fortitudine vol 33 no 4 - united states marine corps · fortitudine,vol.33,no.4,2008 3...

THE CORPS DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY...THREE DECADES OF DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY...THE KINGARMORED CARTHE HARRIER AV-8A...AMPHIBIOUS VEHICLES...NURSE CORPS CELEBRATES 100 YEARS...NORWAYMARINE FORCES EUROPE...MARINES IN MOROCCO...4TH MARINES INWWI...MARINE CORPS UNIVERSITY PRESS

BULLETIN OF THE MARINE CORPS HISTORICAL PROGRAMHISTORICAL BULLETIN VOLUME 33, NUMBER 4 2008

PASSTHISISSUEON

TOANOTHERMARINE

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: Approved for public release; distribution isunlimited.

PCN 10401220100

HISTORYDIVISION

PRESIDENTMARINE CORPS UNIVERSITY

MajGen Donald R. Gardner, USMC (Ret)

DIRECTORDr. Charles NeimeyerSecretary to the Director

Jeannie Riffe

CHIEF HISTORIANCharles Melson

HISTORIES BRANCHCharles Smith (Branch Head); Dr.Nathan Lowrey; Dr. Fred Allison;Paul Westermeyer; Wanda Renfrow

HISTORICAL REFERENCE BRANCHDanny Crawford (Branch Head);Robert Aquilina; Lena Kaljot; KaraNewcomer; Annette Amerman;Shelia Boyd

ORAL HISTORY PROGRAMRob Taglianetti

FIELD HISTORY BRANCHCol Stephen Evans; Col PatriciaSaint; LtCol David Benhoff; LtColLarry McFall; LtCol Jeffrey Riley; MajDaniel Sparks; Maj Valerie Jackson;Capt Cameron Wilson; CWO-3Timothy McWilliams; GySgt MichaelCoachman

EDITING AND DESIGN BRANCHKen Williams (Branch Head)Steve Hill (Visual Info. Spec.)

Vince Martinez (Visual Info. Spec.)Greg Macheak (Mgr. Ed., Fortitudine)

Marine Corps History Division3079 Moreell Avenue

Quantico, Virginia 22134Telephone (703) 432-4877http://[email protected]

Motto of the United States Marine Corps in the 1812 era

Historical Bulletin Vol. 33, No. 4 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Cover: This oil painting by Sgt Charles Grow portrays the2d AAV Battalion returning to Onslow Beach, CampLejeune, NC, after participating in Operation UNITAS onthe 8th of December, 1988.

Memorandum from the Director: A Developmental Corps HistoryDr. Charles P. Neimeyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

History Division Summer Intern Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Feature: Three Decades of Marine Corps Developmental History

LtCol Jeffery R. Riley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5National Museum of the Marine Corps: Innovation and Experimentation: The KingArmored Car

Beth L. Crumley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9The Harrier AV-8A: The Corps’ First Vertical/Short Takeoff Landing Aircraft

Julie H. Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11From the Sea: Amphibious Tracked Vehicles in the Marine Corps

Col Charles A. Jones and Ryan P. McDonough . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12From the Chief Historian: Navy Nurse Corps Celebrates 100 Years of Supporting theFleet

Charles D. Melson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14Field History: Marine Forces Europe

Col Stephen S. Evans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15Field History: Norway’s Center of Excellence for ColdWeather Operations

Col Stephen S. Evans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18Field History: An Enduring Ally in Africa:Marines in Morocco

Maj Valerie A. Jackson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21Marine Corps Chronology: 4th Marine Brigade inWorldWar I

Kara R. Newcomer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23Book Review: NewWords for an Old Tune

Charles D. Melson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26Lieutenant Colonel HaroldW. Bauer Inducted into the U.S. Naval Aviation Hall of Honor

CWO-3 Timothy S. McWilliams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27In Memoriam: Passing of Major General Looney, Brigadier General Leach, BrigadierGeneral Henderson, and Private First Class Lucas

Robert V. Aquilina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29Marine Corps University Press: Marine Corps University Press is Launched . . . . . . .31

This bulletin of the Marine Corps historical program is published for Marines, at the rate of onecopy for every nine on active duty, to provide education and training in the uses of military andMarine Corps history. Other interested readers may purchase single copies or four-issue sub-scriptions from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office. The appro-priate order form appears in this issue.

“We can only know who we are by being certain ofwho we have been.” Gen Leonard F. Chapman Jr.

24th Commandant of the Marine Corps

2 Fortitudine,Vol. 33, No. 4, 2008

THE CORPS DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY...THREE DECADES OF DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY...THE KINGARMORED CARTHE HARRIER AV-8A...AMPHIBIOUS VEHICLES...NURSE CORPS CELEBRATES 100 YEARS...NORWAYMARINE FORCES EUROPE...MARINES IN MOROCCO...4TH MARINES INWWI...MARINE CORPS UNIVERSITY PRESS

BULLETIN OF THE MARINE CORPS HISTORICAL PROGRAMHISTORICAL BULLETIN VOLUME 33, NUMBER 4 2008

PASSTHISISSUEON

TOANOTHERMARINE

Editor’s Note:1. From issue Vol. 32, No. 2, p. 14, The Marines andCamp Rapidan: The President’s Own United States MarineCorps Band should be The President’s Own United StatesMarine Band.2. From issue Vol. 33 No. 3, p. 3, Memorandum from theDirector: Louis B. “Chesty” Puller should be Lewis B.“Chesty” Puller.

Fortitudine, Vol. 33, No. 4, 2008 3

Memorandum from the Director

Dr. Charles P. Neimeyer

A Developmental Corps History

In the mid-’90s and soon after thecollapse of the Soviet Union, therewas considerable discussion inWashington over the various roles andmissions that each of the armed ser-vices would embrace in the new post-Cold War era. After years of recorddefense spending, there was talk of a“peace dividend” and serious thoughtwas given to a possible reduction offorces necessary for this new unipolarera. Accordingly, Congress directedthat the Defense of Department (DoD)take a new look at the military ser-vices and established the Commis-sionon the Roles and Missions of theArmed Forces. The commission rec-ommended among other things thatthe “terms of the national roles andmissions debate” focus on the needsof the warfighting commanders-in-chief instead of the capabilities ofeach individual service. So just abouteverything was on the table. Nearlysimultaneously, congressional pres-sure to reduce defense spendingrequired DoD to conduct a “bottomup review” in order to identify redun-dancies and any further reductionsthat might be achieved. And if thiswere not enough, at the same time theNavy and Marine Corps leadershipannounced a new “littoral” centricmaritime strategy called From the Sea.From the Sea and its follow-on strate-gy, Forward From the Sea, squarelyplaced the Navy/Marine Corps team atthe center of future expeditionaryoperations.This issue of Fortitudine focuses on

the developmental history of theMarine Corps. To many, the term“developmental” is about equipmentand gear. This is only partly true.While developmental history canindeed be about the evolution of“things,” like the armored amphibiousvehicles of World War II or theembrace of vertical/short takeoff and

that the Marines had no place onboard Navy ships and were essentiallysuperfluous to the large fleet opera-tions envisioned by the eminent navalstrategist Alfred Thayer Mahan.However, following lessons learnedduring the short but violent Spanish-American War, Mahan had a change ofheart and wrote that “in the future, theMarine Corps must constitute . . . thebackbone to any force landing on [an]enemy coast.” What the prescientMahan was arguing for was a muchmore robust Fleet Marine Force ableto assist the U.S. Navy in a naval cam-paign where landings would be bothrequired and desired. By the mid-1930s, a series of remarkable MarineCommandants, most notably John A.Lejeune, Wendell C. Neville, Ben H.Fuller, and John H. Russell, had madeMahan’s vision a reality.

Following World War II, the UnitedStates reevaluated how it was

going to provide future national secu-rity. The National Security Act of 1947created the Department of Defensewith its own cabinet-level secretaryand an independent Air Force to namejust a few innovations of this water-shed law. However, for the MarineCorps, the immediate postwar yearswere probably the most difficult everexperienced. While the three largerservices had natural roles in theirrespective realms of land, sea, and airwarfare, the much smaller MarineCorps was left in a more ambiguousposition. In fact, at the time, therewere many who were convinced thatatomic weapons and strategic airpower had made land forces obsolete.But after a series of bruising bureau-cratic fights for survival waged byMarine Commandants Alexander A.Vandegrift and Clifton B. Cates, theDouglas-Mansfield Act of 1952 gavethe Marine Corps a stable force struc-

landing technology in the early 1970s,it can apply to institutional develop-ment as well. In sum, developmentalhistory is often a story of “how we gotfrom there to here.”Nonetheless, when viewed over

time, national debates over serviceroles and missions seem to follow acyclical pattern. In a little-known pro-vision of the 2008 National DefenseAuthorization Act, DoD was onceagain tasked to review its basic service“roles and missions.” And surely theMarine Corps will—once again—haveto defend its place and role in thenational security structure.It is perhaps a good thing to recall

past attempts to change, modify, or doaway with the Marine Corps as aninstitution. The history of theseattempts is fairly well documented andwonderfully described in an articlepublished in the June 1954 edition ofU.S. Naval Institute Proceedings byColonel Robert D. Heinl Jr. titled “TheCat with More Than Nine Lives.”Colonel Heinl described in rich detaila number of earlier roles and “mis-sions scraps” (although they were notcalled as such at the time). Heobserved that these things seemed tocome along every 10 to 20 years. Priorto 1954, Heinl listed at least 11attempts by Washington politiciansand policy makers to greatly reduce ordestroy the Marine Corps. He notedthat initially, from 1798 to the 1880s,the Marine Corps’ mission of provid-ing mostly ship’s detachments andnaval security forces afloat and ashoreremained essentially unchanged.However, by the 1890s, as the

United States began to emerge as aworld power with worldwide respon-sibilities, there were many whobelieved that the Marine Corps hadbecome functionally obsolete. Leadingnaval thinkers and even PresidentTheodore Roosevelt were convinced


ture of three active divisions and threeair wings and has lasted to the presentday. The Douglas-Mansfield law alsoenvisioned the Marine Corps beingused “to conduct such land operationsas may be essential to a naval cam-paign.” What this meant was thatCongress desired a general purposeand ready standing force able to con-duct naval expeditionary operationsfrom the sea on a moment’s notice.Once again during the 1990s

Commission review, there were manywithin the Defense establishment whocontinued to misunderstand the cross-functional nature of the Marine Corps.Some believed that the Marine Corpsshould solely focus on its amphibiousmission and eschew all others. Othersthought that the Marine Corps was aredundant land army. However,Marine Commandant General Carl E.Mundy Jr. forcefully argued that beingthe nation’s amphibious experts wasjust one of the Corps specialties. In a1993 speech before the Heritage

Foundation, General Mundy notedthat the Marine Corps is “roled” to cutacross the land, sea, and air spectrumsof warfare—“in other words, to con-duct land operations, but to do themfrom our bases at sea. Since this rolelogically carries us ashore to open thelittoral door if land warfare is to bewaged, our role assigns us also theresponsibility to conduct sustainedcombat operations alongside the Armyin a joint environment.” It was hardfor anyone on the commission to denythe searing logic of General Mundy’sargument.And so with the passage of the

2008 National Defense AuthorizationAct, the past has become prologue. Itis probably a good thing that we, as anation, periodically conduct thesesorts of reviews. But it is also impor-tant to remember our institutional anddevelopmental history for just theseoccasions. As General Mundy stated inhis 1993 speech, the Marine Corps is adefense “bargain.” For about five per-

cent of the defense budget (at thetime), he noted that the Corps provid-ed “12 percent of active Armed Forcespersonnel; 20 percent of active divi-sions; 13 percent of all tactical aviationassets; and 14 percent of reserve divi-sion requirements.” He further pre-dicted that “Marines are going to beused more and more frequently, fordiverse and challenging tasks—frommajor regional contingencies topeacekeeping to deterrence to every-thing in between. We will continue toprovide what some have termed themost general purpose of the generalpurpose forces with strategic agility,on-scene presence, self-sustaining,and high flexibility, for a variety of cri-sis response demands.” Recent historyhas certainly proven this out. GeneralMundy firmly believed then, as hasevery Commandant since his time,that Marines are more relevant nowthan ever before. It is good to occa-sionally remind ourselves of how wegot from there to here. �1775�

The History Division had 12interns working during the

summer of 2008. The interns, witha can-do attitude, helped out everyHistory Division branch, including

History Division Summer Intern Program

From left to right: James D. Greevy, Ashley E. Stone, Samantha A. Macken,Alexander N. Hinman, Virginia E. Reynolds, Ryan P. McDonough, Emily D.Funderburke. Not in picture, Mary E. Dail and Jacob C. Damm.

the Directorate, Editing and Design,Oral History, Reference, and Histories.The photo above was taken at theMCU Press launch ceremony. The

History Division extends well-deserved kudos to all of the internsof 2008.

�1775�

From left to right: Sara C. Pappa,Laura J. Thiessen, and Julie H.Robert.


