I wish I did not live 11 hours away from the Hammers, becuase If I were able to goto any of the meetings about the expantion, here is what I would have asked: (In this order)

Does anyone have the answers to these questions?

1. What exactly is the difference between the Army and the Marines? What is the job of the Marines and how does it differ from the Army's? Why to the Marines call themselves "The Few"?


2. With the answer to the above question in mind, (Which I *think* I know) why does 29 Palms need to be larger that Ft. Irwin? (The Army's Training Center which just recently expanded to be larger than 29)


3. 3 MEB'S need to train at once? When was the last time the Marines actually put 3 MEB's together on the ground? Have they ever? I read the entire study about the need to train 3 MEB's, but it gives no examples when 3 MEB's may be used. When and where would we actually put that many Marines on the ground? What kind of conflict?


4. The new Commadant of the Marine Corps recently said in a speech (Which you can read on his website) That the Marines in the future plan on fighting small conflicts in the "Arc of Instability" He also said that he does not see the Marines putting 20,000 men on the ground anytime in the near future. Isn't 20,000 men ONE MEB?


5. The Marines have just went thru a "Task Force Review" This review is significantly cutting back on the size of the Marines. The last time this happened in the early 90's, the Marines DROPPED the use of the MEB. They spilt it up into smaller slices. What's to say this will not happen again?


6. Shared use? You mean that we can use JV went you are not using it? Ok, cool. Can we also use parts of the existing base when it's not in use? When exactly can we NOT use it, and what things could possibly hold the Marines back for letting us use it? I have many friends overseas. Can they use it too?


7. The Army's Ft. Irwin expanded in much the same way. Yet to this day, they cannot use most of the land that has been added to the base becuase they cannot fund all the studies to clear the land. Much of it sits unused becuase of lack of funding... Will this happen to Johnson Valley also?

Answer to number 7 is that the Marines would not have the same land issues since Johnson Valley already has a different land designation (Open Area) than the land that Ft Irwin expanded onto. That doesn't say that they will have the funding to do the exercises that they plan ...

Agreed, if it never gets used it would suite the current administration just fine, just another name for a Wilderness area from my perspective:barf:

The only answer my warped over active mind can come up with to accommodate all the questions raised here is:

Their afraid China is going to come collecting, therefore need to be ready to deal with them when our Government says we anit got, hell I don't know.

I'll try to provide a little insight to your questions Kurt.

I wish I did not live 11 hours away from the Hammers, becuase If I were able to goto any of the meetings about the expantion, here is what I would have asked: (In this order)

Does anyone have the answers to these questions?

1. What exactly is the difference between the Army and the Marines? What is the job of the Marines and how does it differ from the Army's? Why to the Marines call themselves "The Few"?

There are many differences between the Army and the Marine Corps, some of them subtle, and some of them not. Wikipedia does a pretty good job of describing them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine_Corps#Relationship_with_other _services

The Corps' slogan being "The Few, The Proud, The Marines" stems from us being the smallest of the 4 services as outlined below.
Excerpt from Current armed forces end strength:
TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS
Subtitle A—Active Forces
End strengths for active forces (sec. 401)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize active-
duty end strengths for fiscal year 2011, as shown below:
Army .................................................. .................................................. .. 562,400
Navy .................................................. .................................................. .. 328,800
Marine Corps .................................................. ....................................... 202,100
Air Force .................................................. .............................................. 331,700

2. With the answer to the above question in mind, (Which I *think* I know) why does 29 Palms need to be larger that Ft. Irwin? (The Army's Training Center which just recently expanded to be larger than 29)

Not sure this will answer the question but the Marine Corps only owns 3 Bases for fleet training that can employ the majority of our arsenal; Camp Lejeune, Camp Pendleton, and the "Jewel" of the Corps 29 Palms. Out of the three, 29 Palms is the only one with training areas where all of our arsenal can be utilized at one time in the same space.


