Could New Sea-Focus of Marines Doom JV Expansion?

[cuttenkid]

HQ blog with photo
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blog...f-marines.html

Story
HQ believes the AP story today about the Marines downsizing and becoming more of a sea-based military operation could cast doubt on the entire planning process of their proposal to close a significant portion of the Johnson Valley OHV Area for massive land invasion-type training exercises.


AP Article on JV
http://news.yahoo.com/postwar-marine...132241513.html

In my comment letters for BRC (I am their western representative), BRC pointed out that holding massive landscape level invasion practice did not square with the modern 21st Century battlefield where smaller multi-force integrated units was our future.

Blog on BRC Comment Letter and other info
http://thegeneralsrecreationden.blog...letter-on.html

HQ believes the Marines new sea-based focus combined with the national debt crisis might spell the end for the JV proposal that many of us felt was ill advised and unwarranted. Watch for many twists and turns in the JV saga this year.

[Jeff Knoll]

Don does this mean you believe the Draft EIS and Record of decision will not be filed? This position has been expressed by the Marine leadership a few times in the last year or so.(thanks Kurt for the documents on that) but even with that being said before Proudfoot has said they will complete their mission of presenting a plan to meet their training needs to Congress.

Its great ammunition, but I still think we need to load the gun, unless you have additional knowledge that would suggest otherwise?

[Jeff Knoll]

Californian Newspaper article on the same subject.

Kurt has been pointing this out for the last year.

WASHINGTON — With the Iraq War ending and an Afghanistan exit in sight, the Marine Corps is beginning a historic shift ---- a return to its roots as a seafaring force that will get smaller, lighter and, it hopes, less bogged down in land wars.

This moment of change happens to coincide with a reorienting of American security priorities to the Asia-Pacific region, where China has been building military muscle during a decade of U.S. preoccupation in the greater Middle East. That suits the Marines, who see the Pacific as a home away from home.

After two turns at combat in Iraq ---- first as invaders in the 2003 march to Baghdad and later as occupiers of landlocked Anbar province ---- the Marines left the country in early 2010 to reinforce the fight in southern Afghanistan. Over that stretch, the Marines became what the former Joint Chiefs chairman, Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, has called their own "worst nightmare:" a second American land army, a static, ground-pounding auxiliary force.

That's scary for the Marines because for some in Congress it raises this question: Does a nation drowning in debt really need two armies?

Gen. James F. Amos, the Marine Corps commandant, says that misses the real point. He argues that the Marines, while willing and able to operate from dug-in positions on land, are uniquely equipped and trained to do much more ---- to get to any crisis, on land, at sea or in the air, on a moment's notice.

He is eager to see the Iraq and Afghanistan missions completed so the Marines can return to their traditional role as an expeditionary force.

"We need to get back to our bread and butter," Amos told Marines Nov. 23 at Camp Lawton, a U.S. special operations base in Afghanistan's Herat province.

That begins, he said, with moves such as returning to a pattern of continuous rotations of Marines to the Japanese island of Okinawa, home of the 3rd Marine Division formed in the early days of World War II.

The rotation of infantry battalions to Okinawa was interrupted by the Iraq war, which after the March 2003 invasion evolved into a bigger, costlier and longer-lasting counterinsurgency campaign than the Pentagon or the Marines had anticipated.

Amos says he plans to begin lining up infantry battalion rotations for Okinawa even before the 2014 target date for ending U.S. combat in Afghanistan.

Another element of this return-to-our-roots approach is the decision announced in late November to rotate Marines to Australia for training with Australian forces from an Australian army base in Darwin, beginning in 2012.

Up to 2,500 Marines ---- comprising not just infantry units but also aviation squadrons and combat logistic battalions ---- will go there from Okinawa or other Marine stations in Japan and elsewhere in the Pacific for a few months at a time.

"As we draw down (troops in Afghanistan) and we reorient the Marine Corps, it will be primarily to the Pacific," Amos told Marine aviators at a U.S. base in Kandahar, noting as an aside that he doubted any of them had ever deployed to the Pacific. "The main focus of effort is going to be the Pacific for the Marines."

He added that Marines will remain present in the Persian Gulf area and elsewhere as required, but not in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Versatility is the key to keeping the Marines relevant to U.S. national security requirements, he says.

"We're not a one-trick pony," Amos said. "We're the ultimate Swiss army knife."