The history of the Marine Corps inthe 20th century includes engage-

ment such as Belleau Wood, Tarawa,Iwo Jima, Chosin Reservoir, Inchon,Khe Sanh, and the liberation ofKuwait. In each of these, Marinesproved to be tough, versatile war-riors—“first to fight” in any clime andplace. They displayed innovativethinking, a remarkable ability to adaptto new technology on the modern bat-tlefield, and the flexibility and globalreach of expeditionary forces. Butwhen the guns fell silent, the lingeringquestion that has haunted Marinessince 1775 inevitably came to the fore-front: Does America really need a

Marine Corps? The developmental his-tory of the Corps has been driven bythis ongoing need to justify its exis-tence.The Marine Corps’ pioneering work

in amphibious landing doctrine, equip-ment, and tactics throughout the 1920sand 1930s was validated at the opera-tional and strategic levels in World WarII by Allied forces in both theEuropean and Pacific theaters. Theinvention of specialized landing craftand the innovation of the amphibioustractor—the landing vehicle tracked—gave naval forces the ability to quicklymove men and equipment ashore,rapidly build up combat power, and

assault enemy objectives. Despite thisenormous success, shortly after WorldWar II, many predicted the demise ofamphibious warfare. Its resurrectioncame in the Korean War, most dramat-ically at Inchon, one of the greatestoperational maneuvers in military his-tory. This conflict opened another eraof innovation as the Corps began toadapt the combat use of helicopters inSeptember 1951 for vertical movementof men, equipment, and supplies. Thiswas only three years after the MarineCorps received its first helicopters andpublished Employment of Helicopters(Tentative). Once again, the MarineCorps adapted new technology to

Feature

Three Decades of Marine CorpsDevelopmental History

by LtCol Jeffery R. RileyField Historian

The modern notion of seabasing has its intellectual originsin the visionary work of MCDEC during the early to mid-1970s. The concept allows a mobile sea base to maneuverto the most advantageous position before assault forces arelaunched and then to support operations from the sanctu-

ary of the sea. It has taken decades to come to fruition, andwhile there is still work to be done and major weapons sys-tems to be deployed, the entry of Marine forces from theIndian Ocean into Afghanistan stands as an early exampleof what the Marine Corps desires to achieve.


combat operations, “wrote the book”on its employment, and began to use itin battle. The Corps continued toprove its value throughout the 1950swith notable operations in the MiddleEast and the Caribbean, but the fightfor survival was always on the radarscreen.In the early 1960s, the growing cri-

sis in Vietnam ensured that the MarineCorps continued to exist for at least theshort term. On Easter 1962, MediumHelicopter Squadron 362 airliftedVietnamese Army troops into battlebecoming the first Marine unit involvedin combat operations. Three yearslater, 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigadelanded at Da Nang and initiated Marineground operations in Vietnam. Theupdated version of the amphibioustractor, the landing vehicle tracked per-sonnel, led the amphibious landingand was to play a role in Vietnam,although primarily for overland move-ment. While the Corps carried outapproximately 80 tactical amphibiouslandings during the war, of greaterimportance was the greatly expandeduse of vertical assault. The MarineCorps proved its mettle in battle butwas primarily a counterinsurgencyforce operating much like a secondland army. By the time the last majorMarine ground unit, the 3d MarineAmphibious Brigade, left Vietnam inJune 1971, the Corps had lost much ofits expertise in amphibious warfare,and its relationship with the U.S. Navy,so vital for successful amphibiousoperations, was stagnant. Compound-ing this, the Navy’s amphibious liftcapability had withered, the defensebudget had started a decline thatwould last through the late 1970s, andthe Nixon Doctrine had reoriented U.S.defense posture to mainland Europe tomeet the growing Soviet threat.The Corps once again found itself

on familiar ground, fighting to validateamphibious warfare and its role withinthe U.S. defense establishment. Com-mandant Robert E. Cushman Jr., takingover in January 1972, succinctlydeclared that “we are pulling ourheads out of the jungle and gettingback into the amphibious business . . .We are redirecting our attention sea-ward and re-emphasizing our partner-ship with the Navy and our shared

concern in the maritime aspects of ourstrategy.” The Marine Corps Develop-ment and Education Command atQuantico, Virginia, much like its pre-decessors in the late 1920s and ‘30s,began a series of detailed studies onhow the Corps could conduct amphibi-ous operations in the face of geopolit-ical and technological trends. Thesestudies continued throughout the latterhalf of the 20th century and includedConcept for the Organization andEmployment of the FMF in theImmediate Post-RVN Period, the Sea-Based Logistic Concept; andAmphibious Operations 1985–2000: AConceptual Study. These efforts consti-tuted a top-to-bottom review of everyfundamental aspect of amphibiousoperations, everything from vertical liftand vertical assault, surface assault, firesupport, targeting, communications,and logistics. The Development andEducation Command developed anoverarching mid-term plan for the lat-ter part of the decade called MAR-CORPS-77 and a longer-term plan forthe 1980s entitled MARCORPS-85.What was emerging from these studieswas (1) the need to base the entireassault force and logistics at sea insteadof on the beach, and (2) the need forrapid vertical and surface assault fromthe sea base directly to the objectivewithout the traditional buildup of com-bat power at the beachhead. Thisapproach would require a mix ofvisionary thinking and technologicaladaptation.As Marine Corps units were still

fighting a counterinsurgency inVietnam in mid-1971 and in the midstof Development and EducationCommand’s voluminous studies andreports, the first squadron of AV-8AHarrier vertical/short takeoff and land-ing aircraft was being delivered toMarine aviators. The new Harriers didnot have to rely on precious carrierdeckspace at sea, and ashore, theycould refuel and rearm at expedi-tionary airfields alongside the new AH-1J Sea Cobra attack helicopters.However, this was only the beginning.vertical/short takeoff and landing tech-nology was to be of prime importanceto the Marine Corps’ plans for futureamphibious assaults. While the tech-nology was still in its infancy, the

Corps envisioned larger vertical/shorttakeoff and landing transport aircraftspeeding troops and material fromships to objectives far inland, thusincreasing the reach of expeditionaryforces.Of great concern to Development

and Education Command were theemerging trends of the modern battle-field as well as the U.S. orientationback to mechanized warfare on theEuropean mainland, a battle for whichthe Marine Corps was not equipped.The 1973 Yom Kippur War dramatical-ly illustrated the lethality of modernhigh-tech weapons systems and theincreasing speed of battle. Studiedclosely by the Army and Marine Corps,this conflict was to validate many ofthe assumptions held by the two ser-vices and accelerate their efforts toadapt their doctrine and weapons sys-tems. For the Army, the result was FM100-5 Operations, published in 1976,and further refined in 1982, and culmi-nating in the airland battle doctrine.This was to be the Army’s answer toblunting a massive Soviet attack intoWestern Europe. It envisioned mecha-nized and armored forces integratedwith air power and supported by asophisticated sensor and communica-tions network to achieve qualitativesuperiority over numerically superiorWarsaw Pact forces. The Marine Corps’role in this would be small. While ithad perfected combined arms, the rel-ative lack of armor and artillery com-pared to heavy Army divisions meant itwould play no major role on the main-land. Nevertheless, the Marine Corpsdid feel it could contribute in Europethrough amphibious landings andattacks into the flanks of advancingSoviet forces along the northern andsouthern peripheries of the Europeanmainland.Marines at the Development and

Education Command continued to dis-till their ideas on amphibious warfareon the modern battlefield, emphasizingthe need for smaller units maneuveringvery rapidly from the sea with preci-sion naval gunfire and air support, andlinked by a sophisticated commandand control network. They were assist-ed by an unlikely source, an Air Forcefighter pilot named Colonel JohnBoyd. Starting in the late 1970s, Boyd


began adapting his theories on air-to-air fighter combat to military opera-tions in general. His theory assertedthat each side in a conflict was in acontinuous “Observe-Orient-Decide-Act” (OODA) loop. Whichever sidecould complete this loop faster had adecided advantage. While Boydreceived just recognition for his think-ing and popularizing of this concept, itwas not necessarily new to the Corps.A Development and Education Com-mand study titled the Marine Searchand Attack Battalion Study predatedBoyd’s OODA loop when it assertedthat all ground operations could becharacterized by a “sense-evaluate-decide-act” sequence. By the end ofthe 1970s, the term “maneuver war-fare” had entered the lexicon and wasbeing hotly debated in the pages of theMarine Corps Gazette. With this deepthinking behind it, the Corps began toemerge from Vietnam, to reaffirm theimportance of amphibious warfare,and to adapt itself to the modern bat-tlefield.The 1980s were a watershed for all

the armed forces and the Departmentof Defense. President Ronald Reagan’sinauguration in 1981 ushered in adecade of increased defense budgets, areinvigoration in the defense of NATOand U.S. interests, and a desire to chal-lenge Soviet Communism directly.However, the decade started out tragi-cally. Operation Eagle Claw, theattempt to rescue the Iranian hostages,was aborted after the disaster at DesertOne in April 1980. While the serviceswere making great individual stridesboth doctrinally and technologically,their ability to conduct joint operationswas woefully inadequate. In the mid-1980s, the Goldwater-Nichols Act andJoint Acquisition Reform forced theservices to start working together moreclosely in the area of weapons systemsdevelopment and doctrine, tactics,techniques, and procedures. Doctrin-ally, the Army and Marine Corpsshared some common ground. TheArmy’s AirLand Battle Doctrine, firstpublished in the early 1980s, traces itsroots back to the 1970s work ofGenerals Donn A. Starry and WilliamE. DePuy at the Army’s Training andDoctrine Command. The Marine Corpscodified its work from the same

decade with the publication ofOperational Handbook 6-1: GroundCombat Operations (1988). This wasfurther refined with the now famousFleet Marine Force Manual 1:Maneuver Warfare (1989). This manu-al became the capstone doctrine forthe Marine Corps and had distinctiveroots in the Development andEducation Command studies of the1970s. As the foreword stated, themanual was intended to “provide theauthoritative basis for how we fightand how we prepare to fight.” This 88-page book, however, was only a phi-losophy of warfighting. It spawnedmany subsidiary doctrinal publicationsdealing with everything from logisticsto command and control, all linked tothe maneuver warfare philosophy.With the fall of the Soviet Union at the

achieved dramatic success in the rout-ing of Saddam Hussein’s forces and inthe liberation of Kuwait. The Army val-idated many of its airland battle doc-trine tenets in the famous “left hook”maneuver, quickly outflanking enemyforces and forcing their withdrawal ordestruction.After this victory, no conventional

force threats appeared to be on thehorizon. With a “peace dividend”looming and the Marine Corps know-ing that its survival could once againbe at stake, it began to peer into thefuture. Fortunately, the warfightingphilosophy was sound and, as theMarine Corps had done before, itadapted itself, its doctrine, and itsweapons systems to the emergingworld. The innovative thinkers at theMarine Corps Combat DevelopmentCommand (successor to Developmentand Education Command) saw theneed to engage in low intensity con-flicts in austere parts of the world, par-ticularly the littorals, much as it haddone in the early part of the 20th cen-tury. In order to fuse doctrine andtechnology from the start, theCommandant’s Warfighting Lab (laterrenamed the Marine Corps WarfightingLab) was stood up in 1995 to assistwith warfighting integration. Anemphasis on urban warfare emerged inthe same time frame, and CommandantCharles C. Krulak’s notion of the“three-block war” represented the like-ly kind of operations. It posited that inthe future, Marine forces might be pro-viding humanitarian assistance on oneblock, keeping peace between twowarring factions on another block, andengaging in a full-on firefight on thethird. Weapons systems, tactics, tech-niques, and procedures would have tobe flexible enough to handle simulta-neous and overlapping operations.Concurrently, Combat Develop-

ment Command continued its study ofthe operational and strategic environ-ment within which expeditionaryforces were likely to operate. Fromthis, three complementary conceptpapers emerged: Operational Maneu-ver From the Sea (1996), Ship-to-Objective Maneuver (1997), and SeaBased Logistics (1998). As opposed tothe philosophical concept in FleetMarine Force Manual 1: Maneuver

turn of the decade, however, the antag-onist that had driven the developmen-tal history of the Marine Corps sinceVietnam disappeared.The only chance to operate on the

modern battlefield and to executemaneuver warfare as originally envi-sioned in the 1970s came in 1990–91during Desert Shield/Desert Storm. TheCorps was a well-equipped, qualita-tively superior, combined arms teamthat was operating in a joint and coali-tion environment. Using maneuverwarfare as its philosophy, it operatedwell inside the adversary’s OODAloop. The multinational coalition


Warfare, Operational Maneuver Fromthe Sea was the Corps’ capstone oper-ational concept for maritime powerprojection designed to deal with chaosin the littoral environment. Sea BasedLogistics is the tactical implementationof Operational Maneuver From the Seaand looks to leverage emerging tech-nologies to develop greater capabilitiesfor amphibious operations. The third,Sea Based Logistics, looked to baseassault forces, follow-on forces, com-mand and control, and most impor-tantly logistics at sea vice ashore. All ofthese concepts are directly traceable toDevelopment and Education Com-mand’s work in the 1970s. It was notuntil the 1990s that the technology wasmaturing to execute these ambitiousplans. The MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor air-craft was finally on the drawing board.It would provide the long-range, high-speed, vertical/short takeoff and land-

ing capability first envisioned threedecades previous. The advancedamphibious assault vehicle, the succes-sor to the landing vehicle, tracked andlanding vehicle, tracked personnel ofWorld War II and Vietnam, was also inthe works and was designed to pro-vide a 25-knot surface assault capabili-ty from beyond the horizon. While therevolutionary thinking of post-Vietnamera was constrained by evolutionarynature of technology maturation, bud-get considerations, and politics, as theCorps entered the 21st century, thedoctrine, weapons systems, and analyt-ical rigor of the last 30 years was final-ly coming together on the battlefield.In November 2001, a Marine air

ground task force afloat in the IndianOcean executed an expeditionaryoperation 428 miles into southwesternAfghanistan. Though this Marine airground task force was small and was

not operating in a lethal high-intensityenvironment, this operation was stillan unprecedented accomplishment. Itwas the first time the Marine Corps hadattempted anything close to Opera-tional Maneuver From the Sea or Ship-to-Objective Maneuver from a sea base.By comparison, Allied troops fightingashore at Normandy and starting atmile zero had to fight 646 miles toBerlin. The MV-22 Osprey was notready for employment in this operationbut did make its combat debut inMarch 2008 in Iraq. In 2015, the expe-ditionary fighting vehicle, formerly theadvanced amphibious assault vehicle,will reach initial operational capability.This will provide the Marine Corpswith the most advanced amphibiousassault capability in the world and con-tinue its long developmental history ofinnovative thinking and technologicaladaptation. �1775�

A complement to seabasing and the tactical implementationof Operational-Maneuver-From-The-Sea (OMFTS), is Ship-to-Objective-Maneuver (STOM). The concept has assaultforces, supported by intelligence, surveillance, and recon-naissance, maneuvering rapidly around, through, or over

obstacles to penetrate enemy defenses at a time and place oftheir choosing. Instead of stopping at the beach to build upcombat power and then fight inland, forces maneuverdirectly to an objective supported by command and controland fires from the seabase.


