Talk Of Getting Rid Of Marine Corps Raiders (MARSOC)
Categories: Military, News
The idea was proposed by Heritage Foundation senior research fellow Dakota Wood to disband MARSOC and focus the resources of the Marine Corps elsewhere in preparation of war with China or another near peer level adversary. Wood was careful not to disparage the work of the MARSOC Marines but still insisted that the resources devoted to MARSOC could be better spent elsewhere. Since Dakota is a fellow Marine and not some limpdick wannabe, we’ll treat him as a brother and offer our polite opinion on the matter.
I’m a mainline grunt…i.e. I’m not a special operations guy. I DOR’d out of Basic Reconassaince Course in July of 2011 and I’m cool with that. It wasn’t my bag, it wasn’t for me. It certainly was a kick in the nutsack though and through that kick in the ballsack, the special operations community earned a great deal of respect from me, not that there wasn’t before, but undertaking the training gives you a certain appreciation that you just can’t gain from the outside looking in.
Now that all being said…if you disband MARSOC, we’re removing a force multiplier from the fight and replacing it with…what? Back to the WW2 days of conducting amphibious landings? Cool. How nice would it be to have indigenous personnel who were trained by MARSOC on how to facilitate a beach landing that are already in place helping secure a beachhead and working with the incoming Marines? Super nice! Beach landings are an extremely vulnerable phase during the fight, that’s why fighting to secure a beachhead has been used to describe any tough endeavor. So utilizing highly trained Marines to make a beach landing easier is a bad thing?
I could throw example after example after example out on how MARSOC is beneficial to the fight, but it’d just become redundant after a while. The fact is having a group of highly trained Marines who are capable of doing secret squirrel shit while both being a part of SOCOM and integrated into the Marine Corps is a huge force multiplier, not a detractor.
I also realize that I didn’t go super in-depth with this. I feel like I shouldn’t have to as the point is super blatant and obvious to anyone. The question shouldn’t be about how to get rid of MARSOC to free up resources, but how they can continue to evolve their mission to continue to be force multipliers for the Marine Corps and other forces as we face new and challenging adversaries.
Well- said. We have had Recon, Force and Battalion, Raider companies (my unit, India 3/1, landing in RVN 1966), and have used these assets well. Much thought and planning to stand up MARSOCtook time and resources. Marines have always needed a SpecOps element to aspire to for line infantry members, and we use them as well or better than any other branch-specific operational small unit.
I emphatically reject this abandonment before MARSOC has even seen it’s full potential, or life cycle. In other words, NO!!
Your thesis in invalid. Beach landings, or littoral operations, is EXACTLY the primary mission of the Corps. It is not attempting to replicate the abilities and mission focus of true Special Ops.
The Marines assigned to Marsoc are to be lauded for their accomplishments and skill level, but they serve no purpose. SF, Rangers and the SEAL teams are fully vested in those type of missions, and Marsoc is not.
Marsoc is neither a force multiplier nor a stand alone tier 1 unit. Each tiered mission requires an attachment to an already existing tiered unit.
That reduces Marsoc to nothing more than a highly expensive clone of existing forces at the tax payers expense, and a cash cow being enjoyed and abused NY HQ USMC.
(And before you start whining, be informed I conducted Marsoc A&S for several years after a career serving as a member of an SF ODA.)
Nobody here is whining but you bud. The Marine Corps traditionally has been self-sufficient, therefore utilizing MARSOC units to increase lethality and accomplish the mission in a more efficient and deadly manner is in keeping with our traditional way of operating. Why take away from the mission of SF or any other “Tier 1” units when we have our own? It just doesn’t make sense.
Your argument is invalid. First of all, you clearly don’t understand how the tier system works. Second, MARSOC is a waist of time and money. They were stood up over one of the most senior Special Units in the DOD, even to this day, and then was filled by their best ranks. The Force Recon Companies were gutted to make way for what? Primarily a bunch of dumb, POG lat-movers, and ultimately a result which conceived a unit which has done more harm than good, across the board. The rest of the “Communities” don’t even like to work with them. Meanwhile, Recon is held back by senior “Big Marine Corps” leadership who have never executed, nor even knows how to implement two of the key portions of the planning process……Arrange Reconnaissance, and Make Reconnaissance. Ultimately, Recon is used to give MEU commanders their check offs for SOC, and that’s the end of it. The Marine Corps is better off without MARSOC, and would be better off giving Recon more funding, and more missions.
