The General has been unfailingly on target over the past six years. Amphibious Assault gives the nation a forced entry capability no other nation has to the degree that the Marine Corps could execute it. Every mission short of amphibious assault scaled down from that and was a hallmark of flexibility and task organization.
The Corps, prior to FD-2030, continuously innovated, adapted, modernized and adjusted in the open forum of professional discussion, debate and informed exchanges. FD-2030 unfolded in secrecy, with nondisclosure, threats, insults and obstinacy. This drove a huge wedge into the smallest of the US military forces in breech of culture and integrity. In so doing it dealt a serious blow to the Esprit de Corps that was the timeless foundation of our elite fighting force. It followed a tumultuous period of 30 years of Congressionally imposed cultural policies that Marines discussed and debated but, once decisions were made and against their better judgment, saluted and instituted. To make matters worse, legions of experienced individuals saw FD-2030’s glaring flaws and delusional assumptions and knew it could be a fatal reorganization.
FD-2030 was different. It was internally hatched in a conspiratorial manner and implemented in the most draconian fashion. The blow to institutional integrity was glaring. The keystone was a betrayal of the most fundamental core values of integrity and trust. That betrayal had taken this battle beyond equipment, tactics and Strategy as important as those are. The implementation attacked the heart and soul of the Corps. The intangibles of Semper Fi matter.
I was told for years that the job of the US Marines was to project sea power ashore. Force Design 2030 obviously doesn’t do that or anything close to it. To project sea power ashore requires combat power and FD 2030 reduces Marine combat power. Go back to tanks, artillery, and outstanding training and preparation for intense combat. Use the carriers for air power & fleet assets for naval gunfire including missiles for support. The old concepts that focused on combat power worked and should still work.
The Corps should restore all armor and artillery platforms, as well as returning to the pre-FD2030 unit TOEs, and reinstitute STA platoons and the USMC Scout Sniper Schools! I would strongly recommend going to a much lighter yet more lethal main battle tanks in lieu of the M1 Abrams tanks tho... the current ACV is a disastrous "upgrade" to the legendary AAVs and should be again upgraded to a newer version of the famous track vehicles...
The problem with Force design 2030 is focused China in a regional conflict. The PRC is a global actor not regional so focusing on a regional aspect for developing a force design structure is wrong. The MAGTF is a global asset that can maneuver worldwide, adapt to the mission/s, sustain the force and win against our enemies. The PRC’s Belt and Road Initiative global locations should be the focus for wargames that use the power of the MAGTF and demonstrate how USMC can counter PRC actions on a global basis vice a regional focus.
General McAbee's comments are spot on. The Marine Corps is a Global force, with Global responsibilities. The Marine amphibious force is America's ready, rapid-deployment force. FD restricts Marine Corps capabilities. While most people think of amphibious operations as Tarawa, Normandy, or Okinawa type operations, that is not always the case. Amphibious operations are a way of getting from ship to shore. They are not always contested or "storm landings." While China is now the pacing threat, there are other bad actors on the world stage. During the Cold War while the USSR was our main threat, there were numerous amphibious landings conducted by the Marine Corps: Dominican Republic, Haiti, Somalia, and Grenada, are just a few. The ready amphibious force gives the President and Combatant Commanders a ready force option.
Well delivered succinct argument. As usual from the General. America will look at the next international crisis and ask “ where are OUR Marines?” The answer, “widely distributed across the Pacific. Give us a month and those Marines will row right on over!”
You provided BGen McAbee’s thoughts. I’ll provide some thoughts from a few other folks. .
Several senators, representatives, and senior military officers have expressed support for the Marine Corps’ force design efforts, particularly Force Design 2030, which focuses on modernizing for naval expeditionary warfare and countering threats from China and Russia.
Representative Mike Gallagher emphasized its strategic alignment, noting, “The Marines are rightly adapting to the National Defense Strategy, prioritizing lethality and forward presence in the Indo-Pacific.”