The decade of war following the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington began for the Marines in late November 2001 with an airborne assault on al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden's turf in the desert south of Kandahar in southern Afghanistan.

Marines of the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit flew more than 400 miles aboard helicopters launched from the USS Peleliu in the North Arabian Sea.

A month later the Taliban regime, which had provided haven for bin Laden as al-Qaida plotted the 9/11 attacks, was routed and the war seemed largely over. It was not until 2010 that the Marines returned in large numbers to Afghanistan, where fighting had evolved into a stalemate.

By late 2002, the Marines and other U.S. forces were preparing for another land war, this time in Iraq.

In March 2003 the Marines pushed north from Kuwait along with the Army's 3rd Infantry Division, for the main assault on Baghdad. This war, too, seemed to be over within a few months. But it also took an unexpected turn even as the Marines left Iraq in September 2003. An insurgency took hold that fall and in March 2004 the Marines returned, this time to Anbar province in Iraq's western desert, where the Sunni insurgency was entrenched and the outlook appeared grim.

The Marines' death toll in Iraq was 1,022 — nearly one-quarter of the U.S. total, according to Pentagon statistics. Thus far in Afghanistan at least 376 Marines have died. For both wars combined, the Marines had the highest death rate among the four major services — 0.47 percent of all Marines who served in the two countries, according to an Associated Press analysis. That compares to 0.38 percent for the Army, which played the dominant ground combat role.

Marines also had by far the highest rate of wounded in action for both wars combined: 4.28 percent, compared to 2.75 percent for the Army.

With an eye on the postwar outlook, Amos came into his job as the commandant in 2010 intending to slim down his force and shed some of its ground-oriented capabilities. He has developed a plan to reduce the service from its current total of 202,000 Marines to 186,800 — perhaps even fewer because of additional budget pressures, he told Marines in Afghanistan in late November.

Regardless of the number, Amos says he is determined to shape a postwar force that is smaller and better equipped for the kind of flexible duty he champions.

He plans to reduce the number of infantry battalions from 27 to 24, shed some artillery and armored vehicles and reduce the number of flying squadrons from 70 to 61.

The idea is a force whose forte is not protracted ground combat but pop-up crises like the Libya mission, as well as "power projection," which the Marines do by keeping expeditionary forces aboard Navy ships in Asia, the Mideast and elsewhere.

It was evident on Amos's tour of Afghanistan's frontlines over Thanksgiving that ordinary Marines, too, are looking beyond Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Who do you want us to fight next, sir?" a Marine asked Amos.

Read more: http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/mi...#ixzz1fgRcbsnE

[randii]

Originally Posted by Jeff Knoll

Kurt has been pointing this out for the last year.

...but not in third person.

Randii

[Kurtuleas]

Originally Posted by randii

...but not in third person.

Randii

See this thread from back in March:

/forum/johnson-valley/980317-food-thought.html

This is NOT new news. I have been reading Transcripts of Amos's speeches, countless Marine Corps Documents, and I even went over his presentation to congress about the Marine Corps budget.

Basically the base expansion does not fit in AT ALL with the "new" direction of the Marine Corps and the force structure review. I put "new" in quotes, because basically the USMC is getting back to it's orginal roots after being used as a 2nd land army for the past 10 years.

The base expansion is based on a training doctrine that was formed while the Marine Corps were being used as a "2nd Army"

Bottomline: We can pretty much prove, using the Marines OWN WORDS, that they do not need JV.

[Kurtuleas]

Here is a comment that I sent in:



In arguing against the expansion of 29 Palms, I would like to share a story told by General James F. Amos, Commandant of the Marine Corps at the Defense Writers group breakfast on February 18th, 2011.

“We found that we were buying a new water bull. Now, for everybody here, a water bull is not an animal. It’s a big – it’s a water tank that holds, I’m guessing, I don’t know, four (hundred) or 500 gallons of water.

“We call them “water bull,” but that’s like a water buffalo. And you tow it behind a Humvee or a seven-ton truck or that kind of thing. Now, that’s where Marines get fresh water. You pump fresh water in it. You go up there, and Marines are up there shaving, and all that stuff. And we’ve got a good one. We’ve had that one since I was a lieutenant, and it works just fine. Nothing wrong with it; (served us as Marines ?). Well, we found out that – and I’m not sure who, but we said, well, we need a bigger water bull. We need one that’s about three or four times as big.

