace, he said, and that presence will continue to grow as the United States rebalances its

forces to the region. Anytime a crisis emerges, the Marines are usually the first to respond,

be it a humanitarian disaster or some kind of unanticipated military crisis.

The service plans to keep a force of Marines deployed to Darwin, Australia, as part of the

renewed interest the region, for example, Trautman says. Additionally, forces are being

redistributed from Okinawa, Japan, to both Guam and Hawaii. Meanwhile, the doors are

being reopened to training in Thailand and the Philippines, he added.

“Marines will be used all over the Pacific in small packets,” Work said. Those units will

respond to any number of different types of contingencies. Moreover, the Marine Corps has

strong ties with partners in the region. One example is the island nation of Singapore. “The

partnership between Marine Aviation and Singapore air force is as solid as can be,”

Trautman said. Meanwhile, the service also has historic ties with the South Korea’s Marine

Corps, which is closely modeled on its American counterpart.52

In a similar effort, the U.S. Army is seeking to assert itself in the region, with some analysts

suggesting that in a post Iraq and Afghanistan world—where few foresee the U.S. getting

involved costly, long term land operations—the Army is in search of a mission and has decided to

make engagement in the Asia-Pacific region a priority. Other than a significant presence in South

Korea, the Army does not have the history or presence that Marines enjoy in the Pacific.

One recent report suggests Army efforts to reassert itself in the Pacific are being undertaken to

develop a strategic narrative and an argument to prevent future Army personnel cuts.53 While

some have asserted the Army is trying to create a second Marine Corps in the Pacific and building

a force that the nation doesn’t need, the Army claims that it has a long, unbroken history in the

Pacific. This situation has evolved into what has been described as a “turf war” in the Pacific, a

not uncommon occurrence between the Army and Marines, particularly during post-war periods

when forces are reduced and defense budgets decline.

Perhaps, instead of competing for missions in the Pacific where the Marines are currently

established, the Marines could be allocated the lead role in the Pacific region and the Army could

be assigned the lead in another region better suited to the Army’s land-centric focus. Such an

allocation might help to avoid redundancy and associated costs and perhaps help the Army

reallocate resources that it would use to expand its Pacific presence to other areas such as training

and maintenance that are suffering due to decreased funding.

Should the Marines’ Focus Be Primarily Crisis Response?

Assigning the leading role of crisis response to the Marines could help to decrease redundancy

and also achieve a level of cost savings for both the Army and Marine Corps. As previously

noted, in addition to MEUs stationed at sea around the world, the Marines have created a

SPMAGTF-CR for the USAFRICOM region and could possibly create additional units to support

other geographic combatant commanders. In a similar move, the Chief of Staff of the Army has

reportedly directed the creation of company-sized unit quick-response forces for each geographic

Dave Majumdar, “The Future of the Marines Corps, U.S. Naval Institute, June 14, 2013.

Information in this section is taken from Rajiv Chandrasekaran, “Army’s Pacific Pathways’ Sets up Turf Battle with

the Marines,” The Washington Post, December 29, 2013.

Congressional Research Service

Marine Corps Drawdown, Force Structure Initiatives, and Roles and Missions

combatant commander to perform essentially the same tasks as the Marines SPMAGT-CRs.54

These Army units, formed around a conventional infantry company, would be required to respond

within 18 to 24 hours, but such a response could prove to be difficult as the vast majority of the

Active Army will be based in the continental United States after 2014. In contrast, in addition to

the MEUs afloat, the Marines envision stationing their crisis response units forward in theater

where they would likely have a better response time than Army units and would also have the

benefit of their own organic CV-22 and KC-130 aircraft to self-deploy their forces.

If the Marines are to focus primarily on crisis response, this could provide them with the

opportunity to perhaps “slim down” the force by focusing instead on what types of force structure

and equipment would be required for response to natural disasters, enhanced protection of U.S.

diplomatic facilities and personnel, and limited raid-like combat operations. A clear delineation of

who has the lead responsibility for crisis response might also permit the Army to eliminate some

of its crisis response force structure and instead focus its limited budget resources on post-crisis

follow-on operations and traditional land combat. For example, the Army reportedly has a

requirement for 49,000 paratroopers according to the 2012 Defense Planning Guidance, with one

entire division—the 82nd Airborne Division from Ft. Bragg, N.C.—devoted primarily to crisis

response.55 While a need for an Army airborne assault capability exists from a joint perspective,

perhaps a large scale, “ready to deploy at a moment’s notice” capability might no longer be

appropriate given anticipated future security challenges.56 If the Marines were designated the lead

service for crisis response, both services might be presented with an opportunity to better focus

their resources and training and thereby increase overall effectiveness. While some defense

officials might argue that the Marines and Army must have separate and distinct crisis response

capabilities and associated forces, an argument might be made that a degree of specialization

could actually be more effective and cost efficient over time.

How Much Amphibious Assault Capability Does the Marine Corps Need?