Shortly after the conclusion of theSpanish-American War in 1898,naval planners turned their attentionto the problem of seizing and holdingadvanced naval bases. Such temporarybases, often seized from opposingforces, would prove vital for the pros-ecution of war in distant places.Marine Corps doctrine and trainingimmediately embraced this new mis-sion. By 1910, the first school ofinstruction in advanced base doctrinewas established at New London,Connecticut. A year later, it wasmoved to the Philadelphia Navy Yard,where it remained until 1920.In 1912, Colonel William F. Biddle,

Commandant of the Marine Corps,outlined the major objectives of theAdvanced Base School’s training pro-gram: to train officers and men in thehandling, installation, and use ofadvanced base materials, to examinethe weapons and equipment best suit-ed to the seizure and holding of anadvanced base, and to study thosesubjects that pertain “to the selection,occupation, and attack and defense ofadvanced base positions.”Within this area of study, the

Marine Corps began to experimentwith new weapons and equipmentthat could be employed in its missionof seizing and holding advancedbases. One promising innovation wasthe armored car.The first mention of an armored car

for the Marines is found in theQuartermaster Marine Corps files of1916, with funding secured for thepurchase of two cars. The U.S. Armyhad two types under consideration,one manufactured by Bethlehem Steeland the second by the Armored MotorCar Company.By August 1916, Marine Corps

Captains Andrew Drum and Earl H.“Pete” Ellis were sent to Philadelphiato conduct preliminary testing on theArmored Motor Car model. Built on a

King luxury sedan chassis and pow-ered by an eight-cylinder motor, theKing Armored Car was fitted withquarter-inch armor capable of resisting.30-caliber fire at 100 yards. Mannedby a crew of three, the car featured arevolving turret and a mounted Benet-Mercie machine gun.Testing included the viability of

using the car in ship-to-shore opera-tions. Captain Drum reported that thecar was loaded onto a 40-foot testboat. While there were no appreciableproblems with water transportation,getting the car ashore proved a moredifficult task. Drum suggested a num-ber of modifications, and in October1916, two additional cars wereordered and sent to Philadelphia forfurther testing.

In January 1918, General GeorgeBarnett, Commandant of the Marine

Corps, directed the QuartermasterMarine Corps to “please take the nec-essary steps to procure eight armoredcars similar to those furnished theMarine Barracks, Navy Yard,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.” This isthe genesis of the 1st Armored Car

Squadron of the Marine Corps. Unitrecords show that on 1 January 1918,Colonel Ben Fuller noted that “allmembers of the Armored Car Squad-ron joined Headquarters Detachment,First Regiment.” Commanded byMarine Gunner Charles Loring, whowas later promoted to second lieu-tenant, the squadron averaged 36 menon the muster rolls. Further inspectionand testing of the King Armored Carswas conducted by Captain Drum.The recent discovery of pho-

tographs taken in Galveston, Texas,and an unpublished manuscript writ-ten by Lieutenant General EdwardCraig, then a young lieutenantassigned to the 8th Marines, shedadditional light on the history of theKing Armored Car. While the cars sawno service in Europe during WorldWar I, Craig clearly states that two ofthe armored cars were loaded aboardthe USS Hancock (AP 3) in Philadel-phia for transport to Galveston. InTexas, Marines were poised to moveinto Mexico’s Tampico oil fields, oneof the major oil sources for supportingthe Allied war effort.In November 1919, Drum’s report

National Museum of the Marine Corps

Innovation and ExperimentationThe King Armored Car

by Beth L. CrumleyAssistant Curator of Ordnance

Department of Defense PhotoA King Armored Car of the 1st Armored Car Squadron, Philadelphia, 1919.


Five of the cars later saw servicewith the 2d Marine Regiment in Haiti.Equipped with the beloved Lewis gun,the cars were used to conduct patrols.Haiti, however, had few roads, andonce again, the vehicle’s designproved inadequate for the task athand. The cars were shipped toQuantico in 1927.

In 1933, the following report on theKing car was provided to theQuartermaster Marine Corps:

In this vehicle the steeringgear is too short and the steeringwheel rubs side armor. In fact,the wheel comes to the driver’sknees. The floor is made of 3/4inch lumber. The Steering gear isvery light. The springs are weak.The frame has been straight-ened, has been drilled for twosteering gear locations, and isvery weak. The side armor hadto be cut away in order to cleardrag rod of steering gear. Thefront wheels are out of true . . . .At present the vehicle can beoperated, but, it is absolutelyunsafe at any speed exceeding

eight miles per hour, due toweak linkage, shimmy, and poorbrakes.

The King Armored Cars remainedin storage until their disposal wasauthorized in 1934.

The National Museum of the MarineCorps has in its collection a King

Armored Car with provenance thatcan be traced to 1917. Over a periodof several months, the museum’s staffundertook a complete restoration ofthis historic vehicle. The restorationteam fabricated front wire cutters andbridging ramps. The staff applied ahistorically documented, hand-brushed camouflage paint schemeusing images from the 1st ArmoredCar Squadron as a template.

The King Armored Car will beexhibited in the new gallery “First toFight: Age of Expansion,” scheduledto open in April 2010. The exhibit willaddress the genesis of combined armsdoctrine within the Marine Corps andhighlight the spirit of innovation andthe Corps’ willingness to experimentwith new technology. �1775�

cast serious doubt on the design andperformance of the King Armored Car.While seven of the eight vehicles werein running order, they were largelyunsatisfactory. According to Drum, thecars suffered from weak transmissionsand underpowered engines, and onlywell-trained drivers could operate thecars. Balloon tires and spoked wheelslimited their usefulness in rough ter-rain. Additionally, there were notenough mechanics to keep the cars inrunning order. Drum recommendedthe complete overhaul of six of thecars. Instead, the 1st Armored CarSquadron was disbanded on 4 May1921, and the cars were put into stor-age.

Of particular note, however, is theassignment of the 1st Armored

Car Squadron to the 1st Regiment.While no definitive use of the armoredcar emerged from its testing, assign-ment to the 1st Regiment, a unitspecifically trained in advanced basedoctrine, is indicative that the MarineCorps recognized the potential use ofthe armored car in the defense ofadvanced naval bases.

Department of Defense Photo

The King Armored Car at the National Museum of the Marine Corps’ restoration facility, Marine Corps Base Quantico,2008.


The Harrier AV-8A: The Corps’ First Vertical/ShortTakeoff Landing Aircraft

By Julie H. RobertHistory Division Intern

It was a aircraft unlike any other. TheHarrier AV-8A on the outside resem-bled an ordinary jet of the time, butonce it took to the skies, any expecta-tions simply evaporated. Upon itsarrival at Marine Corps Base Quanticoon 4 August 1970, the Harrier stunnedmany spectators that summer day. Theaircraft attacked, climbed, and dovelike most jets at the time, but theHarrier also hovered in midair, andmost importantly, took off and landedvertically. A writer for the MarineCorps Gazette, G. M. Smith, comment-ed that “for many who watched theplane’s antics, words seemed lost any-way. It was a human moment; theywere watching a new freedom in theart of flying.”The Marine Corps has always oper-

ated well on short notice, deployingtroops at a moment’s notice anywherearound the world. Although the Corpsis a skilled amphibious force, the needfor close air support is also veryimportant. Since the beginning of mil-itary aviation, the Corps has devel-oped procedures to integrate groundunits with aircraft wings. One maindevelopment in the integration ofMarine aviation with ground units wasthe introduction of “vertical assault.”Although historically several aircrafthave had this capability, helicoptersalone, with the capability for verti-cal/short takeoff and landing, havebeen considered absolutely essentialto successful military operations.Unfortunately, helicopters lack thespeed necessary for close air support.This lack of speed explains one rea-son for a high-performance verti-cal/short takeoff and landing jet.Another reason for the need for

vertical/short takeoff and landingcapabilities is that Marines, more oftenthan not, are among the first torespond to the needs of the nation.Marines prefer rapid movement intomission locations and often operate inaustere and unimproved areas of theworld. The ideal air support, under the

harsh conditions that Marines usuallyconfront, would be a verti-cal/shorttakeoff and landing aircraft, which canquickly respond from expeditionaryairfields and land in proximity towhere it is needed. So when the firstvertical/short takeoff and landing air-craft came along (the British-madeHawker Harrier), the Corps had final-ly found an aircraft that could meetthe Corps’ needs for a high-perfor-mance jet that could take off and landin 72 square feet of space.The history behind the Harrier and

the vertical/short takeoff and landingconcept began in 1954 when a Frenchengineer, Michel Wibault, first con-ceived the idea of using a turbopropengine to drive four centrifugal blow-ers, which exhausted through rotat-able nozzles. With this design, an air-craft could fly like a helicopter withoutthe use of rotating blades. Althoughthe French seemed not very interestedin this “futuristic” idea, a duo of Britishaero-engine manufacturing compa-nies, Bristol Siddeley and HawkerSiddeley, saw a glimmer of the futurein this idea. During the next few years,both companies struggled with thisnew concept and finally unveiled theBS53, known as Pegasus, which firstran in September 1959. Pegasusshowed the potential for high speedand high performance integrated withvertical/short takeoff and landingcapabilities.

The Pegasus was the progenitor ofthe Hawker P-1127 and the Kestral,flown in 1960 and 1964, respectively.However, Bristol Siddeley and HawkerSiddeley felt that an upgraded modelwas needed. Within a few years, theHarrier was developed and flew on 28December 1967. The Harrier wasinducted into the British Royal AirForce two years later on 1 April 1969.

By the time that the British first flewthe Harrier, it had already been

spotted by the United States MarineCorps. Here was an aircraft that per-fectly fit the needs of the MarineCorps; the Harrier could take off andland in a short space with 5,000,pounds of fuel and ordnance, andresembled, in many ways, the speedand flight characteristics of the A-4ESkyhawk. After learning about thenew aircraft, the head of the AirWeapons System Branch of Head-quarters Marine Corps, LieutenantColonel John J. Metzko, brought thenewly redesigned British aircraft to theattention of Major General Keith B.McCutcheon, who was at that time theMarine Corps Deputy Chief of StaffAir. Major General McCutcheon wasgranted approval to have two MarineCorps pilots cross the Atlantic inSeptember 1968 to test fly this extraor-dinary aircraft. After their test flights,Colonel Thomas H. Miller andLieutenant Colonel Clarence M. Barker


A right-side view of a Marine Attack Squadron 513 (VMA-513) AV-8A Harrieraircraft as it takes off vertically from the field.


stated that the vertical takeoff andlanding capabilities of the Harrier “farexceeded their expectations.” To themany critics of the Harrier, both pilotsstated that the Harrier could “carry aneffective ordnance load from a verticaltake off to a useful target range, deliv-er the ordnance, and return.” ColonelMiller even felt that “an unprecedent-ed potential in the advantages of theHarrier could lead to a complete over-haul in aircraft tactics and procedures”for the Marine Corps.Following the rigorous testing of

the Harrier by these two pilots, theDepartment of Defense approved thepurchase of 12 Harriers during fiscalyear 1970. The Corps purchasedanother 18 Harriers in the next fiscalyear. Minor changes were made to theoriginal design to conform to Corps’

needs, namely the addition ofSidewinder missiles for self-defenseand a more powerful engine.

In January 1971, the Harrier finallyarrived at the Marine Corps AirStation in Beaufort, South Carolina,and the first squadron of Harriers wasformed. The VMA-513 became fullyoperational within the next year, withanother squadron in 1972, and a thirdin 1973. By 1973, the VMA-513 wasready for deployment on board theUSS Guam (LPH 9) and also to theMarine Corps Air Station in Iwakuni,Japan.After upgrading the AV-8A to the

AV-8B in the early 1980s and 1990s,the Harrier, by the 2000s, was startingto show its age after 37 years of ser-vice. Consequently, the Corps began

its next developmental quest for animproved vertical/short takeoff andlanding aircraft. The Harrier will bereborn in the upcoming Joint StrikeFighter with vertical/short takeoff andlanding capabilities. Richard L.Aboulafia, a military and commercialaircraft consultant, points out that “thevertical version of the Joint StrikeFighter will be the first U.S. operatedsupersonic vertical takeoff fighter, andthat means that they will have thecapability to carry a fair amount ofordnance at high speed.” Simply put,the Joint Strike Fighter has finallycombined the high performance of ajet and the capabilities of a helicopter.It is the Harrier of a new generation,an aircraft that continues to revolu-tionize Marine Corps aviation.

�1775�

From the Sea:Amphibious Tracked Vehiclesin the Marine Corps

By Col Charles A. Jones, Field HistorianRyan P. McDonough, History Division Intern

While the public may perceive theU.S. military as being fairly rigid

and impervious to innovation andchange, the development and use ofthe amphibious tracked vehicle by theU.S. Marine Corps since the 1930sproves that this perception is perhapsnot entirely correct for all the services.Marine Corps amphibious tracked

vehicles have a long history, seeinguse from Guadalcanal in 1942 to thefighting today in Iraq. The LandingVehicle Tracked (LVT) used in WorldWar II became the Amphibious AssaultVehicle (AAV) used in Vietnam and, inlater versions, in the Middle East con-flicts in the 1990s and 2000s. The nextgeneration of the amphibious trackedvehicle, currently under development,is the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle(EFV).The basis for what became the

Marine Corps series of World War IIamphibious tracked vehicles was dis-covered in an unusual way. Inresponse to a series of hurricanes inFlorida in the 1920s and ’30s, DonaldRoebling began developing a vehicleenvisioned to aid in hurricane reliefand also in rescuing downed civilian

pilots in the Everglades. Starting workin 1933, he completed a version ofwhat he called the “Alligator” in 1935.With a top speed in water of only 2.3miles per hour, however, the firstAlligator was impractical, and

Roebling continued developing it.The Marine Corps first noticed the

Alligator in 1937 when Navy RearAdmiral Edward C. Kalbfus showedthe Fleet Marine Force Commander,Major General Louis McCarty Little, an

Donald Roebling’s amphibious vehicle was initially designed to rescue hurricanevictims. The Alligator was the progenitor for the landing vehicle tracked.

