Divest to invest is a “witches brew.” It is a failed approach to transforming a military force for the future. Don’t take my word for it. Consider the following:
1. A May 2025 article in Military Times titled “Ill-fated Gaza pier mission lacked sufficient training, equipment: IG.” According to the article, the DoD IG report cited numerous reasons the Gaza Pier was essentially a failed mission. One of the reasons was the divestment of needed equipment, i.e. “Between 2018 and 2023, the Army and Navy had completed major divestments of equipment the JLOTS system required… including roughly half the Army’s watercraft, or 64 out of 134, [and] one of the Navy’s two JLOTS-capable unites, Amphibious Construction Battalion 2.” To read the full article, refer to: https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2025/05/06/ill-fated-gaza-pier-mission-lacked-sufficient-training-equipment-ig/
2. In his April 2025 Posture Statement, Admiral Samuel Paparo (Commander, U.S. Indo-Pacific Command) stated: “To enable effective, all domain fires across the vast Pacific theater, USINDOPACOM must implement a comprehensive modernization strategy that adheres to the “make-before-break” principle. This means that combat-relevant capabilities should not be divested until their replacements are ready. To read the full statement, refer to: https://armedservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/indopacom_posture_statement_2025.pdf
3. In a November 2022 article in Defense News titled “US Air Forces ‘divest to invest’ plan is too risky, General John Loh, USAF (ret) and former Vice COS of the Air Force provided a multitude of reasons why the "divest to invest" approach to modernization is a recipe for disaster. His summary could not be more clear: “’Divest to invest’ may have been a workable strategy years ago when global threats were less severe. Today, however, divesting now in the hope of recapitalizing years later is too risky and can invite attacks by adversaries in the interval when our forces are weaker.” To read the full article, refer to: https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2022/11/16/us-air-forces-divest-to-invest-plan-is-too-risky/
The underpinning of Force Design was “divest to invest.” You can judge for yourself if this was a prudent action or not.
So, are you saying that selling my car (for it's market value not original cost) so I can conduct a campaign of learning to learn how to make a hover car is going to interfere with my capability to drive to the grocery store in the meantime? (Excuse me, I have to go choke the Official Spokesman for FD(2030) because he's talking about Eastman Kodak again. He thinks they were able to make Nikon D1 SLRs in 1979...he's bad with timing outcomes)
Thank you for the COMMANDER, U.S. INDO-PACIFIC COMMAND posture paper. I can’t think of any issues he missed and he certainly has a plan and a monumental task to accomplish. Goldwater-Nichols was designed to allow the Combatant Commander to speak directly with the President. The best example of this (that I can think of at least) is during Desert Storm when General Schwarzkopf, speaking with President Bush, stated he needed the EURCOM’s US Army 7th Corps. I am probably wrong about this but the last time the 7th Corps deployed was to Europe during the WW2. I certainly hope the SECDEF sets a meeting between POTUS and Commander INDOPACOM, where the presidents asks, where will you stand on your plan by 2027? And what are your priorities that I can help accelerate? Then Pete H. needs to have a meeting with the Service Chiefs and ask what are you doing to help the INDOPACOM Combatant Commander with the CCP threat? BTW I don’t want to hear the words “divert to invest” as he looks deeply with concern into the Commandant’s eyes. S/F
Plus, it will still be another 5+ years till we have a fully combat ready unit. We got rid of a couple hundred tanks, 3/4 of our tube arty, plus much more, for what??? This is pure negligence. I wonder if it could be considered as dereliction of duty?
I was watching them fly around New Bern on a sunny day about two months ago. I am glad I got that last chance. The pilots and maintainers for the AV-8B were a unique (in a very good way) crew. I am sure as much as the airplane was loved, it is nice to put the headaches to rest. Still bittersweet when we say goodbye to these teams of Marines and machines after such good and faithful service. I had the good fortune, on my very first CASEX, to be able to call in the last A-4s in the Pacific. I remember seeing the last RF-4s at Kadena (air show). And I'll never forget when an SR71 (obviously not a Marine bird) flew over Schwab on final shortly before they retired. Even the UAVs; got to see a Pioneer on the Missouri when she came through Subic in '90. Years later, I thought someone ND'd a TOW when a Pioneer did it's little rocket launch thing in Diwaniyah next to our pos. All good. Time moves on; I just get younger and better looking.
The first time I saw a Harrier was while at OCS in 1977. We were in the squad bay and heard this really loud jet noise. We ran to the windows and saw it hovering. I think it was still being tested.
It is hard to believe that it has been 54 years (1971) since I picked up the CG 2nd MAW at Cherry Point and took him about 60 miles off of Norfolk, VA to observe the first AV-8A night carrier quals on an LSD.
Being a fixed wing driver he insisted on flying the CH-53D. Be sides trying very hard to kill us at night with his helo skills of which I will let it there. Lets just say combat flying was less harrowing.
The AV-8A definitely had growing pains which led to the AV-8B and the rest is history.
In the early 1970s, I had an office near the airfield at Quantico, where I could watch flights arriving and departing—including those of Marine One. One day, I witnessed a demonstration of the new Harrier fighter aircraft staged for a group of dignitaries. Three Harriers lifted off simultaneously, hovered at about 50 feet, then each rotated 360 degrees in perfect synchronization before flying off in formation. It was an impressive display—but I couldn’t help thinking how much it must have cost in fuel to stage that show.