And we said, well – then we see this picture of this thing, and it’s huge. It not only takes up more cube, it’s heavier. Well, why do we need it? Well, because we’ve got a seven-ton truck now that can tow it. Because we can. We said, let’s buy it.

We canceled that program. So there’s an example. There’s others that are out there. But being frugal just means going back and paying very close attention, close scrutiny on everything we’re buying, making sure that we can – that it’s something we need.”

In a post OEF world, The Marines are getting back to their frugal roots and only asking for what they NEED, not for what they want. Currently, with the state of the world and planning for smaller actions in littoral areas, the Marines do not need to train 3 Battalions for a large scale campaign. According to General Amos, the Marines were used in OEF as a “two for”, as a second land army. Now their role is changing back to their original purpose.

The entire DEIS needs to be thrown out since the purpose and need of the base expansion is no longer valid in a post OEF world.


General Amos has stated that after 9/11, the Marines were in a "culture of plenty" Meaning that they had enough funding to buy a lot of stuff, so they did. But MANY times (Like the water bull) they just bought stuff that they did not really NEED..... they just bought it becuase they could afford it at that time.

Read his story again and substitute "Johnson Valley" for "Water Bull"

[cuttenkid]

Kurt et al,

Good stuff! Keep powder dry as this is not over by a longshot.

Don

[Kurtuleas]

Originally Posted by cuttenkid

Kurt et al,

Good stuff! Keep powder dry as this is not over by a longshot.

Don

[kf6zpl]

Don does this mean you believe the Draft EIS and Record of decision will not be filed? This position has been expressed by the Marine leadership a few times in the last year or so.(thanks Kurt for the documents on that) but even with that being said before Proudfoot has said they will complete their mission of presenting a plan to meet their training needs to Congress.

Its great ammunition, but I still think we need to load the gun, unless you have additional knowledge that would suggest otherwise?

On the contrary...

The Final EIS will be completed as it is a contractual obligation that it be completed.

That is the basis of the plan to met training needs.

As I have been saying for the past three plus years, the discussion is about the overall mission of the military and will be driven by budget as much as political expediency.

You cannot just look at what the Marines are planning. You also need to look at what the Navy, Army and Air Force are planning. Fort Irwin (Army) was expanded and has yet to reach any of the expanded training potential envisioned.

Marines and Army have reduced inventory of tanks and artillery. Navy is moving from "blue water" to "brown water". This fits with the Marines moving back to "expeditionary forces" roots.

The Air Force is moving from planes to remote drones.

And the list goes on...

The underlying mission of the military has been laid out by the military leaders. Meanwhile, the political leaders have kept loading the military with unwanted equipment because to faze out artillery or jet engine production would cost jobs in a sensitive political district.

For the past three years there should have been an message to congress about the JV issue.

Yes, Jeff, we still need to proceed with that message to overcome the political pressures that will seek to keep status quo and retain military budgets to support political positions.

[cuttenkid]

John,

Good comments and overview.

Don

[Bebe]

Originally Posted by kf6zpl

You cannot just look at what the Marines are planning. You also need to look at what the Navy, Army and Air Force are planning. Fort Irwin (Army) was expanded and has yet to reach any of the expanded training potential envisioned.

Marines and Army have reduced inventory of tanks and artillery. Navy is moving from "blue water" to "brown water". This fits with the Marines moving back to "expeditionary forces" roots.

The Air Force is moving from planes to remote drones.

Word smithing John's statement above:

In looking at what the Marines are planning, we also need to look at what the Navy, Army and Air Force are planning:

• Fort Irwin (Army) was expanded and has yet to reach any of the expanded training potential envisioned. (why? Could it be because they have been a little busy in the Middle East?)
  
• Marines and Army have reduced inventory of tanks and artillery. (This is based on an ongoing transition to other types of vehicles).
  
• Navy is expanding technology and resources to include "brown water" (not just blue water). This compliments the Marines moving back to "expeditionary forces" roots.
  
• The Air Force is expanding technology and resources for its remote drone "Air Force". (Planes (A-10, F-14, F18 etc) will always be used in war, there will always be a need for air power).

It's curious to me why the largest bureaucracies in the world need to continue doing what they are doing just "because". They are so inflexible.