Department of Defense Photo (USMC)


article about the Alligator from Lifemagazine. Little immediately realizedthe Alligator’s military potential andsent the article to the Commandant ofthe Marine Corps, Major GeneralThomas Holcomb. At Holcomb’sdirection, the Marine Corps Equip-ment Board at Quantico, Virginia, gotan Alligator for analysis and decidedthat the vehicle could navigate thesubmerged reefs around Pacificislands and travel where other smallcraft could not go. Thus the Alligatorserved as the perfect prototype for aMarine Corps amphibious trackedvehicle.Because of limitations in the first

prototypes, the Marine Corps request-ed upgrades for the Alligator to makethem more suitable for combat. Theinitial 92-horsepower Chrysler enginewas upgraded to a 120-horsepowerLincoln-Zephyr engine. An Alligatorwith this upgrade was brought toQuantico for testing, and its demon-stration impressed the Commandantand a large group of high-rankingNavy and Army officers. After rigoroustesting and more design improve-ments, the Alligator’s engine waschanged to a 146-horsepower Hercu-les engine and the original aluminumhull, considered inadequate for mili-tary use, was changed to steel. TheAlligator became the Landing VehicleTracked (1) and could travel approxi-mately 15 miles per hour on land andsix miles per hour in the water.The LVT (1) was quickly modified,

but the Japanese attack on Oahu on 7December 1941 meant a temporaryend to further modifications so thatmass production of the LVT (1) variantcould begin for the war effort.Modification eventually resumed inorder to remedy a critical deficiency—the vehicle lacked armament. De-signers added a 37mm gun in a lighttank turret, along with three .30-cal-iber machine guns. Other modifica-tions on the LVT (2) included greaterpower and cargo capacity.The vehicles were first used at

Guadalcanal for carrying suppliesfrom ship to shore. The LVT role soonchanged, however, when ColonelDavid Shoup, in planning the Tarawainvasion, recognized that the Marinelanding force needed a vehicle that

could cross Tarawa’s reefs. The land-ing at Tarawa was the first operationin which amphibious tracked vehiclescarried Marine assault troops fromship to shore. According to ColonelTheodore L. Gatchel, “the success ofthe Landing Vehicles Tracked, innegotiating the reef when landingcraft could not, was a major factor inthe decisive Marine victory.”

Tarawa, however, also revealed theneed for more improvements, pri-

marily greater speed and better armor.The original vehicle required Marinesto jump over its sides under enemyfire and lacked a ramp that could bedropped, allowing troops quick anddirect access to the beach. The LVT(4) and its variants corrected the rampissue and served Marines through therest of the war and into the 1950s. In1956, another evolution of the LVToccurred with the introduction of theLVT (5) vehicles. In Vietnam, howev-er, the Landing Vehicle Trackedbecame more of an armored person-nel carrier than a true amphibiousvehicle for which it had been original-ly designed. As an armored personnelcarrier the LVT was large, slow, andlightly armored. Further, its fuel tankswere located on the sides of the vehi-cle making it highly vulnerable torockets and rocket propelled gre-nades, the preferred weapons ofchoice of the Viet Cong and NorthVietnamese army.The difficulties experienced by the

LVT in Vietnam required the MarineCorps to reevaluate the purpose of

these vehicles in future wars.Consequently, the LVTP (7) was intro-duced in 1972 and included significantupgrades (an improved engine, trans-mission, and weapons systems) andwas renamed the Amphibious AssaultVehicle (AAV) in 1982. However, thisvehicle still remained vulnerable torocket propelled grenades. RetiredMarine Colonel Clayton Nans summa-rized the dilemma for Marines usingAAVs in the Middle East: “If you wantto stop rocket propelled grenades,which are basically antitank rockets,you’ve got to add heavy reactivearmor plates . . . but as soon as youdo that, you can’t swim, and if youcan’t swim, you can’t accomplish whatwe’ve got to do.” In short, reactivearmor plates would compromise theAAV’s capability to operate in thewater.The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle

(EFV), currently in testing stages, willgive the Marine Corps a completelynew amphibious tracked vehicledesigned to be superior to the currentAAV on land and at sea and will haveimproved armor, armament, and tech-nology. The EFV will travel at 20 to 25miles per hour in the water, about fourtimes faster than the AAV, and willtravel up to 45 miles per hour on land.The EFV is a long way from the

original Alligator, but it very muchcontinues the Marine Corps’ efforts tomaintain and improve its “from thesea” amphibious tracked forced entrycapability it has had since the firstLVTs crawled ashore during WorldWar II. �1775�

The expeditionary fighting vehicle, which is currently under testing and is sched-uled for induction into the Marine Corps inventory in 2015.

DefenseImagery.mil Photo


The Navy Nurse Corps turned 100on 13 May 2008. Established by

Congress in 1908 with funds appropri-ated by President Theodore Roosevelt,it is a unique corps of the Departmentof the Navy that has evolved over timewith the nation’s needs in war andpeace. Like the U.S. Navy Medical,Dental, and Hospital Corps, the mis-sion of the Nurse Corps is to providecare for sailors and Marines. From itsoriginal 20 female members (‘TheSacred Twenty’), the Navy NurseCorps expanded with the demands ofWorld War I; in the United Kingdomand Europe, the U.S. Navy deployedfive base hospitals and a number ofspecial operating teams, includingthose loaned to the U.S. Army duringthe 1918 offensives. By November1918, there were some 1,550 NavyNurses in naval hospitals and trans-ports at home and abroad.When World War II

began, nurses wereaboard the USS Solace(AH 2) that treated thecasualties from theJapanese attack on PearlHarbor, Hawaii. Otherswere among the Ameri-cans taken prisoner onGuam and in the Philip-pines. Some of thesewere repatriated in 1942,while the remainderremained in captivityuntil 1945. Reachingpeak strength in 1945,11,086 nurses were serv-ing in 40 naval hospitals,176 dispensaries, and at6 hospital corps schools.Overseas, this includedhospital ships, air evacu-ations facilities, and atforward operating bases.The U.S. Navy assignednurses relative rank in1942, with actual rank

being established in 1944, and perma-nent commissioned rank as a staffcorps in 1947. The first male nurseswere commissioned in 1964 (men cur-rently comprise 25 percent of theNurse Corps).During the Cold War in Korea and

Vietnam, Navy Nurses once moreserved aboard hospital ships and atNavy support activities where, alongwith the other medical counterparts,they provided life-saving medical careto sailors and Marines. After the ColdWar, there was renewed emphasis onhumanitarian and disaster support. Inthe 1990–91 Gulf War, two hospitalships supported the fleet, and fleethospital facilities operated ashore. By

the end of the 1990s, there were 5,000Navy Nurses and other personnel;these personnel decreased to around4,000 in this century.

During the current Global War onTerrorism, Navy medicine contin-

ues to save lives “on land and sea.”According to Rear Admiral ChristineM. Bruzek-Kohler, USN (NC), “theMarines and sailors we serve neededus then and they need us now as weprovide expert nursing care to themwhenever and wherever it is needed.”Happy Birthday Nurse Corps! Furtherinformation can be found at<www.nnca.org> and <www.historynavy.mil>. �1775�

From the Chief Historian

Navy Nurse Corps Celebrates 100Years ofSupporting the Fleet

by Charles D. MelsonChief Historian

Wounded Marines and sailors during the Korean War are given medication bya nurse assisted by one of the patients. Navy medicine always subscribed to theprinciple of keeping hospital wards clean and running through self-help bypatients and corpsmen.



Though more commonly associatedwith the Pacific theater of opera-

tions, the United States Marine Corpshas had a history of service in Europeas well. While the exploits of theMarines during the World War I arewell known, few know that U.S.Marines were stationed in NorthernIreland during the World War II. Inpostwar Europe, the Corps’ service onthe continent centered around therotational six-month deployments ofMarine expeditionary units with theNavy’s Sixth Fleet in the Mediterran-ean Sea, conducted on a continuousbasis throughout most of the Cold Warperiod. Though occurring less fre-quently, shorter deployments ofMarine units to the North and BalticSeas also became routine by the1970s, the same decade during whichstrategic plans were developed assign-ing the mission for the defense of

Norway—the North Atlantic TreatyOrganization’s northern flank—to theMarine Corps. In order to accomplishthis increasingly wide range of activi-ties, it became patently evident thatthe Marines needed a more perma-nent presence within the Europeantheater.A permanent Marine Corps pres-

ence in Europe began in February1980. After several reorganizations andname changes, in July 2007, MarineForces Europe became an indepen-dent, stand-alone service componentcommand within the European Com-mand.For the past 14 years, Headquarters,

Marine Forces Europe has been locat-ed at Panzer Kaserne, just outside thetown of Boeblingen, Germany. Thebase is just one of several importantU.S. military installations that are inthe greater Stuttgart metropolitan

region—the U.S. European Commandhas its headquarters at nearby PatchBarracks, while the newly establishedU.S. Africa Command has taken upresidence at Kelley Barracks. AfricaCommand and its component servicecommands will not be fully opera-tional until October 2008, and as such,the European Command/MarineForces Europe still manages much ofAfrica Command’s area of responsibil-ity. Consequently, European Com-mand/Marine Forces Europe’s totalarea of responsibility is immense,encompassing all of Europe, most ofAfrica, and a large portion of what hadbeen the former Soviet Union—some13 million square miles, encompassing94 countries and virtually every cli-mate and topography imaginable.While the creation of Africa Commandwill reduce this geographic area to aconsiderable degree, the challenges of

Field History

Marine Forces Europeby Col Stephen S. Evans

Field Historian

Map of the Stuttgart area, showing the major U.S. militaryinstallations. Located at the Panzer Kaserne barracks out-side of Boeblingen, the Headquarters of Marine Forces

Europe is in proximity to the two commands that it supports:the European Command at Patch Barracks and the AfricaCommand at Kelley Barracks. Department of Defense Map


managing the remaining portion of theEuropean theater are significant.Major General Cornell A. Wilson Jr.

has been the commander of MarineForces Europe since assuming com-mand in July 2007 as well as the U.S.Marine Corps service component com-mander for the U.S. EuropeanCommand. He commands about 1,200Marines stationed within his area ofresponsibility, with the largest Marineunits located in Frankfurt, Germany(Embassy Security Battalion, 4Company Headquarters); Mendenhall,United Kingdom (Marine CryptologicSupport Battalion); Rota, Spain(Marine Corps Security ForceCompany); Mons/Brussels, Belgium(administrative support and staffing toHeadquarters, Supreme HeadquartersAllied Powers Europe/North AtlanticTreaty Organization); and Stuttgart,Germany (Headquarters, MarineForces Europe and administrative sup-port and staffing to Headquarters,European Command).Approximately 140 personnel are

assigned to Headquarters, MarineForces Europe at Panzer Kaserne; ofthis total, there were 76 active-duty, 46reservists, and 15 civilians (17 active-duty personnel belong to the nascentMarine Forces Africa, the Marine ser-

vice component to Africa Command).Housed in an impressive three-storybrick structure, this staff plans for,coordinates, and conducts a variedarray of conferences, training exercis-es, military-to-military programs, real-world contingencies, and programsand initiatives supporting OperationsEnduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom,as well as the Global War onTerrorism.The European theater has always

had a robust schedule of service, joint,bilateral, and multinational exercises,and the last several years have provenno exception. Both fiscal year 2007and 2008 saw more than a dozenmajor exercises conducted, equallydistributed between the African andEuropean geographic portions of theMarine Forces Europe’s area ofresponsibility. In fiscal year 2008, theexercises in Europe includedCombined Endeavor (Germany andCroatia) and Immediate Response(Georgia), while those conducted onthe African continent included WATC08 (Liberia), African Lion (Morocco),Shared Accord (Ghana), and MED-FLAG (Mali). These exercises involvedthe introduction of 1,800 U.S.-basedMarines and sailors into theater,including almost 1,600 reservists.

Recent theater initiatives included ademonstration of (1) one of the newSeapower 21 concepts for the U.S.Navy—a wave-piercing, aluminum-hulled catamaran; (2) the improvedNaval Lighterage System; and (3) theprepositioning of equipment, outsideof the European theater, as part of theMarine Corps Prepositioning Program-Norway.Initial efforts by the command

included its support of numerousPartnership for Peace exercises involv-ing nations of the former SovietUnion, several of which have con-tributed troops to Iraq and Afghan-istan. Another successful effort wasthe Georgian Train and EquipProgram, conducted by the Marinesfrom May 2002 to April 2004, whichresulted in trained Georgian troopsbeing deployed to Iraq. Marine ForcesEurope’s current efforts include itsdirect support of Operation EnduringFreedom–Trans-Sahara, which is themilitary component of the U.S. gov-ernment’s broader Trans-SaharaCounterterrorism Partnership. Theprogram is designed to enhance theeffectiveness of regional governmentsto police the expanses of largelyungoverned spaces in the trans-Sahara. Other African initiatives

MajGen Cornell A. Wilson Jr. and the MarForEur headquarters staff. The headquarters staff is responsible for a wide rangeof missions throughout the European Command area of responsibility.



include supporting the Department ofState’s Africa Contingency OperationsTraining Assistance, which will en-hance the ability of partner nations toparticipate in multinational PeaceSupport Operations.Marine Forces Europe also has

been actively engaged in standing upthe Marine Corps component—MarineForces Africa—of the new AfricaCommand. Total personnel will be

approximately 30 Marines and 8 civil-ians. Marine Forces Africa will becolocated at Panzer Kaserne, sharingthe building occupied by MarineForces Europe. It is envisioned thatthe two organizations will share someadministrative, communications, andsupport staff even after the new orga-nization becomes fully operational inOctober 2008.The 27 years since the establish-

ment of Headquarters, Fleet MarineForce, Europe have witnessed severalfundamental shifts in European histo-ry: the classic Cold War period duringthe 1980s, characterized by the mem-ber nations of the NATO arrayedagainst the Soviet Union and theWarsaw Pact nations; the post-ColdWar period during the 1990s as theEuropean Command and NATOsought new missions within anexpanded partnership amid a newgeo-political framework; and theGlobal War On Terrorism or Long Warperiod of the new millennium, withNATO assets and troops beingdeployed far outside of Europe.Throughout this tumultuous period,Marine Forces Europe has shown anability to consistently adapt its roleand focus to meet the challengesbrought about by changing geopoliti-cal conditions, an ability that has con-tributed to its long-standing organiza-tional success. �1775�

Special ThanksThe author would like to

thank Colonel John M. Sullivan(Chief of Staff, Marine ForcesEurope) and his staff for ensur-ing that the History Division col-lection team’s visit in December2007 to MARFOREUR headquar-ters went off without a hitch.Because of the efforts of theheadquarters staff, the collectionteam—Colonel Patricia D. Saint,Master Gunnery Sargeant RobertA. Yarnall, and the author—col-lected a wide range of docu-ments, briefs, computer disks,and pictures. The collection tripwas part of a wider researcheffort that is being conducted tosupport a monograph tentativelytitled Marines in Europe, 1980-2007. Thanks also to ColonelBradley H. Shumaker (ColonelSullivan’s replacement as chiefof staff) and his staff for review-ing the draft version of this arti-cle and for offering suggestionsthat have improved its content.A final thanks goes to ColonelSaint, who contributed theLandstuhl Liaison Team sidebarfor this article.


