Compass Points - Alternate Universe 2
Hudson Institute will hold an event.
Compass Points - Alternate Universe 2
Hudson Institute will hold an event.
January 19, 2024
.
Watch out Bryan and Dan! The presentation you receive this coming Thursday will be very much like the presentation from back in 2022.
.
Compass Points wants to help Hudson Institute Senior Fellows Bryan Clark and Dan Patt as they prepare to sit down on the morning of Thursday, January 25, 2024, for a discussion about the Marine Corps with the assistant commandant, General Mahoney.
.
The announcement of the event says so much about the Marine Corps in just a few words. For example, the announcement claims the Marine Corps . . .
.
=============
.
. . . is always ready to respond to crises and conflicts in every theater . . .
-- Hudson Institute
.
=============
.
Is it true the Marine Corps is still the premier crisis response force it once was? General Mahoney has a standard set of talking points he uses to assure news reporters, members of Congress, and think tank strategists that the Marine Corps still has the same set of expeditionary combat capabilities it once had.
.
For example, back in November of 2022, General Mahoney was the speaker at a Marine Corps Association luncheon where he gave remarks that he dubbed, "Myth Busters." Beware Hudson Institute, next Thursday January 25th he will try to use the same worn-out arguments from the 'Myth Busters' presentation.
.
1. The presentation implies Marines who raise concerns about FD 2030 are out of touch. Not true. Those who express concerns about FD 2030 are a wide and growing group. Many are retirees – some retired years ago, some only months ago, but all remain involved with the defense and national security community as subject matter experts, mentors, teachers, researchers, wargamers, and so forth.
.
2. The presentation suggests those who raise concerns about FD 2030 are victims of “old-think.” Not true. Those who question FD 2030 advocate instead, a modern Marine Air Ground Task Force equipped with the latest technology, a force able to respond rapidly across the globe on short notice with units able to fire, maneuver, and employ information in an era of precision guided munitions. Nothing old-think about this vision.
.
3. The presentation also asserts the National Defense Strategy forced the Corps to reorganize around missile batteries and littoral combat teams to confront the Chinese Navy. Not true. Compass Points has been told that the former Secretary of Defense who signed the 2018 NDS has confirmed he never envisioned the Corps’ wholesale restructuring.
.
4. The presentation suggests that Combatant Commanders wanted Marine Stand-in-Forces. Not true. According to three former Combatant Commanders who Compass Points talked with, Stand-in Forces may have marginal utility in the theaters for which they were responsible, but their successors will continue to need large robust combined arms MAGTFs.
.
5. The presentation asserts tanks and artillery are weapons of the past. Not true. No major military force in the world, except the Marine Corps, has given up either tanks or cannon artillery. None has any plans to. Tanks and cannon artillery are simply too useful. The failure of the presentation to mention what is happening in the ongoing war in Ukraine is astonishing. Artillery is the key weapon in the fighting in Ukraine.
.
6. The presentation fails to explain why advocates of FD 2030 abandon the “single battle” concept, where Marines fight the deep battle, the close battle, and the rear battle. Why forsake the close and rear battle? Why design a force with 14 missile batteries and only 7 cannon artillery batteries? The presentation is befuddling with the claim FD 2030 will add HIMARS batteries. A Headquarters Marine Corps chart shows 7 batteries in 2018 and 7 batteries in 2030. Not one added.
.
7. The presentation fails to explain how the Marine Corps could afford enough costly missiles for exercises and operations when a single Naval Strike Missile costs $1.7 million.
.
8. The presentation also fails to explain how these expensive missiles can be used to execute critical fire missions such as time-on-target fires, long duration prep fires, or high volume final protective fires.
.
9. The presentation asserts that “programmatically the ACE is in great shape.” Not true. How can Marine aviation be in great shape, programmatically, operationally, or realistically when it has lost approximately thirty percent of its aircraft? In some squadrons, the number of aircraft has been reduced to the point where the ability to operate in accordance with proven doctrine is compromised. That puts lives at risk, now and in the future.
.
10. The presentation claims that maneuver warfare in the Marine Corps was developed quickly, casually, and without discussion and debate. Not true. The enduring Marine Corps manual, Warfighting, and its philosophy was the product of some 10 years of debate across the Corps and in professional journals, research, studies, a multitude of wargames, and more importantly, hundreds of field exercises. In addition, the whole plan for Marines to change from offense to defense is anathema -- not only to maneuver warfare -- but to the history and ethos of the Corps.
.
11. The presentation asserts FD 2030 was developed using the Marine Combat Development Process. Not true. A small group created the concept in a series of closed meetings where the participants were constrained by non-disclosure agreements. General John A. LeJeune, just to name one Marine leader, never used non-disclosure agreements. He believed Marine officers were worthy of “special trust and confidence.”
.
12. The presentation asserts the radical restructuring of the Marine Corps was validated by a series of wargames. Not true. There was a series of official wargames, but the games were not fairly conducted or accurately interpreted.
.
Compass Points applauds the Hudson Institute, and all reporters, members of Congress, and think tank strategists for taking a hard look at the radical restructuring of the Marine Corps. Beware through, the assertions of official presentations are too often from an alternate universe. In the real universe, the Marine Corps still needs amphibious ships, prepositioning ships, air, armor, artillery, combat breaching and bridging, and more to arrive immediately around the globe, ready to deter, assist, and fight.
.
- - - - -
.
Hudson Institute
Defense Disruptors: A Conversation with General Christopher Mahoney
Event Date: January 25, 2024
.
- - - - -
.
Marine Corps Times (marinecorpstimes.com) 12/07/2022
This is the Marine Corps debate we should be having
By Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper
The Marines running full steam in adopting FD2030 ought to look at historical military innovations that have actually failed.
Looking back in the Germans “blitzkrieg” which revolutionary for its time and it worked very well because the Germans used armor in conjunction with infantry (combined arms). Compare the German innovation with that of the British innovation of using armor in WW I. The
Brits focused on the use of armor and armor alone which was not as successful, they performed rather poorly on the battlefield because support while in the attack.
The difference is, one was a combined mechanized force, while the other used one form of battle equipment.
Is FD2030 a rebirth of the British modernization effort of WW I?
Extremely good article and really hits the nail on the head.