The Marine Corps has been sculpting warriors for combat since 1775. However, while the United States enduring a time of peace, the warrior spirit has wavered, and the Corps have lost its compassion for the skills needed for battlefield survival. More specifically, a complacent mind-set has infected the combat service support elements and is demonstrated by not taking the Battle Skills Test seriously, forgetting the true meaning of the “Whole Marine Concept,” and losing the warrior spirit. This issue is not without solution, and by returning the Corps to roots as warriors through internal reflection and practical application of those skills, Marines can return to the standards that America holds us to as professional warriors. I have not yet had the opportunity to deploy as Marine, however, I understand that I must always take my training seriously as a part of the nation’s expeditionary force in readiness. Does the entire force maintain that mindset?
Battle Skills Tests
The battlefield skills instilled in every Marine, enlisted and officer, have eroded in the combat service support elements. This can be seen in the increasing failures of the Battle Skills Tests, or rather the failure of the application of these tests. Thorough practical application is a lost art, the focus at the lower levels is on primary mission accomplishment. However, everyone knows the mantra: Every Marine a rifleman. The mission of the entire organization is to fight and win the nation’s wars. Marines of all military occupational specialties fought ferociously in battles such as Guadalcanal and the Chosin Reservoir. It did not matter whether that Marine was an administrative specialist or a cook; when they were called on, their warrior spirit and training allowed them to conquer their objective.
However, the skills that once ensured all Marines would have the highest chance of survival on the battlefield now have been reduced to PowerPoint slides administered once a year as a check-the-box requirement. Implemented in 2018, the Battle Skills Test was introduced to realign Marines with the Corps’ core warfighting skills. These “tests” now are rendered worthless once the period of instruction is over, as students more often than not forget their training as soon as they are dismissed. Often, when this knowledge is called on by particular situations, there is an unnecessary scramble to remember what never should have been forgotten in the first place. The call to war is swift, and as a force Marines must anticipate that call when training. However, instead of these skills being the standard for every Marine, they have become topics for meritorious boards for only a select few to apply them.
Every Marine, whether forged in Recruit Training or Officer Candidates School, was taught battlefield skills first, before their military occupational specialty. Anecdotal evidence has shown me the disparity between Marines of infantry battalions and those of the combat service support elements, and it is clear the support elements are well behind the curve. When I attended professional military education schools, the difference in experience levels between the infantry Marines and service support Marines was massive. Fellow noncommissioned officers not able to apply a tourniquet; land navigation skills forgotten when put to the test in the field; and numerous other examples of this disparity. This disparity is not by design, as we were all forged into Marines first. We have forgotten our training, and when the time comes, not everyone will rise to the occasion. Instead, they will revert to their lowest level of training, and some Marines fall fast!
The ‘Whole Marine Concept’
To me, the “Whole Marine Concept” means a well-rounded individual who other Marines can depend on because of their physical fitness and technical and tactical skills. However, Marines who have fallen out of standards often use this phrase to justify their value. My unit recently held a discussion about physical fitness standards, as well as other standards such as rifle qualifications. Some Marines felt strongly that as long as a Marine was technically proficient, they should not be concerned about their physical standards. In a profession of arms, this is unacceptable and shows a disconnect with the overarching mission of the Marine Corps: to fight and win wars.
The training of technical skills should never erode the training of the warfighter. While running a physical fitness test, I witnessed a Marine trip and fall, and claim that their failing score should not be recorded in the system since they were now injured, even though they were failing before the injury. Leaders still recommended that Marine for promotion because they were “a diligent worker.” If Marines cannot have the integrity to keep themselves in standards, then how will they conduct themselves on the battlefield?
One familiar argument is that the Marines are a product of their environment. I have heard that nondeployable units, or service support roles, produce lesser Marines because they do not share the same experiences as the infantry. While that argument may hold some merit, all Marines train for one large goal: to fight and win wars. I will be honest, when I first checked into my unit, I had a third-class physical fitness test, a third-class combat fitness test, I went unqualified on the rifle range, and was over my maximum weight. I was fantastic at my military occupational specialty, but I was a horrible Marine. Only two leaders pulled me aside and told me I needed to correct my deficiencies or I would have to face very real consequences for my complacency as a warrior. Those two leaders saved my career as a Marine, and without them I would not be a Marine today. Marines do not leave other Marines behind, but that also means we must hold each other accountable when not in standards. We need to be prepared, because as the Noncommissioned Officer Creed states, “though today I instruct and supervise in peace, tomorrow I may lead in war.”
