AI is only as accurate as the sources it draws information from. It does it quickly. It has yet to apply some methodology to determine what is valid and what is fluff. It can be mislead.
Frankly, I could not care less what AI says about FD. I will wait until it can call the plays at the Super Bowl, can tell me which number to bet on in Las Vegas and racks up a credible record on a dating site. Not to mention that it can be fed false information by an enemy.
The facts remain. FD-2030 is an unmitigated farce that not just exposed the senior Marine leadership under the last two commandants as intellectually deficient but revealed a massive conspiracy of deceit and compromised integrity. Corporal Grable may hang his hat on the opinion of a Senator. I will form my own opinions based on 26 years of service as an infantry officer who has commanded a MAGTF, 60 years of reading and education and the experience of every living commandant as well as at least 60 officers I know. I am a second rate fellow but would love to debate Generals Berger and Smith in an unclassified or classified forum. No computer, no notes, no access to AI. They can bring anything or anyone they want. Formal debate rules.
We all know this will not happen. Forget about me. I can list 50 retired officers who would win the debate going away.
It is impossible to discuss this issue without taking into account the two principle drivers of FD-2030. Nothing else need be said.
It is my understanding that Force Design is not what the Corps was and is designed to do, and that it is a political invention with no military roots. I've spoken of this before. This article sheds light on a matter that, although I don't believe it's the centerpiece of the article, gives me great pause. You said "Instead, by the time the study process ran its course, the Marine Corps leadership had already moved the goalposts. They dropped the “2030” moniker from the title, changed battalion sizes slightly, and claimed they were already adapting. They effectively made the independent study look outdated before it was even printed. " Were you saying that CMC and his staff were lying about what was happening to defend FD even though it had already been proved defective? If so, they, the leadership responsible for this prevarication, should be publicly called out and appropriately, punitively, punished. It hurts my soul to think that those trusted with the sacred duty to lead our Corps have become nothing more than politicians.
As much as I am not a fan of "Grable", let's avoid nitpicking his MOS and time in service as the crux of the argument. Ad hominems are piss poor and pedigrees are not validation; It is the ideas that matter. In fact, one of my critiques of the pro FD(2030) crew is that they typically go straight to ad hominems vice merit of the ideas. Experience *can* be a factor, but is not always *the* factor.
Coons wore what uniform for how long? Seems if you have no real mastery of a topic, any well spoken line of BS might satisfy you. ( Congress is often supplied a cheat sheet for these things for ready reference. Definitions and such is included.)
Interesting post — particularly the part where AI was eventually “forced” to acknowledge reality.
Because reality is this:
“This committee has been very supportive of the Marine Corps force design reforms. They were thoughtfully put together, executed efficiently, and better placed Marines for modern combat.”
— Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE), Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, 21 May 2026
That statement was made publicly, on the record, during an actual congressional hearing involving the Commandant, CNO, and SECNAV — not generated through a chain of increasingly leading prompts designed to elicit a desired answer from AI.
Your post did accidentally get one thing right though:
“Chowder Society was boxed out.”
Yes. For roughly six years a handful of retired Marines have actively lobbied against two sitting Commandants, the Marine Corps’ modernization effort, and the direction supported by INDOPACOM, the Department, Congress, and multiple administrations.
And for roughly six years, they have remained boxed out of the actual decision-making process.
Not because nobody listened.
Because the people with access to the full threat picture, operational assessments, classified warfighting analysis, experimentation results, and Combatant Commander requirements reached different conclusions.
My friend you are absolutely wrong when you say a "handful of retired Marines." There are hundreds of retired generals and uncounted Marines of all ranks. This is a fact, not anything AI generated. I interact with them every day and I would be willing to testify under oath that there is a multitude of Marines angry about what the 38th and 39th CMCs did to their Corps. In the case of the general officers I have an email from everyone signing up to Chowder Society II's position. By the way, The Publisher tells me that Compass Points has multiple thousands of subscribers and the number increases daily; the vast majority are anti-Force Design.