Coccur.
How many times are they going to disband and restart this group. Having a SOC group indigenous to the different levels of Amphibious Groups is just a make sense deal..
While we’re talking about redundancy, it’s not ridiculous to say that MARSOC is kind of redundant in the SOCOM community. I would never say these guys aren’t elite or haven’t done great things. I agree with all those points. I was offered to go try out from a line company too, but turned it down and got out.
Honestly I think the Marine Corps should go back to what it was previously, with Recon serving the Marine Corps. That’s the nature of the Marines. With the set up now it’s just a lower budget Army. The Marine Corps essentially is no longer itself, it’s pointless. We don’t need 5+ SF units, that not only limits both the SOCOM and conventional forces.
I’m not bashing the elite warriors who serve in it. I just think from a technical/doctrinal/strategic standpoint it’s redundant. I served several combat deployments as a grunt and a few of my buddies in MARSOC right now agree with me. They would rather be using their skills as grunts again.
Absolutely
MARSOC today stands on the shoulders of Marines from Force Recon from my days and on the sholders of the Raiders from WWII days. My Great Uncle was a Raider and was that force multiplier on the beaches of Siapan, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. You what men like them on that beachhead! You need men like that on that beachhead!
Semper Fi Brothers
They made this mistake once before, when they disbanded the Original Raider Battalions. My Father was a Carlson’s Raider in WWII. I firmly believe in the current MARSOC program. Semper Fi!
In response to Mr. Wyman, calling MARSOC a highly expensive clone of existing forces. Care to say which force it is a clone of?
Is SEAL Team 6 DEVGRU a highly expensive clone of Delta Force? What about Regimental Reconnaissance Company (RRC) a Tier 1 Ranger outfit that specializes in ‘Special Reconnaissance’ – and have selection course widely known as “Mini-CAG Selection”. Well aware that their role is much more than that but the ‘clone’ term is oversimplifying the role of Marine Raiders special operators. Having overlapping roles exists in literally every SOCOM unit also have this speciality should this expensive Tier 1 unit also be disbanded ? SF can’t do SR? SF can do DA? Why have CAG then?
Back when Delta Force was being formed in the 70’s Army Special Forces fought against created a new counter terror unit that would take the best from SF and the Rangers. They even tried to disband the unit after the debacle of operation Eagle Claw.
The Navy was the only service to support special operations continuously without ever disbanded their special operators the famed Frogman (UDT) units that would evolve to be the Navy SEALs of today. As mentioned earlier the Army and Marines disbanded their Rangers and Raiders.
Historically the WW2 Raiders were disbanded in 1944. There was a Marine bias creating a elite within an elite, against forming special operations in the Marines. The WW2 Army also had a bias against special operations and the Rangers were very much inspired by the British Commandos. After WW2 ended with budget cuts the Army disbanded Rangers, and had to resurrect them for Korea, and later for Vietnam, the modern incarnation of today 75th Ranger Regiment came into being in 1974. And the CT/SOCOM focus changed them into a special operations light infantry force that is a highly capable and agile force that withstood the critics and naysayers.
And isn’t Direct Action the speciality of Rangers why are there CIF/CSF units in the Army Special forces when there’s the 75th Ranger Regiment? There’s Delta/CAG and DEVGRU, RRC why have CIF/CSF since isn’t unconventional warfare the real role for an SF ODA? More redundancy.
Know within Army there were folks that wanted to disband Special Forces after the end of the Vietnam war. There were also folks in the Navy that even talked for disbanded the SEALS during the cutbacks after the war in Vietnam concluded. I’ve even heard nonsense talk of taking Rangers out of SOCOM and downsizing special operations to be a lot smaller.