Marine Commandant Berger: Force Design is Top Priority
ARLINGTON,
Va. — The new commandant of the Marine Corps has made force design as his top
priority as he moves to shape the Marine Corps for the future.
The “Commandant’s Planning Guidance” (CPG), issued by Gen. David H. Berger July 16, lists his five top priority focus areas: force design, warfighting, education and training, core values, and command and leadership.
Berger said
that changes will be based on “where we want the Marine Corps to be in the next
5-15 years. … We cannot afford to retain outdated policies, doctrine,
organizations or force development strategies.”
The CPG
affirms that the Corps is preparing for operations in the event of a high-end
fight.
“The Marine
Corps will be trained and equipped as a naval expeditionary force-in-readiness
and prepared to operate inside actively contested maritime spaces in support of
fleet operations,” the CPG said. “In crisis prevention and crisis response, the
Fleet Marine Force — acting as an extension of the fleet — will be first on the
scene, first to help, first to contain a brewing crisis and first to fight if
required to do so.”
Berger said
the Corps “should take pride in our force and recent operational successes, but
the current force is not organized, trained or equipped to support the naval
force — operating in contested maritime spaces, facilitating sea control or
executing distributed maritime operations. We must change. We must divest of
legacy capabilities that do not meet our future requirements, regardless of
their past operational efficacy.”
He said that
there is “no piece of equipment or major defense acquisition program that
defines us. … Likewise, we are not defined by any particular organizing
construct — the Marine Air-Ground Task Force cannot be our only solution for
all crises. Instead, we are defined by our collective character as Marines and
by fulfilling our service roles and functions prescribed by Congress.”
Berger said
he has “already initiated, and am personally leading, a future force design
effort. Going forward, CD&I [Capabilities Development and Integration] will be the only organization authorized to publish force
development guidance on my behalf. We will divest of legacy defense programs
and force structure that support legacy capabilities. If provided the
opportunity to secure additional modernization dollars in exchange for force
structure, I am prepared to do so.”
The
commandant emphasized the need to improve integration with the Navy. He pointed
out that the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Act removed the preponderance of the FMF
[Fleet Marine Force] from fleet operational control and disrupted the
long-standing Navy-Marine Corps relationship by creating separate Navy and Marine
Corps components within joint forces. Furthermore, Navy and Marine Corps
officers developed a tendency to view their operational responsibilities as
separate and distinct, rather than intertwined. With the rise of both land- and
sea-based threats to the global commons, there is a need to reestablish a more
integrated approach to operations in the maritime domain. Reinvigorating the
FMF can be accomplished by assigning more Marine Corps forces to the fleet;
putting Marine Corps experts in the fleet Maritime Operations Centers; and also
by shifting emphasis in our training, education and supporting establishment
activities.”
He said that the
Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF) will remain the Corps’ principal warfighting
organization but that the three MEFs need not be identical.
“III MEF will
become our main focus-of-effort, designed to provide U.S. Indo-Pacific Command
(U.S. INDOPACOM) and the commander, 7th Fleet with a fight-tonight, standing
force capability to persist inside an adversary’s weapon systems threat range,
create a mutually contested space and facilitate the larger naval campaign,”
the CPG said. “When modernized in a manner consistent with the vision above,
III MEF will be a credible deterrent to adversary aggression in the Pacific.”
“I MEF will
also be focused on supporting the commander, USINDOPACOM and the commander, 3rd
Fleet,” Berger said. “I MEF will continue to provide forces to USINDOPACOM to
build partner capacity and reinforce deterrence efforts and must be prepared to
impose costs on a potential adversary, globally. We will increasingly accept
risk with I MEF’s habitual relationship with CENTCOM [U.S. Central Command];
however, 7th Marines is at present purpose-built to support CENTCOM
requirements; thus, I MEF will continue to support CENTCOM requirements within
the capacity of 7th Marines.
“II MEF will
undergo substantial changes to better align with the needs of commanders of 2nd
and 6th Fleets,” he said. “During a major contingency operation or sustained
campaign ashore, necessary combat power will be provided to the committed MEF
through global sourcing by the total force.
Berger said
the Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) is “no longer has the same relevance as it
once had to the fleet; however, this will change. We will consider employment
models of the Amphibious Ready Group (ARG)/MEU other than the traditional
three-ship model. We will accept and prepare for fleet commander employment of
LHA/Ds [amphibious assault ships] as part of three-ship ESGs [Expeditionary
Strike Groups] as desired. I see potential in the “Lightning Carrier” concept,
based on an LHA / LHD; however, do not support a new-build CVL [light aircraft
carrier]. Partnering a big-deck amphib with surface combatants is the right
warfighting capability for many of the challenges confronting the joint force,
and provides substantial naval and Joint operational flexibility, lethality and
survivability.”