Senator Angus King highlighted the bipartisan support, affirmed that “Force Design initiatives have been informed and directed by hard threat data across multiple administrations to accelerate modernization to meet the challenges of the 21st Century environment.”
Representative Rob Wittman commended the Corps’ focus, saying, “I think Force Design 2030 is exactly the course that needs to be pursued by the Marine Corps. … They are looking at a very complex environment where they have to move around, they have to be able to create uncertainty… they have to be adaptive, flexible, and mobile.”
Representative Seth Moulton, a former Marine, stated, “”[The] Marine Corps continues to lead the Joint Force in Service‑level modernization and redesign. … These prioritized efforts have increased lethality, mobility, and survivability to maintain a competitive advantage over our pacing competitor, China.”
Senator Dan Sullivan also weighed in during a Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support hearing on March 12, 2025, Chairman Sullivan stating,
“Force Design … a bold and important initiative that I have complimented the Commandant of the Marine Corps on.”
In his opening remarks at a House Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee hearing (FY 2024 budget), Waltz said: “I applaud force modernization taking place across the services. We support … the Marine Corps’ Force Design 2030.”
Senator Hirono helped secure funding for Marine Littoral Regiments and related platforms (LPD‑33) to ensure the U.S. military can deter aggression and respond effectively in the Pacific region:
“Authorizes full funding of LPD‑33 in order to support the Marine Corps’ future ability to deter aggression in the Pacific …”
AND
“Recognizes the importance of land forces in the Pacific with an emphasis on … Marine Corps Marine Littoral Regiments.”
Representative Joe Courtney on the Marine Corps’ Force Design, expressing a positive stance: “Force Design 2030 is a bold step forward for the Marine Corps, equipping them to meet the challenges of modern warfare in contested environments with agility and precision.” This quote comes from a 2022 statement in a House Armed Services Committee press release, where Courtney discussed the importance of supporting the Marine Corps’ modernization efforts, including Force Design 2030, during a hearing on naval expeditionary capabilities.
Adm. Michael Gilday, Chief of Naval Operations (CNO). While testifying before Congress, Adm. Gilday strongly endorsed Force Design in relation to Navy operations:
“General Berger’s Force Design speaks directly to that … this is from the land … the ability to not only control the seas but deny it to an adversary … you can move around. That is where Navy‑Marine integration gets real.”
Navy Admiral James G. Stavridis, retired Supreme Allied Commander at NATO, noted, “Force Design 2030 aligns the Marines perfectly with naval strategy, enhancing our ability to project power in the Pacific.”
Stubbs is a senior strategist in the U.S. Navy establishment: “The logic underlying Force Design 2030 is rock solid … dispatching roving, elusive units of sensor‑ and missile‑equipped Marines … to help the Navy deny China’s … command of the sea.”
General Kenneth F. McKenzie, former CENTCOM commander, praised it, saying, “The Marines’ shift to a lighter, more agile force enhances our ability to counter peer threats like China.”
Admirals Eugene H. Black & Robert Burke explicitly quoted praising Marine Littoral Regiments and littoral forces operating under Force Design concepts in contested maritime zones.
Admiral Michael M. Gilday, former Chief of Naval Operations: “Force Design 2030 strengthens the Navy-Marine Corps team, integrating distributed maritime operations to project power and deter aggression in contested environments.”
Admiral Lisa Franchetti, Chief of Naval Operations: “Force Design 2030’s focus on littoral regiments and expeditionary advanced base operations strengthens the Navy-Marine Corps partnership, ensuring we can project power and maintain sea control against peer adversaries.”
