It seems that there are a couple of large themes running throughout. Manage rather than lead. “Joint” services that don’t act jointly (army ships and Marines as stand in forces) “peer” foes who aren’t peers or even necessarily foes. A lack of clarity in the lines between public foreign policy and a military that can prosecute the foreign policy if needs be.
Dumbing it down for one’s own sake and sanity if the Marine Corps sticks to what it has done best or well over the last decades meaning a MAGTF concept that allows very good flexible response to many different crises large and small. Real humanitarian relief operations, sustained combat operations and the mere threat of Marines “going across the beach” in a short sharp action of some sort. The rest can take care of itself. We did not even have an equal seat at the JCS table until General Wilson achieved that status when he was CMC. But, somehow the Corps was able to conduct and meet Title X requirements. Focus on what you can do, be obnoxious about sealift, both the necessary amphibious support and long term prepositioning of ships for sustained operations. Focus on leadership, find quality over quantity and sometimes be bloody well rude about it. No Congress person XY or Z we aren’t doing that, we are not lowering standards to meet arbitrary recruitment standards. As General Wilson told Congress at some sort of hearing, if it came down to he and his driver being the only Marines qualified to be Marines then the T/O of the Corps would be 2. China maybe belligerent because it has plenty of problems at home. Defeating China is defined how? What is the military option for China that brings them global dominance. Once dominant what have they gained and can they hold on to that dominance? Doubtful on all accounts. So let China be China and let the Marine Corps be the Marine Corps. It all flows down hill from the simplest of concepts. Gravity works.
While looking for material on PACOM and China, I came across this article in USNI News (Feb 21, 2017). While it is somewhat related to our topic at hand, it goes to the heart of what we are discussing
overall. The article's title: "PACOM Commander Harris Wants the Army to Sink Ships, Expand Battle Networks." The Army has its land-based missile defense systems which could be tied into the Navy's Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air systems. This would "create a network of sensors and shooters." Is this the genesis of FD?? The premise of the article goes on to say that then Admiral
Harry Harris wanted the "Army to develop a native anti-ship capability." The article does not say he wanted the Marine Corps to develop this capability. He wanted the Army. Could it be that being the largest of the services, the Army has the most capabilities to do so? Did the Admiral not say the Marine Corps, because he knew the Marine Corps has a unique capability of its own: that of a combined arms naval expeditionary force? In a military environment overlapping capabilities can be a good thing. But, not at the expense of eliminating a unique capability.
"The Corps’ newest regiment, the Marine littoral regiment, combines new drone and sensing tech, anti-aircraft equipment and a ship-sinking missile into one formation — purpose-built to move around the land and sea, hopefully going unnoticed... "
Re the Gallagher etc article, Peter Zeihan predicts the disintegration of the PRC by the end of the decade. He bases this on demographic collapse. Ck out his work on this subject.
Perhaps it is time to revisit “The Clash of Civilizations?
Samuel P. Huntington
THE NEXT PATTERN OF CONFLICT WORLD POLITICS Is entering a new phase, and intellectuals have not hesitated to proliferate visions of what it will be— the end of his- tory, the return of traditional rivalries between nation states, and the decline of the nation state from the conflicting pulls of tribalism and globalism, among others. Each of these visions catches aspects of the emerging reality. Yet they all miss a crucial, indeed a central, aspect
of what global politics is likely to be in the coming years. It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this
new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. I he clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between
civilizations will be the battle lines of the future. Conflict between civilizations will be the latest phase in the evo- lution of conflict in the modern world. For a century and a half after the emergence of the modern international system with the Peace of
Westphalia, the conflicts of the Western world were largely among SAMUEL P. HUNTINGTON is the Eaton Professor of the Science of Government and Director of the John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies at Harvard University. This article is the product of the Olin Institute's project on "The Changing Security Environment and
Mr. Zakaria makes valid points but he should be addressing the Great Power Competition vs the US Military Deterrence Strategy. I don’t think the US has a Great Power Competition strategy. At this point, I feel like Great Power Competition are just buzz words thrown out by the media political commentators. Combine this with a very weak (maybe none existing) military deterrence strategy, and the CCP is going to continue to press their unrestricted warfare doctrine in both the great power competition and their military strategy.
