“We need to be lighter, faster, more agile and cheaper [and] we’re going to need to focus on what’s good enough,” according to Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and Integration Lt. Gen. Kenneth Glueck, who was previously commander of III MEF. “We need to focus on what is good enough – not what we need or want, but what’s good enough.”

As the war in Southwest Asia demonstrated, neither the Marine Corps nor its sister services can afford to plan for a repeat – structuring to “fight the last war.” Nor can it return to pre-9/11 tactics, techniques, and procedures.

“Tomorrow’s Marines will see violent extremism, battles for influence, disruptive societal transitions, natural disasters, extremist messages, and manipulative politics. We will see criminal enterprises wield combat power formerly only associated with nation-states. We will see separatism, extremism, and intolerance that will lead to terrorism, protests, and violence.”

“Tomorrow’s Marines will see violent extremism, battles for influence, disruptive societal transitions, natural disasters, extremist messages, and manipulative politics. We will see criminal enterprises wield combat power formerly only associated with nation-states. We will see separatism, extremism, and intolerance that will lead to terrorism, protests, and violence,” Amos testified.

“We will see new technologies place modern weapons into the hands of developing states and non-state actors, while the development and proliferation of advanced conventional weapons challenges our ability to project power or gain access. We must maintain a force that can balance a focus on the Asia-Pacific with a sustainable emphasis on the Middle East, combined with a continuous effort to counter violent extremists operating across multiple domains.”

To accommodate the current official force numbers, due to be reached before the end of this decade, while maintaining as much readiness as possible, the Corps also has changed its historic stance on enlisted retention, now encouraging already trained and, in many cases, combat-experienced young Marines to re-enlist. Ironically, the Corps not only is restructuring, but also putting even more emphasis on the technology focus that led to its nearly identical pre-9/11 numbers.

“The force structure of 174,000 is designed to posture the Marine Corps for the future in a resource-constrained environment,” McKenzie said. “It is not an ideal number, but it forces us to look at other perspectives besides the simple strategic requirements. We are going to have fewer Marines and we are not completely sure what our future responsibilities are going to be.

“We are bringing in new equipment, which is going to help us, but at the same time our basic product is the U.S. Marine – and they are going to be fewer. We will emphasize crisis response and forward-deployed operations … where we offer the best bargain for the nation. [In addition], the ‘new normal’ has forced us to answer needs with the use of a Special Purpose MAGTF [Marine Air-Ground Task Force] response.”

Based on the SP-MAGTF that has been operating throughout the Mediterranean, these forward-based task forces comprise ground, air, and support elements that can respond to a range of operational needs far more quickly than other U.S. military units.

While forcing the Corps to upgrade existing equipment rather than acquire new, technologically superior systems, sequestration and budget cuts are not the only things affecting the Corps – so is the Pacific pivot. For example, Amos has designated I MEF at Camp Pendleton, Calif., as the Corps’ “global response force,” exempting it from draconian cuts. But the “bill payer” for that, according to Glueck, will be II MEF at Camp Lejeune, N.C., which now is scheduled to lose nearly half of its units and its two-star commander.

As part of the refocus, the Corps also plans to move 22,000 Marines “west of the International Dateline,” Glueck added. That will include a new agreement with Australia for a “permanent” presence on the island continent, rotating 2,500-member MAGTF deployments by 2016.

Facing an uncertain global military environment with a minimal – if not lesser – force of both warfighters and equipment with the most capability the Corps can muster has placed increased pressure on the Marines’ new Futures Directorate, established in April 2013. Its mission is to “enhance the current and determine the future Marine Corps strategic landscape by assessing plausible future security environments, developing and evaluating Marine Corps service concepts, and integrating these concepts into naval, joint, and other service concepts in order to identify potential gaps and opportunities to inform future force development and enable conditions for future operational advantage.”

“The force structure of 174,000 is designed to posture the Marine Corps for the future in a resource-constrained environment,” McKenzie said. “It is not an ideal number, but it forces us to look at other perspectives besides the simple strategic requirements. We are going to have fewer Marines and we are not completely sure what our future responsibilities are going to be.

Brig. Gen. Kevin J. Killea is dual-hatted as commander of the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab and head of the new directorate, which is drafting a “Marine Corps 10-Year Objective Force Plan.” The directorate’s overall goal is to look at the probable security environment out 20 to 30 years, then determine the “realm of the possible” for an evolving future Marine Corps.

“The landscape going forward is ever-changing for our Marines, who continue to deploy in harm’s way,” Killea said. “I see it as our job to stay in front of the changes.”

In summing up his testimony to the HASC hearing, Amos warned the U.S. capability to maintain a global military presence capable of swift and decisive response to any emergency will be further eroded if Congress does not pass a responsible defense budget and end a possible decade of across-the-board, unfocused cuts.

“Sequestration, by its scale and inflexibility, will significantly stress our force, degrade readiness, and create a significant risk to our national security – all at a time of strategic rebalancing, all done on a world stage that is chaotic and volatile,” the commandant warned. “America will begin to see shortfalls in the military’s ability to accomplish the national strategy. In order to be effective in this new environment, we must maintain our forward influence, strategic mobility, power projection and rapid response capabilities that Marines are known for today.

“The Marine Corps is the most ready when the nation is least ready. It is who we are. Paired with the Navy, we are the elements of the joint force that must be maintained at high levels of readiness. We are the nation’s risk mitigation for the additional cuts that will affect other elements of the Department of Defense.”

This article first appeared in the Marine Corps Outlook 2013-2014 Edition.