I will repeat what I wrote last month concerning sharing your opinion: I know there are many of you out there who read Compass Points but feel it unwise to comment. I understand. Just know that this ongoing “discussion” about the future of our Corps is healthy and more robust than it may appear. If nothing else, keep talking amongst yourselves. Don’t ever let anyone judge you for your opinion. It’s YOUR Corps.
After reading a recent comment questioning the effect that Compass Points posts have across the defense community, I decided to query the publisher. Here is what I learned from our discussion.
Compass Points has multiple-thousands of subscribers, and daily posts are viewed thousands of times, upwards of 10,000 views in a day. Though the site is free there have been a large number of commitments to pay; readers have pledged close to $11,000 for a paid subscription though the publisher has no intention of changing its status as “free.”
The actual readership is impossible to determine because many subscribers forward the daily posts to others and several large email lists routinely pick up and distribute the daily posts. Based on available data one Internet authority estimated that approximately 150,000 people view Compass Points within 48 hours of its posting.
Email addresses allow the publisher to identify some subscribers. He reports there are dozens of subscribers with a “usmc.mil” address, meaning they are active duty Marines. Among these are some senior executives. Noted journalists from such outlets as the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and CBS News also subscribe and read nearly every post. As do analysts from the Congressional Research Service, Congressional Budget Office, and several defense focused think tanks.
I asked several other retired Marines, and they shared that their experience is the same as mine, that is, we have never met an active duty Marine who does not read Compass Points posts.
One recent comment suggested that the online journal, Real Clear Defense, which frequently republishes Compass Points posts is not highly regarded nor widely read. The reality is just the opposite. A former Marine I know who works on the Hill tells me that RCD is the most important source of media news on defense for members of Congress and their staffs. It has more than 64,000 followers. One web report states: “RealClearDefense (RCD) was created at the request of the Pentagon and Hill staff on the House Armed Services Committee. These groups felt that existing defense coverage was fragmented and there needed to be one place to go for information about military affairs, defense policy, national security, and foreign affairs. RCD does the best job in the industry of digesting the day’s news for military and defense professionals and enthusiasts. With its balanced mix of curated stories and original content, RCD is a force in the defense world, providing an open resource for anyone seeking a comprehensive understanding of the landscape.”
I note that those questioning Force Design 2030 and the course on which it has placed the Marine Corps have had 203 articles (authored or coauthored by 117 different writers) published in 53 different media outlets. Supporting articles consists of an additional 150 articles, authored or co-authored by 125 different writers, and published in 59 different media outlets.
So, in closing, I offer my sincere thanks to the Publisher, Editor, and staff of Compass Points for more than 1,000 informative daily posts. Please continue your exceptional work.
Extraordinary thanks Wolf. I used Grok 4 to examine the impact of trolls:”Yes, trolls can have a beneficial effect for the online presence of an issue-oriented group, though it’s a double-edged sword. Trolls, by provoking reactions and stirring controversy, can unintentionally amplify a group’s visibility. Their inflammatory comments often spark heated discussions, drawing attention to the group’s cause, especially if supporters rally to counter the troll’s arguments. This can boost engagement metrics—likes, shares, comments—which algorithms on platforms like X often prioritize, increasing the group’s reach. For example, a troll’s outrageous post about a niche advocacy issue might go viral, pulling in new followers or media coverage.”.
I believe the publisher welcomes Corporal Ian Grable’s contributions unless they are personal attacks. Occasionally, his comments do motivate other readers to weigh in with their own useful observations. Recently, however, he has contributed little because he has aimed his comments at contributors rather than the topic at hand.
I do wonder why the Corporal believes his experience outweighs that of the 7 of 8 former commandants who stand against Force Design 2030. Those 7 commandants would have approximately 250 years of combined experience as Marine leaders. How many does the Corporal have? I know, 20 years, none in senior positions or command.
A recently retired and very bitter major is probably most likely in my view. He returns using a different email until he wears out his welcome and the publisher bans him and then he starts over again.
Yeah yeah...apparently it is enough of an impact that you think it is important to say it isn't. FYI, the following is from the current CRS document on FD 2030:
Oversight questions Congress could consider include the following:
-If Force Design is focused on China and the Indo Pacific region, will the redesigned force be suitable/adequate to support future NATO commitments in Europe as well as commitments in the Middle East and Africa?
-With Force Design focused on China and the Indo Pacific region, what are the Marines' plans to address Contested Logistics?71
-Are there concerns that much of the responsibility for successfully operating in such an environment falls outside the control of the Marines and rests largely on the Navy and Air Force and, if developed and acquired, unmanned naval and air systems?
