Marines Defend Manpower Stance, Say Equipment is the Urgent Need

Sea Power, Sep 2004 by Kime, Patricia

In 1999, then-Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps Gen. James L. Jones reassigned 3,500 Marines from noncombat jobs to warfighting posts. The changes included removing 700 Marines from kitchen duty at recruit depots in San Diego and Parris Island, S.C., and another 600 from gyms, pools and offices nationwide, and replacing them with civilians.

The plan was costly, but by doing it, Jones instantly added combat troops without increasing end strength.

That kind of long-range planning and reallocation of manpower has become instrumental in helping the Corps manage its biggest operational challenge since Vietnam - deploying large numbers of Marines to Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003, redeploying to Iraq, and handling contingency operations in Haiti, Liberia and Djibouti.

While much is being reported about the Army's difficulties in providing a fighting force for an extended Iraq security mission, little is being said about the state of the Marine Corps, which has 56,000 of its 215,000 active duty and reserve members deployed.

The Corps and its defenders maintain the service is managing, relying on familiar procedures so as to not overwhelm the force or leave it gutted in the future.

But critics contend the service is stretched thin and needs more personnel. The Corps refuses, they add, to defy the Bush administration by asking for more Marines.

"I think we're wearing our people out. And today we're watching the Defense Department take some drastic measures . to man the next rotation of forces to Iraq and Afghanistan," Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, said in july.

During a committee hearing july 7, Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Jan HuIy, assistant commandant for plans policy and operations, faced a phalanx of lawmakers concerned about troop morale, readiness and retention.

HuIy told committee members that the Corps will continue managing its current operations tempo as long as necessary, deploying combat battalions and squadrons for sevenmonth periods and command elements and headquarters units for 12 months.

"Over 30 years' experience has demonstrated that this policy is the best course for the Marine Corps to organize, train and deploy combat ready forces," HuIy said.

The Army has favored rotations of 12 months or more for its troops.

"The Marine Corps is, by nature, ready to take on such challenges and high-tempo operations and expeditionary endeavors. This isn't a question of manpower," said Jack Spencer, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

Critics, however, claim Army and Marine Corps manpower resources are being sapped by extended combat tours and revamped troop rotation schedules. Some members of Congress are calling for increases in end strength and raising the specter of reinstating the draft.

Marine Corps officials admit to having concerns over the war and its effect on equipment, but say personnel increases aren't something the service or the Defense Department is interested in right now.

"Across the board, we believe we can make better use of the uniformed personnel of the United States. We have too many uniformed personnel doing things that civilian personnel, either government or contractor, could do," Dr. David Chu, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, told House Armed Services Committee members.

Where the Marine Corps faces difficulties in sustaining its current tempo has less to do with people and more to do with equipment and maintenance, Corps officials and defense analysts said.

"We're keeping a wary eye on our equipment. ... We have superior equipment, but aging equipment undergoing high usage rates in austere combat conditions clearly present challenges to us," HuIy told the House Armed Services Committee.

Jay Farrar, a retired Marine Corps lieutenant colonel and analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the Corps - and the Army - need money for operations, maintenance and procurement, but not for people.

Farrar argues that the Defense Department is withholding a portion of the services' procurement budgets as a cushion to pay for operations and maintenance costs, if needed. Without those funds, the services don't have the gear they need now and in the future.

"It puts the services, from an operational perspective, in a very tough spot," Farrar said.

Marines are deploying more often and lack equipment they need to do their jobs - situations that could take a toll on morale, and eventually on re-enlistment and retention, he said.

"The Corps hasn't seen that yet, but it is seeing some minor warning signs," Farrar said.

To bolster the service and secure its foundation, the Corps needs a "huge infusion of money in operations and maintenance and in procurement dollars," he said. And the money wouldn't be additional funds from Congress, it would come from the Defense Department, which already has it.

"This is where congressional oversight needs to keep their thumbs on the Pentagon," Farrar said.

Spencer agreed that money could be better spent on equipment, maintenance and operations instead of personnel.