If FD 2030 is the answer, what is the question?
The recently release December edition of the Marine Corps Gazette is dedicated to the debate about Force Design 2030, with a variety of articles advocating in favor of FD 2030, and a variety of articles advocating against FD 2030.
In his lead editorial, the Editor of the Gazette sets the stage for the debate when he writes,
If EABO, Stand-in Forces, and Force Design 2030 are “the answer,” then what is the question? What is the military problem to be solved? Does the solution being implemented solve the problem, and is there broad agreement and support for this course of action?
Clearly, across the greater Marine Corps community, there is no ‘broad agreement and support’ for FD 2030. While some support FD 2030, many others have deep concerns.
Some of the concerns about FD 2030 come from the way it was created in a process too private and too rushed.
The literature on how to plan is filled with warnings not to rush the process. These cautionary notes are especially fitting to Americans who, as a rule, tend to immediately begin trying to solve problems before they fully understand them or properly frame them.
As recent quotes provided to Compass Points by “Muddy Boots” and others attest, scientists, presidents, authors, and leaders in business and industry have frequently cautioned against rushing the planning process.
Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe. ― Abraham Lincoln
A problem well put is half solved. ― John Dewey
It isn't that they cannot find the solution. It is that they cannot see the problem. – G.K Chesterton
These and a host of other notable people urge caution whenever facing new and complex situations. Take time to study the situation carefully. Take time to grasp its complexity. Take time to understand both the risks and opportunities. Take time for broader thinking and deeper understanding.
More than a decade ago, several authorities recognized the US military’s tendency to rush its planning processes. This awareness led them to suggest the adoption of a design approach where the emphasis is on first understanding the problem. In fact, design suggests that the simple act of focusing on understanding the problem first, rather than rushing to a solution, will often allow the outlines of a solution to emerge naturally.
The mounting criticism of Force Design 2030 and its supporting concepts offers considerable evidence that Marine Corps’ leaders developed these concepts based on a focus too narrow and a process too rushed. They rushed to a solution, before taking time to study the problem. They “fired” before they had a good sight picture.
The Gazette editorial goes on to cite former Secretary of Defense, General Jim Mattis, and his use of a quote attributed to Albert Einstein,
If given one hour to save the world, I would spend 55 minutes defining the problem, and building consensus, and then I’d use the last five minutes to save the world. — Albert Einstein
Did the Corps need to spend more time in 2018 defining the problem before it set out developing a solution, that is, Force Design 2030?
Beginning on 29 November, in the online edition of the Marine Corps Gazette, Compass Points and The Chowder II Society will introduce
Vision 2035
Vision 2035 is an attempt to ask a better question and get a better answer, to seek broader understanding first, in order to gain broader and better solutions. Compass Points and Chowder II encourage a robust discussion and debate, where Marines and friends of the Corps all contribute.
Stand by. Vision 2035 is coming soon.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Chowder II Society's
Vision 2035
The new direction for a stronger Marine Corps.
Global response in the age of precision munitions.
The Preface - Who is Chowder II?
The Concerns - Fatal Flaws in FD 2030.
The Choice - Retreat to defense, or retake the offense?
The Vision - Global response, today and tomorrow.
---------------------------------------------------------------
How does one submit an article
Wrong question. Start with the problem. Start with the CMC's understanding of the problem to rewrite your vision, or your vision is based on straw and not worth reading.