A good Great Power Competition Strategy should be developed and implemented by US Foreign Policy. Ali Wyne lays out eight Foreign Policy Principles in the book he authored: America's Great-Power Opportunity: Revitalizing U.S. Foreign Policy to Meet the Challenges of Strategic Competition: Wyne, Ali:
Gallagher has no integrity he abandoned his constituents, after failing to vote to impeach Mayorkas. He timed his departure to leave his seat open until 2025, screwing those who elected him. He took a million dollar position in the military industrial complex. No integrity! “Republican Rep. Mike Gallagher To Accept Job At U.S. Spy Agency Linked Data Company Palantir
By Thomas Schumacher
Mar 29, 2024 | 10:41 AM
Rep. Mike Gallagher Speaking During Hearing - Photo by J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo
GREEN BAY, WI (WSAU) – Soon-to-be former Republican Rep. Mike Gallagher has decided on what’s next after he leaves Congress on April 19th.
According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Gallagher is set to accept a job with the Colorado-based data analytics and software company Palantir. His exact role with the company remains to be announced, as the company is involved in major contracts with both commercial companies and government agencies.
Palantir was originally founded by high-profile billionaire Peter Thiel, who is best known as one of the co-founders of PayPal and one of the first outside investors in Facebook. When he started Palantir in 2003, he said he hoped the company could help the U.S. with foreign affairs issues, saying, “The approaches that PayPal had used to fight fraud could be extended into other contexts, like fighting terrorism.”
Sam, setting aside the issue you brought up, Gallagher is correct about our approach to China under its current rule. He probably also thinks it is good to stay hydrated...I'd probably agree with his take on that also regardless of his approach to the impeachment. Now, I will admit, I second guess everyone of his recomendations until I've thought it through. He was an Intel Weanie after all.... ;)
It seems that there are a couple of large themes running throughout. Manage rather than lead. “Joint” services that don’t act jointly (army ships and Marines as stand in forces) “peer” foes who aren’t peers or even necessarily foes. A lack of clarity in the lines between public foreign policy and a military that can prosecute the foreign policy if needs be.
Dumbing it down for one’s own sake and sanity if the Marine Corps sticks to what it has done best or well over the last decades meaning a MAGTF concept that allows very good flexible response to many different crises large and small. Real humanitarian relief operations, sustained combat operations and the mere threat of Marines “going across the beach” in a short sharp action of some sort. The rest can take care of itself. We did not even have an equal seat at the JCS table until General Wilson achieved that status when he was CMC. But, somehow the Corps was able to conduct and meet Title X requirements. Focus on what you can do, be obnoxious about sealift, both the necessary amphibious support and long term prepositioning of ships for sustained operations. Focus on leadership, find quality over quantity and sometimes be bloody well rude about it. No Congress person XY or Z we aren’t doing that, we are not lowering standards to meet arbitrary recruitment standards. As General Wilson told Congress at some sort of hearing, if it came down to he and his driver being the only Marines qualified to be Marines then the T/O of the Corps would be 2. China maybe belligerent because it has plenty of problems at home. Defeating China is defined how? What is the military option for China that brings them global dominance. Once dominant what have they gained and can they hold on to that dominance? Doubtful on all accounts. So let China be China and let the Marine Corps be the Marine Corps. It all flows down hill from the simplest of concepts. Gravity works.
Managing China as a military and economic peer competitor is similar in precept to Chamberlin managing Hitler before WW ll.
While looking for material on PACOM and China, I came across this article in USNI News (Feb 21, 2017). While it is somewhat related to our topic at hand, it goes to the heart of what we are discussing
overall. The article's title: "PACOM Commander Harris Wants the Army to Sink Ships, Expand Battle Networks." The Army has its land-based missile defense systems which could be tied into the Navy's Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air systems. This would "create a network of sensors and shooters." Is this the genesis of FD?? The premise of the article goes on to say that then Admiral
Harry Harris wanted the "Army to develop a native anti-ship capability." The article does not say he wanted the Marine Corps to develop this capability. He wanted the Army. Could it be that being the largest of the services, the Army has the most capabilities to do so? Did the Admiral not say the Marine Corps, because he knew the Marine Corps has a unique capability of its own: that of a combined arms naval expeditionary force? In a military environment overlapping capabilities can be a good thing. But, not at the expense of eliminating a unique capability.
"The Corps’ newest regiment, the Marine littoral regiment, combines new drone and sensing tech, anti-aircraft equipment and a ship-sinking missile into one formation — purpose-built to move around the land and sea, hopefully going unnoticed... "
HOPEFULLY GOING UNNOTICED!!! Wow. just wow.
https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2024/05/13/in-chinas-backyard-the-new-marine-regiments-changing-the-fight/?utm_campaign=dfn-ebb&utm_medium=email&utm_source=sailthru
Re the Gallagher etc article, Peter Zeihan predicts the disintegration of the PRC by the end of the decade. He bases this on demographic collapse. Ck out his work on this subject.
