With the exception of the woodland camouflage pattern, the field jacket that we use today is the same design that our Marines wore in the 1950s. You have sportsmen walking around in state-of-the-art boots, and our current boots are terrible! Our rain suits are made of rubber, which does not breathe, so the Marine wearing it is as wet on the inside as he is outside. Today if a Marine's sleeping bag gets wet, it weighs over 40 1b/18 kg, and we use tents designed back in World War II!
Everyone talks about being worried about the "quality of life," but what they fail to understand is that the bulk of an infantryman's life is spent in the field. In the fleet, many Marines spend more time in the field than they do at home. For our forward-deployed Marines, like those in the MEU (SOC)s, this is especially true. We spend money on new barracks and other base facilities, but don't buy our Marines the basic clothing and equipment they need to survive and be comfortable in the field.
Secondly, there is the matter of my style of leadership. I don't have many pretenses, so the last thing I want when I stop somewhere is a lot of preparation and fanfare over my visits. Now, there are people who disagree with this philosophy and feel that a visit from the Commandant is cause for a major out-pouring of effort, but the onus ends up on the enlisted Marines who need to be spending their time being Marines, not preparing for my visit. So I try to fly in unannounced; and that precludes excess preparation work and allows me to see my Marines as they are. I want them to know that their Commandant is coming to see them. They now know that, and I learn a lot from my visits talking with the troops.
In my discussions with Marines, I hear the usual about what I call external morale issues [barracks, recreational facilities, etc.] and we are already working on these things. What I focus on, however, are the more deep-seated, internal things, such as pride in the organization and making sure that our leaders have what John A. Lejeune [the 13th Commandant of the Corps] called "a self-sacrificing love for the Marine Corps." Those are things that we can always positively influence, regardless of the budget, so those are the areas we need to concentrate on. I have to tell you that Marines, whatever their rank, will respond to this type of approach. They have to know that they will all be treated fairly, and that nobody above them is going to harm them by ruining their career automatically because of a mistake.
At the same time, though, that Marine has to know that we will not tolerate lying, cheating, or stealing. As warfighters we must understand the dimensions of physical courage. There are no greater supporters of peace than those who are sworn to risk their lives when war occurs. However, our profession also demands moral courage--the strength of character and the integrity to do what is right. Acts of moral torpitude have no place in the Marine Corps.
While the new Commandant has strong ties to the history and traditions of the Marine Corps, he has a keen appreciation of the usefulness of modern technology to help his Marines. In particular, he has used electronic mail and the Internet to open up direct lines of communications with his Corps. Let him tell you about it.
Tom Clancy: One of your major initiatives has been to open the lines of communication with Marines of all ranks. To accomplish this, you even obtained an address on the Internet. Could you please talk about your new communications systems with your Marines?
General Krulak: It is phenomenal! Some of our best ideas and initiatives originate with the lance corporal and corporals who work, live, eat, and sleep Marine Corps twenty-four hours a day. I don't think a Commandant can effectively lead the Corps without input from Marines. So with this E-Mail and Internet access, they can send their ideas directly to me, and they do. I get messages from corporals to gunnery sergeants, with suggestions telling us how we can do things better in the Marine Corps. I want to focus their suggestions, so I have asked them to think about and address three questions: "What are we doing now that we shouldn't be doing?" "What aren't we doing now that we should be doing?" and "What are we doing now that we could be doing better and how?"
They are answering those questions, and we have made major changes in the Corps today based on their input. We have, or are, considering changes in training, in the promotion system, and in our performance evaluation system. The changes are driven by lance corporals through colonels dialing up and dropping me a note with an idea. You have to see the quality of what they are saying to appreciate just how intelligent they are and how much they care about improving the Corps. It is truly motivating!
One of the most difficult tasks facing General Krulak and the Marine Corps as they head into the 21st century is the need to modernize their equipment during a time when there is very little money and even less support around Washington, D.C., to do so. With their modernization budget (for new and replacement equipment, as well as upgrades/conversions) slashed to almost historic lows, the challenges for the Commandant are immense. Let's hear his thoughts on this.
Tom Clancy: Could you talk now about the Marine Corps modernization budget? Obviously you're making due with an absurdly small amount, compared with the other services. What is the outlook?
General Krulak: Let me preface my comments with some background about our budget. Procurement and modernization for some equipment [Marine aviation, amphibious shipping, and landing craft] are funded by the Department of the Navy. The shortfall you are referencing has to do with what we call "green dollars," or dollars earmarked specifically for Marine Corps procurement. With that as background, the Marine Corps needs a "green" modernization budget between $1 billion and $1.2 billion. That is one of my biggest challenges. We had $474 million in FY-95; and that's less than half of the historic average; and that means we have had to sacrifice either readiness or modernization, because we can't have both at that level. If I don't get that budget up to the necessary level, we'll be in real trouble.
