I agree with Samuel W’s opinion of the above article. A quick review of the authors shows that they are smart guys but, in my opinion, the 2030 Design is a product of a group think. We now know a little something about the 2030 Design perpetrators (not illegal, maybe “USMC” immoral, but definitely harmful).
Thinking about the future of warfighting is important. This crew’s thinking, however, is more in the 2050 category vs 2030. First 2030 Design did not follow the Joint Strategic Planning Guidance leaving the Commandant open to Congressional questions and criticisms. No one can predict the future of war fighting accurately nor the counters to breakthrough warfighting technologies. For that reason you have to build a flexible fighting organization that can rapidly adapt and I am thinking the beauty of the MAGTF here.
We are currently watching Red Sea Arliegh-Burke Destroyers counter the missile based A2AD strategy. Yes the Army and Marine Corps were distracted by the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fortunately the US Navy was not and stayed focus on the A2AD problem.
Commandant’s mistake was the decision to trade combat power for experimental tactical techniques produced by a group think. I say group think because the only justification for the implementation of 2030 Design was a set of classified war games use to discourage creative thinking.
In 2016 the British Government conducted an Inquiry (multi-volume and 100s of pages) to determine how they got involved in the Iraq War. The inquiry was not flattering of the decision that got their commitment to the Iraq war. The simple answer was their government and military policy makers fell victim to group think. The British Defense Ministry produced a document that condensed the inquiry: “The Good Operation; A handbook for those involved in operational policy and its implementation.” The good news is the handbook offers a remedy for group think called a “Reasonable Challenge”:
“The Iraq Inquiry (Chilcot) Report tells us that it’s important to avoid ‘groupthink’ as we develop policy, and the best antidote to that is reasonable challenge. An environment in which challenge is expected and accepted is important. People should be receptive to reasonable challenge and assume that it is provided with the best of intentions, while those offering challenge should know how to do so effectively. Challenge isn’t about proving someone right or wrong; rather it’s about highlighting and exploring alternative options. These cultures and behaviors reflect a healthy organization and we have created the following guide to support their development.” P.62
I don’t think that the Commandant or the 2030 Design Staff allowed or accepted a “Reason Challenge”. I think the Commandant backed the wrong crew and I will take the names like Krulak, Zinni, Wilhelm and Van Riper over his crew any day. Semper Fi
Members of the cabal of retired officers who worked in secret with the 39th CMC to produce Force Design 2030 are still writing for Marine Corps Gazette; see this month's edition. The Gazette is no longer the proud journal it was at one time and it certainly is not leading the discussions today as it did in the maneuver Warfare days.
Hi Ian, Brian's paper is good but the benefits of "AI Elephants" has yet to play out from all the newest, latest and better fanfare and it needs some time. A couple years ago "Big Data" was all the rage and AI is the next step-up; but "we will see". Remembering that opinions are like AHs, everyone has one. I also read Zach Ota's paper on Missiles and Coastal Defense. The US Army use to have the coastal defense mission. The US Army Missile Command should lead the charge for that mission (I am thinking of "Iron Dome" based on the Patriot Missile System and Radar.). You also have a Joint Advanced Warfighting School graduate on the team. The 2030 Design should have done a better job of leveraging the Joint Organization. To propose the replacement of Marine tanks with Army tanks was not enough. 2030 Logistics is another issue. You are not going to be able to resupply ground missile units hiding on pacific islands. In WW2 the Japanese attempted to supply their isolated forces with submarines and fast destroyers, it failed. The Wargame justification has taken a lot of hits; enough said. Ian, not sure of your location but I live in Raleigh, NC and do occasional get up to the DC/Quantico area and would like to meet you over coffee or a beer someday. Semper Fi.
Unfortunately, the comments of Gen's Krulak and Zinni will be attacked as the out of touch mutterings of 'boomers in somebody's pocket'. The greater misfortune is that the attacks will come from some in the active force that believe if it's on tiktok, it's for real and therefore are buying FD 2030 at face value. The irony is that the PLA, as advised by Sun Tzu, are quiet as a mouse while their adversary is busy making mistakes. Everything is easy until you do it.