MARFOREUR Headquarters building at Panzer Kaserne, Boeblingen, nearStuttgart, Germany. The building will also be the initial home for Marine ForcesAfrica.

Marine Forces EuropePlay Role in Medical Treatment

During March 2003, Marine Forces Europe enhanced its role in sup-porting the Global War on Terrorism when it created a Hospital LiaisonTeam at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Ramstein Air Force Base,Germany. The team manages the coordination of all details from the injurysite, during the medical evacuation, and throughout the recovery. Finaldestinations typically were outside the Marine Forces Europe geographicarea of responsibility and included U.S. Navy hospitals in the United States.Initially, incoming casualties originated from four main locations:

Afghanistan, Bahrain, Iraq, and Djibouti. During the first month ofOperation Iraqi Freedom (March 2003), the Marine liaison team received53 Marines whose injuries had resulted from combat-related hostileengagements. The following month, the facility received 135, and byNovember 2004, the number climbed to 289 Marines, which reflected thetime period around the second battle of Fallujah. With recent combat hos-tilities waning in Iraq, the team reported only one hostile casualty inDecember 2007.A liaison team representative meets every flight and assists with patient

off-load. Every Marine receives a $250 voucher to offset costs for phonecards and meals, as well as entertainment coupons for movies, dinner, andrecreational facilities. Marines live in well-maintained barracks and aver-age a 7 to 14-day stay, with 30 to 40 percent returning to active or reserveduty. Additionally, the liaison team provided host services for Marines andtheir families, who visit or remain onsite during the recovery period.During a recent visit to the sprawling medical center, it was not difficult tolocate where the Marine liaison team called home. Among the labyrinthof corridors, hallways, and reception desks, only one doorway was thebackdrop for the Marine Corps flag, and it was the highlight of the tour.


Located in Northern Europe alongthe eastern and northern portions

of the Scandinavian Peninsula,Norway is the northern continentallimit of the European Com-mand/Marine Forces Europe’s area ofresponsibility. Norway has long con-stituted the northern flank of the NorthAtlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), arole that was of particular importanceduring the Cold War period. Withinthis context, the relationship betweenthe U.S. Marine Corps and Norway hasbeen extensive and ongoing.During the Cold War, the Marines

were assigned the strategic mission ofrapidly reinforcing NATO’s northernflank with a potent, sustainable forcein the event of hostilities. The Norwayair-landed Marine expeditionary bri-gade was created in 1981. The missionof the brigade included the preposi-tioning of equipment, supplies,ammunition, and fuel in caves/under-ground facilities in the Trondheimregion of central Norway to supportthe brigade’s 13,000 Marines thatwould be flown in from the UnitedStates and then redeployed to north-ern Norway in case of aggression bythe former Soviet Union.In 2005, the Norway air-landed

Marine expeditionary brigade wasrenamed the Marine Corps Preposi-tioning Program-Norway and given anew focus, which allowed the equip-ment to be employed outside ofNorway and (ultimately) Europe. Inaddition to these programs, U.S.Marines have conducted a broadrange of exercises in Norway—mostnotably the series of NATO, BattleGriffin, and Strong Resolve exercis-es—during the past several decades.Geographically, Norway stretches

over 13 degrees of latitude (58 northto 71 north), from the country’s south-ern tip near Kristiansand to the ruggedcliffs of the North Cape almost a thou-sand miles away; from the North

Cape, another 150-mile trip eastwardends at the border with Russia. One ofthe world’s northernmost countries,Norway’s largely mountainous territo-ry is crossed by the Arctic Circle nearits midpoint. While the summers inNorway are pleasant, the winters cer-tainly are not; the “Land of theMidnight Sun” that is touted in somany travel guides and touristbrochures could just as correctly benamed the “Land of the MiddayMoon,” with winter periods of 24-hourdarkness (polar night) ranging in dura-tion from a few days near the latitudeof the Arctic Circle to two full monthsalong the North Cape. Despite beingwarmed considerably by the AtlanticOcean’s Gulf Stream, Norway’s arcticwinters can be quite brutal and dan-gerous, especially so to military per-sonnel who must conduct operationsand field exercises in the often ardu-ous conditions that characterize thecountry’s winter climate.The decision to create the Center of

Excellence-Cold Weather Operationswas made to better prepare NATO andPartnership for Peace military person-

nel to operate effectively in challeng-ing cold-weather conditions like thosefound in Norway. The center’s litera-ture aptly summarizes the criticalimportance of its cold-weather trainingand doctrine: “If you can fight and sur-vive in the extremes of the Arctic . . .you can fight anywhere in the world.”The Center is part of and is staffed byNorway’s National Joint Headquarters,which is the principal staff organiza-tion that is responsible for the opera-tional and training activities ofNorway’s Armed Forces, both nation-ally and internationally. Located on amilitary installation on the lowerslopes of Mount Jatta about sevenmiles south of Stavanger (Norway’sfourth-largest city), the Center andNational Joint Headquarters have fre-quent contact with other Europeanmilitaries; in fact, the Jatta installationis also home to NATO’s Joint WarfareCenter, officially established inOctober 2003. The Joint WarfareCenter’s mission is to promote andconduct NATO and combined experi-mentation, analysis, and doctrinedevelopment in support of transforma-

Field History

Norway’s Center of Excellence forColdWeather Operations

by Col Stephen S. EvansField Historian

Photo from the National Joint Headquarters

National Joint HQ Jatta Installation: The installation is home to both Norway’sNational Joint Headquarters and NATO’s Joint Warfare Center. The major work-space buildings shown here—the long white structure and the T-shaped buildingjust beyond—are mainly used by the Joint Warfare Center. Norway’s NationalJoint Headquarters personnel work in the “bunker” facilities beneath the hillside.


tion and to improve NATO’s capabili-ties and interoperability. While JointWarfare Center personnel work in typ-ical office buildings, most of theNational Joint Headquarters staff workin a multi-level maze of undergroundoffices, command and control facili-ties, tunnels, and other infrastructureconstructed beneath Mount Jatta.

Working closely with the Nor-wegian School of Winter War-

fare, the Center offers a wide varietyof formal cold-weather and wintercourses at Terningmoen Garrison. TheCenter’s Allied Training Center-Southat Voss and -North at Harstad alsooffer courses and training to NATOand Partnership for Peace militaryunits and personnel. The Center alsodisseminates to NATO nations a num-ber of research and development stud-ies relating to cold-weather environ-ments that are conducted by theNorwegian Defense Research Estab-lishment. In addition, as part of theNational Joint Headquarters J-7, theCenter assists in planning and con-ducting a number of cold-weatherexercises each year—during 2008these included: Explosive OrdinanceDisposal Exercise 08, involving 11 par-ticipating and 5 observer nations; andArmatura Borealis 08, involving unitsfrom the United Kingdom and theNetherlands. Smaller-scale exercisesare also conducted by the Center’sAllied Training Centers to facilitate anorganization’s specific cold-weather

training requirements; for instance,Allied Training Center-North conduct-ed courses along with exercisesOCTANS-1 and 2 in order to fulfill 3Commando Brigade, Royal Marines’(UK) unit training goals.A critical component of the Center’s

structure is its two Allied TrainingCenters: Allied Training Center-North,located at Asegarden Garrison nearHarstad, and Allied Training Center-South, located at Bomoen Garrisonnear Voss. The mission assigned to thestaff of these two Allied TrainingCenters is to support all land-basedallied and foreign training. This mis-sion entails a large number of diverseduties and functions, all designed toensure that a visiting unit’s training

Map by W. Stephen Hill

Map of Norway showing location of places mentioned in this article, and a fewother towns and installations of note.

The design of Norway Joint Headquarters logo (3 swords) is based on this mon-ument, which is located about 10 miles from Jatta. Dedicated by Norway’s KingOlav V in 1983, the monument—three bronze swords over 30 feet tall—com-memorates the Battle of Hafrsfjord in 872, which resulted in the unification ofNorway into a single kingdom under King Harald Fairhair.

Photo courtesy of Col Stephen Evans


requirements and objectives are fullymet during their deployments toNorway. These functions include coor-dinating and controlling the use ofcamps, ranges, and training areas;coordinating cross training withNorwegian units; coordinating HostNation support; and providing liaisonofficers, instructors, or advisors asrequested or required. Visiting unitshave full use of all garrison facilities—billeting, office spaces, officer andNCO mess, dining facilities, gymnasi-ums, and hangers—at AsegardenGarrison, Evenes Air Station, andBomoen Garrison.Because of the center’s very high

level of commitment to cold-weathertraining and education, and the out-standing support activities of its alliedtraining centers, Norway has becomethe first choice of many allied andNATO forces when it comes to decid-ing on where they will conduct theircold-weather exercises and wintertraining. �1775�

Asegarden Garrison: home to Allied Training Center-North.The smaller structures in the foreground are not part of the

military installation. Visiting units have full use of all struc-tures and facilities.

Photo from the Center of Excellence-Cold Weather Operations

Special ThanksThe author would like to thank, first and foremost, Lieutenant Colonel

Frank Terje Aarrestad, who serves as a staff officer in the J-7, NorwegianNational Joint Headquarters. LtCol Aarrestad was the primary point of con-tact whose ongoing liaison and coordination efforts were critical in ensur-ing that the History Division collection team’s visits—to National JointHeadquarters, Stavanger, in December 2007, and to Tromso and Harstadin northern Norway in February 2008—were highly successful. Because ofhis efforts, the collection team—Captain Christopher Wilson and theauthor—collected a number of documents, briefs, and pictures. The col-lection trips are part of a wider research effort that is being conducted tosupport a monograph tentatively titled Marines in Europe, 1980-2007.Thanks also to Commander George-Johan Haheim, the National JointHeadquarters point of contact for Explosive Ordinance Disposal Exercise08, for facilitating our collection efforts in the Tromso area (includingOlavsvern Naval Base) during that exercise. Special thanks also goes toLieutenant Colonel Lars Sundnes, the commanding officer at AlliedTraining Center-North, for allowing us full access to his staff and to theAsegarden Garrison, as well as setting up visits to Ramsund Naval Base,Rames Firing Ranges installation, and Evenes Air Station. A final thanksgoes to Captain Sven-Kristian Loveit of the Allied Training Center-North fordriving the team to various bases in the Harstad region, sometimes in near-blizzard conditions.


Prior to the Revolutionary War, colo-nial merchant ships enjoyed the

protection of British treaties as theycarried out trade on both coasts of theMediterranean. By 1777, our youngRepublic was on its own and in des-perate need of trading partners. In anattempt to boost his nation’s falteringeconomy and demonstrate the possi-bility to his neighbors of Muslim-Christian amicability, the MoorishEmperor of Morocco, Sultan SidiMuhammad bin Abdullah, wrote a let-ter to the “13 United States of NorthAmerica” to express his desire to cre-ate a treaty. Due to the war withBritain and a civil war in Morocco, ittook 10 years for Congress to ratify thedocument, but in 1787, the Treaty ofPeace and Friendship went into effect,guaranteeing safe passage and freeport visits for American sailing vessels.Since Emperor Sidi Muhammad hadnegotiated the same treaties with sev-eral other European countries, theUnited States found itself on equalfooting on the world scene for the firsttime. Many may not realize that thistreaty, renegotiated in 1836, constitutes

the longest unbroken treaty in U.S. his-tory. Thus began a relationship thatU.S. Marines continue to forge andrefine to this day.Marine involvement in Morocco first

came to light with the infamousPerdicaris Affair of 1904. IonPerdicaris, an American expatriate andGreek citizen living in Tangier, was asuccessful businessman and socialite.While dining in his residence on theoutskirts of the city on 16 May 1904, alocal bandit and folk hero, Ahmed erRaisuli, captured the elderly man andhis nephew. Absconding with the meninto the desert night, Raisuli provedthat he was not completely heartlesswhen he sent one of his men back forPerdicaris’ overcoat. According to anentry by Rear Admiral French E.Chadwick in the Army and NavyJournal of 25 June 1904, Raisuli’sdemands for the release of his prison-ers were significant: “the release ofprisoners at Tangier and elsewhere;the dismissal of the present Bashahere, who is much disliked; the pay-ment by the family of the Basha of$70,000; freedom of Raisuli’s tribal

region from taxes, and a full pardonfor all.” Bumptious and assertivePresident Theodore Roosevelt at oncedispatched Chadwick’s South AtlanticSquadron to Tangier Bay, where it wasquickly joined by three ships from theEuropean Squadron. This high dramawas the perfect backdrop for the polit-ical hubbub back in the U.S.—theRepublican Convention underway inChicago. The seven American war-ships, joined by three British onesfrom Gibraltar, arrived on the scene inlate May, awaiting the outcome ofdiplomatic efforts. Finally on 22 June,the savvy U.S. secretary of state, JohnHay, sent a telegram to the Moroccangovernment from President Roosevelt:“This Government wants Perdicarisalive or Raisuli dead.”

With that decree in hand andMarines standing by just off-

shore, the American consulate general,Samuel R. Gummere, thought it pru-dent to reinforce the consulate guard.Captain John T. Myers—famous inMarine Corps circles at the time for hisrecent defense of the AmericanLegation Guard in Peking during theBoxer Rebellion—and 11 Marines fromthe flagship USS Brooklyn (CL 40) dis-embarked just in time to discover that

Field History

An Enduring Ally in Africa:Marines in Moroccoby Maj Valerie A. Jackson

Field Historian

Marines from Weapons Company, 1st Battalion, 23d Marines from Austin,Texas, fire practice rounds from M203 grenade launchers in the Cap Draa train-ing area of southern Morocco. The Marines, part of the ground combat elementof Task Force 23 during the African Lion 2008 exercise, conducted bilateralinfantry training with the Moroccan 6th Regiment for two weeks in June.