-How would apparent differences between the Navy and Marines regarding requirements and acquisition priority for amphibious ships affect the Marines' ability to execute Littoral Operations in a Contested Environment (LOCE) and Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations (EABO), as well as operational concepts put forth in Force Design?
-How would the elimination of the Marines' two tank battalions affect the Marines' ability to defend against enemy mechanized and armored forces?
-Is it realistic to expect the Army to provide armor support to the Marines if the Marines are called upon to confront enemy mechanized and armored forces?
-How would the elimination of most towed artillery affect the Marines' ability to provide fire support if air or naval assets are unable to deliver fire support to infantry units due to nonavailability, range limitations, or adverse weather?
-How would the elimination of significant numbers of manned rotary and fixed winged aircraft affect the Marines' ability to transport personnel and supplies by air and to provide close air support to ground forces?
-If the Marines phase out most of their legacy sustained land operations-specific logistics capability, will the Marines be able to participate in sustained land operations in the future if required?
-What are some of the accomplishments attributed to Training and Education 2030, Installation and Logistics 2030, and Talent Management 2030?
-Are there any issues impeding full implementation of these initiatives?
-How do emerging lessons from Russia's invasion of Ukraine inform Marine Corps' thinking on Force Design?
-Given the end of Force Design self-funding, what are the Marines' long-term Force Design-associated budgetary requirements?"
So let me get this straight: Congress has been overseeing Force Design for six years—funding it, asking the hard questions, and seeing the results for themselves.
And now we’ve got members like Rep. Moulton—no stranger to military scrutiny—saying he was
“more impressed than I imagined”
after seeing Marines execute Force Design forward in the Philippines.
That’s not a red flag. That’s confirmation.
So if the best argument left is “Congress is watching”—good. They’ve been watching, and they like what they see.
Yeah, yeah, it's great. Rep Moulton was impressed by the MLR doing infantry stuff in the PI and the deployment of a single launcher from a system that won't have training missiles until next summer according to the budget. Yeah, if that's confirmation of FD, then...you get the booger MRE and you can tell us how it's awesome. "Sir, what's a Potemkin village?". What's next? Another article about how the GATOR radar can tie into Joint Networks, which is why we bought it....and that means FD is validated? Oh look...we are still spending money to prove the HOS Resolution can hold the NAHA pier in place and.... not much else. Wonderful...
Congress has been known to comment, via vote, often on issues not directly affecting actual combat-type (social/societal)issues, but for the most part have not delved into the warfighters realm. They have trusted us with the nation’s defense and care for its citizens in uniform. In my mind this is the issue: FD was a “ready, fire, aim” decision that was not fully explored and debated. The comments you provide makes for a thoughtful exchange. We must remember it is easy to divest but really, really hard to rebuild lost entities. Time and distance is not on our side.
“My rifle and myself know that what counts in this war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, nor the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count. We will hit….“
My 'E' Tam and I know that what counts in this war is knowing the difference between divestature and transfer, between 'selective interchange' and 'cannabalization'.
Cfrog, many thanks for the response to the corporal, I am trying to get an in person meeting with the Senior Senator of New Hampshire, she has a local office near me, and I believe, she is now ranking member of the armed services committee. Your run down will be enormously helpful in organizing my “pitch” to her if the meeting happens. Regardless it is added intelligent material for discourse when discussing the matter with others. BTW in a long story made short, I bought lunch for three subsurface naval officers who are in at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and asked if they had heard anything about the redesign of the Corps. Yes, in fact they had, and they found it a head scratcher. Words to the effect of what are you guys doing..and hope it gets straightened out. Go figure…
One’s in Australia. Is that anywhere near the Mediterranean, or the Red Sea, or the Arabian Sea?
One’s working up on the East Coast. Are they deployable tomorrow? Are the they anywhere near the Mediterranean, or the Arabian Sea, or the northern flank of NATO?
One’s compositing on the West Coast. So that means that they’re not even constituted as an ARG/MEU. Are they deployable tomorrow? Are they anywhere near Taiwan, west coast Arctic approaches. Hell, Cpl. they’re not even pulling liberty in PI or Pearl.
