"I also predict that large-scale amphibious operations will never occur again." —General Omar N. Bradley, 19 October 1949.
When these words were uttered by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff before a House Armed Services Committee hearing on unification and strategy, many in the audience must have concluded that the day of the amphibious assault, and perhaps of the Marine Corps, was fast drawing to a close. General Bradley’s pronouncement not only carried the credibility of his position as the nation’s senior military officer, but was reinforced by the fact that he had led the great amphibious assaults onto the beaches of Sicily and Normandy.
Omar Bradley’s prediction mattered little to General Douglas MacArthur when his United Nations forces were being pummeled by the North Korean Army less than one year later. Within days of the outbreak of the Korean Conflict, MacArthur knew that an amphibious assault in his enemy’s rear would create the opportunity for decisive victory that a frontal offensive could never offer. On 15 September 1950, the hastily assembled First Marine Division spearheaded MacArthur’s landing at Inchon, breaking the back of the North Korean offensive and reaffirming the effectiveness of the Navy-Marine Corps amphibious striking arm in support of the national military strategy.
The 35 years since Inchon have reverberated with echoes of Bradley’s words from other corners, mostly characterized by a cynical scorn for a form of warfare which these critics deride as being outmoded or suicidal in the modern age. Some of these wolves have even tried to don sheep’s clothing by maintaining that the Marine Corps didn’t need to be tied to the Navy and that there was plenty for the Corps to contribute in the battles for Central Europe without being shackled to an amphibious mission. Absent such a change in mission and focus, we were told, the Marine Corps would become strategically irrelevant.
Fortunately, this siren’s song went unheeded. The last six years have witnessed a reawakening to the strategic need for both U. S. naval power and its capability to conduct amphibious forcible entry operations. Where once Marine participation in NATO training exercises was only thinly tolerated, we now have Marine air-ground task forces (MAGTFs) exercising in Norway, Denmark, Italy, and Turkey, on a regular basis. Where once there were no new amphibious assault ships scheduled for construction— to replace a rapidly aging and deteriorating fleet—we now have a solid program of shipbuilding that will give us an expanded and modernized amphibious lift capability by the mid-1990s. Where once there were initiatives that would have "heavied-up" the Marine Corps to create a mechanized clone of existing Army divisions, today we are in the middle of an expansive modernization program that will allow MAGTFs to be lethal and mobile, but still light enough to maintain their amphibious character.
What has caused this resurgent emphasis on maritime and amphibious power? Why are naval forces now being viewed as central—rather than secondary—elements of our military strategy? What role will the Navy-Marine Corps amphibious team be called upon to play in the execution of this strategy across the spectrum of conflict? Is the Marine Corps capable of fulfilling the requirements a maritime-oriented strategy has thrust upon it?
We believe that an examination of the issues underlying these questions will illuminate the reasons behind the rediscovery of the strategic utility inherent in the Navy-Marine Corps team. Although the demands and responsibilities of our strategic role are great, Marines have been long accustomed to the challenges and hazards associated with being our nation’s force-in-readiness. We would have it no other way.
The World Environment
The greatest threat to the security and well-being of the Western Alliance lies in the quest for world domination by the Soviet Union. Emerging from the devastation of a valiant and costly victory over the German Wehrmacht in 1945, the Soviets have constructed a military machine that is equaled only by our own. This gives substantial credibility to their stated goal of eventual global conquest.
The Soviet military effort has gone through a number of stages since the end of World War II. Until the time of Stalin’s death, the focus was on relearning the lessons of the Great Patriotic War, building massive conventional armies, and playing catch-up in the development of nuclear weapons. Soviet deficiencies in nuclear armaments and naval power caused them to fear the might of the U. S. Strategic Air Command and the flexible striking power of U. S. amphibious forces above all other possible threats.
Khrushchev dispensed with much of Stalin’s political style and brought radical reform to the arena of military affairs, as well. Believing that nuclear weapons had made conventional forces an expensive and useless commodity, he placed top priority on the formation of the Strategic Rocket Forces; cut the numbers of ground formations; and brought a halt to the construction of new naval warships. As a consequence—lacking the naval capability to counter a U. S. maritime blockade—the Soviets suffered the humiliation of having to withdraw their missiles from Cuba. Dissatisfied with the entire focus of a nuclear-only defense program, the Russian military subsequently played a central part in the removal of Khrushchev from power in 1964.