"Because the people with access to the full threat picture, operational assessments, classified warfighting analysis, experimentation results, and Combatant Commander requirements reached different conclusions." Yeah man, that's why Vietnam and the Long War had those epic endings, right? Because Congress was very supportive of the services. That's not the Grade A stamp of approval you say it is...it is just as much a stamp of A-Poo-val. Congress approved of the DIVAD for quite a while before they didn't. Congress approved of the Pentomic Army for quite a while before they didn't. Congress approved of unlimited BRAC despite the future concerns. Congress approved of the reduction in Naval Shipyards without consideration of the Strategic concerns. That's weak sauce window dressing and a dodge from the merits of the discussion.
PS - I keep reading articles that also bit*ch about how some senior Active Duty Officers have been resisting some FD initiaitives. Which is it? FD is great....everyone loves it or FD is under attack from within? Or, some concepts are worthwhile, and the USMC is trying to get past the damage caused by FD as implemented?
Please send the articles you are referencing. I would genuinely like to read them.
I am particularly curious whether they identify names and sources, or whether this is similar to the oft-cited list of “100+ retired generals” who supposedly opposed Force Design—a list that, despite years of references, has never actually materialized.
Nobody is arguing Force Design is perfect. No military concept, doctrine, organization, or force structure ever is.
What is remarkable is not that Congress supports Force Design. What is remarkable is that Congress continues to support Force Design after six years of sustained opposition campaigns, congressional engagement, public criticism, articles, open letters, and even organized efforts specifically intended to stop it.
Congress has heard the arguments. They have heard from the critics. They have commissioned studies. They have held hearings. They have received briefings from both supporters and opponents.
And after all of that, they have continued to fund it.
That does not automatically make Force Design “perfect.” But it does suggest that the people with access to the briefings, intelligence assessments, operational analysis, Combatant Commander requirements, and classified threat information may be seeing a more complete picture than those of us relying solely on open-source debate.
At some point, it is reasonable to acknowledge that Congress was exposed to the opposition's case and chose to support the effort anyway.
First off, you are still dodging the discussion about the merits. For one, explain how EABO for SIF under FD works?
FD is marketing tripe, along with the "SIF" branding.
As far as the claims:
"The “Willful Blindness” of Leadership
Why is this happening? It is the result of an odd combination of bias, willful blindness, and a few well-placed former LAR commanders around the current CMC. For the Corps to admit that the LAR mission is now better served by a Marine in a hole with a laptop and a swarm of drones is to admit that a storied community is now obsolete. The LAR community, which is no different than the HMLA community, is not prepared to accept that." - https://centristlibertarianpatriot.substack.com/p/the-ghost-of-general-lejeune
It's a substack article...sue me. One of several examples claiming insider friction against FD.
“…Marine Corps’ modernization effort, and the direction supported by INDOPACOM…”
Really? Adm. Paparo has made public comments that indicate that the war plans he and his staff have developed do not count on any assistance from SIFs or addition to PACCOM’s combat power. Maybe you should scrub your talking points, Cpl.
AI is only as accurate as the sources it draws information from. It does it quickly. It has yet to apply some methodology to determine what is valid and what is fluff. It can be mislead.
Frankly, I could not care less what AI says about FD. I will wait until it can call the plays at the Super Bowl, can tell me which number to bet on in Las Vegas and racks up a credible record on a dating site. Not to mention that it can be fed false information by an enemy.
The facts remain. FD-2030 is an unmitigated farce that not just exposed the senior Marine leadership under the last two commandants as intellectually deficient but revealed a massive conspiracy of deceit and compromised integrity. Corporal Grable may hang his hat on the opinion of a Senator. I will form my own opinions based on 26 years of service as an infantry officer who has commanded a MAGTF, 60 years of reading and education and the experience of every living commandant as well as at least 60 officers I know. I am a second rate fellow but would love to debate Generals Berger and Smith in an unclassified or classified forum. No computer, no notes, no access to AI. They can bring anything or anyone they want. Formal debate rules.