Why can't they put this project down? Why complete a DEIS when we already know the answer? They can't afford it - because they don't really need it. They, by their own admission, don't need it.

Amos seems to know what he and his Men need, so there has to be something else.

Question is....What?

[aphantomduck]

One of the commands of NEPA is to accurately describe "The Purpose and Need" of a federal project/proposal.

This is an area we can challenge the FEIS.

Given the above information, the DEIS portray's an inaccurate Purpose and Need.

[justcallmejim]

Originally Posted by Jeff Knoll
Kurt has been pointing this out for the last year.

Originally Posted by randii

...but not in third person.

Randii

Good one Randii. Third person is so last year...

Jim

[Kurtuleas]

I don't get the third person comments...


What I DO get is that all of us need to get off our asses, work TOGETHER and save the largest OHV area in the USA.

[Mustard Dog]

Originally Posted by Bebe

Question is....What?

Like I've said from the beginning, this is nothing but a dick swinging contest over what branch has the bigger base. Ft Irwin expanded to become bigger than 29 Palms, the Marines want the title back.

[Bebe]

Originally Posted by Mustard Dog

Like I've said from the beginning, this is nothing but a dick swinging contest over what branch has the bigger base. Ft Irwin expanded to become bigger than 29 Palms, the Marines want the title back.

Boys and their...

[Jeff Knoll]

I honestly believe there is something more to base expansion than needing the space for training. Bigger base, water issues, or something else?

What concerns me is when I get a chain email implying we are winning, like I received this morning. The Marines are going to continue to completion. We will need to engage our community in the fight, and while I think it is important that we show we can win the battle, we need to stress that it will be waged in Washington. We have some great tools, how we use them is going to be the key.

Apathy is deadly.

[justcallmejim]

Originally Posted by Jeff Knoll

I honestly believe there is something more to base expansion than needing the space for training. Bigger base, water issues, or something else?

What concerns me is when I get a chain email implying we are winning, like I received this morning. The Marines are going to continue to completion. We will need to engage our community in the fight, and while I think it is important that we show we can win the battle, we need to stress that it will be waged in Washington. We have some great tools, how we use them is going to be the key.

Apathy is deadly.

The Marines mantra during every meeting was, "we need the land so we can train the way we fight."

The purpose and need statements didn't mention water, yes a bigger base was mentioned but for the purpose of the "train the way we fight" scenerio.

The folks in charge of the NEPA process for the expansion will do what they have been assigned to do, and that is complete the process and submit the plan. They'll then move on to their next assignment.

I didn't get a chain email, so don't know what's up with that, however, I also haven't thrown in the towel. This whole issue will play out in Washington and in the media. So I say, let the games begin, and if it begins with us on the ground, all the better.

jim

[OTR]

I got this from several lists...

Originally Posted by Chain Email

Marine Takeover of Johnson Valley exposed as Boondoggle by Associated Press Article

In an article published today in newspapers around the country, writer Robert Burns of the Associated Press quotes Marine Corp Commandant General James F. Amos stating that the future of the Marine Corps lies in a smaller, versatile sea-based fighting force based primarily around the Pacific, including bases in Okinawa and Australia; "....but not in Iraq or Afghanistan."

Since Marine representatives have repeatedly stated that the sole reason for the very expensive and widely criticized takeover of the Johnson Valley area is to prepare Marines for land-based battles in Iraq and Afghanistan, General Amos has confirmed that this proposed expansion is no longer necessary or even critical to the future of the Marine Corps.

Local residents and communities, including the thousands of yearly visitors to Johnson Valley, have been braced for severe financial hardships due to the proposed takeover. Now the Marines are called upon to withdraw their plans for Johnson Valley, following the lead of General Amos while saving the American taxpayer millions of dollars.

We call on everyone concerned by the proposed Marine expansion in Johnson Valley to let their local, state and federal politicians know that we support the Marines, and we support Marine Commandant John F. Amos' vision for a strong fighting force trained to protect our country. Distribute the Associated Press article to all your networks.http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

Like its been said, this is old news. Kurt was the first to catch onto this.

It is nice however that the media is catching on, but I can also see that the timing of this may just be a ploy to get us to drop our guard.


k.

[navy-jeepster]

If the Marines want the title of the largest land based training area, then let them go take over Fr Irwin.
While I was still in, it was always talked of more joint operations, and more joint training on the current training areas. If you are going to train like you fight, then joint operations from beginning to end, on the current military properties should fit.