The changes in Soviet military strategy since 1965 have been both profound and troubling. Continuing Khrushchev’s expansion of strategic nuclear forces, Brezhnev also launched a massive modernization program for both ground and naval forces. While the United States had its attention focused on Vietnam, the Soviets soon surpassed us in the numbers of nuclear launchers and warheads and boosted the existing imbalance of conventional forces even more in their favor. Huge naval complexes in the Kola Peninsula and the Northwest Pacific indicated that the Soviets intended to use their new fleet to actively contest American maritime supremacy on the high seas.
After Vietnam, as America withdrew into an isolationist shell, forever foreswearing any future foreign involvements, a new and distinctly more ominous Soviet capability began to appear: power projection. No longer satisfied with being a "continental" power, the Soviets began to use their navy for the battles of political influence that have come to characterize the Cold War. Naval bases in Cuba, Vietnam, Ethiopia, Libya, and Angola provided stark reminders that the Russian bear had gone to sea and was prepared to use his naval power—both in general war and for crisis leverage—much as we had for the previous 30 years.
The picture that confronted the West in the late 1970’s was not at all comforting. Somewhat belatedly, we realized that we were faced with a multidimensional superpower with ambitions beyond the continent of Europe and with the military means to carry them out. Without the element of nuclear superiority, which we had enjoyed until 1970, the conventional might of the Soviet Union, now including its expansion to the world’s oceans, took on a menacing import that demanded serious consideration by Western military planners.
Related to the extension of Soviet global military reach has been the growing number of conflicts in the Third World. Wars of national liberation, whether in Central America, the Middle East, or Asia, have received varying degrees of support and encouragement from the Soviets. We may have been soured by our Southeast Asian experiences, but we still recognize the fact that many of these countries are important to the economic health of the West. We have also recognized the need for a means of rapid U. S. response, should a developing crisis in one of these countries worsen.
Another element of instability in the world environment has been the emergence of terrorism as a means of achieving political ends. The shocking murders during the Munich Olympics in 1972 were a foretaste of the wanton violence we have subsequently witnessed in Europe and the Middle East. Whether seeking political anarchy, a homeland to call his own, or the overthrow of a hated regime, the international terrorist has exhibited a devotion to his cause (even unto death) that respects neither social mores nor rules of law. His reach is global, and his targets are rarely involved in the immediate resolution of his struggle. The demonic unpredictability of this threat makes it perhaps the most difficult and frustrating of all to counter and negate.
How, then, has the world environment changed as it relates to Western interests? We are now engaged in competition with a Soviet Union that has emerged from a landlocked view to stake a credible claim for its interests, through a global military capability. Soviet instigation of revolutionary fervor in the Third World also threatens key Western economic interests, and aids the expansion of Russian power and influence. If one adds the "wild card" of terrorism to this already worrisome picture, the absolute requirement for a rapidly deployable and flexible U. S. military capability becomes self-evident.
National Military Strategy
As World War II came to a close in September 1945. the Marine Corps could look with satisfaction and pride on its contribution to the Allied victory in the Pacific. Successful amphibious assaults by both Marine and Army forces had led the way to Tokyo through the Central and Southwest Pacific theaters. The development and use of the atom bomb signaled a new era in military affairs, but—at the time—few would have questioned the utility of maritime amphibious power in the postwar defense of the Free World.
As soon as the guns went silent, however, a new and radically different slant on America’s strategic needs began to emerge. Atomic weapons delivered by long- range bombers would provide our principal means of defeating future aggression. This became a strategy with some measure of appeal in an era of American nuclear monopoly. Dependence on strategic assets soon called into question the need for conventional forces, and particular attention was directed toward the Marine Corps. Army and Air Force leaders questioned the need for a "second land army" and recommended that the Marine Corps be limited—both in size and responsibilities—to a police force equivalent.
It was well for the defense of the nation that the Congress and the American people were somewhat more farsighted than the President and his military leaders in sensing the continuing need for an amphibious force-in-readiness. In passing the National Security Act of 1947, Congress ensured that there would be no piecemeal destruction or limitation of Marine Corps roles, functions, and missions:
"The United States Marine Corps, within the Department of the Navy, shall include land combat and service forces and such aviation as may be organic therein. 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."