Divest to invest is a “witches brew.” It is a failed approach to transforming a military force for the future. Don’t take my word for it. Consider the following:
1. A May 2025 article in Military Times titled “Ill-fated Gaza pier mission lacked sufficient training, equipment: IG.” According to the article, the DoD IG report cited numerous reasons the Gaza Pier was essentially a failed mission. One of the reasons was the divestment of needed equipment, i.e. “Between 2018 and 2023, the Army and Navy had completed major divestments of equipment the JLOTS system required… including roughly half the Army’s watercraft, or 64 out of 134, [and] one of the Navy’s two JLOTS-capable unites, Amphibious Construction Battalion 2.” To read the full article, refer to: https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2025/05/06/ill-fated-gaza-pier-mission-lacked-sufficient-training-equipment-ig/
2. In his April 2025 Posture Statement, Admiral Samuel Paparo (Commander, U.S. Indo-Pacific Command) stated: “To enable effective, all domain fires across the vast Pacific theater, USINDOPACOM must implement a comprehensive modernization strategy that adheres to the “make-before-break” principle. This means that combat-relevant capabilities should not be divested until their replacements are ready. To read the full statement, refer to: https://armedservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/indopacom_posture_statement_2025.pdf
3. In a November 2022 article in Defense News titled “US Air Forces ‘divest to invest’ plan is too risky, General John Loh, USAF (ret) and former Vice COS of the Air Force provided a multitude of reasons why the "divest to invest" approach to modernization is a recipe for disaster. His summary could not be more clear: “’Divest to invest’ may have been a workable strategy years ago when global threats were less severe. Today, however, divesting now in the hope of recapitalizing years later is too risky and can invite attacks by adversaries in the interval when our forces are weaker.” To read the full article, refer to: https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2022/11/16/us-air-forces-divest-to-invest-plan-is-too-risky/
The underpinning of Force Design was “divest to invest.” You can judge for yourself if this was a prudent action or not.
So, are you saying that selling my car (for it's market value not original cost) so I can conduct a campaign of learning to learn how to make a hover car is going to interfere with my capability to drive to the grocery store in the meantime? (Excuse me, I have to go choke the Official Spokesman for FD(2030) because he's talking about Eastman Kodak again. He thinks they were able to make Nikon D1 SLRs in 1979...he's bad with timing outcomes)
Thank you for the COMMANDER, U.S. INDO-PACIFIC COMMAND posture paper. I can’t think of any issues he missed and he certainly has a plan and a monumental task to accomplish. Goldwater-Nichols was designed to allow the Combatant Commander to speak directly with the President. The best example of this (that I can think of at least) is during Desert Storm when General Schwarzkopf, speaking with President Bush, stated he needed the EURCOM’s US Army 7th Corps. I am probably wrong about this but the last time the 7th Corps deployed was to Europe during the WW2. I certainly hope the SECDEF sets a meeting between POTUS and Commander INDOPACOM, where the presidents asks, where will you stand on your plan by 2027? And what are your priorities that I can help accelerate? Then Pete H. needs to have a meeting with the Service Chiefs and ask what are you doing to help the INDOPACOM Combatant Commander with the CCP threat? BTW I don’t want to hear the words “divert to invest” as he looks deeply with concern into the Commandant’s eyes. S/F
Plus, it will still be another 5+ years till we have a fully combat ready unit. We got rid of a couple hundred tanks, 3/4 of our tube arty, plus much more, for what??? This is pure negligence. I wonder if it could be considered as dereliction of duty?
I was watching them fly around New Bern on a sunny day about two months ago. I am glad I got that last chance. The pilots and maintainers for the AV-8B were a unique (in a very good way) crew. I am sure as much as the airplane was loved, it is nice to put the headaches to rest. Still bittersweet when we say goodbye to these teams of Marines and machines after such good and faithful service. I had the good fortune, on my very first CASEX, to be able to call in the last A-4s in the Pacific. I remember seeing the last RF-4s at Kadena (air show). And I'll never forget when an SR71 (obviously not a Marine bird) flew over Schwab on final shortly before they retired. Even the UAVs; got to see a Pioneer on the Missouri when she came through Subic in '90. Years later, I thought someone ND'd a TOW when a Pioneer did it's little rocket launch thing in Diwaniyah next to our pos. All good. Time moves on; I just get younger and better looking.
The first time I saw a Harrier was while at OCS in 1977. We were in the squad bay and heard this really loud jet noise. We ran to the windows and saw it hovering. I think it was still being tested.
Common sense is an uncommon virtue! FD proves it!
It is hard to believe that it has been 54 years (1971) since I picked up the CG 2nd MAW at Cherry Point and took him about 60 miles off of Norfolk, VA to observe the first AV-8A night carrier quals on an LSD.
Being a fixed wing driver he insisted on flying the CH-53D. Be sides trying very hard to kill us at night with his helo skills of which I will let it there. Lets just say combat flying was less harrowing.
The AV-8A definitely had growing pains which led to the AV-8B and the rest is history.
It wan LPD not an LSD.
Where are the guns?
What’s the plan for these jets? Or are they too old to gift to anyone else? E.g. Taiwan / Philippines might find them useful.
Did anyone mention that the 1975 year that it wasn’t possible to use on asphalt run ways ? The heat was throwing up the asphalt. Better on concrete .
In the early 1970s, I had an office near the airfield at Quantico, where I could watch flights arriving and departing—including those of Marine One. One day, I witnessed a demonstration of the new Harrier fighter aircraft staged for a group of dignitaries. Three Harriers lifted off simultaneously, hovered at about 50 feet, then each rotated 360 degrees in perfect synchronization before flying off in formation. It was an impressive display—but I couldn’t help thinking how much it must have cost in fuel to stage that show.