3. 3 MEB'S need to train at once? When was the last time the Marines actually put 3 MEB's together on the ground? Have they ever? I read the entire study about the need to train 3 MEB's, but it gives no examples when 3 MEB's may be used. When and where would we actually put that many Marines on the ground? What kind of conflict?

I think this is a mis-understanding, The requirement as set forth by the DEIS is to train 1 MEB twice a year. The MEB template utilized in the DEIS includes 3 Infantry Battalions with all required attachments and supporting units to equal the approximately 15,000 Marines and Sailors. The Marine Corps structure is modular in that a MEB can be a variety of sizes with the same structure of a Ground Combat Element(GCE), an Air Combat Element(ACE), and a Combat Service Support Element(CCSE) that can be structured from as little as ~3000-5000 up to ~15,000. Often times we use the term Regimental Combat team in place of a Marine Expiditionary Brigade. All that being said the use of our forces depends on the strategy of the mission the forces will be excecuting. The missions our forces execute are not just armed conflicts but also humanitarian efforts or other missions as our government may decide.


4. The new Commadant of the Marine Corps recently said in a speech (Which you can read on his website) That the Marines in the future plan on fighting small conflicts in the "Arc of Instability" He also said that he does not see the Marines putting 20,000 men on the ground anytime in the near future. Isn't 20,000 men ONE MEB?

This question goes with the modular build of the MEB.

5. The Marines have just went thru a "Task Force Review" This review is significantly cutting back on the size of the Marines. The last time this happened in the early 90's, the Marines DROPPED the use of the MEB. They spilt it up into smaller slices. What's to say this will not happen again?

Good question that I can not answer.


6. Shared use? You mean that we can use JV went you are not using it? Ok, cool. Can we also use parts of the existing base when it's not in use? When exactly can we NOT use it, and what things could possibly hold the Marines back for letting us use it? I have many friends overseas. Can they use it too?

I can only speak to part of this. The "Restricted Public Access Area" would be the only area that the public would be allowed to access as the rest of our training areas are and will continue to be closed to the public. The current planning is to run the MEB training event one month in the spring and one in the fall. From what I understand the full interpretation of the RPAA has not been finished and will not be published until the Final DEIS.

7. The Army's Ft. Irwin expanded in much the same way. Yet to this day, they cannot use most of the land that has been added to the base becuase they cannot fund all the studies to clear the land. Much of it sits unused becuase of lack of funding... Will this happen to Johnson Valley also?

:confused: I dunno. I believed that the whole process had to be done in concert with the DEIS. I don't know anymore (and probably a lot less) about the Irwin expansion than you do.

Hope that helps a little.

Mike

the Marine Corps only owns 3 Bases for fleet training that can employ the majority of our arsenal;

Mike, you need to remember that the Marines dont "own" the base. Its public land; we the public own it. The gubmint manages it for each and every one of us. Thats why your doing a EIS. You have to get congress to approve a expansion. Marines are asking for a withdrawl (like a lease) to use it. We the public expect you and your fellow Marines to be good stewarts of the land your already renting from us. Some day the Marines may decide they no longer need to use it. We the public expect the Corps to clean it all up and open it all back up to our use. Do you understand the differance between owenership and merely borrowing or leasing it for awhile?

Often times we use the term Regimental Combat team in place of a Marine Expiditionary Brigade.

If they are the same, why couldnt you use one term or the other in the EIS for all us morons? Its all very confusing. The big $10 words are usually used to make government agencys look smart and us stupid. One comment I sent in was that you need to comply with the Plain Writing Act of 2010 passed by Congress and President Obama last fall. Look it up. Rewrite the EIS to comply with it.


The missions our forces execute are not just armed conflicts but also humanitarian efforts or other missions as our government may decide.

I appreciate all the missions that the Marines take on but arent you being somewhat misleading again becasue many of those missions dont even require a MEB force? They could be much smaller than 3000 personnel. How many went to Haiti or helped with tsunami relief? You told me once that a MEB is being used in Iraq and Afganistan, but if theres no plans (says General Amos) to put 20,000 Marines on the ground in the future. If thats the case, then you probably dont need Johnson Valley to train in, right?