I forget what service was building a huge ground based simulator to help cut fuel costs! The simulator would cost probably a billion to be able to fit all the people involved in, but over a couple of years with the decreased fuel costs, and maintenance on all the vehicles, this would be a good ROI!

The military loves a boon-doggle!

Todd

[cody knoll]

Originally Posted by OTR

I got this from several lists...



Like its been said, this is old news. Kurt was the first to catch onto this.

It is nice however that the media is catching on, but I can also see that the timing of this may just be a ploy to get us to drop our guard.


k.

Jeff Knoll on my son's computer

Problem with that email, is that the Associated press article does not make any mention of the Marine base expansion, so someone is implying that the Associated press has exposed a boon doggle in the take over and they have not in so far as I have seen. I was really happy when I read the email, but disappointed to see it was based on 6 month old information, that has not swayed the Marines to reconsider, and the AP made no notice of the base expansion.

I receievd this email from a number of sources, so I have no idea who wrote it.

[dumass]

Originally Posted by Jeff Knoll

I honestly believe there is something more to base expansion than needing the space for training. Bigger base, water issues, or something else?

What concerns me is when I get a chain email implying we are winning, like I received this morning. The Marines are going to continue to completion. We will need to engage our community in the fight, and while I think it is important that we show we can win the battle, we need to stress that it will be waged in Washington. We have some great tools, how we use them is going to be the key.

Apathy is deadly.

Here's a twist.

State senator makes latest push for land swaps to preserve bases

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt...d3c3e014c.html
Howard Fischer Capitol Media Services | Posted: Tuesday, December 6, 2011 12:00 am


PHOENIX - Saying Arizona can't afford to lose military jobs, a veteran state lawmaker is making what could be a last-ditch effort to persuade voters to give the state the power to trade away lands if the move helps preserve bases.

Sen. John Nelson, R-Litchfield Park, said Washington is looking at ways to pare military spending. He said one thing likely to be considered is whether it makes sense to maintain or expand an air base or if encroachment from development makes that a bad idea.

Litchfield Park is next to Luke Air Force Base.

His legislation and proposed constitutional amendment would give the state the power to have land swaps if the ultimate goal is to preserve open space around military bases.

Such permission would not so much affect a direct trade with the federal government as the ability of Arizona to obtain property around bases now owned by developers and instead provide them with other parcels elsewhere.

But Nelson conceded that, without public support, the measure will go down to defeat at the polls again next November, as it has seven times before.

At the heart of the issue is that when Arizona became a state, the federal government gave it close to 11 million of acres of land to be held in trust. The proceeds from the sale or lease of the property, or from selling timber or mineral rights, is largely earmarked for public schools.

About 9.2 million acres remain.

The Arizona Constitution says lands can be sold only to the highest bidder. Nelson's proposal, SCR 1001, would create an exception for land swaps.

Prior versions were defeated mostly amid concerns by conservation groups that savvy developers would find a way to take advantage of such a system, acquiring choice parcels of land, perhaps environmentally sensitive, without public oversight.

Even last year, when the measure was narrowed - and passed out of both the House and Senate with near-unanimous support - a skeptical public still rejected it.

The new version restricts swaps to situations designed to avoid encroachment on military installations, training ranges or testing operations.

It also has a detailed procedure of what has to happen before a single piece of land is exchanged, including two independent appraisals of the land the state is giving up and what it gets in return, and two independent financial analysis of the potential income from both properties.

And ultimately, he said, the swap would have to be approved by voters.

Nelson also said the language has been streamlined from what failed in 2010.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/2...s/scr1001p.pdf

This is so toxic I'm scared to try to worry about it at this point. I assume that everyone here in AZ realizes that this is death to the Florence area as well. The last go-round we were told we could wheel in the artillery pits when they werent shooting at them. Remember?

I suppose I'll need to start a seperate thread on this cause "it's an Arizona issue" but.....

....Is there anything like this getting under the radar in the CA legislature?

Our State Trust Land department just got caught skimming the Trust to the tune of ~$20-$30 million for their "office budget".

It's all about the do re mi....

[LYIN' KING]

Originally Posted by Jeff Knoll

I honestly believe there is something more to base expansion than needing the space for training. Bigger base, water issues, or something else?

