Tuesday, June 14, 2011

OK, then listen to him


There are universal constants. PV=nRT. "R" will always be "R."

There are also things that may, for brief periods of time be overshadowed by the bright, shiny transient ... but when that brief flash fades, the constant returns - its importance reinforced by time.

Towards an outstanding speech that everyone should read twice. Royal Marine Commandant's Gallipoli Memorial Lecture, 12 May, 2011, by Major General Buster Howes, OBE.

He is, of course, speaking of the UK - but it applies to the USA as well.

Nothing more to say. Ponder.
‘We are a maritime nation … we rely upon the seas for commerce…to support our friends and allies….for on-scene response to crises where we have no access rights or permissive facilities, and for representing our national interests around the world….

The point is… the forces of choice to handle future crises will likely continue to be aircraft carriers and amphibious forces with embarked Marines. One might also speculate, as we enter an era characterised by increasing terrorist activity, violence in drug exportation and the use of coercive tactics such as hostage taking, that amphibious forces with their evolving special capabilities will increasingly emerge as the more logical force of choice.

There is no indication whatsoever that the zeal of xenophobic radicals, messianic clerics, nihilistic students and other insurgents bent on reversing the trend of emerging, albeit weak, impoverished, democratic governments will decrease. These men of the streets and villages are better dealt with by riflemen than by supersonic aircraft – and they will be dealt with in areas where we will not likely have, nor want to establish, bases ashore.’

That could have been written yesterday. It was actually published by General Al Gray, Commandant US Marine Corps, 22 years ago, in 1989.
What he said.

18 comments:

TheMightyQ said...

That speech is brilliance itself.

Salty Gator said...

In the pentagon there is a corridor that has all the CMC's official portraits in it.  Pure awesomeness.

Salty Gator said...

I would trade in 90% of Navy BMD, in its current anemic instantiation, for amphibious forces.

LT B said...

Nice use of the ideal gas law.  You made a geek smile.

LT B said...

Nice use of the ideal gas law.  You made a geek smile.

Grandpa Bluewater. said...

Bullseye.

ewok40k said...

all well and good until 'phibs get sunk by Chinese ASBMs... Navy is  combined force that needs all elements in place

Jay said...

If I were a critic of the Navy -- I would ask the obvious hard question, and I would hope that the Navy had a good answer -- e.g. "Really?  And the last Amphib Assault was when?  (not just putting troops ashore because you could...but because that was the necessary method)"

It seems that Marines are arriving via air these days.  Via Helo in small numbers where/when necessary...but arriving in-theater via transport Jet to marry up with their equipment like most of...the...Army. 

I understand assault echelon & follow-on (we can not plan on the luxury of that happening -- good sea ports, benign environment) -- but you'd have a hard time justifying this to some folks.  Perhaps this is part of the reason that one of the LH(x) variants was designed an all air platform?  (I haven't followed the program -- perhaps they put an amphib craft capability back into the design...)  EFV ain't making things any easier...

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Jay,

Nope and nope.  You could also ask "When was the last significant sea battle?"   Which would be well before the last forcible entry, and then use that answer to justify getting rid of the Navy.

The question to be asked is "Do you want to eliminate forcible entry as a means of projecting power?"  And if the answer is "yes", then you should ask the question "Are you satisfied with the US as a regional (North America) power no longer able to influence world events?" 

The follow-on question is "Do you really think it is easier and less costly to seize a port facility without 1.) having the bad guys blow it in your face, or 2.) engaging in significant MOUT combat than it is to transit a lightly-defended beach?"

If someone answes "yes" to that one, piss test him.  Because he has been smokin' hash.

SouthernAP said...

If you want to discount just the United States then you have the Falklands in 1982 as the last major contested amphibious landing. Which if you look at the fiasco that was in just trying to dig up enough amphibious lift to transport a Royal Marine Commando Brigade and an Royal Army brigade. You will see that just because one has only done administrative landings or even been planning for administrative landings in the future conflict; doesn't mean that you shouldn't have a back up plan for doing an opposed landing. Commodore Michael Clapp's book is a brilliant overview of all the headaches and heart ache that he faced as the lone Gator officer in the Royal Navy. He talks about getting this hodge podge fleet of car ferries and small garbage haulers together with all sorts of stuff loaded. Then having to stop over at Acesnion Islands, unload everything for the two brigades and then try to do combat loading. All while Adm. Woodward was screaming for him to show up on time and ready to put everyone ashore in a plan that no one had agreed too yet. Plus trying to get all these civilian ships to operate in something similar to a military style orders, he admitted to just pulling his hair out about it all. Afterwards, the RN and (through his vocal voice) the rest of NATO amphibious forces in Europe praticed more contested landings procedures and looked at increasing their amphib lift because of those experiences and lessons learned.

SouthernAP said...

If you want to discount just the United States then you have the Falklands in 1982 as the last major contested amphibious landing. Which if you look at the fiasco that was in just trying to dig up enough amphibious lift to transport a Royal Marine Commando Brigade and an Royal Army brigade. You will see that just because one has only done administrative landings or even been planning for administrative landings in the future conflict; doesn't mean that you shouldn't have a back up plan for doing an opposed landing. Commodore Michael Clapp's book is a brilliant overview of all the headaches and heart ache that he faced as the lone Gator officer in the Royal Navy. He talks about getting this hodge podge fleet of car ferries and small garbage haulers together with all sorts of stuff loaded. Then having to stop over at Acesnion Islands, unload everything for the two brigades and then try to do combat loading. All while Adm. Woodward was screaming for him to show up on time and ready to put everyone ashore in a plan that no one had agreed too yet. Plus trying to get all these civilian ships to operate in something similar to a military style orders, he admitted to just pulling his hair out about it all. Afterwards, the RN and (through his vocal voice) the rest of NATO amphibious forces in Europe praticed more contested landings procedures and looked at increasing their amphib lift because of those experiences and lessons learned.

USMC Steve said...

He seemed to be a good Commandant, not too refined to mix with the enlisted swine.  Sumbitch could hit though.  You didn't want to get thumped by that guy.  And he was very intelligent, but he didn't want to bother with the hoopla and politics the Commandant must deal with so often. 

Clarkward said...

With nothing substantial to say on this, I will recall those heady days in 1989 when a young Clarkward rode the bus out to Parris Island, and Al Gray was The Commandant.  We loved him because we knew he loved us.  I know some officers had negative opinions of him, but they can eff off :)

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Uncle Al, the Infantry's Pal was a real warrior.  He didn't give a damn for Marines who didn't understand at a soul level that theirs was the profession of arms, irrespective of MOS. 

Ground combat guys loved him for it.

Jay said...

Not quite...we've been using many of our ships supporting aviation missions. "getting rid of the navy" is an illogical conclusion. Forcible entry, as understood for 60 years, may be evolving.

Jay said...

Gaaaaaa...why isn't that available as an e-book? I wonder the state of NATO amphibian forces today, time to grab the latest Janes...

UltimaRatioRegis said...

I didn't say "get rid of the Navy" other than as a corollary to your assertion of "evolving" forcible entry.

Which hasn't evolved all that much.  We just want to think it has, because we want to do it on the cheap, and look for justifications to do just that.

Redeye80 said...

I seemed to remember he bypassed a stand full of aviation Marines to go talk to the mud Marines next door.  He never made it back to the aviation Marines.  He lost a bunch fans that day.

He was a bull in a china shop.