Warrior Spirit
The warrior spirit has guided Marines through the harshest of conflicts, such as the gruesome Battle for Belleau Wood. In June 1918, Marines steeled their nerves, fixed bayonets, and engaged the opposition with a ferocity never before seen in battle. They charged Hill 142, taking it from the German forces and successfully cleared the forest after intense close combat. The words of General Chesty Puller, spoken decades later, have reverberated through time, “Old breed, new breed, there’s not a damn bit of difference so long as it’s the Marine Breed.”
However, many Marines have lost sight of the warrior spirit that once set hearts ablaze with motivation. Marines of all time periods have found reasons to complain, and Marines will continue to find reasons to complain. Corporal Eugene B. Sledge’s accounts of the 1st Marine Division on the island of Pavuvu are full of the same complaints you will hear from Marines today, but as soon as they were sent in to engage the Japanese on Peleliu, they found their warrior spirit. Today, the warrior spirit has been lost, as those usual complaints have turned into negligence and complacency. Marines who are out of standards remain out of standards, with their overall state not improving. Recently, in attempts to realign my specific unit with the warrior side of being a Marine, we embarked on hikes with fully loaded main packs. That was met with swift retaliation, with phrases such as hazing being thrown into the mix. How did hikes with combat gear on become a form of hazing? In similar fashion, we also incorporated pack runs, using the assault pack from bucket issue, to further train our bodies to deal with pressure under a heavier load. Again, swift resistance and accusations ensued, and the training plans were cancelled. Don’t worry though, you do not have to run with gear in combat.
Transferring the blame of an issue is a dangerous act, which is why every Marine must look internally, and analyze themselves from an objective viewpoint. This analysis is the basis of forming a solution for this complacent state. When conducting an internal inventory, individual Marines needs to understand what he or she signed up for. No matter why the Marine enlisted or commissioned, we all joined the same organization, and we all have to uphold the same standards. By understanding why we joined, we can remember the foundations that were built in either Recruit Training or Officer Candidate School.
Conduct Realistic Training
Leaders are charged with conducting realistic training for Marines. Realistic training, and not death by PowerPoint, ensures that the training will be absorbed by individual Marines. Leaders’ responsibility to their Marines is that they equip them with the knowledge and skillsets needed to succeed, not only in garrison, but also on the battlefield. In service support roles, one may never know when that day will come, and the Marines on Camp Bastion did not know they would need to fall back on their training on 15 September 2012, but they did. A mentor of mine always reminded me that we never rise to the occasion, but rather we fall to our lowest level of training. As leaders, it is critical to locate where that level is and continue to raise it. Several of the benefits of conducting realistic training that I have noticed, is that not only does the reception of the training increase, but also the overall moral of the Marine. In some areas it seems troop welfare is last on the totem pole but believe it or not if we take care of our Marines, they will be inclined to train harder, and exceed expectations.
After analyzing the points of failure internally, one should objectively analyze how they contribute to this complacent mindset, and how to directly address it. For example, in my training schedule I assumed that I was sharpening my Marines through rigorous physical training events, but that was not always the case. I misjudged the training that I thought was correct, and the training that my Marines actually needed. Physical training for the sake of “breaking a Marine off,” must be avoided.
Today’s leaders tend to lean away from explanations and give more authoritative responses. Explaining the “why” to Marines can boost morale, by helping them understand the reasoning behind what they are doing. Also, explaining the training creates a more impactful learning environment. My reasoning is, that if a Marine understands that their training could be the determining factor between life and death, they will be inclined to retain the information.