Lt Gen Van Ripper introduced the fortunate among us to “Chaos Theory” several decades ago. We are not the “flapping of butterfly wings” but, our words vibrate throughout the sphere and will create a tsunami of change. Evidence of this is the acerbic comments of our critics. We are not random noise. Grok “Chaos theory studies systems that appear random but follow deterministic rules, where small changes in initial conditions can lead to vastly different outcomes. Think of a butterfly flapping its wings, potentially influencing a storm weeks later—hence the term "butterfly effect." These systems, like weather, ecosystems, or even stock markets, are highly sensitive to starting points, making long-term predictions nearly impossible despite their underlying order.
Key features include:
- **Nonlinearity**: Outputs aren't proportional to inputs, leading to unpredictable behavior.
- **Deterministic chaos**: The system follows fixed rules, yet outcomes seem erratic.
- **Fractals**: Patterns repeat at different scales, like branching in trees or coastlines.
- **Strange attractors**: Trajectories in phase space converge to complex, non-repeating patterns.
Mathematically, chaos often involves differential equations or iterative maps, like the logistic map: \( x_{n+1} = r x_n (1 - x_n) \), where small changes in \( r \) can shift from stable to chaotic behavior. Real-world applications include meteorology, biology, and cryptography, but true chaos requires deterministic systems—random noise isn't chaos.”!
I believe that any Marine or Veteran who is supporting the present CIC is breaking the oath she or he took upon enlistment or commissioning. Stand up for the Constitution.
I will repeat what I wrote last month concerning sharing your opinion: I know there are many of you out there who read Compass Points but feel it unwise to comment. I understand. Just know that this ongoing “discussion” about the future of our Corps is healthy and more robust than it may appear. If nothing else, keep talking amongst yourselves. Don’t ever let anyone judge you for your opinion. It’s YOUR Corps.
The true meaning of: once a Marine, always a Marine!
Semper Fidelis!
After reading a recent comment questioning the effect that Compass Points posts have across the defense community, I decided to query the publisher. Here is what I learned from our discussion.
Compass Points has multiple-thousands of subscribers, and daily posts are viewed thousands of times, upwards of 10,000 views in a day. Though the site is free there have been a large number of commitments to pay; readers have pledged close to $11,000 for a paid subscription though the publisher has no intention of changing its status as “free.”
The actual readership is impossible to determine because many subscribers forward the daily posts to others and several large email lists routinely pick up and distribute the daily posts. Based on available data one Internet authority estimated that approximately 150,000 people view Compass Points within 48 hours of its posting.
Email addresses allow the publisher to identify some subscribers. He reports there are dozens of subscribers with a “usmc.mil” address, meaning they are active duty Marines. Among these are some senior executives. Noted journalists from such outlets as the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and CBS News also subscribe and read nearly every post. As do analysts from the Congressional Research Service, Congressional Budget Office, and several defense focused think tanks.
I asked several other retired Marines, and they shared that their experience is the same as mine, that is, we have never met an active duty Marine who does not read Compass Points posts.
One recent comment suggested that the online journal, Real Clear Defense, which frequently republishes Compass Points posts is not highly regarded nor widely read. The reality is just the opposite. A former Marine I know who works on the Hill tells me that RCD is the most important source of media news on defense for members of Congress and their staffs. It has more than 64,000 followers. One web report states: “RealClearDefense (RCD) was created at the request of the Pentagon and Hill staff on the House Armed Services Committee. These groups felt that existing defense coverage was fragmented and there needed to be one place to go for information about military affairs, defense policy, national security, and foreign affairs. RCD does the best job in the industry of digesting the day’s news for military and defense professionals and enthusiasts. With its balanced mix of curated stories and original content, RCD is a force in the defense world, providing an open resource for anyone seeking a comprehensive understanding of the landscape.”
I note that those questioning Force Design 2030 and the course on which it has placed the Marine Corps have had 203 articles (authored or coauthored by 117 different writers) published in 53 different media outlets. Supporting articles consists of an additional 150 articles, authored or co-authored by 125 different writers, and published in 59 different media outlets.
So, in closing, I offer my sincere thanks to the Publisher, Editor, and staff of Compass Points for more than 1,000 informative daily posts. Please continue your exceptional work.
Extraordinary thanks Wolf. I used Grok 4 to examine the impact of trolls:”Yes, trolls can have a beneficial effect for the online presence of an issue-oriented group, though it’s a double-edged sword. Trolls, by provoking reactions and stirring controversy, can unintentionally amplify a group’s visibility. Their inflammatory comments often spark heated discussions, drawing attention to the group’s cause, especially if supporters rally to counter the troll’s arguments. This can boost engagement metrics—likes, shares, comments—which algorithms on platforms like X often prioritize, increasing the group’s reach. For example, a troll’s outrageous post about a niche advocacy issue might go viral, pulling in new followers or media coverage.”.
