Marines Blog

The Official Blog of the United States Marine Corps

Subscribe by RSS

Does size really matter?

Ever since the news came out of the Pentagon about the reshaping, restructure, or “right-sizing” of the Marine Corps, anyone who has a say about it has voiced their opinions. Some reactions are valid, while others hinge on the borderline of absurdity, if there is such a word.

But before we all get too excited, we should first examine the last 10 years of our beloved service. I’m sure we all recall the tragedy of 2001. Americans young, old, rich, poor, and from all walks of life stood together in awe and disgust at the actions that were taken against this great nation. Many of us wanted justice. Thousands stood up to serve the country in any way they felt was necessary in order to right the wrongs that were done. And many knew that the United States Marine Corps would do whatever needed to be done.

People rushed to recruiting offices around the country, many wanting to play their part. You would think that the Corps would open its arms and allow more people in at that time. But there is a reason why we are The Few. The Marine Corps maintained its standards. Potential recruits had to be physically, mentally and morally qualified to join the smallest branch of the armed forces. We were roughly 175,000 strong and were more than capable as always.

Fast forward a few years and the conflict that raged in Afghanistan slowly poured into Iraq. In early 2007, as the U.S. entered its fourth year fighting two wars, the president approved a request for the Marine Corps to grow its then-current end strength from approximately 185,000 Marines to 202,000. The idea was pretty elementary; if we were going to have Marines sustaining forces in two locations, we were going to need more Marines to handle that task.

More Marines were allowed onto recruiting duty to fill the necessary goal. I happened to be one of those individuals, and although the Corps wanted more Marines to fulfill its task, recruiting standards still remained the same. We wanted the best of the best, and that’s what we got.

Now that Marines are no longer in Iraq, now that we want to return to our amphibious, quick strike, “first-to-fight” mentality that the Marine Corps has instilled since 1775, we must again adapt and overcome. “The Marine Corps is America’s Expeditionary Force in Readiness,” Gen. James Amos said during the George P. Shultz lecture series on February 8, 2011. “Alert and ready, we respond to today’s crisis, with today’s force… TODAY.”

The force is returning to its pre-conflict end strength of 185,000 Marines.  We’ll accomplish the task by adhering to the standards we have always set, and we’ll remain “ready to respond whenever the nation calls … wherever the president may direct.”

    Related Posts

  • Jennifer Morrison

    Rick Kriseman (FL) is working hard to get enough support to allow voters to vote out elected officials in FL who don’t keep their promises.  If this could be done for Congress, they may be more inclined to get their head where the sun does shine and keep those campaign promises.

  • Jennifer Morrison

    My son asked (demanded) to know this when he wanted to join September, 2011 (he was in middle school then).  He is currently a Lance Cpl. with 2/4 infantry.  

  • Jennifer Morrison

    A huge Amen to your comment, Coach!  Our Nation would be far better off, for sure.  It would behoove our “powers that be” to refrain from any cuts to our military, and like you said, especially the USMC.  Just a thought: Legislators should finally do what they promised in 2007 — cut down on earmark spending other than the valid ones such as military.  At the least, trim some of the fat they slip in each earmark to pad pockets of contributors. One valid earmark yields tens of thousands of $ to go to their home state, city, corporations, businesses that cut them a fat campaign check during their election.  

  • Ghostworks28

    They should at the very least grow the reserve forces, which would allow to have more Marines at the ready for future conflict. Get rid of private contracting. Allow ALL who met the requirements to serve. It’s a new world and we will need more Marines to protect it.

  • Arias

    We don’t need to cut troops. Personally I think we are a little top heavy need to make some cuts in congress and dod. Get rid of all those pesky contractors. Get rid of all those idiots we call congress because to me it seems like they all got their head up where the sun don’t shine. Get rid of all the ones that do nothing until it comes time for reelection and they bring up immigration reform. Just wait till next elections, the topic will come up again and again nothing will happen to fix it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=206401145 Christopher O’Connor

    Great article

  • http://twitter.com/ronrowan1 Ron Rowan

    Keep options open by reducing forces in Europe and Far East. Increase mobile capability of quick strike reaction forces instead, including naval forces, naval air capabilities, submarine forces and homeland defense capabilities. Focus on consolidating strength vs. dispersal. Carrier groups should integrate with amphibious forces on a more regular basis. Dealing with problems in an aggressive manner early keeps forces available for other hot spots, e.g. Somali pirates.

  • Coach

    Surely there are DOD employees that would be better off in the private sector as contractors instead of Gov’t employees. Cuts should be made there, not with the forces, especially the Marine Corps.

  • Coach

    Surely there are DOD employees that would be better off in the private sector as contractors instead of Gov’t employees. Cuts should be made there, not with the forces, especially the Marine Corps.

  • Jbparch6

    The USMC is the most relevant to our future. We obviously need a hard look at our defense budget. Why in the H**l are we still providing occupation armies in Europe and Asia?

  • Jbparch6

    The USMC is the most relevant to our future. We obviously need a hard look at our defense budget. Why in the H**l are we still providing occupation armies in Europe and Asia?