Leaders must provide the Marines with the platforms to conduct this training. This training should be integrated into a fluent training schedule that allows time for practical application. Practical application should be the heart and soul of training, as this is where Marines will be able to put their abilities to the test. It is consistently preached that Marines must practice to perfect their skills in a live situation. However, Marines are not being afforded these opportunities, so it is causing concern for the outcome when we fight. There are other benefits of incorporating practical application as well. Overall morale of the unit will improve as a more cohesive team is created through the process of developing these skills. Personal experience has shown me the importance of incorporating these skills into a routine training schedule, especially in non-deployable units. The reasoning is simply that Marines in non-deployable units do not use these skills as frequently as the Marines in deployable units. Instead of focusing on combat skills, the focus is on unnecessarily long field days, drill, and uniform inspections. While the allocation of time for those tasks is fine occasionally, there should be equal time dedicated to combat skills. Speaking to the aforementioned gap in experience between the combat roles and the service support roles, just because a Marine does not need the skills right then and there, does not mean they should be shelved until the time comes for the skill to be used. Rather, these skills should be consistently honed, and we should never lose sight of the mission of the Marine Corps.
The Marine Corps is a self-sufficient force capable of operating independently of the other branches of the military thanks to its array of our combat support services. However, those combat support elements must never forget that they, too, are riflemen first. The battlefield skills taught in initial training should not lie dormant, but rather should be regularly tested. The Battle Skills Test should never be treated as a PowerPoint curriculum, but rather encouraged as an test of knowledge and a learning opportunity. In line with the Battle Skills Test, Marines’ warrior spirit must also be regularly cultivated. Last, the organization as a whole must understand the “Whole Marine” concept and remember that it is not just work ethic that makes a great Marine, but the incorporation of many areas that sets the Marine Corps apart from every other branch. As an expeditionary force, and America’s force in readiness, it has become apparent that the combat support roles are not as ready as they should be. However, there is always the ability to correct our deficiencies, as long as we are willing to make the correction.
To the leaders of all levels that are thinking a Marine in a combat support role does not need these skills, I will leave you with a quote from retired General James Mattis:
When not in combat, consider every week your last week of peace to prepare your outfit. Use your coaching skills to hone your Marines into a focused, amiable, and disciplined team that can carry out any mission, never breaking faith with Marines past or present. Your challenges will be many, the road will be hard, but we would have it no other way.
Sources
Arnold, R. D., Phillips, J. B., Mangos, P. M., & Isaacson, J. A. (2008). Critical Skills of Marine Corps Infantry Small Unit Leaders. NAVAL AEROSPACE MEDICAL RESEARCH LAB PENSACOLA FL.
Boyce, G. R. (2014). Into the Pacific Expanse: Focusing the USMC on the Pivot. US Army War College.
Garrett III, W. B., Lieutenant General, & Murray, T. M., Major General. (n.d.). USCENTCOM Bastion Attack Investigation Executive Summary. Retrieved August 24, 2020, from https://www.hqmc.marines.mil/Portals/142/Docs/USCENTCOM Bastion Attack Investigation Executive Summary.pdf
Glaus, C. (2019). The Battle of Belleau Wood, June 1st, 1918–June 26th.
Sledge, E. B. (2010). With the Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa. New York: Presidio Press.
Spanierman, L. B., & Poteat, V. P. (2005). Moving beyond complacency to commitment: Multicultural research in counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 33(4), 513-523.
Tharion, W. J., Lieberman, H. R., Montain, S. J., Young, A. J., Baker-Fulco, C. J., DeLany, J. P., & Hoyt, R. W. (2005). Energy requirements of military personnel. Appetite, 44(1), 47-65.
Tushnet, M. (2005). The constitution in wartime: beyond alarmism and complacency. Duke University Press.
United States Marine Corps. (2017, December 12). ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE BATTLE SKILLS TEST PROGRAM. Retrieved August 15, 2020, from https://www.marines.mil/News/Messages/Messages-Display/Article/1402333/announcement-of-the-battle-skills-test-program/
United States Marine Corps. (2019, April 3). CALENDAR YEAR 2019 GUIDANCE FOR THE BATTLE SKILLS TEST PROGRAM. Retrieved August 16, 2020, from https://www.marines.mil/News/Messages/MARADMINS/Article/1803922/calendar-year-2019-guidance-for-the-battle-skills-test-program/