In her Senate confirmation documents, Adm. Franchetti affirmed Force Design’s integration with naval strategy: “With our Marine Corps teammates, this will be done by accelerating our Force Design imperatives to support Distributed Maritime Operations (DMO), Expeditionary Advanced Basing Operations (EABO), and Littoral Operations in a Contested Environment (LOCE)
Former Deputy Secretary of Defense & Undersecretary of the Navy, Bob Work In an article defending Force Design, Work—who helped shape force planning at the Pentagon—called out critics and defended the initiative as visionary. He argued that modernization reform of the Marine Corps is long overdue and essential to meet near-peer competition
Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), retired Army helicopter pilot. “The Marine Corps’ modernization under Force Design 2030 is vital to maintaining our competitive edge and defending our interests in the Indo-Pacific.”
So I continue to ask where are the MEUs? Where are your NAMs? Where are your combat ready missile batteries? And, most importantly have you solved the logistics problem?
All of these quotes are very pretty, but Congress is like a six month old child, very easily distracted by any shiny object put in front of them.
The PrSM, unlike the NSM is a state of the art strike missile. It out ranges and out performs the NSM in every category. It is employable from a HIMARS NOW not some six years down the road.
My question on where are the MEUs is directly related to this article. Can the Marine Corps place a MEU at each end of the Panama Canal, NOW? If required can the Marine Corps field pre-positioned equipment in Panama to scale up to two MEBs and eventually a MEF?
Lastly, I recommend you read the Substack column today by CDR. Salamander regarding the Arctic.
Can the Marine Corps field a MEB or even a MEB in the Arctic, NOW, either as a standalone operation or at the same time as operating in Panama and/or at the same time operating in WESTPAC?
Keep those priceless quotes from the six month olds in Congress coming, and while your at it please forward us the Power Points HQMC used to lie to Congress about the abilities of FD. We’d all find them very amusing. I have to hand it to you Cpl. your more fun jumping through hoops than a trained seal.
Excuse the intemperate length here, but the impressive collection of almost two dozen quotes in favor of FD2030 (especially with links to the references) deserves a response.
Unfortunately most of them fail the "so what?" test. Many reminded me of those infuriating ads on television where someone is explaining the virtues of "the product" with comments like "this is great, I PROMISE YOU," or boldly stating that "I have the paperwork to prove it" - to prove...what? These quotes do not explain what makes FD a warfighting marvel, nor do they counter criticisms of FD. Asserting greatness requires data, and it ain't there.
Half of the comments are from members of Congress, and provide no substance, just asserting that the Marines are taking a "bold step", or applauding "force modernization", or that FD is an "important initiative". Some actually think this is "strengthening deterrence" (how?), or "prioritizing lethality" (with what?).
Or one of my favorites, that the Marines will meet the challenges by being "adaptive, flexible, and mobile." Sounds like a phrase from a three random word generator. It would have been more effective to say the Marines would be "mobile, agile, and hostile" (thanks Denzel Washington in Remember the Titans). Or that the Corps would now "adapt, improvise, and overcome" (thanks Gunny Highway, I think). Hackneyed comments do not inspire confidence.
Representative Moulton (D, MA-6) does indeed have a great USMC background (rifle platoon commander in the 2003 battle of Nasariyah), but that doesn't make it true that with FD2030 the Marines are leading "...the Joint Force in Service-level modernization and redesign." The Army's innovative Multi-Domain Task Forces surely present the Combatant Commander with more and better operations that the SIF...
And all the Navy kudos for FD2030 should be expected. The Marines don't need big-deck amphibs any more, and now won't even get any little ones. That frees up lots of bucks for the real Navy! And the enthusiastic description of "roving and elusive units of sensor- and missile-equipped Marines" makes me think the Navy has successfully returned Marines to a modern version of sharpshooters in the rigging - and even better, has gotten them off the ships and left them to fend for themselves on scattered islands in the South China Sea.
Seriously disappointing was Admiral Stavidris (co-author of two great future war novels, 2034 and 2054) who thought FD2030 "aligns the Marines perfectly with naval strategy, enhancing our ability to project power in the Pacific.” Sure, and that was CMC Berger's goal, to tuck in under the Navy. But as a former Supreme Allied Commander Europe, you'd think Stavidris would consider that Marines must contribute to more than naval strategy, but to theater strategy. And how is the SIF projecting power when it can't even feed itself?
