Aviation is not the only area in which the Marine Corps has made significant changes while essentially fighting a counterinsurgency land war in Southwest Asia, changes the FSR sought not only to make permanent, but to expand in the new decade.

Before the new austerity budget, plans had called for major increases in the size of both MARSOC and MARFORCYBER, whose members are drawn from the big Corps, even as its overall size is reduced. But all Marines underwent major changes in equipment and training during OEF/OIF, creating a 21st century Corps significantly different from anything in its previous 225 years. The next step was to return the Corps to its “maritime soul” after a decade of ground combat, often far from the sea.

Building on what already has been initiated, every Marine will be sufficiently trained and equipped in combat medicine to increase battlefield survivability – personally and in aiding others. They also will receive language and cultural training related to their deployments, enabling them to better interact with – rather than against – non-combatants and local officials or tribal leaders. Occupational specialties no longer considered “high demand” are being replaced by those that are, primarily in intelligence, communications, and logistical support.

Marines also will be equipped with precision-guided munitions, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), ground robots, enhanced short-range and satellite communications, battlespace network-centric capabilities for greater situational awareness, and updated information and orders, better personal body armor, etc.

In Southwest Asia, Marines became the most enthusiastic users of UAVs, largely small, hand-launched intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance (ISR) platforms and small ground robots used primarily for counter-IED (improvised explosive device) efforts. In the future, according to Kevin McConnell, director of the Fires and Maneuver Integration Division of the Marine Corps Combat Development Command (MCCDC), the role of Marine robots “is to be on point or to be called forward to do a scouting and reconnaissance role.”

“As we move into the future, we have two focuses – continuing to evolve the IED small robots, to migrate those beyond the EOD [Explosive Ordnance Disposal] and engineering units to other elements of the Marine Corps,” McConnell said. “And second to make use of systems we already have, whether it is Humvees or medium tactical trucks, or even, potentially, heavy trucks and how to make those systems either semi-autonomous or autonomous.

“That is probably the biggest area for us, adapting vehicles we already have so they can be used in an unmanned or partially unmanned role. An obvious place for a semi-autonomous vehicle is logistics convoys, where potentially not every vehicle in the convoy needs to have a human driver. Some work is being done in the science and technology [S&T] community today that could lead to no vehicles in a convoy being manned.”

Corps technology developers expect anything they move from the lab to the field will find its ultimate application in the hands of deployed Marines, whatever its original intent.

“As we look to semi-autonomous vehicles in a combat role, where it would be possible to leave a vehicle behind to counter a threat, then have that vehicle called back to pick up Marines, that is the new focus. But as soon as you start doing that, there will be interest in figuring out how to remotely control a weapons station,” McConnell added.

“That is the kind of technology we, as developers, may not plan out as a role for robots to play so much as one that develops as our Marines in the field figure out how to do that to support themselves as needed. And that is probably the case for any kind of UGV [unmanned ground vehicles] – they will be used in roles we don’t even envision or place a priority on today, but as they play a bigger role in the field, Marines will figure out ways to use them that make sense to them. And that role will just continue to grow.”

The question raised by the new budget environment is how it may affect future development and fielding of those and other evolving technologies.

That includes plans to bolster maritime capabilities, such as prepositioning heavy equipment at sea using a new Maritime Prepositioning Force (MPF). That, in turn, will incorporate a new T-AKE (dry cargo and ammunition ship), to enable selective offload of MPF ships, and a Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) amphibious logistics ship allowing that “kit-up” without the need to pull into a port.

Combined with the F-35B, MV-22, and next-generation helicopters, that also would allow a new design for Ship-to-Objective Maneuver (STOM), Lt. Gen. George Flynn told Defense shortly before moving from deputy commandant commanding MCCDC to a new posting as J-7 (Operational Plans & Joint Force Development) for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

“STOM is basically using the sea as maneuver space, exploiting the sea and complicating an adversary’s abilities. You also want to limit your footprint ashore by keeping as many traditional battlefield functions as possible operating from a sea base,” Flynn explained. “The new equipment we’ve been fielding allows us to go farther inland and operate effectively and be supported by fires and get the necessary maneuvers to complicate the enemy process. We’re experimenting with what the next level of STOM would be, [such as] company-level landing teams.

“Another key part of what we’re doing in the future is moving forward with mission command, rather than just traditional command and control. Mission command is the blending of the art of command and the science of command. The art is the commander’s intuitive ability to operate on the battlefield and for a leader to operate on commander’s intent. The science of command allows you to exploit all the information available, but also to effectively create knowledge at the point of action. So the commander’s intuitive sense is informed by all the information that will be available to him on the battlefield.”

Designed to meet requirements set out by Gates early in the Obama administration, how the new reductions in force and funding will affect the FSR were unclear as 2012 got under way, despite the fractional size of the Marine Corps in both numbers and funding compared to the rest of DoD. The Corps budget is less than 7.8 percent of total defense spending and 14 percent of the total active-duty military (considerably smaller if the active Reserve is included), giving an “across-the-board” cut more impact than for its larger sister services.

Marine officials have said they hope to handle the force reduction through ordinary attrition – and a recent congressional plan seeking to incentivize early retirement – even as they plan a broad deactivation of Marine Corps units. However, recent reports that those accepting the early out will lose money and benefits over time, plus ongoing economic chaos and high unemployment, have made unlikely sufficiently large compliance to meet the new targets.

The question raised by some in Congress, such as Hunter, and Corps officials is whether the comparatively small savings gained from cuts in Marine Corps strength are worth the loss of U.S. strength and force projection. They note that America is a maritime nation in a world that is 70 percent ocean, that some 95 percent of all commerce moves by sea, including nearly half of global oil supplies through a half-dozen maritime choke points, and an estimated 23,000 ships are at sea on any given day. The seacoasts also are home to the majority of the world’s population centers.

As Amos summed it up for Congress, the United States and the world face an uncertain future in which a fully capable Marine Corps has a vital role to play, from helping maintain freedom of movement at sea to dealing with an ever-changing landscape of conflict.

“We cannot predict where and when events may occur that might require us to respond on short notice to protect our citizens and our interests. There have always been times when events have compelled the United States to become involved, even when such involvement wasn’t desired; there is no doubt that we will have to do this again,” he said. “The rise of new powers and shifting geopolitical relationships will create greater potential for competition and friction. The rapid proliferation of new technologies, cyber warfare, and advanced precision weaponry will amplify the risks, empowering state and non-state actors as never before.

“These trends will exert a significant influence on the future security environment and, in turn, the ever-changing character of warfare. In the words of one of our former general officers, ‘two parallel worlds exist on this planet – a stable, progressively growing, developing world and an unstable, disintegrating, chaotic world. The two worlds are colliding.’ This is the world in which [the] Marine Corps must operate. If we are to do our part to forestall future wars and conflicts, we must remain engaged and involved.”

This article was first published in Defense: Review Edition 2011/2012.