From what I understand the full interpretation of the RPAA has not been finished and will not be published until the Final DEIS.

Well thats pretty damn poor if the full interpretation hasnt been finsihed yet. How is the public supposed to be informed and comment on it? I have great respect for our armed services personel, but I dont think that a "trust us" atitude from the Marines will cut mustard. I just hearing today that there wont even be a public comment period after the final EIS comes out. I find that damn hard to believe.

Marine Corps have not been totally open and forthcoming with all needed information. You yourself are saying that some is being withheld or still being developed, is that right? Once the Marines get there "full interpretations" figured out, dont you think it should be shared with us for comment? USMC defnitely needs to issue a supplemental draft EIS with another minimum 90-day public comment period. Read more here:

http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/publications/citizens_guide_to_nepa.html


I believed that the whole process had to be done in concert with the DEIS.

The Marine Corps budget for next year alone says you need almost $9,000,000.00 for expansion. Thats just for one year. How much is expansion going to cost for it's whole life? If you are right about the whole process having to be done in concert with the DEIS, then you have just shot yourself in both feet. I couldnt find anything in there about costs, funding, probibility of funding. If I missed it, just send me the pages to look up. Thats another reason you need to totaly rethink putting out the final EIS in December. Becasue theres so much missing from your first draft you need to put out another draft once you get needed information together, funding provided, interpretations figured out, and answers to over 25000 comment letters. So when that happens, please be sure to put the right address out for where we are to send our comments.

Thanks Mike..

For #1, I kinda already knew the answer..

I was trying to make the point that the Marines are NOT a second land army. (Even though they have been used that way recently) It's the Army's job to be a land-army.

Reading all of General Amo's speeches and interviews, he makes it very clear that the Marines have not been fighting like Marines, but used to bolster the Army. He also makes it very clear that the Expendionary forces are there to show up quickly, kick ass, and give the powers to be the time to make desicions and give the Army time to show up. As I read it, the Marines are just the tip of the spear.

He also says that the Marines are going back to their roots, becuase they are NOT a land Army...it's not their job.



So my point with #2 is:

If the Army needs X amount of room to train since it's the Heavyweight in our forces, why does our "Spear point" which is considerably smaller, and will shrink even more, need MORE room to train? :confused:

Personally, It seems to me that this maybe a dick swinging match between the Marines and the Army. Did the Marines get pissy that the Army expanded to have a bigger Base than 29 so now the Marines decide to expand 29 to be just a little bit bigger than Irwin? Could this possibly be a "keeping up with the Jones" thing? Just sayin...

BTW: The Force Review says they are cutting the Marines down to 186,800

That's a 13% cut in ground combat troops, a 20% cut in Artillery and a 20% cut in Armor.

How many battalions currently train during operation Mojave Viper?