So all these quotes don't do anything to argue that FD2030 has any military or geopolitical substance. Just that it is "really, really great"! I promise!
In my years of teaching, I learned that students do not react well to having the letters BS written on their work. So I came up with B3, which fits the testimonies collected above : "Blah, Blah, Blah." As Macbeth said, signifying nothing.
Bravo Zulu BGen McAbee for your rebuke of the flawed and disastrous FD2030 and its effect on our Corps! VISION2035 is a MUST to save and restore our Corps and its MAGTF lethality and capabilities!
The General has been unfailingly on target over the past six years. Amphibious Assault gives the nation a forced entry capability no other nation has to the degree that the Marine Corps could execute it. Every mission short of amphibious assault scaled down from that and was a hallmark of flexibility and task organization.
The Corps, prior to FD-2030, continuously innovated, adapted, modernized and adjusted in the open forum of professional discussion, debate and informed exchanges. FD-2030 unfolded in secrecy, with nondisclosure, threats, insults and obstinacy. This drove a huge wedge into the smallest of the US military forces in breech of culture and integrity. In so doing it dealt a serious blow to the Esprit de Corps that was the timeless foundation of our elite fighting force. It followed a tumultuous period of 30 years of Congressionally imposed cultural policies that Marines discussed and debated but, once decisions were made and against their better judgment, saluted and instituted. To make matters worse, legions of experienced individuals saw FD-2030’s glaring flaws and delusional assumptions and knew it could be a fatal reorganization.
FD-2030 was different. It was internally hatched in a conspiratorial manner and implemented in the most draconian fashion. The blow to institutional integrity was glaring. The keystone was a betrayal of the most fundamental core values of integrity and trust. That betrayal had taken this battle beyond equipment, tactics and Strategy as important as those are. The implementation attacked the heart and soul of the Corps. The intangibles of Semper Fi matter.
I was told for years that the job of the US Marines was to project sea power ashore. Force Design 2030 obviously doesn’t do that or anything close to it. To project sea power ashore requires combat power and FD 2030 reduces Marine combat power. Go back to tanks, artillery, and outstanding training and preparation for intense combat. Use the carriers for air power & fleet assets for naval gunfire including missiles for support. The old concepts that focused on combat power worked and should still work.
The Corps should restore all armor and artillery platforms, as well as returning to the pre-FD2030 unit TOEs, and reinstitute STA platoons and the USMC Scout Sniper Schools! I would strongly recommend going to a much lighter yet more lethal main battle tanks in lieu of the M1 Abrams tanks tho... the current ACV is a disastrous "upgrade" to the legendary AAVs and should be again upgraded to a newer version of the famous track vehicles...
The problem with Force design 2030 is focused China in a regional conflict. The PRC is a global actor not regional so focusing on a regional aspect for developing a force design structure is wrong. The MAGTF is a global asset that can maneuver worldwide, adapt to the mission/s, sustain the force and win against our enemies. The PRC’s Belt and Road Initiative global locations should be the focus for wargames that use the power of the MAGTF and demonstrate how USMC can counter PRC actions on a global basis vice a regional focus.
General McAbee's comments are spot on. The Marine Corps is a Global force, with Global responsibilities. The Marine amphibious force is America's ready, rapid-deployment force. FD restricts Marine Corps capabilities. While most people think of amphibious operations as Tarawa, Normandy, or Okinawa type operations, that is not always the case. Amphibious operations are a way of getting from ship to shore. They are not always contested or "storm landings." While China is now the pacing threat, there are other bad actors on the world stage. During the Cold War while the USSR was our main threat, there were numerous amphibious landings conducted by the Marine Corps: Dominican Republic, Haiti, Somalia, and Grenada, are just a few. The ready amphibious force gives the President and Combatant Commanders a ready force option.
