Develop a Maritime Security Company
By Major Chris Ieva, U.S. Marine Corps, and Lieutenant Derek Rader, U.S. Navy
Ironically, the Navy's strategic course for the future may result in a surface Fleet resembling the Navy of its past. By entering and controlling the littorals, warships will increasingly place themselves at tactical parity with evolving naval threats. However, unlike their predecessors, today's Sailors lack the traditional Marine detachment to support their operations. The new maritime strategy does call for Marine detachments on ships, but they need to remain flexible. As new doctrine, ship classes, and partnerships orient toward the littoral, attention needs to remain focused on how Marines can best support the Navy's new role, beyond existing contributions from expeditionary strike groups.
Successful joint warfare requires service interoperability as opposed to interchangeability. We need to explore previous Navy and Marine interoperability that has been successful, and use it as both doctrine and organizational guidance to enhance our support of the Navy's new strategy.
The traditional relationship of the Navy—Marine Corps team is rooted in absolute military necessity. From this necessity, common sense dictates that Marines have been and remain integral to any naval strategy in the littorals. Therefore, the Marine Corps should establish a company-size unit to support the Navy's emerging strategy.
Any Time, Any Place
We currently face a new set of circumstances on a global level.
The Navy needs to master irregular warfare in the littoral regions. Upon entering the littorals, asymmetrical opponents gain greater parity in combat power. Like those waging guerilla warfare, state and non-state naval forces possess the luxury of choosing the time and location of attack. We should expect them to fight outside the constraints of the Laws of Armed Conflict, as in the attack on the USS Cole (DDG-67).
High-demand, low-density forces, such as SEALs and Maritime Special Purpose Forces embarked with expeditionary strike groups, are not required for conventional force protection (FP) and non-compliant maritime interdiction operations (MIOs). Furthermore, the strike group's disposition does not always support the naval commander's entire scope of FP and MIO requirements.
There are numerous intangible benefits from FP and MIO training. However, the associated benefits do not exceed the ship's costs resulting from crew proficiency degradation and the reduced ability to execute multi-mission warfare. Despite these costs, commanding officers must increasingly divert personnel, resources, and time to meet current MIO training requirements.
Instead, the creation of a Maritime Security Company (MSC) would provide commanding officers the flexibility to focus on the training and execution of primary duties while simultaneously conducting MIOs with a more effective force.
In warfare, one should never assume away an enemy capability. But the current MIO mindset tacitly assumes limited or unlikely hostile contact. Urban fighting in Iraq has taught us that regardless of a boarding team's level of skill, some casualties occur in close-quartered combat.
The optimal manning concept reduces personnel needed to accomplish a mission. But while workforce efficiency and economy are increased, a tailored crew size also means that greater value is placed on each Sailor. In the event that boarding team casualties are sustained, the optimal manning program may not provide sufficient crew to carry out multi-mission tasking effectively while also attending to normal ship's functions.
The Maritime Security Company provides a dual solution. First, the singular mission focus of a Marine-manned boarding party mitigates—but does not eliminate—operational risk. Second, in the unfortunate event that a boarding party casualty is sustained, only the ship's MIO capability is affected, not overall combat effectiveness.
Maritime Homeland Defense requires security at ports, canals, and other key areas. At the same time, the idea of re-establishing shipboard Marine detachments may not appear feasible or acceptable, given the large manpower requirements of supporting Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom.
From a service perspective, the Marine Corps may feel that it no longer guards ships, bases, and ports. Conversely, the Navy may feel that it can and has performed these missions without the help of Marines. There is truth to both beliefs.
MSC Squads Would Be Flexible
The MSC would organize, equip, and train squad-size units for rotational deployments in support of global maritime operations.
Squads would possess organic weapons, communications equipment and gear while retaining the ability to be fly-away assets on board surface combatants. The scope of the missions should be limited to the following.
- Force protection, including non-lethal weapons employment
- Maritime interdiction operations
- Training naval and foreign service personnel
- Supporting Maritime Homeland Defense (Coast Guard, ports, canals, etc.) as required
The maritime component of geographical combatant commanders would control MSC squads operationally. Squads would not be aligned with particular units, but remain flexible based on mission requirements. An MSC squad would be able to serve on board multiple warships in various locations. They could perform the full scope of their missions during the course of a single deployment.
To address MSC leadership and liaison requirements, we must avoid throwing rank at the problem. As demonstrated throughout the Corps' history, noncommissioned officers should lead MSC squads.
Standardization of MSC equipment and training, combined with specific and bounded missions, would mitigate the need for liaison once a squad was deployed. From a practical standpoint, keeping the rank of the squad leader appropriate to the mission would simplify command relationships.
The MSC could not feasibly support every warship continuously, but the squads could support prioritized MIO and FP requirements as needed through fly-away capability. Shipboard short-range FP weapons could be augmented with medium-range anti-tank guided missiles. And existing masters-at-arms could be retained as required for permanent FP duties.