Mike, you need to remember that the Marines dont "own" the base. Its public land; we the public own it. The gubmint manages it for each and every one of us. Thats why your doing a EIS. You have to get congress to approve a expansion. Marines are asking for a withdrawl (like a lease) to use it. We the public expect you and your fellow Marines to be good stewarts of the land your already renting from us. Some day the Marines may decide they no longer need to use it. We the public expect the Corps to clean it all up and open it all back up to our use. Do you understand the differance between owenership and merely borrowing or leasing it for awhile?
Typsy, forgive me, I may have chosen the wrong words. I do understand the difference between owning and leasing and that there have been BRAC’s that have returned installations to the public and those lands had to be certified before return. In the big picture, yes, the military and everything the government has, possesses, or “ownes” belongs to you and I the tax payer. However, military installations are not public land hence the 29 Palms request for withdrawal from the public and the BLM’s inventory.
There are several parts of the US Code that address this here are 2: Section 1382 of Title 18 forbids trespassing on military bases. This section applies to any military, naval, or coast guard reservation, post, fort, arsenal, yard, station or installation over which the United States has exclusive possession. Of course, property offenses occurring on military bases may also violate 18 U.S.C. § 1361 or, where federal jurisdiction exists, the applicable federal enclave statutes.
If they are the same, why couldnt you use one term or the other in the EIS for all us morons? Its all very confusing. The big $10 words are usually used to make government agencys look smart and us stupid. One comment I sent in was that you need to comply with the Plain Writing Act of 2010 passed by Congress and President Obama last fall. Look it up. Rewrite the EIS to comply with it.
We use the terms as they apply to the situation, it is not in the DEIS as an RCT is not what is talked about for the requirement. A Brigade is a larger encompassing unit in terms of the types of elements that make it up. You may wish to just strike my comments about it to keep confusion down. I agree that some of the jargon is confusing but there is no other word or words to interchange without really watering it down.
I appreciate all the missions that the Marines take on but arent you being somewhat misleading again becasue many of those missions dont even require a MEB force? They could be much smaller than 3000 personnel. How many went to Haiti or helped with tsunami relief? You told me once that a MEB is being used in Iraq and Afganistan, but if theres no plans (says General Amos) to put 20,000 Marines on the ground in the future. If thats the case, then you probably dont need Johnson Valley to train in, right?
I don’t want to mislead anyone about any of this. There are several other terms we use for units that range in size, composition, and organization according to tasks. Congress determines the end strength for all of the services and ultimately what the services are to bring to the table. Off hand I can’t tell you how many service members went to Haiti or Japan. The number of personnel of a unit does not necessarily directly translate to the number of boots on the ground. 1st and 2nd MEB’s have been engaged in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan but as outlined a MEB is not necessarily 15,000 boots on the ground. The Commandant has addressed on several occasions our need to slim down the force and draw down the number of Marines on the ground at any one time. As history has shown the military increases and decreases it’s numbers as required by congress. I can not say that it would or would not have any influence on the requirement to train a full MEB. I don’t know.
Well thats pretty damn poor if the full interpretation hasnt been finsihed yet. How is the public supposed to be informed and comment on it? I have great respect for our armed services personel, but I dont think that a "trust us" atitude from the Marines will cut mustard. I just hearing today that there wont even be a public comment period after the final EIS comes out. I find that damn hard to believe.
I don’t know what to say, I’m no NEPA wizard. I’m just a regular Joe trying to help out my offroad community with the little knowledge and insight I have.
Marine Corps have not been totally open and forthcoming with all needed information. You yourself are saying that some is being withheld or still being developed, is that right? Once the Marines get there "full interpretations" figured out, dont you think it should be shared with us for comment? USMC defnitely needs to issue a supplemental draft EIS with another minimum 90-day public comment period. Read more here:
http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/publications/citizens_guide_to_nepa.html
I do think there should be another comment period on the EIS but that’s not up to me. I felt the RPAA was not addressed satisfactorily and also commented as such via official submission and voice with the land acquisition team.
The Marine Corps budget for next year alone says you need almost $9,000,000.00 for expansion. Thats just for one year. How much is expansion going to cost for it's whole life? If you are right about the whole process having to be done in concert with the DEIS, then you have just shot yourself in both feet. I couldnt find anything in there about costs, funding, probibility of funding. If I missed it, just send me the pages to look up. Thats another reason you need to totaly rethink putting out the final EIS in December. Becasue theres so much missing from your first draft you need to put out another draft once you get needed information together, funding provided, interpretations figured out, and answers to over 25000 comment letters. So when that happens, please be sure to put the right address out for where we are to send our comments.
Please don’t mistake my lack of knowledge of the process for being official Marine Corps statements. As said before, I’m just here to help where I can of my own volition. My own offices budget (minus labor cost) is less than $25K annually to operate an inspection and investigation program for units at 29 Palms, Bridgeport, and Yuma. I can assure you that I will bring up the address fiasco in our next session with the land team.