We all know this will not happen. Forget about me. I can list 50 retired officers who would win the debate going away.
It is impossible to discuss this issue without taking into account the two principle drivers of FD-2030. Nothing else need be said.
Oooh-rahh Sir!
It is my understanding that Force Design is not what the Corps was and is designed to do, and that it is a political invention with no military roots. I've spoken of this before. This article sheds light on a matter that, although I don't believe it's the centerpiece of the article, gives me great pause. You said "Instead, by the time the study process ran its course, the Marine Corps leadership had already moved the goalposts. They dropped the “2030” moniker from the title, changed battalion sizes slightly, and claimed they were already adapting. They effectively made the independent study look outdated before it was even printed. " Were you saying that CMC and his staff were lying about what was happening to defend FD even though it had already been proved defective? If so, they, the leadership responsible for this prevarication, should be publicly called out and appropriately, punitively, punished. It hurts my soul to think that those trusted with the sacred duty to lead our Corps have become nothing more than politicians.
Corporal Gable (a.k.a. Mr. Button, TruthToSoup, & Red Cell Realist) often provides kool-aide drinking Forces Design comments on Compass Points.
Easy to see that most of his comments are AI generated.
Corporal Gable seems to always take the opposite side especially with more experienced contributors (senior officers).
He likes pulling the chain of anyone senior.
Prove me wrong.
Corporal Gable is Nick Coffman:
- Served as enlisted 2007 - 12.
- A Comm IT MOS.
- Highest rank Sgt.
- HQ 8th Marines in Iraq then MarForComLant Comm.
- Want-a-be Recon/MarSOC.
I assume he was disciplined and hates officers.
I have read some of his articles and watched some YouTube’s of him. I am not impressed.
Search the net:
Nick Coffman and Marine
To open the below link you have to sign up for a free subscription to SOFREP.
https://sofrep.com/news/4-star-liars-moral-decay-senior-military-officers/
As much as I am not a fan of "Grable", let's avoid nitpicking his MOS and time in service as the crux of the argument. Ad hominems are piss poor and pedigrees are not validation; It is the ideas that matter. In fact, one of my critiques of the pro FD(2030) crew is that they typically go straight to ad hominems vice merit of the ideas. Experience *can* be a factor, but is not always *the* factor.
Oooh-rahh Sir!
Coons wore what uniform for how long? Seems if you have no real mastery of a topic, any well spoken line of BS might satisfy you. ( Congress is often supplied a cheat sheet for these things for ready reference. Definitions and such is included.)
Recommend reading Cpl Gable’s SOFREP article.
Absolutely, AI is a tool. You are the master. You control it, never simply trust it, direct and verify the source it cites. AI is an IT.
Interesting post — particularly the part where AI was eventually “forced” to acknowledge reality.
Because reality is this:
“This committee has been very supportive of the Marine Corps force design reforms. They were thoughtfully put together, executed efficiently, and better placed Marines for modern combat.”
— Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE), Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, 21 May 2026
That statement was made publicly, on the record, during an actual congressional hearing involving the Commandant, CNO, and SECNAV — not generated through a chain of increasingly leading prompts designed to elicit a desired answer from AI.
Your post did accidentally get one thing right though:
“Chowder Society was boxed out.”
Yes. For roughly six years a handful of retired Marines have actively lobbied against two sitting Commandants, the Marine Corps’ modernization effort, and the direction supported by INDOPACOM, the Department, Congress, and multiple administrations.
And for roughly six years, they have remained boxed out of the actual decision-making process.
Not because nobody listened.
Because the people with access to the full threat picture, operational assessments, classified warfighting analysis, experimentation results, and Combatant Commander requirements reached different conclusions.