Well delivered succinct argument. As usual from the General. America will look at the next international crisis and ask “ where are OUR Marines?” The answer, “widely distributed across the Pacific. Give us a month and those Marines will row right on over!”
You provided BGen McAbee’s thoughts. I’ll provide some thoughts from a few other folks. .
Several senators, representatives, and senior military officers have expressed support for the Marine Corps’ force design efforts, particularly Force Design 2030, which focuses on modernizing for naval expeditionary warfare and countering threats from China and Russia.
Senator Roger Wicker has praised the initiative, saying Force Design is “geared toward strengthening deterrence against China”—highlighting its central role in responding to Beijing’s military expansion. https://www.wicker.senate.gov/2023/6/wicker-calls-for-action-in-marine-corps-commandant-confirmation-hearing
Representative Mike Gallagher emphasized its strategic alignment, noting, “The Marines are rightly adapting to the National Defense Strategy, prioritizing lethality and forward presence in the Indo-Pacific.”
https://news.usni.org/2020/01/15/rep-gallagher-u-s-needs-more-agile-forces-in-the-pacific#:~:text=The%20threat%20from%20Iran's%20missile,kingdom's%20production%20capability%2C%20he%20added.
Senator Angus King highlighted the bipartisan support, affirmed that “Force Design initiatives have been informed and directed by hard threat data across multiple administrations to accelerate modernization to meet the challenges of the 21st Century environment.”
https://www.rounds.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/rounds-manchin-lead-bipartisan-bicameral-letter-urging-investments-to-modernize-marines
Representative Rob Wittman commended the Corps’ focus, saying, “I think Force Design 2030 is exactly the course that needs to be pursued by the Marine Corps. … They are looking at a very complex environment where they have to move around, they have to be able to create uncertainty… they have to be adaptive, flexible, and mobile.”
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/force-design-2030-gets-marines-ready-next-war-204849/
Representative Seth Moulton, a former Marine, stated, “”[The] Marine Corps continues to lead the Joint Force in Service‑level modernization and redesign. … These prioritized efforts have increased lethality, mobility, and survivability to maintain a competitive advantage over our pacing competitor, China.”
Senator Dan Sullivan also weighed in during a Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support hearing on March 12, 2025, Chairman Sullivan stating,
“Force Design … a bold and important initiative that I have complimented the Commandant of the Marine Corps on.”
https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/23-42_05-02-2023.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com
In his opening remarks at a House Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee hearing (FY 2024 budget), Waltz said: “I applaud force modernization taking place across the services. We support … the Marine Corps’ Force Design 2030.”
https://www.congress.gov/118/chrg/CHRG-118hhrg53874/CHRG-118hhrg53874.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Representative Mike Rogers echoed this, noting, “Force Design 2030 equips our Marines for the fight of the future, not the past.”
https://armedservices.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1681&utm_source=chatgpt.com
Senator Hirono helped secure funding for Marine Littoral Regiments and related platforms (LPD‑33) to ensure the U.S. military can deter aggression and respond effectively in the Pacific region:
“Authorizes full funding of LPD‑33 in order to support the Marine Corps’ future ability to deter aggression in the Pacific …”
AND
“Recognizes the importance of land forces in the Pacific with an emphasis on … Marine Corps Marine Littoral Regiments.”
https://www.hirono.senate.gov/news/press-releases/hirono-secures-key-priorities-for-hawaii-and-pacific-region-in-committee-markup-of-annual-defense-bill
Representative Joe Courtney on the Marine Corps’ Force Design, expressing a positive stance: “Force Design 2030 is a bold step forward for the Marine Corps, equipping them to meet the challenges of modern warfare in contested environments with agility and precision.” This quote comes from a 2022 statement in a House Armed Services Committee press release, where Courtney discussed the importance of supporting the Marine Corps’ modernization efforts, including Force Design 2030, during a hearing on naval expeditionary capabilities.