Photo by LtCol David A. Benhoff


Capt John T. Myers and his Marineslanded in Morocco in 1904.


Raisuli’s demands had been met andthat Perdicaris and his nephew hadbeen released unharmed. Myers laterrose to the rank of lieutenant general,and Hollywood took literary licenseand made the Perdicaris affair into the1975 film The Wind and the Lion.In late 1942, ships’ detachment

Marines participated in OperationTorch in Morocco as part of TaskForce 34. The task force’s command-ing officer, Rear Admiral H. KentHewitt, had two Marine officers asmembers of his principle staff. Theassistant intelligence officer, MajorFrancis M. Rogers, fluent in bothArabic and French, became instrumen-tal as a translator in the ensuing VichyFrench surrender in Morocco, receiv-ing the Silver Star for his efforts.Marines again landed in Morocco in

1948, this time to create MarineBarracks, Morocco. Based in the city ofPort Lyautey, later named Kenitra,their mission was to provide securityfor the naval facilities. The barrack’sfirst commanding officer was CaptainSamuel Jaskilka, who later becameAssistant Commandant of the MarineCorps from 1975 to 1978. The barracksremained operational until 1978.Although life in Morocco in the

1950s was relatively quiet for theMarines most days, the Moroccans’attempt to rid their country of theirFrench overseers caused a great dealof local agitation, crippling strikes, andgeneral disorder. On 31 October 1956,Company E, 2d Battalion, 2d Marines,from Camp Lejeune, North Carolina,arrived at Port Lyautey Naval AirStation to reinforce guard personneland to be on standby to respond toany contingencies. Aside from pre-venting a few attempts to pilfer sup-plies, the Marines saw no action. Thecompany returned home on 7February 1957.After the agitation caused by the

independence movement in Moroccosettled down in the late 1950s,Morocco held its first elections for aconstitutional monarchy in 1962.Marines remained on duty at the navalfacilities, often augmented by workingdogs, and later by their families on“accompanied tours.” United States-Moroccan relations remained stablethroughout the 1960s, ’70s, and ’80s,

strengthened by reciprocal heads-of-state visits and the Moroccan policiesof religious tolerance, support ofdemocratic institutions, and oppositionto Communist expansion. Moroccowas the first Muslim nation to join theCoalition during Desert Shield/DesertStorm, contributing 1,200 troops to theeffort.In the early 1990s, Marine-initiated

training activities brought in a new erafor U.S. involvement in the countrythat continued into the new centuryand the Global War on Terrorism.According to the May 1993 issue ofLeatherneck, Marines and sailors of the22d Marine Expeditionary Unit partici-pated in a successful joint amphibioustraining exercise with Moroccan armedforces in African Eagle ’92. Since thenour two countries have built on thatfoundation. The commanding officerof Task Force 23 for exercise AfricanLion 2008, Colonel Charles E. Hall—afirst lieutenant when he trained inMorocco 20 years ago—recalled thatthe training then was very one dimen-sional: “We did our thing, they didtheir thing, then we had a field day atthe end.” But this year’s exercise wasmuch different. Colonel Hall notedthat the “interoperability has been real-ly tremendous, and our Marines aregetting a lot from not only the training,but the interaction with the Moroccans

as well.” In the Cap Draa training facil-ity in southern Morocco, Marines fromWeapons Company, 1st Battalion, 23dMarines, out of Austin, Texas, were theground element for the task force.Their commander, Major Gary W.Bilyeu, and his operations chief,Master Sergeant John A. Salvati, bothcommented on the great training forboth countries’ forces and the profes-sionalism of the Moroccan 6thRegiment. In fact, Salvati noted thatout of all the units he has trained withon various deployments over 21 years,“the Moroccans are by far the mostprofessional” that he has seen. MajorBilyeu observed that “to come here todispel some of the myths—U.S. andMoroccan—it’s really been great train-ing for the Marines,” as it was for theMoroccans. It was the universal themeof goodwill and relationship-buildingthat Marines mentioned most oftenand seemed to be the hallmark of thisexercise.Military Police Marines from MP

Detachment, Wahpeton, North Dako-ta, perhaps reaped the most visiblebenefits. In their desert training area inTifnit, not far from the beach, bothMarines and Moroccans were standoff-ish at the beginning. Before long,however, the Marines were drinkingtea, eating, and dancing with the fun-loving Moroccans at every opportuni-

Photo by LtCol David A. Benhoff

In Tifnit, Morocco, Moroccan military police practice Marine Corps martial artsfor the first time in exercise African Lion 2008. Marine reservists from NorthDakota and Minnesota and Moroccan military police exchanged non-lethaltraining techniques, check point control, weapons firing, and cultural educationin the two-week-long bilateral exercise.


ty, despite the language barrier. Withroughly half of the company com-prised of Iraq veterans, GunnerySergeant Corey R. Bode noted that“after being here and training andcommunicating with the Moroccans, itmakes it easier for the Marines to feelat home with Muslims and Arabic-speaking people,” which translatesinto improved attitudes for upcomingdeployments.Two Marine KC-130s deployed

from their home base in Ft. Worth,Texas, to teach the Moroccans thebasics of air-to-air refueling. Moroccanpilots maneuvered their desert-pat-terned F-5s in what turned out to be avery successful training exercise, andone that will advance the Moroccans’goal of eventually being able to pro-vide their own close air support.The final component of African

Lion was a Humanitarian CivicAssistance outreach, staffed and exe-cuted by the 151 ExpeditionaryMedical Group. Based out of

Guelmim, Morocco, the doctors, den-tists, medics, and corpsmen of thegroup assisted more than 9,000Moroccans in largely remote villages.Moroccan Lieutenant Colonel Laktiri, a22-year army veteran, said that thelocal people understand the value ofthese kinds of activities, and that the“positive echo” that they create willmake other Moroccans hope for a visitfrom the group next year.Major General Cornell A. Wilson,

commanding general of both MarineForces Europe and the fledglingMarine Forces Africa, was uniformlypleased with the outcome of the exer-cise. The general commented thatMarine Forces Europe is “alreadydoing exercises throughout Africa,”and that when Marine Forces Africabecomes fully operational on 1October 2008, the scope and frequen-cy of training will increase. “Severalcountries have expressed interest inworking with us more, so we want totap into that reservoir of goodwill and

bring our Marines down . . . [to see]how we can assist them and how theycan assist us.”Since that first communiqué more

than 231 year ago, there has been aspirit of goodwill and mutual coopera-tion between the United States and theKingdom of Morocco. Marines haveserved and continue to serve in acapacity that enhances the security,cultural understanding, and interoper-ability between our nations. As ourlongest ally, strong training partner,and cultural ambassador, Morocco isand will remain an integral part ofUnited States Marine Corps history.

�1775�

Special Thanks:The author wishes to thank

Major Nebyou Yonas, ColonelCharles Hall, and the entireAfrican Lion 2008 staff for theirsupport and cooperation in thiscollection effort.

Marine Corps Chronology

4th Marine Brigade inWorldWar Iby Kara R. NewcomerReference Historian

In commemoration of the 90thanniversary of the end of World War

I, Fortitudine is reprinting the follow-ing chronology. This, along withmany other chronologies of theMarine Corps, can be found in theFrequently Requested area of theMarine Corps History Division website: <www. history.usmc.mil>.

6 April 1917 – U.S. declares war onGermany.

16 May 1917 – Secretary of WarNewton D. Baker requests a regimentof Marines be made available for ser-vice with the American ExpeditionaryForce in France. The 5th Marines, thenat Philadelphia, was selected.

27 May 1917 – President WoodrowWilson directs the Commandant of theMarine Corps, Major General GeorgeBarnett, to order the 5th Marines toFrance.

14 June 1917 – The 5th Marines, com-

manded by Colonel Charles A. Doyen,sails from New York on board the USSHenderson (AP 1), the USS DeKalb(ID 3010), and the USS Hancock (AP3).

27 June 1917 – Colonel Doyen andregimental headquarters arrives at St.Nazaire, France.

2 July 1917 – The 5th Marines arrivesat St. Nazaire, France and is attachedto the U.S. Army’s 1st Division,American Expeditionary Force.

9 July 1917 – The 5th Marines beginsguard and provost duty at St. Nazaire.

16 July 1917 – The 1st and 2dBattalions, 5th Marines, move toGondrecourt and begin trench warfaretraining with the 30th, 70th and 151stBattalions of the French AlpineChasseurs, known as the Blue Devils.The 3d Battalion remains at St.Nazaire.

August 1917 – Headquarters decides

to form the 2d Division, AmericanExpeditionary Force. It would consistof the 4th Marine Brigade and the 3dU.S. Army Brigade. Its regimentswould be the 5th and 6th Marines andthe Army’s 9th and 23d Infantry.

August 1917 – The 6th Marines beginforming at Quantico, Virginia, underthe command of Colonel Albertus W.Catlin.

September 1917 – Elements of the 9thand 23d Infantry begin arriving inFrance and are assigned to a 2dDivision assembly area aroundBourmont.

24 September 1917 – The 5th Marines,less detachments still on guard duty,arrives at the division assembly area.Brigadier General Charles A. Doyenactivates the division and assumescommand.

5 October 1917 – The 6th Marinesbegins arriving as the regiment’s 1stBattalion debarks at St. Nazaire. The


regimental headquarters arrives on 1November and the 3d and 2dBattalions arrive on 12 November1917 and 5 February 1918, respective-ly. Initially, all units except the 2dBattalion, which went directly to theBrigade, pull guard duty at Frenchports.

December 1917 – All Marine units arereorganized. Rifle companies areenlarged, one company is added toeach battalion, and a machine gunbattalion, the 6th Machine GunBattalion, is formed. The 4th MarineBrigade strength reaches 9,444, thelargest unit ever formed by Marines.

10 March 1918 – Brigade assembled.The 3d U.S. Army Brigade is alsoready. The organization of the divisionis complete and Major General OmarBundy, USA, assumes command. The2d Division begins moving to theToulon Sector, southeast of Verdun,where it would be assigned to the XCorps of the 2d French Army.

17 March 1918 – 2d Battalion, 5thMarines, relieves a French unit andoccupies Center of ResistanceMontgirmont. Later, other Marine andArmy units move into frontline posi-tions and, as the French withdrawtroops to meet a German drive atAmiens, the 2d Division is left holdinga front that had been held by morethan two divisions.

6 April 1918 – 74th Company repulsesa German raid at Tresavaux.

13 April 1918 – 74th Company suffersheavy casualties in a surprise gasattack.

20 April 1918 – 84th Company and aplatoon of the 45th Company success-fully repulse separate raids. SecondLieutenant Edward B. Hope, comman-der of the raided platoon, and severalof his men are awarded the FrenchCroix de Guerre. They are the first of1,633 Marines to be awarded theFrench medal.

9 May 1918 – French units relieve the2d Division and it moves to a newtraining area at Bar-le-Duc. An illBrigadier General Doyen returns tothe United States and BrigadierGeneral J. G. Harbord, USA, takescommand of the 4th Marine Brigade.

18 May 1918 – 2d Division moves to

ready positions near Paris becauseGermans have made headway againstthe French at Amiens and against theBritish at Lys.

27 May 1918 – Germans launch a sur-prise attack at Chemin des Damesnear Reims, roll back the Frenchtroops, and drive unchecked toChateau-Thierry on the Marne Rivereast of Paris.

30 May 1918 – 2d Division beginsmoving up to check the Germans. The9th Infantry and the 5th Marines, thelead elements, are initially spreadacross the entire rear of the retiringXXI French Corps. As the 6th Marinesand the 23d Infantry arrive, they arefed into position and the thinly heldline becomes 11 miles long. Theorders are: “No retirement will bethought of on any pretext whatsoev-er.” By 4 June, most French units havewithdrawn through the lines and theMarines and soldiers are holding thefront. Their frontage has been short-ened to 9,000 yards by fresh Frenchunits, which fell in on their flanks.While the French were retiringthrough the Marines’ lines, CaptainLloyd W. Williams, who was killed inthe subsequent battle, snorted,“Retreat hell, we just got there!” His

famous comment was directed at aFrench officer who urged the Marinesto retreat. When the Germans ap-proached the Marines’ lines, Marinerifle fire began killing them at 800yards. German officers, who did notteach their men to shoot at individualtargets, first thought they had encoun-tered a panicky unit. But as their casu-alties mounted, they became con-vinced they were facing a unit armedwith nothing but machine guns. Theiradvance stalled and never regained itsmomentum. Their drive on Paris wasstopped.

6 June 1918 – 4th Marine Brigadebegins reducing the positions of twoGerman divisions in the Bois deBelleau (Belleau Wood) directly to thefront of the defense line they had beenholding. This 20-day action was one ofthe most intense of the war. Thebrigade suffered 55 percent casualties.It established American troops, whichhad not been trusted by theirEuropean allies, as the best troops ofthe war. It also added legends to theCorps. It was at Belleau Wood, forexample, that legendary GunnerySergeant Dan Daly reputedly leapedfrom a trench bellowing to his pla-toon: “Come on, you sons of bitches!

Combat Artist: Charles Lock; Combat Art Collection of the National Museum of the Marine Corps

Marine Corps Aviators Capt. Francis P. Mulcahy and his observer GySgt ThomasL. McCullogh and Capt Robert Lytle and his observer GySgt Amil Wiman,attached to 218 Squadron, Royal Air Force, fly through heavy German fire todrop over 2600 lbs of supplies to a surrounded French Regiment.


Do you want to live forever?”

26 June 1918 – American Expe-ditionary Force headquarters receivesthis message: “(Belleau) Woods nowU.S. Marine Corps entirely.”

30 June 1918 – 6th French Army issuesan order officially redesignating theBois de Belleau as the Bois de laBrigade de Marine, and the entirebrigade is cited by the French Army.

