I am not a constitutional scholar ( in fact I am no kind of scholar) but when someone refers to, “ the constitution “ “says “ my ears pick up. The men who drafted that document debated the various tenets via the news papers (lacking internet or TV). Those debates are recorded as The Federalist and AntiFederalist papers. Easy to discern their thoughts on the numerous controversial passages. And to understand the how’s and why’s that make the document is so viable. Open debate is a worthy goal.
I find it odd that in this time of enlightened debate no one has volunteered to debate the 2030 document here on this forum. Surely there has to someone with conviction on that side.
I read every article knowing that some on here had/have access to the classified “reasoning” that most will never see again.
Off to wander aimlessly in the Sierras until the next installment arrives. I do thank the numerous contributors to this most important dialog.
The most critical phrases , appearing in both paragraphs of the the composition and functions quote, are "The Marine Corps.......shall.....". This is not optional.
Robert O’Brien is a confidant of President Trump. His advocacy for the entire Marine Corps to the Pacific reveals a glaring ignorance of what is left of the Corps and its utility in the opening stages of a conflict with China. I hope President Trump’s other advisors have a better understanding of the Corps’ limited capabilities.
The violations of US law by the senior uniformed leaders, SecNav and SecDef is unprecedented since the Civil War. The very same leaders who follow every policy and utterance with the loyalty of a dog feel perfectly comfortable picking and choosing which laws to follow in the case of the Organization and Mission of the Corps
The global challenges come from Russia, Radical Islam led by Iran and China to include its toxic dwarf in N Korea now with a formal defense agreement with Russia. That trifecta is focused on us and critical Allies of ours that are important to our prosperity. The Corps simply must have global utility and has self castrated itself to one theater without the ability to even have an impact there. (The wide receiver has decided he is no longer catching passes. He only wants to play on kick offs.) The entire conversation is divorced from reality. Very senior people talking about phantom units with phantom capabilities being deployed on phantom platforms to phantom bases. Who are these leaders?
Skip Polak is more than a “Constitutional Scholar” … he’s a Marine who knows his profession & is educated on its history: his is a voice of reason. His remarks merit our consideration, to wit: have we been given the picture of what drove FD 2030 design, its considerations, why the “hush-hush” character of its evolution, and why have we been driven to near tactical, operational, & strategic irrelevance? Marines need not be afraid of each other. Our history is rich in dealing with the new inherent in the unknown. No better example exists than our development of Amphibious doctrine coming out of the trenches of WW I. In a more contemporary setting, we were trend setters in tactical excellence via Palm Tree/CAX/Desert Viper exercises. Managed, informed & intelligent change is in our DNA! So, senior leadership, the time has come to get our house in order, and we should do that pronto. Engage us, active and retired Marines alike … we’re on your team. Semper Fidelis!
What are the chances of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan? 50/50? 70/30? We just don't know. We can't be certain. However, what are the chances of the need for worldwide crisis intervention by US forces, short of war? I would say 100%. There have already been at least two instances when the United States Marine Corps was not able to conduct this mission. Both were a result of a lack of amphibious ships. One was to respond to a Turkish earthquake, and the other was to have forces in Europe prior to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Yet, current Marine Corps leadership wants to focus on just one scenario at the expense of other world events. This pertains to lack of amphibious lift. Yet, they want to build a fleet of landing ships with limited capacity for a dubious mission. This is the opposite of readiness! Yes, former CMC Berger and current CMC Smith have made the United States Marine Corps lack in readiness. Readiness, was the hallmark of Commandant Lejeune.
The Marine Corps is no longer a robust combined arms naval expeditionary force. We no longer have have the ability to conduct a strong power projection force on a world wide scale. Without tanks, sufficient artillery, and weak in combat engineering, the Marine Corps lacks sufficient combat power to deal with every military scenario. US Code 8063, specifically says the Marine Corps shall be a force of combined arms, which means: infantry, artillery, armor, engineers, and other supporting arms.
Because of the legal issues involved, we should contact Senator Dan Sullivan of Alaska. His is currently a Reserve Colonel. I do not know his opinion on this issue, but he should have some legal clout.
Bob, I would prefer a three ship ARG, just to spread out the MEU. I do think an ARG/MEU off the coast of one of China's overseas bases may make them think twice. It would be more of a deterrent than the SIF.
Thanks, Bob for this info. I wonder if you could get the same carrying capacity with two LHAs and one LPD? There has to be a reason for the 2 and 1 ARG. We are definitely in a hurt locker when it comes to shipping.