When Generals Krulak and Zinni speak, everyone needs to listen. They both have a reputation for the truth regardless of the personal consequences. We call that moral courage, a term not well known today but remembered by those who have experienced it.
The article in “War on the Rocks” is beyond a word salad and it is nauseating, it is also insulting beyond words. In principal there is no point in refuting their arguments one by one. We are old thinkers, ergo dumb, lost souls, know nothings that ought to have a plaid shawl around our shoulders as we rock gently in our rockers on the porch of the old home for Marines. When you look at the brief career summaries of the authors of this too long defense of FD2030, all have a serious dog in the hunt for themselves and the success of “divest to invest.” If there were ever a reason to suspend the practice of sending any Marine to the Harvard Business School or any of the institutions named in their CV summaries, than their defense of the current situation in Ukraine and in the sea lanes of the Mediterranean and Red Sea ought to be clear justification of ending that practice. To take the example of the conflict in Ukraine as a stout defense of stand in forces is just not logical. The terrain in Odessa is currently denied because the Russian’s haven’t decided to attack it. If the Ukraine had a Marine Corps/Navy maybe they could have jointly feinted an amphibious assault coordinated with a land based assault that would have tied down Russian assets otherwise planned for use offensively elsewhere in the fight. Bite and Hold? Well at least it is going on the offense, however limited. How long do the authors think Odessa lasts if the Russians want it? How long does Taiwan last if the CCP really want it? (Does the CCP really want to invade Taiwan or just leave us tethered to a Taiwan tar baby, bleeding US assets and resources better used elsewhere?) Have we not heard that Japan and the Philippine’s are very skeptical of FD2030? The US Navy and 26th MEU have their hands full, 8-9 months on station so far, with in no relief in sight. How is that a good example of FD2030 being able to meet Title X mandates? One could go on and on, the transparency of their career climbing or to further now private or semi private consultancy organizations was mind boggling. At least try to pretend you aren’t looking for further promotion or another consulting gig.
This does however, present the thought towards an opportunity to put a serious thoughtful conference together somewhere, somehow that includes the proponents of FD2030 and the opponents and have it out. Invite as many members of Congress and or their staffs, whilst the consultants are running the traps on a report due to Congress, a big step is made to air out the differences between the old thinkers and the proponents of FD2030. It would be interesting to see how many Marines of every rank and MOS as well as civilian’s with an interest would sign up. Thanks to Samuel Whiitemore for bringing attention to the article. Everyone here ought to read it, it is insightful in terms of the thinking and logic being applied to support FD2030.
PS the intellectual arrogance displayed by some of the proponents of FD2030 is vexing. What war fairy tapped them all on the noggin and declared them military genius’? Oh right, it’s bonus enough to be a Marine, and because I said so, add in intellectual arrogance and you have something.....we are just smarter than you...really...
In my honest opinion, the elimination of so many Marine assets will only cause the MAGTF’s to not be able to fulfill their mission. It will undoubtedly end with an increase in capabilities and casualties.
Meanwhile in Afghanistan, the home Al Qaeda hosted by Taliban and precipitously abandoned. “BY BILL ROGGIO | February 1, 2024 | @billroggio
Al Qaeda opened eight new training camps, five madrasas, a weapons depot and safe houses in Afghanistan that are used to facilitate the movement of its members to and from Iran. Additionally, “the relationship between the Taliban and Al-Qaida remains close,” the United Nations Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team reported.
The presence of new Al Qaeda training camps and other infrastructure inside Afghanistan was disclosed by the United Nations Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team, which issued its latest report on Afghanistan on January 29.
The eight Al Qaeda camps have been opened in the provinces of Ghazni, Laghman, Parwan and Uruzgan. “Some camps might be temporary,” the Monitoring Team noted.
Al Qaeda is now operating training camps in 10 of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces. In its previous report, the Monitoring Team reported that Al Qaeda was operating training camps in Helmand, Zabul, Nangarhar, Nuristan, Badghis, and Kunar. An Al Qaeda leader known as Hakim al-Masri is “is responsible for the training camps and conducting suicide bomber training for TTP.”