In fact, we're in trouble right now. We have 5-ton trucks that are almost twenty years old. You don't drive a car that is that old, but we'll be sending Marines into combat in those vehicles. Our amphibious assault vehicles [the AAV-7s] are twenty to twenty-five years old. There are problems on the aviation-dollar side as well--we are flying CH-46 medium-lift helicopters that are headed into their fourth decade of service as we are sitting here! We have some real modernization problems that we need to come to grips with as a service and a nation.
Tom Clancy: With that introduction, I'd like to run some of the key modernization programs by you, and get some of your comments on them. Tell me about the V-22.
General Krulak: The V-22 is critical to the nation and Marine Corps. We're going to get it, and get it quicker than anyone thinks we will. Once other services realize the capability that tilt-rotor technology brings, I believe that they will join us in procuring this aircraft. It has all the capabilities of a helicopter in terms of vertical flight, but has the speed and distance more akin to a fixed-wing aircraft. Imagine how useful this aircraft would have been in places like Somalia or Burundi, or might be in Bosnia. We're currently programmed to get the first squadron of V-22s in 2001, but I would like to be able to buy two or three squadrons a year [twenty-four to thirty-six airframes], as opposed to the current planned buy rate of fourteen airframes per year. Again, I believe that once people understand and appreciate how incredibly capable this aircraft is, the buy will be accelerated.
Tom Clancy: How about the Harrier re-manufacture?
General Krulak: The re-manufactured Harrier will be our "bridge" aircraft until the Joint Advanced Strike Technology [JAST]/Joint Strike Fighter [JSF] program gets us to ASTOVL (Advanced Short Takeoff, Vertical Landing--a variant of the JSF). With the updated AV-8B Harrier II Plus, we have an extremely good aircraft that has remarkable capabilities compared to earlier versions of the plane. In fact, thanks to the re-manufacture program, it is virtually a new airplane. It is not, however, the plane we want for the 21st century. That's the ASTOVL strike fighter. Our goal is for the Marine Corps to "neck down" to just one single strike aircraft, the ASTOVL version of JSF. Combine that with the capability
of the V-22, the heavy-lift CH-53E, our light attack and utility helicopters, and our support aircraft, and we will have a Marine aircraft wing that brings incredible capability to the combatant commander.
There will be tremendous savings when we pool all the Marines working on or flying in a number of different airframes, and put them all into one of our extremely capable, hard-charging air wings with fewer types of airframes. We will realize significant economies of production, as well as operations and maintenance. When you are talking modernization, you have to think beyond today or tomorrow, and think about the day after tomorrow. That is how we approach everything as Marines. Everyone is excited about the AV-8B Harrier II Plus. Yet while I believe that is great, and it may be doing what we want today, it is a bridge to the ASTOVL strike fighter of the future.
Tom Clancy: Tell me about the Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV).
General Krulak: The AAAV is as critical to our future success as the V-22. Seventy percent of the world's population lives within 300 miles [480 kilometers] of a coastline in the littorals. The end of the Cold War ushered in a new era of global instability where regional strife will dominate. While we can't predict exactly where a crisis will occur, there is a good chance it will require a response originating from the sea. If we, as a nation, are going to have forward-deployed forces effective at managing instability around the world, we need the AAAV that operates rapidly in the water from a good standoff distance [up to 25 nm/46 km] as well as on dry land. It will be able to carry Marines, weapons, and equipment under armor with a full nuclear, chemical, and biological (NBC) over-pressure protection system. It will also give us the ability to engage enemy armor with superior mobility and firepower. It will give us tremendous flexibility in a variety of combat environments and conditions.
Ship-to-shore delivery is not an end unto itself, but a beginning, because you still have to maneuver and fight when you get on dry land. Right now, we don't have a system for moving Marines under armor that can keep up with the M 1A1 tank. You can't have an effective mechanized force if your personnel can't keep up with your tanks and reconnaissance vehicles. The AAAV will give us that capability.
Tom Clancy: What about the Predator and Javelin systems?
General Krulak: We need a solid fire-and-forget anti-armor capability, and these two systems will get us to the future. Like the AV-8B Harrier II Plus though, I see Predator and Javelin as "bridge" systems, to get us the follow-on generations of truly "brilliant" fire and forget anti-armor technology.
Tom Clancy: How does the Lightweight 155mm Howitzer (LW 155) fit into the future?
General Krulak: We really need a true lightweight 155mm howitzer. The current M 198 towed howitzer is just too heavy. The LW 155 will give the MAGTF commander greater operational and tactical flexibility in executing his mission. It maintains the current thirty-kilometer range and lethality; but the increased mobility will significantly improve artillery ship-to-shore movement and increase the survivability, responsiveness, and efficiency of artillery units supporting ground operations. We need this system, and will be selecting a contractor to do the job soon.
Tom Clancy: You talk a lot about technology. Do you envision a role for GPS (Global Positioning System) in the future?
