Commandant maps out force review criteria - Marine Corps News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Marine Corps Times

Commandant maps out force review criteria

Commandant Gen. James Conway has ordered officials involved in a new force structure review to consider altering the role and composition of several major Washington, D.C., area commands, while preserving units and programs that give the service its unique ability to strike rapidly by land and sea.

Options for a variety of one-, two- and three-star commands based at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va., will be considered, including Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Marine Corps Recruiting Command, Training & Education Command and Marine Corps Systems Command, according to the charter for the 2010 Force Structure Review Group. Marine Corps Logistics Command, a three-star command based out of Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany, Ga., also could be affected. There is no guarantee any changes will be made, but Conway identified those organizations specifically in his guidance to the committee of officers overseeing the review while advising that most of the Corps’ operational capabilities should be retained.

The 14-page charter, dated Aug. 16 and signed by Conway, predicts Marine budgets will be reduced, driving “reductions in Marine Corps end strength, equipment and modernization.” The review group will meet at Quantico beginning Sept. 21 to produce a menu of options for the future. It is due to leadership by Dec. 17.

The group — headed by Brig. Gen. Daniel O’Donohue, director of the Quantico-based Capabilities Development Directorate — must develop options while planning for Marines to continue deploying in Marine air ground task forces that can assemble and disassemble quickly, rapidly projecting power and responding to crises, Conway said.

“We will divest capabilities and capacities that do not contribute to this end state,” he said. “Changes to our force structure must be viewed through the lens of increasing capability for rapid response.”

One of Conway’s top priorities since becoming commandant is to set up the Corps for the future, a spokesman for the commandant said.

“It is important to note that, for the past year, we have been considering what the post-Long War Marine Corps would look like in terms of personnel, equipment in training,” said Maj. Joseph Plenzler, referring to life after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “The commandant chartered the Force Structure Review Group to provide options on reorganization while maintaining readiness and key capabilities and capacities. The end state is to create a lean Corps that returns to our naval roots and preserves our fast, austere, and lethal amphibious nature.”

The charter is clear in pointing out areas that may receive trimming. In addition to the major supporting headquarters commands, future options for the size and number of each kind of unit in the Corps should be considered, along with the Corps’ future overall end strength, which will be based on “analysis of the capacity needed to execute core missions.”

Conway wants the service to retain three active-duty Marine expeditionary force headquarters, along with three division, wing and logistics headquarters and one reserve division, wing and logistics headquarters. The requirements for a brigade-size MAGTF from each MEF also will not be changed. Conversely, the review group should consider options to reduce the number of regimental headquarters, where colonels typically oversee operations, the commandant said.

While a drawdown appears likely, Conway said there should be no reductions in force, meaning no Marines should be laid off or cut loose before their contracts are up.

Looking ahead

The charter gives the review group a series of assumptions to start with, most of which indicate the service will emphasize amphibious operations.

To start, there will be at least one MEU afloat in the U.S. Central Command area of operations for the foreseeable future, with periodic stops ashore there through 2016, Conway said. The commandant also advised officials to assume there will be 33 amphibious assault ships in the Navy’s fleet by 2016, and that the Corps will continue to maintain three prepositioned squadrons of ships, each with the equipment for an entire Marine expeditionary brigade to use when needed.

“Requirements for Marine Corps forces needed for power projection from the sea will not be changed,” the charter said, without specifically addressing whether the review group should address the future of expensive developmental programs such as the Joint Strike Fighter and Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.

The Corps must also maintain a force that can deploy at least four MEUs at any one time, along with two MEUs based in the U.S. There are three MEUs based on each coast, along with a seventh MEU based out of Okinawa, Japan. The charter does not specify whether a MEU will remain in Japan or Guam, but Conway said the review group should consider “the lay down of Marines in the Pacific.”

The charter also says that the force structure group should develop options under the assumption that Marine Corps Forces Central Command, based out of Tampa, Fla., will develop a forward headquarters headed by a one-star general in Bahrain.

The Corps’ recent emphasis on growing Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command also appears to be unlikely to change. In fact, Conway’s charter says the review group should consider options for a future service position on how to provide forces to Special Operations Command, whether MARSOC’s structure should be increased by 1,100 support troops, and if MARSOC Marines in the field should be supported by conventional MAGTF forces, or operate independently with their own logistics support.

The review group also should develop options to expand civil affairs, cybersecurity, information operations, psychological operations and military advising, the charter said.

The guidance is one more indication Marine leaders want to preserve operational capabilities, which range from humanitarian operations to ground warfare. In an Aug. 24 press briefing at the Pentagon, Conway said “in no way would we accept that we’re going to build a less capable Marine Corps,” but he acknowledged a drawdown is likely.

“I think in time, after Afghanistan, that 202,000 Marines in a peacetime Marine Corps is probably too many,” he said.

In a separate interview, Lt. Gen. George Flynn, deputy commandant for Combat Development & Integration, said the review was called for because “we realize the environment we face is about to change.”

“I think we always like to start with a capabilities review,” Flynn told Marine Corps Times on Aug. 23. “What you want to do first, I think, is focus on what capabilities you’re going to deliver, and then I think you can come up with force structure options … then you have to decide which one of those options you have the fiscal resources to pay for.”