Adm. Michael Gilday, Chief of Naval Operations (CNO). While testifying before Congress, Adm. Gilday strongly endorsed Force Design in relation to Navy operations:
“General Berger’s Force Design speaks directly to that … this is from the land … the ability to not only control the seas but deny it to an adversary … you can move around. That is where Navy‑Marine integration gets real.”
Navy Admiral James G. Stavridis, retired Supreme Allied Commander at NATO, noted, “Force Design 2030 aligns the Marines perfectly with naval strategy, enhancing our ability to project power in the Pacific.”
https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/Testimony/display-testimony/Article/2590426/cno-gilday-at-hac-d-navy-posture-hearing/cno-gilday-at-hac-d-navy-posture-hearing/?utm
Bruce Stubbs, Former Strategy Director (OPNAV N7)
Stubbs is a senior strategist in the U.S. Navy establishment: “The logic underlying Force Design 2030 is rock solid … dispatching roving, elusive units of sensor‑ and missile‑equipped Marines … to help the Navy deny China’s … command of the sea.”
https://maritime-executive.com/index.php/editorials/u-s-navy-force-planning-with-a-pertinacious-marine-corps
General Kenneth F. McKenzie, former CENTCOM commander, praised it, saying, “The Marines’ shift to a lighter, more agile force enhances our ability to counter peer threats like China.”
https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/the-marines-transformed-to-take-on-china-will-they-be-ready-for-everything-else-d4ea24c6#:~:text=To%20meet%20it%2C%20the%20Marines,Chinese%20fleet%20in%20a%20conflict.
Admirals Eugene H. Black & Robert Burke explicitly quoted praising Marine Littoral Regiments and littoral forces operating under Force Design concepts in contested maritime zones.
https://cimsec.org/navy-force-planning-with-a-pertinacious-marine-corps/?utm
Admiral Michael M. Gilday, former Chief of Naval Operations: “Force Design 2030 strengthens the Navy-Marine Corps team, integrating distributed maritime operations to project power and deter aggression in contested environments.”
Admiral Lisa Franchetti, Chief of Naval Operations: “Force Design 2030’s focus on littoral regiments and expeditionary advanced base operations strengthens the Navy-Marine Corps partnership, ensuring we can project power and maintain sea control against peer adversaries.”
In her Senate confirmation documents, Adm. Franchetti affirmed Force Design’s integration with naval strategy: “With our Marine Corps teammates, this will be done by accelerating our Force Design imperatives to support Distributed Maritime Operations (DMO), Expeditionary Advanced Basing Operations (EABO), and Littoral Operations in a Contested Environment (LOCE)
https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/franchetti_apq_responses.pdf?utm
https://www.dvidshub.net/video/897056/senate-committee-considers-navy-nominee-part-1
Former Deputy Secretary of Defense & Undersecretary of the Navy, Bob Work In an article defending Force Design, Work—who helped shape force planning at the Pentagon—called out critics and defended the initiative as visionary. He argued that modernization reform of the Marine Corps is long overdue and essential to meet near-peer competition
https://tnsr.org/2023/05/marine-force-design-changes-overdue-despite-critics-claims/
Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), retired Army helicopter pilot. “The Marine Corps’ modernization under Force Design 2030 is vital to maintaining our competitive edge and defending our interests in the Indo-Pacific.”
— Press release, 2023 https://www.duckworth.senate.gov/news/press-releases
So I continue to ask where are the MEUs? Where are your NAMs? Where are your combat ready missile batteries? And, most importantly have you solved the logistics problem?
All of these quotes are very pretty, but Congress is like a six month old child, very easily distracted by any shiny object put in front of them.
Here are a few articles for you to ponder, Cpl.
https://thedefensepost.com/2025/07/28/australia-test-fires-prsm/
The PrSM, unlike the NSM is a state of the art strike missile. It out ranges and out performs the NSM in every category. It is employable from a HIMARS NOW not some six years down the road.
https://thefederalist.com/2025/08/04/trump-must-resist-beijings-attempts-to-sabotage-americas-panama-deal/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=trump-must-resist-beijings-attempts-to-sabotage-americas-panama-deal&utm_term=2025-08-04
My question on where are the MEUs is directly related to this article. Can the Marine Corps place a MEU at each end of the Panama Canal, NOW? If required can the Marine Corps field pre-positioned equipment in Panama to scale up to two MEBs and eventually a MEF?