This new legislation went on to assign principal responsibility to the Marine Corps for the development of amphibious tactics, techniques, and equipment. An additional charge, unique to the Marine Corps, required the performance of "such additional duties as the President may direct: Provided, that such additional duties shall not detract from or interfere with the operations for which the Marine Corps is primarily organized."
The outbreak of the Korean War in 1950 served notice to the proponents of atomic strategy that not all wars would entail direct confrontation between the major powers. Despite Omar Bradley’s belief that atomic weapons had made amphibious operations obsolete, MacArthur's brilliant landing of a combined Marine Corps/Army force at Inchon clearly countered the limited vision of such dire pessimists. Marine units went on to Fight effectively as part of the United Nations command for the next three years, performing these additional non-maritime duties at the direction of the President.
American national strategy continued to emphasize the massive use of nuclear weapons in the aftermath of the Korean War. The United States still had a substantial measure of nuclear superiority through the 1950s and ground force levels overseas were reduced to provide a minimal conventional "trip wire," to trigger massive nuclear retaliation. Congress had amended the National Security Act in 1951, to mandate that a minimum of three combat divisions and three air wings would be actively maintained by the Marine Corps. Without this legislative floor, the "New Look" proponents may have turned their force-cutting cleaver on the Marine Corps as well.
The 1960s brought forth a revision to the national military strategy, initiated by a rejection of the rigid nuclear orientation of the massive retaliation policy. The two-and- one-half war basis of the new strategy of flexible response called for the maintenance of a nuclear deterrent force, along with the conventional capability to fight major wars in Europe (against the Soviets) and Asia (against the Red Chinese) simultaneously with a smaller war at another unspecified location. Due note was taken of the proliferation of revolutionary wars around the world, and concrete programs were instituted to deal with these conflicts at the lower end of the spectrum as well.
Flexible response showed that America recognized that its global responsibilities could not forever be discharged through the threat of nuclear Armageddon, particularly in light of rapidly growing Soviet strategic capabilities. A truly global strategy requires the ability to dominate the world’s oceans, and the flexibility of force employment that only naval forces can provide.
The two-and-one-half war strategy ran aground in the 1960s when America became involved in the fight for South Vietnamese independence. In seeking to quell what may have started as a revolutionary war, we became involved in a large-scale conflict which siphoned off significant numbers of our conventional forces, bringing into serious doubt our ability to support simultaneously major conflicts against the Soviets and the Chinese. Though initially employed in an amphibious expeditionary mode, Marine forces were once again to engage successfully in sustained land combat at the direction of the President.
The Nixon Doctrine of the early 1970s reduced the scope of our strategy from a two-and-one-half to a one- and-one-half war commitment. The United States would be prepared to fight a major war in Europe and a minor conflict elsewhere. Our intention was to train and equip regional surrogates to defend our interests in areas outside of Europe. The cry of "No more Vietnams" had found its reflection in this narrow, ostrich-like strategic world view which all but abandoned historic, economic, and strategic ties. In seeking defense on the cheap, we basically told many of our allies and friends that they were "on their own."
Making a case for an offensively oriented Navy and Marine Corps is not an easy undertaking if Europe is the primary U. S. area of interest. By the middle 1970s, the Navy’s role was cast primarily in terms of sea control and convoy escort for the reinforcement flow to Europe. Talk of maritime superiority was roundly discounted as the United States opted to abandon its geostrategic naval advantages in order to combat the Soviets on the continental ground of their own choosing.
The Marine Corps was also subject to the ordeal of justifying its existence as an amphibious force, while our Europe-oriented strategy demanded more armored and mechanized divisions. Several noted pundits proclaimed that never again would we have interests worth defending in the Pacific, and that Vietnam had made expeditionary forays a politically unacceptable option to the American people. We were told not too gently that we had better abandon our identity as a naval service, buy some more armored vehicles, bring our MAGTFs home from the Pacific, or risk being viewed as a useless anachronism.