In the central province of Panjshir, the former bastion of the anti-Taliban National Resistance Front, Al Qaeda has established a new base “to stockpile weaponry.” Al Qaeda is also operating five madrasas, or religious schools, in Laghman, Kunar, Nangarhar, Nuristan and Parwan provinces.
Al Qaeda and the Iran connection
In Herat, Farah and Helmand provinces, Al Qaeda “maintains safe houses to facilitate the movement [of members] between Afghanistan and the Islamic Republic of Iran,” as well as safe houses in Kabul.
At least one Al Qaeda safe house in Kabul was exposed in July 2022, when the U.S. killed Ayman al Zawahiri, the co-founder and previous emir of Al Qaeda. Zawahiri was killed in a drone strike as he sheltered in a safe house that was run by a lieutenant of Sirajuddin Haqqani, who is one of the Taliban’s two deputy emirs as well as the current interior minister. Sirajuddin’s powerful Haqqani Network is listed as a Foreign Terrorist Organization for its close ties to Al Qaeda. Sirajuddin and many of his top lieutenants are also labeled as Specially Designated Global Terrorists by the U.S.
The Monitoring Team’s previous report noted that Al Qaeda operated safe houses in these four provinces, but did not disclose that the infrastructure in Herat, Farah and Helmand were used to facilitate travel of leaders and members to and from Iran.
Herat, Farah and Helmand provinces are on the border with Iran, where Al Qaeda leaders are known to shelter. The Monitoring Team noted that “individuals travelling to provide liaison between Al Qaeda’s de facto leader, Saif al Adel, in the Islamic Republic of Iran and senior Al Qaeda figures in Afghanistan, including Abdul Rahman al-Ghamdi.”
“Six new Al-Qaida operatives were reported to have moved to eastern Afghanistan to join Katiba Umar Faruq under the leadership of Abu Ikhlas al-Masri.”
A previous Sanctions and Monitoring Team report noted that Abu Ikhlas al-Masri, a veteran Al Qaeda leader, had reestablished his unit in Kunar province after the fall of the Afghan government in August 2021. Prior to his capture by U.S. forces in 2010, Abu Ikhlas al-Masri ran training camps in Kunar, where he served as Al Qaeda’s chief of operations. Abu Ikhlas al-Masri and other Al Qaeda, Islamic State and other terrorist leaders and operatives were freed from Bagram prison after it fell to the Taliban in the summer of 2021.
The presence of top Al Qaeda leaders inside Iran has been documented by the U.S. government in numerous designations over the years. Other senior leaders known to have been operating inside Iran include ‘Abd al Rahman al Maghrebi, Yasin al Suri, Sa’ad bin Laden (now deceased), and Mustafa Hamid. [For a list of Al Qaeda leaders, operatives and facilitators operating in Iran, see FDD’s Long War Journal report, U.S. identifies additional al Qaeda leaders in Iran.]
In addition to keeping tabs on senior Al Qaeda figures inside Iran, the U.S. Treasury and State Departments have repeatedly exposed Iran’s “secret deal” with the Sunni jihadists. Under an agreement with the Iranian regime, Al Qaeda has maintained its “core facilitation pipeline” inside Iran. The Iranians have allowed this facilitation network to operate even though Iran and Al Qaeda are on opposite sides of the conflicts in Syria and Yemen.
Bill Roggio is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Editor of FDD's Long War Journal.”!
Biden, Blinken, Sullivan, Austin, Milley…over General McKensie USMC,Cent Com Commander’s objection we witnessed the most retreat since Operation Frequent 1975
The ”Group Think” of Wargamers, Futurist and Costal/AI Elephant Defense
https://warontherocks.com/2024/01/trends-in-maritime-challenges-indicate-force-design-2030-is-the-proper-path/#:~:text=However%2C%20given%20what%27s%20in%20the,lighter%2C%20but%20lethal%2C%20mix%20of
I agree with Samuel W’s opinion of the above article. A quick review of the authors shows that they are smart guys but, in my opinion, the 2030 Design is a product of a group think. We now know a little something about the 2030 Design perpetrators (not illegal, maybe “USMC” immoral, but definitely harmful).