My friend you are absolutely wrong when you say a "handful of retired Marines." There are hundreds of retired generals and uncounted Marines of all ranks. This is a fact, not anything AI generated. I interact with them every day and I would be willing to testify under oath that there is a multitude of Marines angry about what the 38th and 39th CMCs did to their Corps. In the case of the general officers I have an email from everyone signing up to Chowder Society II's position. By the way, The Publisher tells me that Compass Points has multiple thousands of subscribers and the number increases daily; the vast majority are anti-Force Design.
Yet those “hundreds of retired general officers” (up from the 117 you claimed last year) remain silent? They rely on you to speak for them?
Ok.
"Because the people with access to the full threat picture, operational assessments, classified warfighting analysis, experimentation results, and Combatant Commander requirements reached different conclusions." Yeah man, that's why Vietnam and the Long War had those epic endings, right? Because Congress was very supportive of the services. That's not the Grade A stamp of approval you say it is...it is just as much a stamp of A-Poo-val. Congress approved of the DIVAD for quite a while before they didn't. Congress approved of the Pentomic Army for quite a while before they didn't. Congress approved of unlimited BRAC despite the future concerns. Congress approved of the reduction in Naval Shipyards without consideration of the Strategic concerns. That's weak sauce window dressing and a dodge from the merits of the discussion.
PS - I keep reading articles that also bit*ch about how some senior Active Duty Officers have been resisting some FD initiaitives. Which is it? FD is great....everyone loves it or FD is under attack from within? Or, some concepts are worthwhile, and the USMC is trying to get past the damage caused by FD as implemented?
Please send the articles you are referencing. I would genuinely like to read them.
I am particularly curious whether they identify names and sources, or whether this is similar to the oft-cited list of “100+ retired generals” who supposedly opposed Force Design—a list that, despite years of references, has never actually materialized.
Nobody is arguing Force Design is perfect. No military concept, doctrine, organization, or force structure ever is.
What is remarkable is not that Congress supports Force Design. What is remarkable is that Congress continues to support Force Design after six years of sustained opposition campaigns, congressional engagement, public criticism, articles, open letters, and even organized efforts specifically intended to stop it.
Congress has heard the arguments. They have heard from the critics. They have commissioned studies. They have held hearings. They have received briefings from both supporters and opponents.
And after all of that, they have continued to fund it.
That does not automatically make Force Design “perfect.” But it does suggest that the people with access to the briefings, intelligence assessments, operational analysis, Combatant Commander requirements, and classified threat information may be seeing a more complete picture than those of us relying solely on open-source debate.
At some point, it is reasonable to acknowledge that Congress was exposed to the opposition's case and chose to support the effort anyway.
First off, you are still dodging the discussion about the merits. For one, explain how EABO for SIF under FD works?
FD is marketing tripe, along with the "SIF" branding.
As far as the claims:
"The “Willful Blindness” of Leadership
Why is this happening? It is the result of an odd combination of bias, willful blindness, and a few well-placed former LAR commanders around the current CMC. For the Corps to admit that the LAR mission is now better served by a Marine in a hole with a laptop and a swarm of drones is to admit that a storied community is now obsolete. The LAR community, which is no different than the HMLA community, is not prepared to accept that." - https://centristlibertarianpatriot.substack.com/p/the-ghost-of-general-lejeune
It's a substack article...sue me. One of several examples claiming insider friction against FD.
Thanks for sending.
Saw the article earlier today. It raises some interesting points.
That said, it is written by a retired Colonel . . . A far cry from, “some senior Active Duty Officers.”
read for content....
“…Marine Corps’ modernization effort, and the direction supported by INDOPACOM…”
Really? Adm. Paparo has made public comments that indicate that the war plans he and his staff have developed do not count on any assistance from SIFs or addition to PACCOM’s combat power. Maybe you should scrub your talking points, Cpl.