I believe the publisher welcomes Corporal Ian Grable’s contributions unless they are personal attacks. Occasionally, his comments do motivate other readers to weigh in with their own useful observations. Recently, however, he has contributed little because he has aimed his comments at contributors rather than the topic at hand.
I do wonder why the Corporal believes his experience outweighs that of the 7 of 8 former commandants who stand against Force Design 2030. Those 7 commandants would have approximately 250 years of combined experience as Marine leaders. How many does the Corporal have? I know, 20 years, none in senior positions or command.
General, I get the very "sneaking" suspicion that "Corporal Grable" isn't a Corporal at all.
A recently retired and very bitter major is probably most likely in my view. He returns using a different email until he wears out his welcome and the publisher bans him and then he starts over again.
Thank you Wolf.
Yes—203 articles, 117 authors, 53 outlets.
And still no policy changes. Why?
Because volume isn’t victory, and attention isn’t persuasion.
All that noise? It adds up to exactly what you’d expect when people run out of influence but not time—or ego.
A paper trail of frustration, not impact.
And sure, Compass Points has thousands of views—so does a traffic wreck.
People gather, gawk, shake their heads.
But nobody changes their destination because of it.
Let’s also be honest about the echo chamber: it’s the same 15 people in the comments, trying to out-nostalgia each other.
RCD may have 64,000 followers, but that doesn’t mean it sets policy—it just sets talking points. Watch testimony. It ain’t working.
Meanwhile, Force Design continues to evolve.
Systems field. Congress funds. COCOMs ask for more. Senators praise. . . Etc.
So go ahead—count the views. Count the articles.
I’ll count outcomes.
So should you.
And yet no traction gained. No policy changes. Literally no impact. Just noise.
Yeah yeah...apparently it is enough of an impact that you think it is important to say it isn't. FYI, the following is from the current CRS document on FD 2030:
(https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47614?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22usmc%22%7D&s=4&r=5)
"Considerations for Congress
Oversight questions Congress could consider include the following:
-If Force Design is focused on China and the Indo Pacific region, will the redesigned force be suitable/adequate to support future NATO commitments in Europe as well as commitments in the Middle East and Africa?
-With Force Design focused on China and the Indo Pacific region, what are the Marines' plans to address Contested Logistics?71
-Are there concerns that much of the responsibility for successfully operating in such an environment falls outside the control of the Marines and rests largely on the Navy and Air Force and, if developed and acquired, unmanned naval and air systems?
-How would apparent differences between the Navy and Marines regarding requirements and acquisition priority for amphibious ships affect the Marines' ability to execute Littoral Operations in a Contested Environment (LOCE) and Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations (EABO), as well as operational concepts put forth in Force Design?
-How would the elimination of the Marines' two tank battalions affect the Marines' ability to defend against enemy mechanized and armored forces?
-Is it realistic to expect the Army to provide armor support to the Marines if the Marines are called upon to confront enemy mechanized and armored forces?
-How would the elimination of most towed artillery affect the Marines' ability to provide fire support if air or naval assets are unable to deliver fire support to infantry units due to nonavailability, range limitations, or adverse weather?
-How would the elimination of significant numbers of manned rotary and fixed winged aircraft affect the Marines' ability to transport personnel and supplies by air and to provide close air support to ground forces?
-If the Marines phase out most of their legacy sustained land operations-specific logistics capability, will the Marines be able to participate in sustained land operations in the future if required?
-What are some of the accomplishments attributed to Training and Education 2030, Installation and Logistics 2030, and Talent Management 2030?
-Are there any issues impeding full implementation of these initiatives?
-How do emerging lessons from Russia's invasion of Ukraine inform Marine Corps' thinking on Force Design?
-Given the end of Force Design self-funding, what are the Marines' long-term Force Design-associated budgetary requirements?"
So let me get this straight: Congress has been overseeing Force Design for six years—funding it, asking the hard questions, and seeing the results for themselves.
And now we’ve got members like Rep. Moulton—no stranger to military scrutiny—saying he was
“more impressed than I imagined”
after seeing Marines execute Force Design forward in the Philippines.
That’s not a red flag. That’s confirmation.
So if the best argument left is “Congress is watching”—good. They’ve been watching, and they like what they see.
