Retired Gen. Al Gray (29th commandant of the Marine Corps) used to say that the mission of the Corps was to “make Marines and win America’s wars.” But given the events of the past decade or so since 9/11, will Marines need to do new things to be relevant in the middle of the 21st century?

Well, I think what Gen. Gray said, and I know that Gen. [Charles “Chuck” C.] Krulak [31st Commandant of the Marine Corps] reinforced it, was, “We make Marines, we win battles, and we return quality citizens to the country.” That’s what the Marine Corps does. And we do win battles, because we [also] have an Army and a joint force to win wars. And I would offer that, having served side by side with the Army in combat, it’s the greatest Army on the planet. The Army and the Marine Corps fundamentally are two different forces, which is why we’re both still around.

But the Marine Corps doesn’t need to do anything differently in the 21st century. What we have to do is continue to be the nation’s naval expeditionary force in readiness. We have to be able to respond to the threats of the 21st century, and to be able to use that big blue area on that map as maneuver space so that we can, in fact, carry out the directions of the president of the United States as commander in chief. So that we can, in fact, prevent crises by being forward deployed. So that we can, in fact, grow those partnerships. So that we can, in fact, be most ready when the nation is least ready. And if something happens, we can provide decision space to the president and to the other national security decision-makers such that they can influence the fight.

The thing about the Marine Corps is that there’s a distinguishing characteristic between us and the Army. Our Army brethren by and large are a land Army. The Air Force [specializes in] air, space, and cyberspace; the Navy in controlling the sea above and below.

The Marine Corps doesn’t have one of those domains necessarily. We’re not air. We’re not land. Our “lane” is crisis response, across the whole spectrum of what the nation needs. So it’s crisis response whether it’s humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, or whether it’s to get into a conflict in the early stages to either open the door for access for a larger joint force, or whether it’s simply to prepare the space for the rest of the elements of the government which provide the great power of our nation – whether that’s nongovernmental organizations, whether that’s aid and relief. Whatever it is, that’s what we do. We provide access.

So our lane is crisis response, and that lane isn’t going to change. What will change over time, obviously, is how we go about providing that critical capability to the country. And we’re well on our way to developing some of the tools to do that, with Joint Light Tactical Vehicle [JLTV], with the Amphibious Combat Vehicle [ACV], and with the F-35B Lightning II. And also, probably most equally important is the continuation and completion of the V-22 [Osprey production run], all of that in conjunction with our Navy brethren as we continue to build an amphibious capability for the nation and a naval amphibious force that can respond around the globe.

 

Given the current projected funding profiles in the FY 13 to FY 17 time frame that you were discussing, along with the new and altered missions you’re going to be dealing with, are you comfortable with the Department of the Navy’s ability to support you in those responsibilities and roles and missions?

This secretary of the Navy, Secretary [Ray] Mabus, is fully committed in his partnership with both the chief of naval operations and with the commandant of the Marine Corps to having the best Navy-Marine Corps team that the nation can afford. And so he sees us as an equal partner in the distribution of funds and resources across the Department of the Navy. So that’s important.

The second issue related to that is the Marine Corps’ big bang for the buck. We are the frugal force. Do I think the Department of the Navy will be able to provide the capabilities and resources we need? The answer to that question is yes, and here’s why: If you took all of the money that the Department of the Navy spends on airplanes, and all of the money the Navy spends on amphibious ships, and all of the money that the Navy spends on the corpsmen and doctors that support the Marine Corps, and all of the money that the Navy spends on chaplains that support the Marine Corps, and you added all of that money up, if you took all that money and you added that to the Marine Corps’ budget, all of that would only take 8.2 percent of the [total] Department of Defense budget. 8.2 percent. Now we obviously don’t buy the ships: The Navy does. And we don’t buy the airplanes: The Navy does, and we are partners with them in designing and getting [them into service]. But even if you add it all up, 8.2 percent of the budget. And what do you get for 8.2 percent of the budget? For 8.2 percent of the budget you get 15 percent of ground combat brigades, 11 percent of the fixed-wing aviation fighter and attack for the nation, 18 percent of the rotary wing/tilt rotor, the helicopter support for the nation. So for 8 percent, getting a pretty good return on capability. Plus you get naval expeditionary ready forces around the globe, ready to do the bidding of the nation whether it’s at the low end of the spectrum of conflict, or at the high end, or building partner capacity along the way. The Navy has committed to buying amphibious ships right along with submarines and everything else. Would we like more? Absolutely. Do I think the Navy is doing absolutely the best that they can, given the resource allocations that they have? Absolutely! Their plan is to maintain a force of 30 operationally available amphibious ships, which is what we think is the minimum number of operationally available amphibious ships. Are we going to be there tomorrow? No. But will we grow there? Yes. And why? Because of that commitment that I mentioned early on by the secretary of the Navy, the chief of naval operations, and the commandant of the Marine Corps and their tight partnership.

This interview was first published in Defense: Winter 2013 Edition.