Thanks Mike..
So my point with #2 is:
If the Army needs X amount of room to train since it's the Heavyweight in our forces, why does our "Spear point" which is considerably smaller, and will shrink even more, need MORE room to train? :confused:
Personally, It seems to me that this maybe a dick swinging match between the Marines and the Army. Did the Marines get pissy that the Army expanded to have a bigger Base than 29 so now the Marines decide to expand 29 to be just a little bit bigger than Irwin? Could this possibly be a "keeping up with the Jones" thing? Just sayin...
BTW: The Force Review says they are cutting the Marines down to 186,800
That's a 13% cut in ground combat troops, a 20% cut in Artillery and a 20% cut in Armor.
How many battalions currently train during operation Mojave Viper?
You are very welcome Kurt.

BLUF the Army has other installations to train large forces and we don’t. 29 Palms is the only Marine installation we can employ all of our weapon systems on the same patch of ground and at the same time.

The amount of land being considered with relation to Ft. Irwin and total force strength doesn’t paint a whole picture. I’d be interested in exactly how many training installations the Army does own. I know off hand they have two installations in Texas that I have personally trained combined arms at.

I am personally nervous about the draw down with respect to the fact that I am currently on the medical non-deployable list and with only just over 17 years in I am not eligible for retirement. I know that I will have to get a regular job no matter what some day but I would like to have my retirement after giving all that I have. Sorry, side track.

Currently we can run 2 Battalions, with attachments, through Mojave Viper at one time.

Hope this helps somehow.
Mike

We use the terms as they apply to the situation, it is not in the DEIS as an RCT is not what is talked about for the requirement.....You may wish to just strike my comments about it to keep confusion down. I agree that some of the jargon is confusing but there is no other word or words to interchange without really watering it down.

Mike, you said that "Often times we use the term Regimental Combat team in place of a Marine Expiditionary Brigade."

Please note that MEB and RCT are not terms that should be used to mean the same thing. At least thats how I read the language in the EIS:

There are several EIS references to RCT:

Marine Expeditionary Brigade – Can consist of up to 20,000 personnel and is built around a Regimental Combat Team, a Marine Aircraft Group, and a Combat Logistics Regiment. Page 1-2

The Ground Combat Element for a MEB is a Regimental Combat Team. It is task organized to conduct offensive and defensive ground operations to support the MEB’s mission. The Regimental Combat Team is built around three battalion task forces. Each battalion task force can contain infantry, tanks, amphibious assault vehicles, combat engineers, reconnaissance, mortar, and artillery units. Page 1-3

At the largest scale, a full Regimental Combat Team of three battalion task forces abreast presents a notional frontage of 27.3 miles (44 km). Page 2-13

Theres also a graphic that shows the RCT (and notional frontage required) round page 2-14.

Hope this helps you understand why the term "Regimental Combat Team" shouldnt be used in place of "Marine Expeditionary Brigade." The jargon does confuses the public, and my understanding is the RCT is only one element of the MEB.

Another comment I submitted to your San Diego office is that the EIS would be very much improved with both a index and a glossary.

Typsy,

Thanks for the notes, I will take them into the next meeting.

I pm'd you both; Kurt, your box is full. Let me know when I can send it again please.

Mike

Typsy,

Thanks for the notes, I will take them into the next meeting.

I pm'd you both; Kurt, your box is full. Let me know when I can send it again please.

Mike

Sorry Mike..

I cleared out some old PM's

Gotcha:) PM sent

Hey Lamar!

Do you drive your Jeep onto base?

Two free stickers if you will put one on your bumper.

Let me know mailing address and color!!

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=600254&stc=1&d=1306975625

Thank you, I sent you a pm.

Mike

"O" My God here it is, why they need 3 MEB's and all that extra land for separation, the 3rd MEB is going to be the Rump Ranger Bergaid.

Therefore the need to keep them out of gunsight view of the other 2 MEB's, take about getting THE BIG GREEN WEENIE!!!!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/05/us-usa-military-gays-idUSTRE7541VD20110605