Thinking about the future of warfighting is important. This crew’s thinking, however, is more in the 2050 category vs 2030. First 2030 Design did not follow the Joint Strategic Planning Guidance leaving the Commandant open to Congressional questions and criticisms. No one can predict the future of war fighting accurately nor the counters to breakthrough warfighting technologies. For that reason you have to build a flexible fighting organization that can rapidly adapt and I am thinking the beauty of the MAGTF here.
We are currently watching Red Sea Arliegh-Burke Destroyers counter the missile based A2AD strategy. Yes the Army and Marine Corps were distracted by the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fortunately the US Navy was not and stayed focus on the A2AD problem.
Commandant’s mistake was the decision to trade combat power for experimental tactical techniques produced by a group think. I say group think because the only justification for the implementation of 2030 Design was a set of classified war games use to discourage creative thinking.
In 2016 the British Government conducted an Inquiry (multi-volume and 100s of pages) to determine how they got involved in the Iraq War. The inquiry was not flattering of the decision that got their commitment to the Iraq war. The simple answer was their government and military policy makers fell victim to group think. The British Defense Ministry produced a document that condensed the inquiry: “The Good Operation; A handbook for those involved in operational policy and its implementation.” The good news is the handbook offers a remedy for group think called a “Reasonable Challenge”:
“The Iraq Inquiry (Chilcot) Report tells us that it’s important to avoid ‘groupthink’ as we develop policy, and the best antidote to that is reasonable challenge. An environment in which challenge is expected and accepted is important. People should be receptive to reasonable challenge and assume that it is provided with the best of intentions, while those offering challenge should know how to do so effectively. Challenge isn’t about proving someone right or wrong; rather it’s about highlighting and exploring alternative options. These cultures and behaviors reflect a healthy organization and we have created the following guide to support their development.” P.62
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a81f19440f0b62305b91a48/TheGoodOperation_WEB.PDF
I don’t think that the Commandant or the 2030 Design Staff allowed or accepted a “Reason Challenge”. I think the Commandant backed the wrong crew and I will take the names like Krulak, Zinni, Wilhelm and Van Riper over his crew any day. Semper Fi
PS: If you are wondering about “AI Elephants” here is a paper by Brian Strom explaining: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1178260.pdf
It is important paper, will thought out and should be read by any Marine Corps futurist.
Members of the cabal of retired officers who worked in secret with the 39th CMC to produce Force Design 2030 are still writing for Marine Corps Gazette; see this month's edition. The Gazette is no longer the proud journal it was at one time and it certainly is not leading the discussions today as it did in the maneuver Warfare days.
Hi Ian, Brian's paper is good but the benefits of "AI Elephants" has yet to play out from all the newest, latest and better fanfare and it needs some time. A couple years ago "Big Data" was all the rage and AI is the next step-up; but "we will see". Remembering that opinions are like AHs, everyone has one. I also read Zach Ota's paper on Missiles and Coastal Defense. The US Army use to have the coastal defense mission. The US Army Missile Command should lead the charge for that mission (I am thinking of "Iron Dome" based on the Patriot Missile System and Radar.). You also have a Joint Advanced Warfighting School graduate on the team. The 2030 Design should have done a better job of leveraging the Joint Organization. To propose the replacement of Marine tanks with Army tanks was not enough. 2030 Logistics is another issue. You are not going to be able to resupply ground missile units hiding on pacific islands. In WW2 the Japanese attempted to supply their isolated forces with submarines and fast destroyers, it failed. The Wargame justification has taken a lot of hits; enough said. Ian, not sure of your location but I live in Raleigh, NC and do occasional get up to the DC/Quantico area and would like to meet you over coffee or a beer someday. Semper Fi.