By the late 1970s many national security analysts had come to the conclusion that the one-and-one-half war strategy was fatally flawed. Colin Gray and John Erickson warned of the tremendous buildup of Soviet naval power on the Kola Peninsula and in the Northwest Pacific, as an indication that the Russians were prepared to take the war to sea on a major scale. Soviet gains in Angola, Ethiopia, Vietnam, and Cambodia were indicative of a power that was clearly seeking a global sphere of influence. The fall of the Shah, the seizure of American hostages by the Iranian revolutionary government, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan finally alerted our leaders to the fact that Europe was not the only region whose loss could pose a threat to the United States and its allies.
The proclamation of the Carter Doctrine in January 1980, declaring the oil supplies of the Persian Gulf to be a vital American interest, was the first step along a continuing path that has led to the revalidation of a global military strategy for the United States. While trying to form a Rapid Deployment Force to implement the Carter Doctrine, our governmental leaders soon found that carrier battle groups and amphibious forces were the only military assets capable of establishing an American presence in the Arabian region. The equipment for a Marine amphibious brigade (MAB) was quickly put aboard a set of near-term prepositioning ships and rushed off to Diego Garcia. Budgets for the naval services, which had previously been cut to fund a ground buildup in Europe, were now increased significantly in recognition of their capability to protect our global interests.
The military strategy that has evolved over the last five years recognizes the importance of Europe and the Pacific—and the energy resources of Southwest Asia—to U. S. security interests. Wrapped around the principles of deterrence, forward positioning of forces, and coalition operations with our allies, our strategy has come to recognize, once again, the necessity for a maritime nation to control vital sea lines of communication through naval superiority. Though our primary threat may come from the Soviet Union, modern and ready Navy-Marine forces give our decision makers the capability to address a wide spectrum of possible challenges, from an all-out Soviet attack to a hostage seizure in a Third World country. Clearly, it is the unexpected crisis that presents us the greatest difficulties and most urgently requires rapid application of the discreet power inherent in naval forces.
That our strategy has once again returned to its maritime focus is no surprise to those of us in the naval services. For the Marine Corps, our refusal to renounce our naval heritage and our amphibious nature has been more than vindicated by the renewed confidence and trust our leaders feel in having a uniquely ready, hard-hitting, and sustainable forcible entry capability from the sea.
The Amphibious Warfare Strategy
The development of strategic concepts for the employment of naval forces is an ongoing joint effort by the Navy and Marine Corps. Three years ago, the first edition of what has come to be called "The Maritime Strategy" addressed the role of naval forces in the execution of the National Military Strategy. Though classified in its initial iteration, the Maritime Strategy has now been publicly briefed to the Congress and has been published in an unclassified form in open sources.
Derived from pertinent policy and strategic directives and taking into account the warfighting requirements of the unified and specified commanders-in-chief (CinCs), the Maritime Strategy provides a planning and programming baseline for the employment of naval forces in a global conventional war with the Soviet Union. Currently divided into three phases, this strategy provides a coordinated, sequential framework which seeks to:
► Deter war, if at all possible.
► If deterrence fails: destroy enemy maritime forces; protect allied sea lines of communication (SLOCs); support the land campaign; and secure favorable leverage for war termination.
In June 1985, the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the Marine Corps approved the publication of the Amphibious Warfare Strategy. Developed as a subset of the Maritime Strategy, the Amphibious Warfare Strategy outlines the employment of Navy-Marine amphibious forces in support of our global National Military Strategy. Though oriented to address the phased employment of amphibious forces in a global conventional conflict, the Amphibious Warfare Strategy fully recognizes the utility of these forces in the unexpected and more likely crisis scenarios at the lower end of the conflict spectrum.
Low-Intensity Conflict: B. H. Liddell Hart, the great British military thinker, expressed the following thoughts on the effectiveness of amphibious forces in low-intensity conflict:
"Since Russia has developed nuclear weapons in quantity to match America’s, a nuclear stalemate has developed. In such a situation, local and limited aggression becomes more likely, and amphibious forces become more necessary, both as deterrent and as a counter to aggression—a counter which can be used without being suicidal and a deterrent which is therefore credible."
The role of the Marine Corps in the realm of low-intensity conflicts makes maximum use of the inherent flexibility amphibious forces offer to the National Command Authorities. Congress had this fully in mind when, in passing the 1951 act which dictated the current Marine Corps force structure, it directed that the Marine Corps would be a "ground and air striking force ready to suppress or contain international disturbances short of large-scale war." It is from these roots that the term "force-in-readiness" first appeared, and it is in this arena of rapid and effective crisis suppression that amphibious forces can perform perhaps their greatest service in preventing minor conflicts from growing into major confrontations.