Perhaps it is time to revisit “The Clash of Civilizations?
Samuel P. Huntington
THE NEXT PATTERN OF CONFLICT WORLD POLITICS Is entering a new phase, and intellectuals have not hesitated to proliferate visions of what it will be— the end of his- tory, the return of traditional rivalries between nation states, and the decline of the nation state from the conflicting pulls of tribalism and globalism, among others. Each of these visions catches aspects of the emerging reality. Yet they all miss a crucial, indeed a central, aspect
of what global politics is likely to be in the coming years. It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this
new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. I he clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between
civilizations will be the battle lines of the future. Conflict between civilizations will be the latest phase in the evo- lution of conflict in the modern world. For a century and a half after the emergence of the modern international system with the Peace of
Westphalia, the conflicts of the Western world were largely among SAMUEL P. HUNTINGTON is the Eaton Professor of the Science of Government and Director of the John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies at Harvard University. This article is the product of the Olin Institute's project on "The Changing Security Environment and
American”?
Mr Fareed Zakaria
Mr. Zakaria makes valid points but he should be addressing the Great Power Competition vs the US Military Deterrence Strategy. I don’t think the US has a Great Power Competition strategy. At this point, I feel like Great Power Competition are just buzz words thrown out by the media political commentators. Combine this with a very weak (maybe none existing) military deterrence strategy, and the CCP is going to continue to press their unrestricted warfare doctrine in both the great power competition and their military strategy.
A good Great Power Competition Strategy should be developed and implemented by US Foreign Policy. Ali Wyne lays out eight Foreign Policy Principles in the book he authored: America's Great-Power Opportunity: Revitalizing U.S. Foreign Policy to Meet the Challenges of Strategic Competition: Wyne, Ali:
https://www.amazon.com/Americas-Great-Power-Opportunity-Revitalizing-Competition/dp/1509545549/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2L4D3MLD3FAUI&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.xNSMH7cDCBVPswY9ogD1KIT5jRJ249LMQOC81gyTJhI7Qsl3WPjFtgTeTJPdp4rLdzL7MPmRIhQgCO68eCaGmp6nT5h2iyyqq6YwejVQ1l5FbcgyrnOjZhUOoEmAP8K4d7OzosSawEYIM_k62evUdTK0Dqp9Wqe9KT0YKUsaL3oIm6XlcQ_H6cHV_kCIayOfq0h-IqFjkl4Il3L1apkNLyAFeWCj7JtAFgzs2biJyO8.0QeN5AnmfZoIuh7U1ehCPVG1uBErJcjPPzMsAM4ZuDg&dib_tag=se&keywords=America%E2%80%99s+Great-power+Opportunity&qid=1715434866&s=books&sprefix=america+s+great-power+opportunity%2Cstripbooks%2C92&sr=1-1
I do not know if the US State Department is addressing the Great Power Competition with the CCP but they should read this book to get them started.
Exactly!
Gallagher has no integrity he abandoned his constituents, after failing to vote to impeach Mayorkas. He timed his departure to leave his seat open until 2025, screwing those who elected him. He took a million dollar position in the military industrial complex. No integrity! “Republican Rep. Mike Gallagher To Accept Job At U.S. Spy Agency Linked Data Company Palantir
By Thomas Schumacher
Mar 29, 2024 | 10:41 AM
Rep. Mike Gallagher Speaking During Hearing - Photo by J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo
GREEN BAY, WI (WSAU) – Soon-to-be former Republican Rep. Mike Gallagher has decided on what’s next after he leaves Congress on April 19th.
According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Gallagher is set to accept a job with the Colorado-based data analytics and software company Palantir. His exact role with the company remains to be announced, as the company is involved in major contracts with both commercial companies and government agencies.
Palantir was originally founded by high-profile billionaire Peter Thiel, who is best known as one of the co-founders of PayPal and one of the first outside investors in Facebook. When he started Palantir in 2003, he said he hoped the company could help the U.S. with foreign affairs issues, saying, “The approaches that PayPal had used to fight fraud could be extended into other contexts, like fighting terrorism.”
During the WikiLeaks events of 2010
Sam, setting aside the issue you brought up, Gallagher is correct about our approach to China under its current rule. He probably also thinks it is good to stay hydrated...I'd probably agree with his take on that also regardless of his approach to the impeachment. Now, I will admit, I second guess everyone of his recomendations until I've thought it through. He was an Intel Weanie after all.... ;)
Emphasis on Weanie.