Let the Marines Do Their Job
The Navy has never shied away from danger, but little viable justification exists for Sailors to accept unnecessary risk when conducting missions that the Marines have traditionally supported.
Formation of the MSC presents a proactive, efficient, and effective use of forces. In keeping with the expeditionary nature of the Corps, the MSC would provide shock troops both on sea and land globally.
The MSC could serve as a strategic military deception and deterrent measure. It would disrupt anyone intending harm on all warships: the enemy could not confirm whether MSC squads were actually present or not.
The traditional aspect of this restructured Navy-Marine team would create synergy between MSC Marines and Sailors. It would reduce redundancy and fulfill missions that each service is best suited to execute. Surface warfare officers could remain focused on shipboard missions and fighting the ship, while combat-arms Marines trained for tactical roles would be used in those missions.
MSC Marines would gain practical, valuable real-world experience in their primary military occupation specialty. Greater travel opportunities, incentive pay, and small unit independence would provide greater likelihood for retention.
Through joint training with Marines, surface crews would develop better force-protection skills and small-arms marksmanship. Inter-deployment training cycle time would decrease, because to implement the MSC, combatants would have to attain sufficient knowledge and capability to support MSC assets—not carry the entire fight by themselves. Finally, adding an MSC unit would provide combatants with a force that could be extended beyond the bounds of MIO, if required.
Future naval challenges are as diverse as they are significant. We do have existing organizations that meet the needs of FP and MIO, but a dedicated MSC provides the optimal solution. For joint operations, services must be able to use parts of each other as needed—not be interchangeable. The foundation for naval and Marine interoperability has already been cemented. Now is the moment to optimize the Marine Corps' enduring relationship with the Navy to support the Navy's new strategic mission.
Major Ieva is an infantry officer enrolled in the Naval Postgraduate School's information warfare curriculum. He has recently deployed as a staff officer in the CJ-3 directorate of CJTF Horn of Africa in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, and as a rifle company commander in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom 05-02.
Lieutenant Rader, a surface warfare officer who also is enrolled in the Naval Postgraduate School's information warfare curriculum, has completed tours onboard the USS Vella Gulf (CG-72) as the anti-submarine warfare officer, and the USS McFaul as the training officer, including a 2004 deployment in support of Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom.
Correspondence Courses: More Money for Your Retirement
By Petty Officer First Class Robert Fisher, U.S. Navy Reservist
Enlisted Navy Reservists have a retirement earning potential worth at least an additional $31,000, but many don't understand this. The secret is optimizing the Navy retirement account. Every Reservist needs to understand the future dollar value of retirement points and how to maximize them. Reserve unit commanding officers should also understand the value of retirement points, and ensure that everyone within his or her command uses the following tips. In fact, why not make earning maximum annual retirement points part of Reservists' annual evaluations?
During 15 years as an enlisted Navy Reservist, I sat through lectures in which retirement points and the value of correspondence courses were explained. But when I asked fellow Reservists if they were taking correspondence courses to earn retirement points, nearly everyone said no!
Why was this? Finally I understood: The most important part of the learning process was being omitted. No one explained clearly just how much was in it for us.
Several years ago, I trained petty officers at Navy Operational Support Center (NOSC) Ebensburg, Pennsylvania, and periodically presented a class called "I'll Show You How to have $25,000 More Money When You Retire." The title alone made students take notice. The lesson revolved around the standard information about retirement points and how they are earned, but the audience grabber in my presentation was how many dollars retirement points were really worth (even more now, because of annual pay increases). Younger members had a hard time grasping that retirement would ever come, but many were old enough to see retirement looming over the horizon.
In a Nutshell
There are two types of retirement points that can be earned: inactive and active, with a maximum of 365 per year. Many Reservists do not understand the concept that retirement points are earned in a Pay Entry Base Date (PEBD) year, which is basically the date the service member entered active or reserve duty. In other words, if you take the course at the wrong time, it will not accumulate points toward your retirement income. This is critical knowledge, so that correspondence courses can be taken within the periods that are counted.
The maximum number of inactive points that can be earned annually is 90. For those with 18 years of service, this is new. Before September 1996, that maximum was only 60. It increased to 75 between then and October 2000, since which time it has been growing to 90.
Most people earn inactive points by being in good standing with the Navy Reserve (which automatically earns you 15 points, called gratuitous points) and attending monthly weekend drills, worth 48 inactive retirement points. That adds up to 63 points, with another 27 inactive points available to be earned to reach the maximum allowed 90 inactive points. These 27 inactive points are the retirement earning potential missed by many, many Navy Reservists.
The Value of a Mere 27 Points
Let's assume you had three years of active duty, then joined the Navy Reserves. If you earn 27 points more annually for 17 years, that totals 459 extra points. Say you retire as an E-5 in 2022: those 459 points will be worth approximately $130 per month.1 If you then live for another 20 years (from age 60 to 80) drawing your Navy retirement, your $130 per month will total $31,200.
Now let's assume you retire as an E-6: (459 points/360) X .025 X $4,888 = $156/month.2 If you live another 20 years after retirement: $156/month X 12 months/year X 20 years = $37,440.
