Rethinking the Role of the Marine Corps in National Security

The role of the Marine Corps in national security is too important to be determined solely by the Congress, Department of War, or Navy Secretariat. While these institutions are indispensable in providing strategic guidance, funding, and oversight, only the Commandant of the Marine Corps, exercising his authorities under Title X of the United States Code to organize, train, and equip the service, is best suited to determine the forces and capabilities the Marines need to support the Combatant Commanders in meeting the security challenges of today and tomorrow.

The Tentative Manual for Landing Operations of 1934 transformed the Marines from a counterguerrilla force shaped by the “Banana Wars” into the amphibious juggernaut that swept across the Pacific in World War II.   Later, in response to the proliferation of global crises and contingencies during the Cold War, the Corps again adapted, rebuilding itself to meet America’s need for a global, expeditionary force-in-readiness.

These and other conceptual innovations adopted by Marines during the 20^th Century fundamentally reshaped their doctrine, organizations, equipment, training and education, and sustainment requirements, enabling the Corps to meet the evolving demands of a   chaotic, uncertain, and turbulent global security environment. The Marines presciently developed forces and capabilities that were seldom redundant but largely complementary to other services’ capabilities and capacity. As forces-in-readiness, Marines were always prepared for the moment and expert in task organizing and employing formations tailored to specific mission requirements.

Six years ago, the Marine Corps began to reinvent itself under a new operational concept, Tentative Manual for Expeditionary Advanced Based Operations (EABO).  EABO was envisioned to refocus the Marines from the forever wars of counterterrorism and counterinsurgency to the littorals of the Western Pacific as a foil to China’s growing influence in the region. At the time, Marine leaders argued the concept was consistent with the National Security Strategy and the National Defense Strategy and would position the Marines at the forefront of operations in a new era of great power competition.

Since the Marines adopted EABO as their North Star for combat developments, the international order has been jolted by a series of events largely unforeseen at the time. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, an increasingly belligerent North Korea, large scale urban warfare in Gaza, persistent instability throughout the Middle East, the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons, emerging threats in the Arctic, and President Trump’s renewed interest on the Western Hemisphere have reshaped the national security landscape. Taken together, these events underscore the volatility of the global security environment, where conflicts cannot be predicted years or even months in advance.

Marines should ask themselves if the conditions that led to the adoption of EABO have changed significantly enough to warrant an alternative operational concept. Many capabilities in current development by the Marines are redundant and inferior relative to the other Services, especially as the Army, Navy, and Air Force increasingly focus on China at the expense of other areas. The global gaps created by this sharpened focus on Taiwan and the First Island Chain present opportunities for Marines to fill critical shortfalls in global deterrence and crisis response which are best satisfied by forward deployed, flexible, and sustainable naval forces.

And let’s be honest, Special Operations Command has been quietly but inexorably supplanting the Marines as the nation’s “go to” 911 force. Special Operators have unique capabilities that are necessary and essential. But they also have limitations to endure and lack the full range of combined arms and resilience to fight a determined foe when the situation requires more than a surgical response.

Some pundits are already questioning if the Marines have a distinct role in the national defense. Marine leaders must take heed and ask themselves hard, penetrating questions about EABO and its implications for future relevance. The stakes are high. Our national security and the future of the Marine Corps rest on the ability of the next generation of Marine leaders to get the answers right.

BGen Jerry McAbee, (USMC, ret.) is a career artillery officer. His assignments include Chief of Staff Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Deputy Commander U.S. Marine Corps Forces Pacific, and Deputy Commander U.S. Marine Corps Forces Central.