Yeah, yeah, it's great. Rep Moulton was impressed by the MLR doing infantry stuff in the PI and the deployment of a single launcher from a system that won't have training missiles until next summer according to the budget. Yeah, if that's confirmation of FD, then...you get the booger MRE and you can tell us how it's awesome. "Sir, what's a Potemkin village?". What's next? Another article about how the GATOR radar can tie into Joint Networks, which is why we bought it....and that means FD is validated? Oh look...we are still spending money to prove the HOS Resolution can hold the NAHA pier in place and.... not much else. Wonderful...
Congress has been known to comment, via vote, often on issues not directly affecting actual combat-type (social/societal)issues, but for the most part have not delved into the warfighters realm. They have trusted us with the nation’s defense and care for its citizens in uniform. In my mind this is the issue: FD was a “ready, fire, aim” decision that was not fully explored and debated. The comments you provide makes for a thoughtful exchange. We must remember it is easy to divest but really, really hard to rebuild lost entities. Time and distance is not on our side.
They like what they see? Congress doesn’t know what they see, only what they’re told by slick snake oil salesmen out of HQMC.
“My rifle and myself know that what counts in this war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, nor the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count. We will hit….“
. . . But do you hit?
I think not.
My 'E' Tam and I know that what counts in this war is knowing the difference between divestature and transfer, between 'selective interchange' and 'cannabalization'.
....but do you know maintenance?
I think not.
Cfrog, many thanks for the response to the corporal, I am trying to get an in person meeting with the Senior Senator of New Hampshire, she has a local office near me, and I believe, she is now ranking member of the armed services committee. Your run down will be enormously helpful in organizing my “pitch” to her if the meeting happens. Regardless it is added intelligent material for discourse when discussing the matter with others. BTW in a long story made short, I bought lunch for three subsurface naval officers who are in at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and asked if they had heard anything about the redesign of the Corps. Yes, in fact they had, and they found it a head scratcher. Words to the effect of what are you guys doing..and hope it gets straightened out. Go figure…
So now you turn to prose. Just goes to show how weak your arguments are.
Again where are the MEUs? Crickets.
One off the coast of Australia.
One working up on the E Coast.
Another compositing on the W.
You should turn your attention to supporting your Commandant’s push to get back to 3.0 presence. Be value added instead of a distraction.
Cpl., you’ve just proven my point.
One’s in Australia. Is that anywhere near the Mediterranean, or the Red Sea, or the Arabian Sea?
One’s working up on the East Coast. Are they deployable tomorrow? Are the they anywhere near the Mediterranean, or the Arabian Sea, or the northern flank of NATO?
One’s compositing on the West Coast. So that means that they’re not even constituted as an ARG/MEU. Are they deployable tomorrow? Are they anywhere near Taiwan, west coast Arctic approaches. Hell, Cpl. they’re not even pulling liberty in PI or Pearl.
Your arguments are still weak.
Lt Gen Van Ripper introduced the fortunate among us to “Chaos Theory” several decades ago. We are not the “flapping of butterfly wings” but, our words vibrate throughout the sphere and will create a tsunami of change. Evidence of this is the acerbic comments of our critics. We are not random noise. Grok “Chaos theory studies systems that appear random but follow deterministic rules, where small changes in initial conditions can lead to vastly different outcomes. Think of a butterfly flapping its wings, potentially influencing a storm weeks later—hence the term "butterfly effect." These systems, like weather, ecosystems, or even stock markets, are highly sensitive to starting points, making long-term predictions nearly impossible despite their underlying order.
Key features include:
- **Nonlinearity**: Outputs aren't proportional to inputs, leading to unpredictable behavior.
- **Deterministic chaos**: The system follows fixed rules, yet outcomes seem erratic.
- **Fractals**: Patterns repeat at different scales, like branching in trees or coastlines.
- **Strange attractors**: Trajectories in phase space converge to complex, non-repeating patterns.
Mathematically, chaos often involves differential equations or iterative maps, like the logistic map: \( x_{n+1} = r x_n (1 - x_n) \), where small changes in \( r \) can shift from stable to chaotic behavior. Real-world applications include meteorology, biology, and cryptography, but true chaos requires deterministic systems—random noise isn't chaos.”!
Unfortunately, the veterans doing the talking in Quantico are retired colonels hired by their buddies.
I believe that any Marine or Veteran who is supporting the present CIC is breaking the oath she or he took upon enlistment or commissioning. Stand up for the Constitution.
Semper Fi
Talk about congressional support. Here is what it is about. Anything, good or bad, if it brings money to my state I am for it.