For Chief Petty Officers (E-7), the earning potential of a mere 27 annual points per year is $44,400. And keep in mind, as a Reservist, that if you take all the correspondence points, your chances of becoming a Chief Petty Officer improve.
Put the Math to Work for You
Your 27 points per year can be earned in the following ways:
- Complete correspondence courses, which are generally standard instruction courses. This is the easiest way to earn points. For example, the "Basic Machines" correspondence course is very interesting, especially for someone who likes to tinker. It's useful not only for your Navy career, but for your civilian life as well. It is worth six points. For a retired E-5 over 20 years drawing your Navy pension, this equals: (6 points/360) X .025 X $4,070 = $1.696/month. $1.696/month X 12 months/year X 20 years = $407.
Correspondence courses are found at the Web site https://wwwcnet.navy.mil/.
Select "Navy Advancement Center" on the left.
The correspondence course "Military Requirements, Basic" (also known as BMR) is required of all enlisted Navy Reservists. It's a hard course, but in addition to making you a great Sailor, it has a lot of retirement dollar value. This course is worth 15 retirement points to you. If you retire as an E-5, than means: (15 points/360) X .025 X $4,070 = $4.239/month. $4.239/month X 12 months/year X 20 years = $1,017.
- Complete e-learning courses, the Navy's version of computer-based training. This is another easy way. E-learning courses are found at the Navy Knowledge Online Web site: https://wwwa.nko.navy.mil/portal/splash/index.jsp, under the Learning tab.
- Funeral honors (very nice for the deceased's family) are worth one point per half day.
- Attend conferences, conventions, and training activities that have Navy relevance or interest (which is nice if you plan to be there anyway). These are worth a few points.3
- Extra drills for no pay are worth one point per half day. (For my money, this is the worst way to earn points—unless of course you have no choice.)
Work Now, Earn Later
One important benefit of the retirement point earning system is its similarity to a deferred-compensation savings account. You don't pay taxes on the retirement dollar value of the points when you earn them; their value grows as you go up in rank (many of the points are earned as an E-3, but paid out at the higher rank pay of an E-5 or E—6 when in retirement). They are earned at a low annual pay rate during your earlier years, but paid out when you retire at the higher annual pay rate. I can find no downside to all this. One wonders why such hefty monetary benefits exist for the Navy Reservist. It is simply a retention tool. And this is all the more reason that Navy leadership should be aware of the program and provide direction and understanding to the troops. Obviously a tool that puts an extra $30,000 into someone's pocket is indeed a very powerful tool.
How Leadership Can Help
One good way to help Reservists understand the retirement dollar value of inactive points is a PowerPoint presentation that I created, and that I will send you for free upon request (email [email protected]). Of course you will have to modify it as pay rates increase, but that only makes it more useful. If the retirement point dollar value were part of the annual evaluation, the lesson would be reinforced. This could be integral for enlisted personnel in one of the following sections of the evaluation: Block 37, Personal Job Accomplishment/Initiative; Block 43, Comments on Performance; or Block 44, Qualifications/Achievements. Navy leadership needs to see that making Reservists more aware of their benefits is good for all parties. This information can be a great incentive for recruiting, and also for retention. Another positive side effect: from the perspective of subordinates, it sheds a very positive light on a leader.
Points Are Easy to Track
The Navy has made it simple for Reservists to keep track of accumulated retirement points, through BUPERS Online: https://www.bol.navy.mil/. For a career summary, click on "ARPR/ASOSH Online," then "Annual Statement of Service History (ASOSH)." Finally, "Annual Retirement Point Record (ARPR)" gets you to a specific year.
In 1997 and 1998, 12 and 29 points respectively had not been credited to my account for correspondence courses I had taken. I sent a copy of my completion certificates to BUPERS, and in several months my record was corrected. Those two corrections added more than $1,000 to my 20-year retirement earning potential.
I was in the Individual Ready Reserve from 1999 until 2001 and continued working toward my retirement by completing correspondence courses and earning a minimum of 50 points each year. I was even able to earn maximum inactive points (90) during those years.
Increasing Reservists' retirement earning potential by $31,000, $37,000, or even $44,000 through correspondence courses is basically a no-cost way of saving money. It's almost like buying stock, but with a guaranteed rate of return (annual pay increases) and at no cost. But it can only happen if the correspondence courses are completed, and the maximum benefit will only be realized if points are maximized.
1.Basic formula: (# points)/(360) X (.025) X (retiring monthly base pay) = monthly pay. Assuming the annual monthly E-5 pay is $4,070 per month: (459 points/360) X .025 X $4,070 = $130/month. This math uses the 2006 base pay with a 3.1 percent annual raise for 16 years.
2. Assumes the annual monthly E-6 pay is $4,888 per month. The math uses the 2006 base pay with a 3.1 percent annual raise for 16 years.
3. Guidelines and procedures for performing this type of duty are outlined in the BUPERSINST 1001.39 and COMNAVRESFOR 1001.5 (series).