The forward peacetime presence of amphibious ready groups (ARGs) with their deployed MAGTFs in the Mediterranean and Pacific/Indian oceans serves as a visible and credible indicator of American capability to react to sudden, unforeseen crises involving U. S. interests. These groups possess the combined ground/air combat power of a Marine amphibious unit (MAU), which can provide a rapidly available military presence, to put out a brushfire incident before it has a chance to spread.
The advantages which these amphibious groups enjoy over forces which must be deployed from the United States—or be permanently based in the region—are obvious. Many Third World governments are understandably reluctant to grant permanent basing rights to U. S. forces because of the destabilization it could cause to the ruling regime. Without regional bases, forces deploying from the United States must deal with long flight times en route, limited lift capacity for support units and their equipment, and refueling and overflight clearances.
Amphibious forces, on the other hand, can be stationed over the horizon at sea, need no basing or overflight clearances, and provide their own sustainment. A MAU can fight its way ashore if required and can be swiftly extracted back to the waiting ships of the ARG. Often, however, the mere presence of the ARG offshore is enough to deter a would-be aggressor from initiating trouble.
A new and innovative development in the crisis response arena has been the procurement and fielding of three squadrons of maritime prepositioning ships (MPS), each carrying equipment and supplies to sustain a MAB for 30 days. Strategically positioned in the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific Oceans, MPSs will add a significant expansion to our response capability when the program reaches completion this year. When married with its airlifted troops and organic aircraft, an MPS-MAB can provide another means of demonstrating American resolve, when employed either preemptively into a friendly port/airhead or as reinforcement for a forward-deployed ARG.
An additional asset worthy of note is the capability of our deployed MAUs to conduct naval/amphibious special operations. Amphibious raids and other special naval missions have always been a part of the Marine Corps repertoire and may well become likely assignments for deployed MAUs in this era of international terrorism and instability. We intend in the near future to include the training for such missions in the standard pre-deployment workup for all of our MAUs and to have them designated as MAU (Special Operations Capable).
These force projection options from the sea provide a flexible and valuable national asset, in the effort to address and contain potential strife at the low end of the conflict spectrum. The frequency with which we recently have had to face incidents of this type shows that the investment of our defense dollars into amphibious forces is a wise use of scarce resources.
Phase I—Deterrence or the Transition to War: The first phase of the Amphibious Warfare Strategy postulates a growing crisis between the United States and the Soviet Union. At the first sign of deepening tension or possible preparation for a Soviet general attack, U. S. and allied naval forces would surge from their home ports and deploy as far forward as possible. Carrier battle groups and attack submarines would attempt to position themselves for maximum advantage in the event that deterrence failed. The objective of this phase, however, is to assume a deterrent posture so convincing to the Soviets that they would abandon any plans for a general offensive.
Marine forces will be extremely active in this initial phase, and can contribute significantly to the credibility of our deterrent efforts. The very regularity of our amphibious exercises enables us to load our available amphibious ships and deploy them from the United States early in the crisis buildup, without unduly arousing suspicion. This will allow for the massing of amphibious assets in the Atlantic and Pacific to at least MAB size, and will thus give the CinC an in-theater capability for amphibious forcible entry.
While our amphibious forces are sailing to their forward operating areas, MPS squadrons will be repositioning themselves to best support anticipated requirements. The airlifted MAB elements could be joined with their equipment at a preliminary staging location or could be employed as a follow-on element to reinforce the massing amphibious MAGTFs.
Although our Norway land prepositioning program— for a MAB set of equipment and supplies—will not be completed until 1989, the Marine Corps will nonetheless deploy a MAB via amphibious shipping to assist in the defense of Norway. The importance of this region to the defense of the North Atlantic SLOC and its reinforcing flow to Central Europe could dictate the eventual employment of a Marine amphibious force (MAF) to NATO’s Northern Flank.
The deployment of amphibious task forces from the United States, movement of MPSs to crisis areas, and the commitment of a MAB to the defense of Norway will materially assist other Western efforts to dissuade the Soviets from launching a general war. If the Soviets attack despite these efforts, however, we will be deployed to engage the aggressor far forward and to blunt his assault.
