The Pentagon, President Joe Biden, and Congress should all pay heed to former Navy Secretary James Webb’s warnings that the Marine Corps is being unwisely gutted.
Webb, who was a Democratic U.S. senator for six years, wrote in the Wall Street Journal on March 26 that the Marine Corps commandant, Gen. David Berger, is eliminating three Marine infantry battalions, downsizing the numbers within the remaining 21, eliminating 25% of the reserve component infantry battalions and every last tank in the Corps, and substantially reducing the number of helicopter squadrons. An amazing 22 “retired four-star Marine generals signed a nonpublic letter of concern to Gen. Berger, and … a daily working group that includes 17 retired generals has been formed to communicate concerns to national leaders.”
To those of us who lived through the U.S. military weakness of the 1970s and saw how important President Ronald Reagan’s subsequent rebuilding effort was both for national security and for world peace, Webb’s concerns ring alarm bells. Even if Berger’s plans are part of some “pivot to China” to refocus the Marines on the particular challenges that might arise in blocking China’s aims at Pacific hegemony, the overall force reduction looks rash, at least on the surface. Why should pivoting to China mean reducing traditional Marine Corps capabilities in the rest of the world?
After all, we now live in perhaps the most dangerous and potentially unstable time since the end of the Cold War three decades ago. Threats and aggression come from not just China but Russia, Iran, and North Korea, while jihadist terrorist organizations keep trying to reconstitute and the Taliban provide safe haven to at least one branch of terrorists in Afghanistan. As the Marine Corps is arguably the most agile and versatile of all the U.S. armed services, with capabilities on land, sea, and air and trained in rapid response, it would behoove policymakers to be very cautious about downsizing the Corps, even as part of a strategic re-ordering based on some wise assumptions.
Why must mission readiness be an “either-or” proposition rather than a “both-and” one?
It could be that there is wisdom in Berger’s plans. Still, shouldn’t they merit at least a more all-encompassing review than Webb says they have received?
“The risk involved in a restructuring of this scale,” wrote Webb, “should have required full consideration and debate in such Pentagon offices as the Defense Resources Board, then a formal approval by the defense secretary before being sent to the White House for further review, and then extensive oversight hearings in Congress.”
Policymakers should change that sentence from past tense to present. Let’s start such a review now, at all the levels recommended by Webb, but with a sense of dispatch so the review doesn’t drag out indefinitely. If Berger’s plans are wise, the review should reassure us of that wisdom. If those plans are too risky, they should be modified. What we should not, must not, do is leave the United States with lesser capabilities for any military threat that emerges.
After all, better safe than sorry.