General Krulak: I would like see a GPS receiver on every Marine before the end of my commandancy, but I think one per squad leader is more realistic. This will solve so many of the problems that the ground-maneuver forces have had in the past. It will greatly simplify yet improve our ability to determine where our units are and where the enemy is--the basic battlefield picture.
Tom Clancy: Communications in combat are always a concern. What do you see on the horizon in this area?
General Krulak: I want the individual Marine to be fully integrated from a communication standpoint with all echelons above and below. Take a laptop computer tied into a GPS receiver and you have a real-time picture showing all the locations of friends, foes, etc. With a touch of his finger on the computer screen, this "digitized Marine" will have the capability to call in fire on the enemy with deadly accuracy every time.
The technology is there. What we need to consider is the impact that it will have on how we fight. You give a system like that to every squad leader and you're looking at a completely different battlefield scenario. So the challenge is to take advantage of and field such technologies that will change the existing paradigm of warfare as we know it. In Desert Storm we said, "If you can see a target on the battlefield, then you can kill it." Ten years from now, however, I think we'll be saying, "If you can sense the target, you can kill it!" We need to start thinking seriously about the impact that will have. We need to consider how it will influence the sizes and types of formations on the battlefield. We need to look at how we are going to survive on that battlefield, a battlefield where sensing an enemy is death to them.
Another challenge facing General Krulak and the Marines, as well as his Navy counterpart, the Chief of Naval Operations, is the need to complete the upgrade of the Navy's fleet of amphibious ships. With the job only half done (about eighteen of the planned thirty-six ships having been delivered by the end of 1995), let's hear the Commandant's thoughts on finishing the job.
Tom Clancy: Let's talk about the U.S. Navy--your other half. Right now the Navy is planning to finish building a fleet of thirty-six state-of-the-art amphibious-warfare ships (LHAs/LHDs/LSDs/LPDs) formed into twelve Amphibious Ready Groups (ARGs) that will replace the current fleet of almost fifty such ships you currently have. Are these thirty-six ships/twelve ARGs enough to meet your requirements, and are they the right ships for the jobs? 9
General Krulak: We need to be able to lift three Marine Expeditionary Brigades [MEBs are task-organized and can range in size from twelve thousand to sixteen thousand Marines]. Thirty-six ships can't do that. Congress realizes the need for increased amphibious lift and has put additional resources to this requirement. I believe the need for adequate amphibious lift will become even more apparent in the early 21st century, when eight out of the ten top economies in the world will be found on the rims of Pacific and Indian Oceans. In this scenario, forward-deployed amphibious and naval expeditionary forces will be critical to our ability to manage instability in those geographic areas. I think the ARG concept with a MEU (SOC) embarked meets our needs today, but we will need a different capability in 2005 and 2010, when we are trying to protect our national interests in the littorals of places like the Indian and Pacific Oceans. If you think that twenty B-2A stealth bombers with sixteen guided bombs each comprises a presence, virtual or otherwise, you don't know the Asian people. If you want the people of the Asian rim to feel the presence of American forces, let them see and touch the gray-painted side of a U.S. warship. The U.S. can't survive in the Pacific and Asian regions if all we have to offer is a regional Commander-in-Chief [CinC] flying in on a VC-20 Gulfstream VIP jet to hold a press conference saying that U.S. forces are there, when the truth is that they are a month or more away!
Now, how do you cover areas as vast as that? You cover them with Marines afloat on Navy ships--ships like the recently commissioned USS Carter Hall [LSD-50]. This is a Landing Ship Dock almost nine hundred feet long; not some old LST. I say give those up and use thirty-six warships, amphibious ships of the line! Let us design and configure them, and build the MEU (SOC) of the 21st century. You'll still send out an ARG, but with three of the most phenomenally capable amphibious ships in the world. Each might have one "mini-MEU (SOC)" on board, so that they can cover the vast distances that we will be required to oversee in the 21 st century. They'll use things like video teleconferencing data links for command and control, and will only come together when they have to concentrate and apply their full power to a contingency.
So, what I see in the building program of today is the possibility of thirty-six miniature ARGs, each one composed of just one ship with a mini-MEU (SOC) on board.
Tom Clancy: Could you tell us a bit about how you feel about the cu
rrent amphibious shipbuilding programs?
General Krulak: On Amphibious Assault Ships. The Wasp-class [LHD-1 ] ships provide us with great capability. In particular, the possibility of upgrading the command and control technology on those vessels so we can effectively interface with virtually any other command and control system makes them into an extremely capable system. You can run exactly the kinds of operations that I described previously with a split-ship ARG, disaster or humanitarian relief, or use it as the headquarters of a Joint Task Force [JTF]. We really need that seventh one [LHD-7]; and there may very well be a press to build an eighth ship as we approach the 21st century and have to counter the kinds of instability that I see happening. The desire to maintain stability will be so great you may actually see a slow growth of forces from their current levels.