According to the 2010 report of the Marine Corps Force Structure Review Group, the Marines

require the forces, ships, and equipment to accommodate the assault echelons of two MEBs.57 In

April 2012, the Marine Corps published the results of an Amphibious Capabilities Working

Group study on naval amphibious capability. The study, Naval Amphibious Capability in the 21st

Century: Strategic Opportunity and a Vision for Change, states the United States is a maritime

nation with critical maritime interests, noting 90% of global commerce that travels by sea is most

vulnerable where sea meets land in the littorals.58 The study further finds “for a maritime nation

with global interests, a minimal two brigade amphibious force represents a sound investment in

ensuring access for the rest of the joint force.”59

Michelle Tan, “Army Quick-Response Forces Stood Up Around the World,” Army Times, November 11, 2013.

Brett Barrouquere, “Army Drops Number of Paratroops,” Army Times, November 30, 2013.

It should be noted that in terms of a short notice, world-wide airborne capability, the Army’s 75th Ranger Regiment

also has such a capability and, as a special operations force, is extensively trained to conduct a variety of operations in

demanding environments.

“Reshaping America’s Expeditionary Force in Readiness,” Report of the 2010 Marine Corps Force Structure Review

Group, March 14, 2011, p. 2.

Information in this section was taken from “Naval Amphibious Capability in the 21st Century: Strategic Opportunity

and a Vision for Change,” a report of the Amphibious Capabilities Working Group, April 27, 2012.

Ibid., p. 12.

Congressional Research Service

Marine Corps Drawdown, Force Structure Initiatives, and Roles and Missions

While U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 5063 sets out the requirements for the Marines and Navy to

maintain an amphibious assault capability, there is discretion as to “how much” of this capability

is required. If the Marines choose to focus on smaller, battalion and company-level operations

based on analysis of likely future threats, then there might be an opportunity to look at this

requirement for two MEB’s worth of capability which could have an impact on Marine Corps

force structure and equipment programs60 and Navy shipbuilding.

Marine Corps Force Structure

If the Marine Corps draws down to a 182,000 or lower active endstrength, there might be

opportunities to modify force structure to reflect both a smaller Marine Corps and the types of

future threats that it might face.

Marine Forces Afloat

As previously discussed, the Marines maintain two to three MEUs at sea to respond to crises as

well as other military operations as directed. As the Marine Corps adapts to accommodate a

smaller active force, a strategic shift to the Pacific, and an emerging security environment where

smaller, localized threats to U.S. security interests are more likely than major theater conflicts, a

reexamination of the traditional MEU might be in order. Marine leadership may have already

taken the first step by creating forward-deployed, land-based SPMAGTF-CRs. To provide a shipbased complement, perhaps littoral operations MAGTF consisting of a reinforced Marine rifle

company embarked on a LPD-17 accompanied by a couple of LCSs as previously proposed might

be appropriate in some circumstances. While the littoral MAGTF might not be the Marines

chosen solution, a smaller MEU construct might permit the Marines and Navy to provide more

global coverage than the existing two to three embarked MEUs.

Emphasis on Battalion and Company-Sized Units

In order to fill the “sweet spot” between special forces and an Army BCT, the Marines might

choose to make company and battalion-sized units the focus of its force structure initiatives. This

force level could prove to be appropriate for the types of crisis response missions the Marines

could be asked to respond to as well as any engagement or security assistance operations they

might be asked to perform. A potential benefit of this focus could be the elimination or reduction

of higher echelon headquarters and support units (possibly regimental-level) which could also

greatly facilitate both decentralized and distributed operations. This emphasis also recognizes the

claim that military technological innovations over the past decade such as information

technology, unmanned systems, and precision weaponry have given smaller units of action

significantly more capability than their predecessors.

For information on Marine amphibious assault vehicles see CRS Report R42723, Marine Corps Amphibious Combat

Vehicle (ACV) and Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC): Background and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Marine Corps Drawdown, Force Structure Initiatives, and Roles and Missions

Should More of the Marines’ Major Warfighting Capability Be Placed in

the Reserves?

If the Marines are determined to return to their expeditionary roots and avoid becoming a de facto

“second land army” perhaps one course of action might be to place an increased portion of forces

and weapons systems that are more suited for major regional conflicts into the Marine Corps

Reserve. Such realignment could permit the Marines to pursue material solutions better suited for

crisis response operations. More expensive systems such as tanks, artillery, and high performance

aircraft - which would probably be of little use in embassy security or humanitarian support

missions - might prove to be better suited for placement in the Marine Corps Reserves. A number

of DOD and civilian studies suggest that reserve forces when not deployed are a more affordable

alternative than maintaining these forces on active duty, particularly those types of units that do

not have a great deal of utility except in certain scenarios, such as armor units. In this regard, such

a rebalancing of the Marine Corps active and reserve components might enable the Marine to

avoid additional cuts in infantry and aviation units if the decision is made to reduce the Marines

active endstrength below 182,000.

Author Contact Information

(name redacted)

Specialist in Military Ground Forces

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

Congressional Research Service

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.