4 July 1918 – The U.S. 26th Divisionrelieves the 2d Division.

17 July 1918 – 2d Division moves intoposition to participate in a XX FrenchCorps attack on the German’s Marnesalient. The division’s attack is alongthe Soissons-Chateau-Thierry high-way. Brigadier General Harbord, USA,has taken command of the divisionand the 4th Marine Brigade is beingcommanded by Colonel Harry Lee,USMC.

18 July 1918 – 2d Division, along withthe U.S. 1st Division and the 1stMoroccan Division, attack along theSoissons-Chateau-Thierry Highway. Ina bitter two-day battle, they break theGerman grip on the Marne salient andforce the Germans to begin the retreat,which lasts until the end of the war.Again, Marines are in the forefront ofthe fighting. Their casualties are againhigh and more legends are poundedout. As the attack commences, aMarine officer is told he will not haveenough machine gun support because

machine gun units have been unableto make their way forward overclogged roads. “Very well,” he said“We will use the Boche (German)machine guns.”

19 July 1918 – 4th Marine Brigade andthe rest of the 2d Division is with-drawn from the fighting. It reassem-bles near Paris and moves to Nancy,where American divisions are beingassembled and organized into anAmerican army.

26 July 1918 – Brigadier General JohnA. Lejeune takes command of the 4thMarine Brigade.

29 July 1918 – Lejeune is promoted tomajor general and assumes commandof the 2d Division. Newly promotedBrigadier General Wendell C. Neville,who commanded the 5th Marines atBelleau Wood, takes command of the4th Marine Brigade.

4August 1918 – 2d Division takes overa quiet defensive sector at Pont-a-Mousson. The Marines spend theirtime training replacements and haveonly one action, an 8 August brushwith a German party that apparentlywandered into their lines.

12 August 1918 – 2d Division isordered out of the defensive sectorand is replaced by the 82d AmericanDivision. It assembles for the SanMihiel Offensive at Colombey-les-Belles.12 September 1918 – 2d Division

attacks in the San Mihiel sector as partof I Corps of the new American army.The force inflicts heavy casualties anddrives the enemy out of the sector in athree-day fight.

15 September 1918 – The U.S. 78thDivision relieves the 2d Division.

26 September 1918 – 2d Division andthe incomplete U.S. 36th Division areattached to the 4th French Army for anattack on Blanc Mont west of theArgonne Forest. Germans are expect-ed to resist bitterly because ArgonneForest and Blanc Mont screen theirrailroads. Loss of the area will imperiltheir entire army. Major GeneralLejeune learns that the French com-mander intends to break up theAmerican units and use them as shocktroops to lead the way for the Frenchtroops. He successfully resists thisplan.

3 October 1918 – 4th Marine Brigadeleads the Blanc Mont attack. Togetherwith the rest of the division, it securesthe enemy positions in a week offierce fighting. For this action, both the5th and 6th Marine regiments are citedby the French army for the third timeand thus earn the right to wear thefourragere as part of their uniforms.

21 October 1918 – 4th Marine Brigaderesponds to a French command andmoves to Leffincourt to relieve aFrench division. American headquar-ters gets this order countermandedand orders the entire 2d Division backunder American control.

25 October 1918 – 2d Division reportsfor duty with the American First Army.

1 November 1918 – 2d Divisionattacks German positions in theArgonne Forest as part of the V Corpsof the American First Army. As the warends, Marines have broken throughthe German lines and are pursuing thefleeing enemy.

11 November 1918 – The Armistice,ending hostilities, is signed.

July 1919 – After serving in the occu-pation army, 4th Marine Brigadereturns to the United States. It paradeswith the rest of the 2d Division in NewYork and is reviewed by PresidentWoodrow Wilson in Washington, D.C.It then moves to Quantico, Virginia,where it is disbanded. �1775�

Marine Corps Photo Collection

1st Battalion, 5th Marines, on the way to a rest area after 16 days on the line—18 June 1918.


Book Review

NewWords for an Old Tuneby Charles D. Melson

Chief Historian

Counterinsurgency in Modern War-fare, edited by Daniel Marston andCarter Malkasian (Oxford: OspreyPublishing Limited, 2008).

Back when I first arrived inQuantico, Virginia, some 40 years

ago, the discussion at the time in theMarine Corps schools was about “theguerrilla and how to fight him.” Thebook to be read was Bernard Fall’sStreet Without Joy, and interaction waswith those Marines with firsthandexperience in Vietnam. The topic ofinsurgencies had overtaken the expe-riences of amphibious warfare in thePacific and limited war in Korea. Thethen-ongoing war in Vietnam did notnecessarily provide the model for suc-cess in insurgencies because of thevaried and complex nature of the con-flict. Vietnam was really another limit-ed war that contained an insurgencycomponent but was still being foughtin the air, land, and sea throughoutSoutheast Asia. What small wars les-sons that were learned by Americanswere dissipated in the continuingCold War environment that focusedon possible major conflicts adjacent tothe Communist Bloc countries. Themaneuver warfare debate that tookplace later never focused on dealingwith insurgencies and civil wars. Eventhe example of Great Britain in itsseries of brushfire wars was hard toreplicate as most were conflicts foughtat the end of empire under severebudget constraints. The challenge ofsmall wars remained to be dealt within other forms and in situations whichwe face today. Despite this, there is along record and tradition of smallwars to draw upon.The Global War on Terrorism has

provided this occasion in Iraq andAfghanistan. Once again, Quanticohas played its part in identifying theproblem and possible solutions forthe Marines and other services.Marine Corps Warfighting PublicationNo. 3-33.5 (U.S. Army Field ManualNo. 3-24) Counterinsurgency Field

Manual does just that. This publica-tion is an interesting mix of doctrine,experience, and prescription (I rec-ommend the University of ChicagoPress edition for the added forewordsand introduction). It does includesome references to specific examplesof previous experience and an anno-tated bibliography of the classic andcontemporary publications of coun-terinsurgency. Though well written bygood authors, it is still a doctrinalpublication.

these as the anchor, 11 other chaptersprovide case studies of insurgenciesfrom 1898 to the present. The authorsare all experts in their areas of study,and all the contributions are well writ-ten and fully documented. The com-mon thread is the variety of conflicts,rather than a central thesis. Thoughvariety is the theme of all insurgen-cies, they derive from unique localcircumstances. Two accounts I missedwere those about the British inMesopotamia in the 1920s and theSoviet Union in Afghanistan in the1970s.

In this book you have CharlesTownshend writing about Ireland,

Anthony Joes dealing with thePhilippines, Bruce Gudmundssonexamining Nicaragua, Douglas Porchwith the French in North Africa,Richard Stubbs discussing Malaya,John Nagl focusing on the Americanwar in Vietnam, and my favorite,Richard Wood and the conflict inRhodesia. With quality scholars suchas these, the contents of this antholo-gy are first rate for present-dayrequirements with both the academicand military communities. The bookhighlights the fact that some of thecounterinsurgencies were successesand others were failures. The com-mon focus among these stories is thatthese struggles were among peoplerather than about territory or ideolo-gies. An interesting example of this isthe ethnic maps provided for Iraq andAfghanistan. This supports BernardFall’s contention that the mapping ofpopulations constitutes the key terrainof insurgencies.

While it is too early to considerCounterinsurgency Field Manual orCounterinsurgency in Modern War-fare as classics like the Small WarsManual, both make basic compan-ions for the Global War on Terrorism.For historians looking backward oranalysts looking at current events andto the future, they are necessary read-

Recently a new book has appearedthat will provide a needed supple-ment to this institutional approach.Editor and contributors DanielMarston and Carter Malkasian haveprovided an anthology of previouscounterinsurgencies to give width anddepth to the reader’s understanding ofcommon and varied conflicts. Startingwith the essays, Dr. Malkasian, aCenter for Naval Analysis researcher,provides a needed overview of thecampaign in Iraq from 2003 through2007. Dr. Marston, research fellow atthe Australian National University,considers the campaign in Afghan-istan during the same period. With


ing and well worth the price. Both theCouncil on Foreign Relations journal-ist Max Boot and the Military HistoryInstitute scholar Conrad Crane con-cluded that this anthology has bothquality contributions by experts and

provocative essays.Of additional note on the subject of

counterinsurgency, the Marine CorpsUniversity Press this fall is publishingU.S. Marines and Irregular Warfare,1898–2007: Anthology and Selected

Bibliography, compiled by ColonelStephen S. Evans, a field historianwith the History Division. For moreinformation, see <http://www.mcu.usmc.mil/mcupress/coin.htm>.

�1775�

Lieutenant Colonel HaroldW. Bauer Inducted intothe U.S. Naval Aviation Hall of Honor

By CWO-3 Timothy S. McWilliams

On 8 May 2008, Lieutenant ColonelHarold W. Bauer was inducted

into the U.S. Naval Aviation Hall ofHonor at Pensacola, Florida. He isremembered for his heroic combataction in the skies over Guadalcanal in1942. As a member of the U.S. NavalAviation Hall of Honor, Bauer joins anelite group of 70 other legendary navalaviators known for extraordinaryachievements in naval aviation.Born in Woodruff, Kansas, on 20

November 1908, Bauer grew up inNorth Platte, Nebraska, before enteringthe U.S. Naval Academy in 1926. As amidshipman, Bauer excelled in foot-ball, basketball, and lacrosse. Heearned the nickname “Indian Joe” forhis dark complexion and square jaw, aname that would remain with him from

then on. After earning his commissionin 1930, “Joe” Bauer attended theOfficers Basic School at Quantico,Virginia, and then served as a companyofficer with the 1st Battalion, 6thMarines. He returned to the Naval Aca-demy in 1932 as a marksmanshipinstructor, assistant basketball coach,and lacrosse coach. During this assign-ment, Bauer met Harriette Hemman,whom he married on 1 December1932. Bauer transferred to the SanDiego Naval Station, where he servedas the assistant range officer and thenbecame the executive officer of theMarine detachment aboard the heavycruiser USS San Francisco (CA 38).In 1935, First Lieutenant Bauer

attended flight training at the Naval AirStation at Pensacola, Florida, and

earned his wings on 24 February 1936.As a pilot, Bauer served with MarineScouting Squadron Seven and MarineScouting Squadron One, and thenserved with both Marine FightingSquadrons One and Two (VMF-1 andVMF-2). As a new captain in 1941,Bauer was the executive officer ofMarine Fighting Squadron 221 (VMF-221) at the Naval Air Station San Diegowhen the Japanese bombed PearlHarbor. The next day, 8 December1941, the squadron departed forHawaii aboard the USS Saratoga (CV3). Originally slated to reinforce thegarrison on Wake Island, the squadrondiverted to Midway, where Bauerarrived on Christmas day 1941. Afterjust more than a month at Midway,Bauer was promoted to major and took


command of VMF-212, the “HellHounds,” at the Marine Air Station,Ewa, Hawaii. Soon thereafter, thesquadron deployed to the South Pacificair facility at Noumea, New Caledona.Major Bauer then led a detachment for-ward to the Island of Efate in the NewHebrides, where he supervised theconstruction of a new airfield at PortVilla while conducting reconnaissancefor additional airfields in the SouthPacific to defend U.S. logistical lines toAustralia.As the VMF-212 commander, Bauer

earned the nickname “the Coach” forhis inspirational leadership style,aggressive air combat philosophy, andthe fact that he was 10 years senior tothe squadron’s other pilots. An accom-plished aviator by this time, Bauer fre-quently gave pep talks to his youngerpilots to boost their morale, encourag-ing them to use innovative flying prac-tices against what he perceived as theJapanese pilot’s mechanical andunimaginative tactics. Bauer encour-aged his pilots to engage the JapaneseMitsubishi A6M Zeros in dogfights andtrained his pilots in tactics that includ-ed fighting in pairs and making head-on attacks. Bauer believed that, byturning the better-protected GrummanF4F Wildcats head on into the fasterand more maneuverable yet lessarmored Zero, the American pilotswould win. This training succeeded innot only making his pilots more profi-cient, but instilled confidence. Earninga reputation for his tactical skill, seniorleaders valued Bauer’s views andinsight, and this repute combined withhis success at Efate earned him promo-tion to lieutenant colonel only threemonths after becoming major.It was Bauer’s skill and heroics in

the skies over Guadalcanal that sealedhis legacy. When Marines of the FirstMarine Division under Major GeneralA. A. Vandegrift captured the unfin-ished Japanese airfield at Lunga Pointon Guadalcanal in August 1942, theJapanese responded with a determinedeffort to reclaim their possession.Located in the Solomon Islands 1,200miles from Australia, Guadalcanal wasa vital stepping-stone in the Japanesemarch across the Pacific. The islandwas essential to the U.S. effort to notonly thwart the Japanese advance, but

also to launch the island-hopping cam-paign toward Japan. Using equipmentleft by fleeing Japanese workers,Vandegrift’s engineers worked day andnight to complete the airfield for U.S.use.Critical to the defense of Guadal-

canal in 1942 were a few U.S. Army,Navy, and Marine pilots, affectionatelycalling themselves the “Cactus AirForce” after the Navy code name forthe island. Battered and undersupplied,these pilots tenaciously defended theisland against a superior Japanese airforce that outnumbered the Cactus AirForce two to one. During the deter-mined Japanese effort to recapture theisland, Lieutenant Colonel Bauer aug-mented the Cactus Air Force with expe-rienced pilots. Leading by example,Bauer personally volunteered for mis-sions and distinguished himself as bothan ace and an effective combat com-mander. On 28 September 1942, Bauerengaged and destroyed a JapaneseBetty bomber, and on 3 October, heshot down four Zeros, badly damaginga fifth. For these actions, Major GeneralRoy S. Geiger, Commanding General ofthe 1st Marine Air Wing, presentedBauer with a captured Japanese battleflag, which he humbly accepted, cred-iting his men, and then donated theflag to Marine Air Group’s trophyroom.Despite the tenacious efforts of the

Cactus pilots and their crews, by 16October 1942, weeks of continuousaerial combat had taken its toll and theCactus Air Force was nearly out of fueland operational aircraft. With a signifi-cant Japanese reinforcement forcequickly approaching, the situation onGuadalcanal looked grim. In responseto Major General Vandegrift’s call,Lieutenant Colonel Bauer led the flightof 26 available aircraft 600 miles toGuadalcanal from Espiritu Santo on 16October. The flight had no soonerarrived when Bauer saw a squadron ofeight Japanese Val dive bombers attackthe USS McFarland (DD 237) as itdelivered aviation fuel and ammunitionto the island. With his own fuel supplynearly exhausted, Bauer aborted hislanding and immediately attacked theenemy squadron, destroying fourplanes before his critical fuel shortageforced him to land. For these actions,

Bauer was awarded the Medal ofHonor.A week later, on 23 October, Bauer

became the commander of Guadal-canal’s air defense forces. On 14November during the Japanese’s lastmajor effort to recapture the island,Bauer joined Captain Joseph J. Foss andSecond Lieutenant Thomas W. Furlow inan attack on Japanese transport shipsapproaching the island. As they com-pleted their strafing runs, a pair of Zerosambushed them. Bauer made his signa-ture attack, turning directly into theZeros, and sent one of the enemy air-craft flaming into the sea while Foss andFurlow chased away the remainingenemy aircraft. When they returned tothe site of the engagement, they foundBauer floating in the water wearing his“Mae West” life vest and waving at hiscomrades after being forced to ditch hisaircraft in the water. Foss attempted togive his life raft to Bauer, but after failingto do so, he raced back to HendersonField and retuned with a Grumman J2FDuck seaplane. Unfortunately, darknessforced the rescuers to abort their effort.When Foss returned the followingmorning, there was no sign of Bauer,who was declared missing in action. Ina letter to Bauer’s family, Foss wrote:

To me, Marine Corps Avi-ation’s greatest loss in this war wasthat of your son Joe. He really hada way all his own of getting atough job done efficiently andspeedily, and was admired by all,from the lowest Private to thehighest General.