Please use your preferred browser and look up this amateurish, nauseating, sycophantic word salad. War on the Rocks 29 Jan 2024
TRENDS IN MARITIME CHALLENGES INDICATE FORCE DESIGN 2030 IS THE PROPER PATH
C. TRAVIS REESE, IAN BROWN, ZACH OTA, TRAVIS HORD, LEO SPAEDER, AND BRIAN STROM
JANUARY 29, 2024
Unfortunately, the comments of Gen's Krulak and Zinni will be attacked as the out of touch mutterings of 'boomers in somebody's pocket'. The greater misfortune is that the attacks will come from some in the active force that believe if it's on tiktok, it's for real and therefore are buying FD 2030 at face value. The irony is that the PLA, as advised by Sun Tzu, are quiet as a mouse while their adversary is busy making mistakes. Everything is easy until you do it.
When Generals Krulak and Zinni speak, everyone needs to listen. They both have a reputation for the truth regardless of the personal consequences. We call that moral courage, a term not well known today but remembered by those who have experienced it.
The article in “War on the Rocks” is beyond a word salad and it is nauseating, it is also insulting beyond words. In principal there is no point in refuting their arguments one by one. We are old thinkers, ergo dumb, lost souls, know nothings that ought to have a plaid shawl around our shoulders as we rock gently in our rockers on the porch of the old home for Marines. When you look at the brief career summaries of the authors of this too long defense of FD2030, all have a serious dog in the hunt for themselves and the success of “divest to invest.” If there were ever a reason to suspend the practice of sending any Marine to the Harvard Business School or any of the institutions named in their CV summaries, than their defense of the current situation in Ukraine and in the sea lanes of the Mediterranean and Red Sea ought to be clear justification of ending that practice. To take the example of the conflict in Ukraine as a stout defense of stand in forces is just not logical. The terrain in Odessa is currently denied because the Russian’s haven’t decided to attack it. If the Ukraine had a Marine Corps/Navy maybe they could have jointly feinted an amphibious assault coordinated with a land based assault that would have tied down Russian assets otherwise planned for use offensively elsewhere in the fight. Bite and Hold? Well at least it is going on the offense, however limited. How long do the authors think Odessa lasts if the Russians want it? How long does Taiwan last if the CCP really want it? (Does the CCP really want to invade Taiwan or just leave us tethered to a Taiwan tar baby, bleeding US assets and resources better used elsewhere?) Have we not heard that Japan and the Philippine’s are very skeptical of FD2030? The US Navy and 26th MEU have their hands full, 8-9 months on station so far, with in no relief in sight. How is that a good example of FD2030 being able to meet Title X mandates? One could go on and on, the transparency of their career climbing or to further now private or semi private consultancy organizations was mind boggling. At least try to pretend you aren’t looking for further promotion or another consulting gig.
This does however, present the thought towards an opportunity to put a serious thoughtful conference together somewhere, somehow that includes the proponents of FD2030 and the opponents and have it out. Invite as many members of Congress and or their staffs, whilst the consultants are running the traps on a report due to Congress, a big step is made to air out the differences between the old thinkers and the proponents of FD2030. It would be interesting to see how many Marines of every rank and MOS as well as civilian’s with an interest would sign up. Thanks to Samuel Whiitemore for bringing attention to the article. Everyone here ought to read it, it is insightful in terms of the thinking and logic being applied to support FD2030.
PS the intellectual arrogance displayed by some of the proponents of FD2030 is vexing. What war fairy tapped them all on the noggin and declared them military genius’? Oh right, it’s bonus enough to be a Marine, and because I said so, add in intellectual arrogance and you have something.....we are just smarter than you...really...
In my honest opinion, the elimination of so many Marine assets will only cause the MAGTF’s to not be able to fulfill their mission. It will undoubtedly end with an increase in capabilities and casualties.
Meanwhile in Afghanistan, the home Al Qaeda hosted by Taliban and precipitously abandoned. “BY BILL ROGGIO | February 1, 2024 | @billroggio
Al Qaeda opened eight new training camps, five madrasas, a weapons depot and safe houses in Afghanistan that are used to facilitate the movement of its members to and from Iran. Additionally, “the relationship between the Taliban and Al-Qaida remains close,” the United Nations Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team reported.
The presence of new Al Qaeda training camps and other infrastructure inside Afghanistan was disclosed by the United Nations Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team, which issued its latest report on Afghanistan on January 29.
