Marine Budget Boosts Embassy Security Forces

Marine Budget Boosts Embassy Security Forces

The $22.8 billion Marine Corps budget request for Fiscal Year 2015, down $1.4 billion from the previous year, included funding for a major buildup of embassy security and quick reaction forces in the wake of the Benghazi attacks.

Under the proposal, about 1,000 additional Marines would be assigned to Special-Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force Crisis Response units and to 12 new Marine embassy security detachments, said Rear Adm. William K. Lescher, who briefed on the Marine and Navy budgets at the Pentagon.

Embassy security has been a major concern of Congress since the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador Chris Stephens and three other Americans.


Marine Corps spokesmen said the $22.8 budget request did not include the Marines’ share from the so-called Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) fund — mainly for the war in Afghanistan — which could boost overall Marine spending to about $30 billion.

Pentagon Comptroller Bob Hale said the OCO fund request, which was in the range of about $85 billion last year, had yet to be drawn up for FY2015 but was likely to amount to a “placeholder” sum of about $79 billion.

The projected extra money for the Marines would “absolutely” be used for the transport and refitting of equipment from Afghanistan, Lescher said.

The $22.8 billion for the Marines was part of the Navy’s overall $148 billion budget request included in the Defense Department’s $495.6 billion Fiscal Year 2015 budget proposal – which itself was part of President Obama’s overall federal spending plan of nearly $4 trillion.

The $1.4 billion reduction for the Marines primarily reflected cuts in the active duty and Reserve forces.

Currently, Marine active duty strength was about 190,000 and was expected to go down to about 182,700 at the end of FY 2015, Lescher said.

If the mandatory cuts under the Congressional sequester process continued, the number of active duty Marines would go down to 179,400 in FY 2016 and 175,000 in FY 2017, Lescher said.

Marine Reserve strength would go down from the current 39,600 to 39,200 at the end of FY2015, according to the projections.
The projected cuts could also force changes in the areas in where Marines are deployed, Lescher said. Currently, about 6,000 Marines are in Afghanistan, 4,600 are aboard ships and 25,300 are deployed to the Pacific region, mainly on Okinawa.

However, the Navy’s overview of the budget stated that the proposed rebalance of U.S. forces to the Pacific would be protected. “Funds will also support a geographically distributed force posture in the Asia-Pacific, which will be increasingly important as U.S. forces are rebalanced to that region,” the overview said.

The Marine budget would maintain purchases of the MV-22 Osprey at 19 in FY2015. The projections were that the Marines would ask for 19 more Ospreys in FY2016 and 18 in FY2017 before dialing back to four Ospreys in FY2018 and four in FY2019.

For new systems, the Marines put a premium on air defense in the budget request. The Marines asked for funding for 89 of Northrup Grumman’s new mobile radar system called the “Gator,” for AN/TPS-80 Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar.

Tags:

Join the Conversation

Benghazi was a consulate, and presumably would not have been warranted the extra guards.

On 9/11 the embassy in Tripoli went on heightened alert, and no attacks occurred. A coordinated enemy /could/ have used Benghazi as bait, and after luring in a FAST company, struck the embassy proper in Tripoli instead.

Not sure what the AN/TPS-80 was, but: http://​www​.northropgrumman​.com/​C​a​p​a​b​i​l​i​t​i​e​s​/​G​A​TOR

Some kind of ground portable, trailer-mounted AESA?

Close all the embassys — there only there to let those that hate us to vent with their protests. No campaign bundling “ambassadors” and their staff, no wild parties plus they wont have the Corps to abuse.

too bad there was no attention to detail in case of Benghazi.
When I worked on embassy row in Washington our compound was guarded by Marines.
Too bad no consideration for Benghazi

This is the way our embassies’ should be protected. Hired contractors and native hires do not give our embassies the same caliber of protection. As an army grunt, I respect my brother grunts, and admire their fighting spirit.

Which embassy in Washington DC is guarded by US Marines? I’ve spent a lot of time in DC and never seen a Marine at an embassy there.

Seems only the USMC has a practical budget with less waste. Only downside is more crashing Ospreys. But overall they have a good head on there shoulders.

Let me make sure I get this right, first the teabaggers in congress cut the budget, then after the Benghazi attack, they blamed H. Clinton for it. Now they are boosting Embassy security, and they are still blaming H. Clinton for Benghazi. This is why you can’t trust teabaggers, they smile in your face, shake your hand with one one hand, but they have a bloddy knife in their other hand behind their back.…all of them are like.…They are back stabbers.