Phase II—Seize the Initiative: Should the Soviets commence a full-scale invasion of Central Europe, the initial NATO strategy will be to counter the attack, to wear down the enemy, and to seize the initiative. Attack submarines will quickly engage Soviet naval forces in the Norwegian and Barents seas, the Mediterranean, and the Pacific Ocean. Carrier battle groups will seek to negate or neutralize Soviet surface and air threats, while allied antisubmarine warfare forces will seek out and destroy the Soviet subsurface force.
The naval battle at sea will be fought to keep forward pressure on the Soviet flanks in the northern region of Europe, the Mediterranean, and in the Pacific, thereby preventing any significant shift of Soviet forces to Central Europe or interdiction of NATO’s reinforcing SLOCs. Allied naval superiority in these maritime theaters, gained through the destruction of Soviet naval forces, will set the stage for a series of counteroffensives aimed to ease the pressure on the land battle in the central region.
Amphibious forces could play many parts in this phase. One likely mission could be the seizure of advanced naval bases. Amphibious raids of MAB size or full-scale MAF amphibious assaults could be conducted for the follow-on introduction of U. S. and allied forces. Although deployments may initially be made by MABs, every effort will be made to combine amphibious, MPS, and follow-on MAGTFs so that employment will be on a MAF scale.
NATO’s Northern Flank will be the scene of tense drama, in which amphibious forces can play a key role. As allied naval forces fight for control of the Norwegian Sea, they will be supported by the air component of MAGTFs ashore. As the Soviet invader is worn down, opportunities will develop for amphibious assaults along the Norwegian coast to his rear, to reclaim any airfields and ports that may have been lost in the war’s initial days.
Other areas that may lend themselves to amphibious operations are the North and Baltic seas, the Mediterranean, and the Northwest Pacific. Operations in these areas offer possible opportunities to exert pressure on the Soviet Rimland, which might in turn divert Soviet energies from the struggle for the heartland of industrial Europe.
While NATO’s armies are containing the assault in Central Europe, every effort will be made to retain amphibious forces for employment at the decisive point and time when the Soviets have lost their momentum and are therefore most vulnerable. This does not preclude the use of MAGTFs to support a NATO defense which is in extremis on the English Channel coast. As always, Marines will fight where they are needed most. We believe, however, that the employment of amphibious MAGTFs in a sustained land warfare role compromises their unique capability for flexible maneuver and, therefore, should be avoided.
Phase III—Carry the Fight to the Enemy: Exhausted and contained by a stout NATO defense in the central region, stripped of his naval forces through a bold and decisive allied maritime campaign, and harried by NATO pressure on his flanks, the Soviet invader will now be pounded by a succession of NATO sea, air, and land counteroffensives.
Massed naval task groups will undertake attacks on Soviet forces and their supporting infrastructure in Eastern Europe and the Soviet homeland. Naval offensives into the Kola Peninsula and Northwest Pacific regions could attack key Soviet military targets, thus helping to induce a measure of fear, uncertainty, and paralysis into the Soviet warfighting machine.
Amphibious forces will once again play a prominent part in this final phase. Massed amphibious task forces, together with supporting battleship surface action groups, will now undertake landings to retake conquered territory and to seize key objectives in the Soviet rear. Operating as a component of the naval campaign, MAGTFs could land on the North Cape, the eastern Baltic or the Black Sea coasts, in the Kuriles, or on Sakhalin Island—thereby adding a crucial measure of leverage to the successful conduct of the maritime campaign.
The ultimate objective of our Alliance efforts is to bring the Soviets to the negotiating table as quickly as possible, on terms that are favorable to the West. Maritime forces offer the opportunity to avoid a long, costly, and uncertain land effort to push the Soviets back in Central Europe. Naval operations on the exposed Rimland flanks present the option of striking quickly at key Soviet pressure points in a campaign of nautical maneuver. Used in this manner, our naval forces can make the strategic difference.
The Amphibious Team
No matter how pressing the need or sound the strategy may be, the lack of a ready, well-equipped, and professional amphibious force will make all else irrelevant. The profession of arms is a very unforgiving taskmaster. Good intentions count for far less than does superior battlefield performance.