Following the war, Bauer wasdeclared killed in action. For his skilland heroism over the skies ofGuadalcanal in 1942, Bauer’s wifeHarriette and son Bill received hisposthumous Medal of Honor. Militaryofficials dedicated the airfield that Bauerhelped establish at Port Villa to him.Known today as Bauerfield, the govern-ment of Vanuatu, formerly NewHebrides, continues to honor his mem-ory and the contributions he and his fel-low American aviators made in protect-ing the island from the Japanese duringWorld War II. In 1957, the United StatesNavy commissioned the destroyer escortUSS Bauer (DE 1025) in his honor.

�1775�


Major General Edmund P. LooneyJr., a distinguished combat vet-

eran of the Vietnam War, died 28February 2007 in Tampa, Florida, atthe age of 77. The Brooklyn, NewYork, native graduated from St.John’s University’s School of Com-merce in 1956 and was commis-sioned a Marine second lieutenant.He later earned a master’s degree inHuman Resource Management fromPepperdine University. During theVietnam War, he served two combattours of duty. From March 1965 toApril 1966, he served as an advisorto a Vietnamese infantry battalion.He was a logistics program officer atHeadquarters Marine Corps fromApril 1966 to July 1970, and fromJuly 1970 to July 1971, he served ina variety of assignments with the 1stMarine Division in Vietnam. From1972 to 1975, he served as opera-tions officer on the staff of the com-mander, Strike Force at Naples, Italy,

and was the new ships constructionofficer at Headquarters Marine Corpsfrom January 1975 to August 1977.Various assignments followed withthe 1st Marine Division, and fromJune 1980 to June 1981, he served ascommanding officer of the 31stMarine Amphibious Unit in theWestern Pacific and Indian Ocean.He was promoted to major inAugust 1966, to lieutenant colonel inApril 1973, and to colonel inNovember 1978. He was assigned asplans officer, G-3, I MarineAmphibious Force at CampPendleton, and while serving in thiscapacity was selected for promotionto brigadier general. He wasadvanced to that grade on 2 July1982 and assumed command of theMarine Corps Logistics Base,Barstow, California, in July 1982. InJune 1984, he was assigned duty asthe commanding general, 6th MarineAmphibious Brigade, Fleet MarineForce, Atlantic at Camp Lejeune. Hewas selected for promotion to majorgeneral in December 1986 and pro-moted to that grade on 1 September1987. From September 1987 until 3January 1989, he was assigned dutyas the assistant deputy chief of stafffor manpower and reserve affairs,and from 17 July to 28 September1989 was assigned additional duty asdeputy naval inspector general forMarine Corps Matters/InspectorGeneral of the Marine Corps.General Looney retired from theMarine Corps on 1 September 1990.

Brigadier General George H. Leachdied 2 June 2008 in Annandale,Virginia, at the age of 75. ThePhiladelphia, Pennsylvania, nativewas commissioned a Marine secondlieutenant in June 1955 upon gradu-ation from Columbia University,

where he earned a BS degree inindustrial engineering. Upon com-pletion of The Basic School atQuantico, Virginia, he reported forflight training at the Naval AirStation, Pensacola, Florida. He wasdesignated a naval aviator in March1957 and reported for duty withMarine Attack Squadron 331, MarineCorps Air Station, Miami. He subse-quently joined the nucleus forMarine Attack Squadron 331, whichwas then in a process of transition toA-4B Skyhawk. He earned an MSdegree in electrical engineering inJune 1964 at the Naval PostgraduateSchool, Monterey, California. InJanuary 1967, he underwent A-4refresher training and joined MarineAttack Squadron 223 in Chu Lai,Vietnam. He completed this over-seas tour as 1st Marine Aircraft Wingflight standardization officer at DaNang Air Base, Vietnam. Dutyassignments followed at Headquar-ters Marine Corps and later at Marine

In Memoriam

Passing of Major General Looney, Brigadier GeneralLeach, Brigadier General Henderson,

and Private First Class Lucasby Robert V. Aquilina

Assistant Head, Reference Branch

MajGen Edmund P. Looney Jr.Department of Defense Photo

Department of Defense PhotoBGen George H. Leach


Marine Corps Air Station, CherryPoint, North Carolina. In September1984, he assumed his last command,as the commander, Marine CorpsBases, Eastern Area/commandinggeneral, MCAS Cherry Point. GeneralLeach retired from the Marine Corpson 1 August 1985.

Brigadier General Melvin D.Henderson, a distinguished combatveteran of World War II and theVietnam War, died 9 June 2008 inShoreline, Washington, at the age of90. The McKeesport, Pennsylvania,native graduated in 1939 fromCarnegie Institute of Technology. Heheld an Army engineer reserve com-mission prior to accepting anappointment as a Marine secondlieutenant on 24 July 1940. DuringWorld War II, he took part in theRoi-Namur, Saipan, Tinian, and IwoJima campaigns, earning a BronzeStar Medal with Combat “V” as exec-utive officer, 4th Engineer Battalion,at Iwo Jima. Following the war, heserved in duty stations at Quanticoand Camp Pendleton and during1952 was assistant G-4 with theMarine Corps Provisional ExerciseUnit at Yucca Flat, Nevada, in thefirst atomic ground detonation toinvolve troops. In June 1952, he wasassigned as commanding officer ofthe 3d Battalion, 3d Marines. From1954 to 1957, he headed variousbranches in the G-4 Division,Headquarters Marine Corps. Joiningthe 2d Marine Division at CampLejeune, North Carolina, he servedfirst as division G-4, then as com-manding officer, 6th Marines. In1961, he was assigned as militaryassistant to the assistant secretary ofdefense for manpower. Followinghis promotion to brigadier general inJanuary 1964, he served as assistantchief of staff, G-4, HeadquartersMarine Corps, until May 1965, earn-ing the Navy Commendation Medalfor his service. In June 1965, he wasordered to duty on Okinawa as com-manding general, 3d MarineDivision (Rear), and shortly there-after deployed with the unit toVietnam as assistant division com-mander, 3d Marine Division. Hereturned to Okinawa in December

Corps Air Station, Kaneohe Bay,Hawaii, where he assumed com-mand of Marine Fighter AttackSquadron 235 in June 1971. From1973 to 1974, he served as assistantG-1, 1st Marine Aircraft Wing inJapan. He subsequently attended theIndustrial College of the ArmedForces, and upon graduation in1975, served two years with theAdvanced Amphibious Study Group,a Headquarters Marine Corps activi-ty located at Quantico. From 1977 to1980, he served in the Office of theDeputy Chief of Staff for Require-ments and Programs, as liaison offi-cer to the Department of the NavyProgram Information Center, andhead, Program Coordinator Branch.In June 1980 he became command-ing officer of the air station atBeaufort, South Carolina, and wasselected for promotion to brigadiergeneral. In August 1981, he assumedduty as director, OperationsDivision, Headquarters MarineCorps. In June 1982, he assumedduty as the director, Command,Control, Communication and Com-puter (C4) Systems Division. He wasassigned concurrent duties as direc-tor, Intelligence Division on 1 July1982. He was assigned duty inAugust 1983 as the assistant wingcommander, 2d Marine AircraftWing, Fleet Marine Force, Atlantic at

1965 as deputy commander, FleetMarine Force, Pacific/I Marine Am-phibious Corps (Forward). GeneralHenderson retired from active dutyon 1 April 1966.

Jacklyn H. Lucas, the youngestMarine ever to receive the Medal ofHonor, died 5 June 2008 inHattiesburg, Mississippi, at the ageof 80. The Plymouth, North Carolina,native enlisted in the Marine CorpsReserve with his mother’s consenton 6 August 1942 but gave his ageas 17. He reached his 17th birthdaywhile at sea, en route to Iwo Jima asa member of Headquarters Com-pany, 5th Marine Division. On 20February 1945, the day following thelanding at Iwo Jima, he threw hisbody over a Japanese hand grenadethat was thrown into his foxhole andsaved his fellow Marines from seri-ous injury or death. Severelywounded, he was evacuated andtreated at several hospitals in theUnited States. He was discharged asa private first class from the MarineCorps Reserve on 18 September1945 due to disability resulting fromhis wounds. In addition to the Medalof Honor, Private First Class Lucaswas awarded the Purple Heart,Presidential Unit Citation, Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal with oneBronze Star, American CampaignMedal, and the World War II VictoryMedal. �1775�

BGen Melvin D. Henderson,Department of Defense Photo


PFC Jacklyn H. Lucas


Dr. Charles P. Neimeyer (right) made a presentation at the MCUPress launch event to BGen (Ret) Thomas V. Draude, presidentand CEO of Marine Corps University Foundation. Through thegenerous donations of Ms. Alexis F. Thomas and Ms. Kim T.Adamson, the Marine Corps University Foundation is providingsupplemental funding to MCU Press to support the establishment ofthe Marine Corps University Journal, a scholarly journal that willstart publication in mid-2009.

Marine Corps University Press authors (from left) Col Stephen S.Evans, Dr. Paula Holmes-Eber, and LtCol David A. Benhoff. Evanscompiled U.S. Marines and Irregular Warfare, 1898-2007:Anthology and Selected Bibliography. Holmes-Eber coauthored(with Barak A. Salmoni) Operational Culture for the Warfighter:Principles and Applications. Benhoff produced Among the People:U.S. Marines in Iraq. All three books have been published by thepress in 2008.

MajGen (Sel) Melvin G. Spiese (left), commanding general ofTraining and Education Command, had his copy of the MarineCorps University Press’ first book signed by its author, LtCol DavidA. Benhoff. Benhoff, a reservist with the History Division, deployedto Iraq in 2005 as a field historian with II Marine ExpeditionaryForce. During his tour, he traveled throughout the Multi-NationalForces-West area of operations in al-Anbar Province. His bookAmong the People: U.S. Marines in Iraq documents what herecorded during his deployment.

Dr. Charles P. Neimeyer (right) presented a copy of Marine CorpsUniversity Press’ first book to MajGen Donald R. Gardner (Ret) atthe press launch event on 8 August 2008. Gen Gardner, presidentof Marine Corps University since 2004, has been the driving forcebehind the development of the press.

On 8 August 2008, Marine CorpsUniversity formally launched the

Marine Corps University Press with aceremony at the Gray Research Center,Quantico, Virginia. The launch eventwas timed to commemorate the 19thanniversary of the university.MCU Press developed from the

vision of the faculty and administrationof the university and its president,Major General Donald R. Gardner (Ret).

Its works will advance knowledge ofinternational security, strategy, andwarfighting concepts. In addition toproducing scholarly books—with threepublished in 2008—the press willlaunch a peer-reviewed academic jour-nal in 2009.MCU Press functions as a compo-

nent of the History Division. Dr. CharlesP. Neimeyer, director of the HistoryDivision, serves as publisher of the

press. Mr. Kenneth H. Williams is senioreditor for both the History Division andMCU Press. Colonel Patricia D. Saintand Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey R. Riley,reservists with the History Division,have played integral roles in the con-ception and standing up of the press.For more information on MCU Press

and its publications, see its Web site:<http://www.mcu.usmc.mil/mcupress>.

�1775�

Marine Corps University Press

Marine Corps University Press is Launched


COMMANDANT OF THE MARINE CORPSHeadquarters, U.S. Marine Corps (ARDE)

2 Navy AnnexWashington, D.C. 20380-1775

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PCN 104 012 20100

Superintendent of Documents Subscription Order FormOrder Processing Code:

* 5631� YES, enter my subscription(s) as follows:

subscription(s) to Fortitudine for $15.00 each per four issues ($21.00 foreign).

The total cost of my order is $ Price includes regular shipping and handling and is subject to change.International customers please add 25%

Company or personal name (type or print)

Additional address/attention line

Street address

City, State, Zip Code

Daytime phone including area code

Purchase order number (optional)

For privacy protection, check the box below:

�� Do not make my name available to other mailer’s

Check method of payment:

� Check payable to Superintendent of Documents

� GPO Deposit Account

� VISA � MasterCard

(Expiration date)

Authorizing signature 10/08

Mail To: Superintendent of DocumentsP.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954

Charge your order.It’s easy!

To Fax your ordersTo phone your orders

(202) 512-2250(202) 512-1800

Thank you foryour order!

Feedback to the Editor

History Division is solicitinginput from the readers of

Fortitudine, regarding the cur-rent format, and future articles—feature topics, types of articles(history making news versus his-tory stories)—and value to yourunderstanding of Marine Corpshistory.If you have comments about

Fortitudine or about the numberof magazines you receive, pleasecontact me.

[email protected] Editor, Fortitudine