I’ve never seen them at Embassies in DC either.

Right, its some imaginary budget cut that prevented The White House from sending help when the Ambassador called and said they were under attack. Lots of forces available within an hour and 2 hours but nothing sent during the 8 hour attack.

Don’t forget to blame Bush/Cheney/Halliburton as well

Are there Marines at the US Naval Observatory, which is close to embassy row?

“For new systems, the Marines put a premium on air defense in the budget request. The Marines asked for funding for 89 of Northrup Grumman’s new mobile radar system called the “Gator,” for AN/TPS-80 Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar.”

The Marines should be in and out so fast they don’t even need Radar and who’s flying. I’m sure the AF or the Navy can take care of the CAP.

Blaming it on the Tea Party when the blame lies with State and the State Department alone is false and misleading. CNN on their website said:
http://​www​.cnn​.com/​2​0​1​2​/​1​0​/​1​2​/​p​o​l​i​t​i​c​s​/​f​a​c​t​-​c​h​eck

The facts:
On Wednesday, the State Department’s former point man on security in Libya told the House Oversight Committee that he asked for additional security help for the Benghazi facility months before the attack, but was denied.
Various communications dating back a year asked for three to five diplomatic security agents, according to testimony at Wednesday’s hearing. But Eric Nordstrom, the one-time regional security officer, said he verbally asked for 12 agents.
The request for 12 agents was rebuffed by the regional director of the State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, Nordstrom testified.
“For me and my staff, it was abundantly clear that we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident,” Nordstrom said.

The problem is where we have Marine Embassy Detachments. To have the same amount of Marines at the Helsinki, Finland Embassy vs Kampala, Uganda is assine. All of us that have been to the Embassies in Scandinavia, England, Germany, France etc. realize it is a waste of resources and a Boondoggle for our Troops. Contract out the “Fun Spots” and Increase Support in the Dangerous regions…Who doesn’t want to have Marine Embassy Duty in the Bahamas.…

I also read another two infantry battalions will go next year, to make room for more cyber Marines and new MEB headquarters. I know 1/9, 2/9 and 3/9 were deactivated a couple years ago. Another battalion last year, 3/8 I think. Which two for this year? Anyone know?

Have you been to Scandinavia in recent years? Those Countries are now full of Immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa. This isn’t the 1960s, 70s or 80s anymore. The crime rate in Scandinavia is much higher then 20 years ago and yes, terrorism is now possible in lovely Scandinavia.

Benghazi was a Consulate — not an Embassy.

Indeed, we should have Joint Embassies with our allies (who we are snooping on anyways, so we might as well cohabit).

For example, the Swiss represent our interests in Iran where we have no embassy anymore. Less embassies means less guards. We could easily have Canadian embassies handle American interests in a number of countries, then close those embassies out. At the moment, ambassadorships to various foreign countries are given to political followers…par for the course for administrations –R and –D.

Budget cuts only mean that the marines that would’ve been sent to Libya would’ve been working for less than they did last year.

Blight: C4ISR Magazine had an article on it recently. Its; a trailer mobile w/dedicated power source, “S” band radar system that when fully operation can perform ATC, friend/foe i.d., ground weapons locator, i.e. counter-battrey, air surveil. & friendly force vectoring capabilities. Its sounds kick-@ss, if it delivers what it advertises. A very versatile system for our Devil Dogs!

I’ve worked at Embassies. The Corps does not get abused. Ever seen an MSG residence overseas or been inside one? They live well and better than any deployment I’ll wager.

Yea, let’s close all Embassies. That’s a productive solution for our foreign policy. Geez.

If you worked at an Embassy on “Embassy Row” it was a foreign Embassy and not guarded by Marines. It’s protected by uniformed Secret Service police (big difference, including powers of arrest). We don’t keep US Embassies in our own country. :)

This poster is either fabricating or clueless.

Generally ends up being other way around. We help the Canadians in tough places because they fold up shop. No offense to our northern friends, but they fold up shop early when things get tough and usually when we (the US) feel the need to be there most.

Where are they going that we bail them out? The world loves Canada, and it doesn’t need to go on foreign adventures.

The Canadians got our embassy employees out of Iran in ’79, and the Swiss still represent our interests in several countries we don’t have relations with. And less embassies means less Marines penny-packeted the world over, less targets for kidnapping, et al.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2014 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.