The Amphibious Warfare Strategy is a viable and meaningful concept because of the Navy-Marine Corps amphibious team that will put it into execution. Improvements in our amphibious capability in the last six years allow us to be supremely confident about the health of this much- needed and frequently used military capability.
People: The quality of the Marines and sailors in service with the fleet has never been higher. Our ranks are filled with well-educated, physically fit, and spirited young men and women who are proud of the important role they play in the country’s defense. The victors of Iwo Jima, Inchon, and Khe Sanh would be proud to serve with today’s young Americans in the uniform of their country.
Forces: The amphibious assault fleet of today is in its best shape, in recent memory, and it is going to get even better. Six years ago, not a single amphibious ship appeared in the Navy’s five-year defense program. Today, we are well into the production of the LSD-41 and LHD-1 classes of amphibious assault ships and have sound programs for the maintenance and upgrading pf the amphibious ships currently serving with the fleet. By the mid- 1990s, we will have a total of 76 amphibious ships, which will be capable of lifting the assault echelons of both a MAF and a MAB. The combination of the increase in strategic lift we will realize from both an expanded amphibious fleet and our MPS squadrons will significantly enhance our capability for global response.
Naval surface fire support for the landing force is critically needed in the early hours of an amphibious assault, before our artillery is established ashore. The reactivation of the four Iowa (BB-61) class battleships, along with programmed improvements in the accuracy and lethality of our naval gunfire munitions, will ensure that Marines hitting an enemy-held shoreline will have the accurate and responsive gunfire support they require.
The Navy has made major commitments to improve the readiness and availability of amphibious assault support forces. Construction battalions, cargo-handling groups, and fleet medical support are often overlooked when novices discuss amphibious operations; the professionals know how easily an operation can founder without these naval support elements.
We in the Marine Corps are looking to improve the effectiveness of our MAGTF concept through the establishment of permanent headquarters. Instead of creating MAGTF headquarters by drafting personnel from subordinate units on an "as-needed" basis, we are now assigning Marines to our MAGTF headquarters on a permanent basis, so that the teamwork and experience we gain will not be lost after every series of exercises. Based on the feedback received from several recent exercises, this concept is already proving its worth and will markedly improve our capabilities for effective command and control of amphibious operations in the coming years.
Equipment: If our amphibious forces are to triumph over a tough and determined foe, they must be provided with effective and modern tools of war. Our modernization program is geared to satisfy long-standing warfighting requirements for present and future battlefields.
Improvements in expediting the movement of Marines from the ship to the enemy shore will be realized with the acquisition of the landing craft air cushion (LCAC) and the MV-22A "Osprey" tilt-rotor aircraft. These platforms will allow for a much more rapid closure to the beach, giving the amphibious task force the option of operating from over the horizon, out of the range of many enemy weapon systems.
In addition, because the LCAC rides on a cushion of air, many beaches that were previously unsuitable for assault landings can now be considered. The significant strategic impact of this development is that it considerably widens the range of possible landing sites that an enemy must defend.
We have modernized the assault rifle, artillery, mortars, and the prime movers organic to the MAGTF. In the next several years, we will be introducing a new tank and a series of light armored vehicles which will improve the mobility and firepower of our MAGTFs without making them too heavy to retain their expeditionary character.
The cumulative impact of our modernization initiatives will result in a MAGTF that will be light, mobile, and lethal.
Doctrine: Although we have sound joint doctrine for amphibious operations, we are constantly seeking to develop and refine improved operational concepts that will foster the best use of our modem warfighting systems. The formulation of an operational and tactical framework for amphibious operations from over the horizon is a high-priority project, combining the efforts of Navy and Marine Corps planners. We have chosen some of our brightest, most operationally experienced, and talented officers to work on this endeavor. Their initial proposals show considerable promise and will be subjected to operational validation in future amphibious exercises.
Boldness and innovation accurately describe the Marine heritage in putting forth new warfighting concepts. Our development of amphibious doctrine in the 1920s, close- air support for ground troops during World War II, and the use of the helicopter for vertical envelopment in the 1950s are prime examples of this desire to develop new and imaginative solutions to battlefield problems.