“The water demand in the Twentynine Palms Water District is met entirely by local ground water extractions from four sub-basins south of the Pinto Mountain Fault. These sub-basins are supplied by rainfall in the upper reaches of the Joshua Tree National Park percolating from the Pinto Mountains. The four sub-aquifers are located deep within the ground in the Indian Cove, Forty-nine Palms, Eastern basin, and Mesquite Springs areas. Water is pumped from these sub-aquifers and delivered by a pipeline system. Water pumped from the Mesquite Springs subaquifer is treated to remove high levels of fluoride before being distributed into the pipeline system. The Indian Cove subbasin contains six wells (one of which is on standby), the Fortynine Palms subbasin contains two wells, the Eastern subbasin contains two wells (one of which is non-potable), and the Mesquite Springs subbasin contains one well.”
More: http://www.29palmswater.org/ops_waterquality.html

“There is a proposal in the works in California to remove large quantities of underground water from aquifers in the Mojave Desert and sell it to water districts in Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego Counties. Conveyance systems that have been built over the years will be used to “get water from where it is to where it is needed.” The water will be removed from beneath Bristol and Cadiz Dry Lakes that are located north and east of the city of Twenty-nine Palms. Proponents of the project claim that it will provide a more reliable supply for the coastal cities by utilizing water that would normally be lost. Those opposed to the project claim there may be unforeseen environmental impacts and have requested additional studies.
Supporters of the Cadiz Valley Water Conservation, Recovery and Storage Project claim the region can safely provide 50,000 acre feet of water per year. It will be sent via a 42 mile pipeline to the Colorado River Aqueduct. From there it will flow downhill to millions of water users in the heavily populated regions of Southern California. It is hoped the project will help relieve the “roller-coaster supply problems” that have plagued water districts that service those areas.”

More: http://jack-h-schick.wrytestuff.com/...er-Project.htm

[jsmith7364]

In regards to the statement of the current commandant. And please keep in mind. I am a retired Marine and spent many years in the planning and operations billets.

Do not read anything into his statement. The doctrine of the Marine Corps has and will always be Amphibious. Without that, there is no Marine Corps. Granted that role has morphed over the decades to meet the current world challenges and the technology and equipment involved. But it has always been the same structure and basis for it's operations. There was also a comment in one of those articles that the Marine Corps' casualty rate was higher. And they were leading it down that road that it was due to the Marines not being the correct fighting force for this mission. That is not the reason, nor anything close to the truth.

You have to keep in mind, every service has their own role or they wouldn't exist. The Marines are basically an assault force to take ground and the Army is the occupying force. Sure, they do cross over at times, but those are the main roles. So yes, the Marines do have a higher casualty rate because of where they are located, and based on their main role and doctrine. This isn't knocking or putting down the Army or anyone else. They all have their job to do and there is a very distinct difference in theory and mindset. And they all do it well.

Organize protests in your local political offices, get a rally going, get public exposure. Put the pressure on the politicians.

I do believe that in the end, the Marines won't get the expansion because of the budget and the overall downsizing. It is surely something to keep an eye on.

I just wanted to caution you to not put too much stock in what you read on this. Because what he stated is nothing different than any other Commandant has stated.

I do believe that if we keep pushing and keep driving the political end of this, that we will be successful. And I agree there has to be more than just the MEB training concept. That is pure BS.

[Kurtuleas]

The difference with this Commadant is that they are going through a Force Structure Review. They ARE downsizing.

The Marines are SUPPOSED to be a middle-weight fighting force.

Basically if something goes down, they are light enough to be the first ones there, move in quickly, take the beach.... They are the Spearhead that gives the Army time to show up and deliver the big blow.

Well....After 9/11, times changed. We needed a boatload of troops on the ground, so instead of being used like they were supposed to be used, the marines turned into kind of a 2nd land-army. THIS was the time that the new marine Corps Training documents came out. If they were going to fight this way, they had to train that way. Therefore: They needed more space.

Those original documents say clearly that they would expand West into JV.

Well, they are down sizing now, and the world sit-rep shows that the hotspots will be in the literals, areas along the coasts in the Pan-Pac area and into Africa. Unless something super-big goes down, most of the fighting will be smaller skirmishes or other operations in those areas. So the Marines are going back to thier roots as the fast response, spearhead.

That fact, along with the budget that sucks.... is our only hope for saving JV.

Still, they may be taking JV for other reasons like water....