The eight Al Qaeda camps have been opened in the provinces of Ghazni, Laghman, Parwan and Uruzgan. “Some camps might be temporary,” the Monitoring Team noted.
Al Qaeda is now operating training camps in 10 of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces. In its previous report, the Monitoring Team reported that Al Qaeda was operating training camps in Helmand, Zabul, Nangarhar, Nuristan, Badghis, and Kunar. An Al Qaeda leader known as Hakim al-Masri is “is responsible for the training camps and conducting suicide bomber training for TTP.”
In the central province of Panjshir, the former bastion of the anti-Taliban National Resistance Front, Al Qaeda has established a new base “to stockpile weaponry.” Al Qaeda is also operating five madrasas, or religious schools, in Laghman, Kunar, Nangarhar, Nuristan and Parwan provinces.
Al Qaeda and the Iran connection
In Herat, Farah and Helmand provinces, Al Qaeda “maintains safe houses to facilitate the movement [of members] between Afghanistan and the Islamic Republic of Iran,” as well as safe houses in Kabul.
At least one Al Qaeda safe house in Kabul was exposed in July 2022, when the U.S. killed Ayman al Zawahiri, the co-founder and previous emir of Al Qaeda. Zawahiri was killed in a drone strike as he sheltered in a safe house that was run by a lieutenant of Sirajuddin Haqqani, who is one of the Taliban’s two deputy emirs as well as the current interior minister. Sirajuddin’s powerful Haqqani Network is listed as a Foreign Terrorist Organization for its close ties to Al Qaeda. Sirajuddin and many of his top lieutenants are also labeled as Specially Designated Global Terrorists by the U.S.
The Monitoring Team’s previous report noted that Al Qaeda operated safe houses in these four provinces, but did not disclose that the infrastructure in Herat, Farah and Helmand were used to facilitate travel of leaders and members to and from Iran.
Herat, Farah and Helmand provinces are on the border with Iran, where Al Qaeda leaders are known to shelter. The Monitoring Team noted that “individuals travelling to provide liaison between Al Qaeda’s de facto leader, Saif al Adel, in the Islamic Republic of Iran and senior Al Qaeda figures in Afghanistan, including Abdul Rahman al-Ghamdi.”
“Six new Al-Qaida operatives were reported to have moved to eastern Afghanistan to join Katiba Umar Faruq under the leadership of Abu Ikhlas al-Masri.”
A previous Sanctions and Monitoring Team report noted that Abu Ikhlas al-Masri, a veteran Al Qaeda leader, had reestablished his unit in Kunar province after the fall of the Afghan government in August 2021. Prior to his capture by U.S. forces in 2010, Abu Ikhlas al-Masri ran training camps in Kunar, where he served as Al Qaeda’s chief of operations. Abu Ikhlas al-Masri and other Al Qaeda, Islamic State and other terrorist leaders and operatives were freed from Bagram prison after it fell to the Taliban in the summer of 2021.
The presence of top Al Qaeda leaders inside Iran has been documented by the U.S. government in numerous designations over the years. Other senior leaders known to have been operating inside Iran include ‘Abd al Rahman al Maghrebi, Yasin al Suri, Sa’ad bin Laden (now deceased), and Mustafa Hamid. [For a list of Al Qaeda leaders, operatives and facilitators operating in Iran, see FDD’s Long War Journal report, U.S. identifies additional al Qaeda leaders in Iran.]
In addition to keeping tabs on senior Al Qaeda figures inside Iran, the U.S. Treasury and State Departments have repeatedly exposed Iran’s “secret deal” with the Sunni jihadists. Under an agreement with the Iranian regime, Al Qaeda has maintained its “core facilitation pipeline” inside Iran. The Iranians have allowed this facilitation network to operate even though Iran and Al Qaeda are on opposite sides of the conflicts in Syria and Yemen.
Bill Roggio is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Editor of FDD's Long War Journal.”!
Biden, Blinken, Sullivan, Austin, Milley…over General McKensie USMC,Cent Com Commander’s objection we witnessed the most retreat since Operation Frequent 1975