So too, today, Marines are working on the refinement of tactics that will increase the effectiveness of the MAGTF ashore. Our schools have become hotbeds for the development of new initiatives, and the volume and quality of the tactical debate in our military journals indicate that the scope, depth, and enthusiasm of this effort runs deeply throughout our Corps. We take pride in the fact that our Marines have taken seriously their responsibility to enhance and advance the amphibious art. They have had, and will continue to have, a positive impact on the combat effectiveness of our MAGTFs.
Training: Nothing hones the fighting edge of our amphibious forces better than realistic and demanding training exercises. An increase in funding to support a high operational tempo has enabled Navy-Marine Corps amphibious forces to conduct dozens of exercises around the world, with frequent participation by our allies and by other services.
Conducted in the cold and snows of Norway and Alaska, the heat and sand of Oman and Somalia, and the jungles of Honduras and the Philippines, these exercises allow for the validation of our operational concepts, tactics, and procedures. Feedback from these exercises shows where our concepts are sound and where they require additional attention.
For the MAGTF ashore, our Combined Arms Exercises at our desert base at Twentynine Palms, California, provides the Marine air-ground team with the most realistic live-fire training short of actual combat. Since their inception in 1975, these exercises have broadened in scope from an initial MAU orientation to the point where we now conduct live-fire training on the MAB level.
Readiness: The payoff we get from having superior people, necessary levels of force capability, modern equipment, sound doctrine, and meaningful training is a Navy-Marine Corps amphibious team that truly is a force- in-readiness. Tasked to respond to a wide range 01 possible missions, from a show-of-force to a full-scale assault into a hostile beachhead, amphibious forces must be prepared to respond rapidly and effectively when the seemingly hypothetical suddenly becomes reality. The Navy-Marine Corps amphibious team is ready, eager, and able to accept that challenge.
Renaissance and Revolution
A global Soviet menace. Third World instabilities and threats to key U. S. allies or trading partners, and the specter of international terrorism have combined to force a readdressal of our National Military Strategy. Though we tried to pretend during the decade of the 1970s that European security was our only vital overseas interest, we have since relearned that a maritime nation in an ever-shrinking world has vital interests in nearly every region. The protection of our allies and access to key economic resources demand that we command the seas and possess the capability for maritime power projection.
The National Military Strategy recognizes the requirement for a Navy and Marine Corps capable of reacting quickly to a myriad of possible threats across the entire spectrum of conflict. Deployments in low-intensity or crisis situations are the most likely happenstance. The Navy-Marine Corps team has been the force of choice in Lebanon in 1958 and 1982, Thailand in 1962, the Dominican Republic in 1965, and Grenada in 1983. We are thankful that global war with the Soviets is the least probable scenario, but we are prepared to contribute in a meaningful way to the attainment of allied victory should that unhappy conflict be forced upon us.
The importance of an amphibious forcible entry capability and its role in national strategy were eloquently described by Liddell Hart:
"The history of warfare shows that the basic strategic asset of sea-based peoples is amphibious flexibility. In tackling land-based opponents, they can produce a distraction to the enemy’s power of concentration that is advantageously disproportionate to the scale of force they employ and the resources they possess."
When reviewing the plans for the invasion of Sicily in 1943, General George Marshall is said to have commented that a landing against an organized and highly trained opponent is "probably the most difficult undertaking which military forces are called upon to face." The conduct of forcible entry from the sea remains to this day an exacting and complex endeavor, in which our central goal is most often the seizure of an objective whose value is just as clearly evident to the defender as it is to us.
It is only through the dynamic synergism of the Navy- Marine Corps amphibious brotherhood that risks are minimized, obstacles are overcome, and victory is achieved. Those who seek to put Marines on the front in Central Europe or in other sustained inland roles as land force division equivalents not only demonstrate their total lack of appreciation for the effectiveness of our Marine air- ground team; they also convey the most profound misunderstanding of the proper use of maritime power, the depth of our naval heritage, and the pride with which we bear the title of "Soldiers of the Sea."
Though some military commentators regard World War II to be the high point in the development and conduct of amphibious warfare, we take a very different view. We believe that there is ample evidence to suggest that we have entered a renaissance period in the evolution of amphibious operations, with the broadening of our vistas through the introduction of the LCAC and Osprey yet to come. Indeed, the incremental advances we have experienced in the art of amphibious warfare will soon be giving way to an exciting era—in which the rapid pace of strategic, operational, and tactical improvements will transform the current renaissance into nothing less than an amphibious revolution.