Lastly, I recommend you read the Substack column today by CDR. Salamander regarding the Arctic.
Can the Marine Corps field a MEB or even a MEB in the Arctic, NOW, either as a standalone operation or at the same time as operating in Panama and/or at the same time operating in WESTPAC?
Keep those priceless quotes from the six month olds in Congress coming, and while your at it please forward us the Power Points HQMC used to lie to Congress about the abilities of FD. We’d all find them very amusing. I have to hand it to you Cpl. your more fun jumping through hoops than a trained seal.
Amen! Semper Fi!
Excuse the intemperate length here, but the impressive collection of almost two dozen quotes in favor of FD2030 (especially with links to the references) deserves a response.
Unfortunately most of them fail the "so what?" test. Many reminded me of those infuriating ads on television where someone is explaining the virtues of "the product" with comments like "this is great, I PROMISE YOU," or boldly stating that "I have the paperwork to prove it" - to prove...what? These quotes do not explain what makes FD a warfighting marvel, nor do they counter criticisms of FD. Asserting greatness requires data, and it ain't there.
Half of the comments are from members of Congress, and provide no substance, just asserting that the Marines are taking a "bold step", or applauding "force modernization", or that FD is an "important initiative". Some actually think this is "strengthening deterrence" (how?), or "prioritizing lethality" (with what?).
Or one of my favorites, that the Marines will meet the challenges by being "adaptive, flexible, and mobile." Sounds like a phrase from a three random word generator. It would have been more effective to say the Marines would be "mobile, agile, and hostile" (thanks Denzel Washington in Remember the Titans). Or that the Corps would now "adapt, improvise, and overcome" (thanks Gunny Highway, I think). Hackneyed comments do not inspire confidence.
Representative Moulton (D, MA-6) does indeed have a great USMC background (rifle platoon commander in the 2003 battle of Nasariyah), but that doesn't make it true that with FD2030 the Marines are leading "...the Joint Force in Service-level modernization and redesign." The Army's innovative Multi-Domain Task Forces surely present the Combatant Commander with more and better operations that the SIF...
And all the Navy kudos for FD2030 should be expected. The Marines don't need big-deck amphibs any more, and now won't even get any little ones. That frees up lots of bucks for the real Navy! And the enthusiastic description of "roving and elusive units of sensor- and missile-equipped Marines" makes me think the Navy has successfully returned Marines to a modern version of sharpshooters in the rigging - and even better, has gotten them off the ships and left them to fend for themselves on scattered islands in the South China Sea.
Seriously disappointing was Admiral Stavidris (co-author of two great future war novels, 2034 and 2054) who thought FD2030 "aligns the Marines perfectly with naval strategy, enhancing our ability to project power in the Pacific.” Sure, and that was CMC Berger's goal, to tuck in under the Navy. But as a former Supreme Allied Commander Europe, you'd think Stavidris would consider that Marines must contribute to more than naval strategy, but to theater strategy. And how is the SIF projecting power when it can't even feed itself?
So all these quotes don't do anything to argue that FD2030 has any military or geopolitical substance. Just that it is "really, really great"! I promise!
In my years of teaching, I learned that students do not react well to having the letters BS written on their work. So I came up with B3, which fits the testimonies collected above : "Blah, Blah, Blah." As Macbeth said, signifying nothing.
Excellent perspective! Semper Fi!
Bravo Zulu BGen McAbee for your rebuke of the flawed and disastrous FD2030 and its effect on our Corps! VISION2035 is a MUST to save and restore our Corps and its MAGTF lethality and capabilities!