Articles like this, documenting the military having to scrape together resources and improvise, worry me:

How do you squeeze two Marine Expeditionary Brigades onto 33 amphibious ships when in reality they require 38?

Are the 38 amphibious ships required for the level of national defense deemed necessary by military leaders? If so, then you spend the money and build another five amphibious ships. Instead, we get this:

You make them shed the weight they gained over the past seven years fighting on Iraq’s IED strewn battlefields, said Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway yesterday in an editorial board with Military?.com.

Lifting two full MEBs with their mounds of equipment, up-armored vehicles and aircraft requires 38 amphibious ships; the current shipbuilding plan gives the Marines 33. Conway wants a return to the days when the Marines weren’t viewed as a second land army and is determined to shoehorn two MEBs onto those 33 amphibs.

I think I agree with the whole “eliminate the image of a second land army” plan, but why are we providing fewer ships than the United States Marines require? Are we truly that hard-up for money?

You wouldn’t know it these days with Washington throwing around money like it’s growing on trees on the National Mall. Apparently we can afford multi-trillion dollar programs and pork projects, but we can’t afford to provide enough amphibious ships for the Marine Corps.

The rest of the article is worth a read, as Conway is looking for vehicles that are lighter but provide the same IED protection as the MRAP. Well, actually he’s looking at the “Small Combat Tactical Vehicle Capsule”, which bolts into the existing Humvee chassis. The military is testing the idea now.