I am not a constitutional scholar ( in fact I am no kind of scholar) but when someone refers to, “ the constitution “ “says “ my ears pick up. The men who drafted that document debated the various tenets via the news papers (lacking internet or TV). Those debates are recorded as The Federalist and AntiFederalist papers. Easy to discern their thoughts on the numerous controversial passages. And to understand the how’s and why’s that make the document is so viable. Open debate is a worthy goal.
I find it odd that in this time of enlightened debate no one has volunteered to debate the 2030 document here on this forum. Surely there has to someone with conviction on that side.
I read every article knowing that some on here had/have access to the classified “reasoning” that most will never see again.
Off to wander aimlessly in the Sierras until the next installment arrives. I do thank the numerous contributors to this most important dialog.
The most critical phrases , appearing in both paragraphs of the the composition and functions quote, are "The Marine Corps.......shall.....". This is not optional.
Robert O’Brien is a confidant of President Trump. His advocacy for the entire Marine Corps to the Pacific reveals a glaring ignorance of what is left of the Corps and its utility in the opening stages of a conflict with China. I hope President Trump’s other advisors have a better understanding of the Corps’ limited capabilities.
The violations of US law by the senior uniformed leaders, SecNav and SecDef is unprecedented since the Civil War. The very same leaders who follow every policy and utterance with the loyalty of a dog feel perfectly comfortable picking and choosing which laws to follow in the case of the Organization and Mission of the Corps
The global challenges come from Russia, Radical Islam led by Iran and China to include its toxic dwarf in N Korea now with a formal defense agreement with Russia. That trifecta is focused on us and critical Allies of ours that are important to our prosperity. The Corps simply must have global utility and has self castrated itself to one theater without the ability to even have an impact there. (The wide receiver has decided he is no longer catching passes. He only wants to play on kick offs.) The entire conversation is divorced from reality. Very senior people talking about phantom units with phantom capabilities being deployed on phantom platforms to phantom bases. Who are these leaders?
Skip Polak is more than a “Constitutional Scholar” … he’s a Marine who knows his profession & is educated on its history: his is a voice of reason. His remarks merit our consideration, to wit: have we been given the picture of what drove FD 2030 design, its considerations, why the “hush-hush” character of its evolution, and why have we been driven to near tactical, operational, & strategic irrelevance? Marines need not be afraid of each other. Our history is rich in dealing with the new inherent in the unknown. No better example exists than our development of Amphibious doctrine coming out of the trenches of WW I. In a more contemporary setting, we were trend setters in tactical excellence via Palm Tree/CAX/Desert Viper exercises. Managed, informed & intelligent change is in our DNA! So, senior leadership, the time has come to get our house in order, and we should do that pronto. Engage us, active and retired Marines alike … we’re on your team. Semper Fidelis!
What are the chances of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan? 50/50? 70/30? We just don't know. We can't be certain. However, what are the chances of the need for worldwide crisis intervention by US forces, short of war? I would say 100%. There have already been at least two instances when the United States Marine Corps was not able to conduct this mission. Both were a result of a lack of amphibious ships. One was to respond to a Turkish earthquake, and the other was to have forces in Europe prior to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Yet, current Marine Corps leadership wants to focus on just one scenario at the expense of other world events. This pertains to lack of amphibious lift. Yet, they want to build a fleet of landing ships with limited capacity for a dubious mission. This is the opposite of readiness! Yes, former CMC Berger and current CMC Smith have made the United States Marine Corps lack in readiness. Readiness, was the hallmark of Commandant Lejeune.
The Marine Corps is no longer a robust combined arms naval expeditionary force. We no longer have have the ability to conduct a strong power projection force on a world wide scale. Without tanks, sufficient artillery, and weak in combat engineering, the Marine Corps lacks sufficient combat power to deal with every military scenario. US Code 8063, specifically says the Marine Corps shall be a force of combined arms, which means: infantry, artillery, armor, engineers, and other supporting arms.
Because of the legal issues involved, we should contact Senator Dan Sullivan of Alaska. His is currently a Reserve Colonel. I do not know his opinion on this issue, but he should have some legal clout.
Bob, I would prefer a three ship ARG, just to spread out the MEU. I do think an ARG/MEU off the coast of one of China's overseas bases may make them think twice. It would be more of a deterrent than the SIF.
Thanks, Bob for this info. I wonder if you could get the same carrying capacity with two LHAs and one LPD? There has to be a reason for the 2 and 1 ARG. We are definitely in a hurt locker when it comes to shipping.