Compass Points - Lack of Trust?
Eight sad examples of lack of trust
Compass Points - Lack of Trust?
Eight sad examples of lack of trust
June 22, 2023
.
.
It may surprise some readers, but Compass Points agrees with the outgoing Commandant when he uses the phrase, "lack of trust." The outgoing Commandant who has pushed the controversial Force Design 2030 for his entire troubled tenure was quoted in a Marine Corps Times article, "Top Marine pushes back on critics’ ‘lack of trust’ in Corps overhaul."
The soon to be former Commandant was quoted saying,
- - - -
What surprised me: the lack of trust.
- - - -
Compass Points agrees there has been a lack of trust surrounding Force Design 2030.
The proponents of Force Design have consistently shown a lack of trust in Marine Corps history, units, equipment, and capabilities. There are many examples, large and small, of the lack of trust exhibited by the proponents of the flawed Force Design 2030. Here are just eight sad examples of lack of trust and Force Design 2030.
1. Lack of trust in 38 amphibious ships. For years the Navy and Marine Corps had come to an uneasy agreement that the Marine Corps required at least 38 amphibious ships to be on patrol around the world ready to respond to any crisis or contingency. But in 2019 in his Commandant’s Planning Guidance the new Commandant kicked the legs out of the 38 amphibious ship agreement and suddenly said that the Marine Corps would accept fewer amphibs. Why the lack of trust?
2. Lack of trust in the MPF. Another issue involving Navy ships is the Maritime Prepositioned Force. Force Design 2030, from the beginning, has never placed trust in the MPF. Yet the MPF has proven itself again and again as the critical asset that allows Marine forces to sustain global operations. The Marine Corps needs a full strength MPF. In 2018, the Navy had three MPS squadrons (20 ships) strategically positioned. Today there are only two emasculated squadrons of 7 ships. Why the lack of trust in the MPF?
3. Lack of trust in the approach of "upgrade first, then divest." For decades the Marine Corps had wisely upgraded technology by using an "upgrade first, then divest" approach. For example, it took years for the MV-22 Osprey to replace the CH-46. Throughout all the delays Marine Corps leadership did not throw out the aging CH-46. Instead, the Marine Corps nursed along the CH-46 until the Osprey finally arrived. The proponents of Force Design 2030 were too impatient to trust the process of "upgrade first, then divest." The proponents of Force Design 2030 instead jumped into a hasty "divest to invest" approach. Why the lack of trust?
4. Lack of trust in large infantry battalions. One of the historic strengths of the Marine Corps has always been large infantry battalions. Large battalions have the numbers to absorb casualties and still press the fight. The proponents of Force Design 2030 never trusted the value of large Marine infantry battalions. Instead, Force Design immediately cut entire infantry battalions and cut the numbers in those battalions remaining. Why the lack of trust?
5. Lack of trust in the offense focused, combined arms Marine Corps. Proponents of Force Design 2030 never trusted the Marine Corps' proven role as an offense focused, combined arms force. Force Design 2030 is focused on placing Marines on defense, on islands, waiting for Chinese ships. Force Design 2030 puts no trust in, "locate, close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver." By using combined arms, Marines place the enemy in a dilemma from which they cannot escape. The United States has always trusted combined arms Marines to be the first to arrive and the first to fight. Why do the proponents of Force Design have so little trust in an offense focused, combined arms Marine Corps?
6. Lack of trust in Marine Corps logisticians. Marine Corps logisticians throughout history are one of the great secrets of Marine Corps success. It is the logisticians who always make sure Marines have the tools to press the fight. Marine logisticians were not trusted by the inner circle of Force Design 2030. If they had been, any group of senior, experienced Marine logisticians would have immediately pointed out that small units of Marines spread along the Pacific island chain are logistically unsustainable. The island Marines cannot be continuously supplied with the fuel, food, water, ammunition, and other supplies they need. They cannot be supported, protected, or evacuated. Why the lack of trust in Marine logisticians?
7. Lack of trust in the MAGTF. The organizational genius of the Marine Corps is in the Marine Air Ground Logistics Task Force. This is the infinitely flexible Marine Corps method to organize and deliver capabilities to meet any crisis or contingency. While it is often said that MAGTFs come in three sizes, from large to small, the MEF, MEB, and MEU, in reality the MAGTF can be tailored in any size and with any set of capabilities. The MAGTF has the flexibility to meet any mission. The proponents of Force Design did not trust the enduring power of the MAGTF. The proponents of Force Design created new organizations outside of the MAGTF structure? Why? If there was a need to add a missile battery to the Marine Corps, add it as part of a MAGTF. Why the lack of trust in the MAGTF?
8. Lack of trust in discussion and debate. Force Design 2030 grew out of a blizzard of Non-Disclosure Agreements, classified war games, a muzzled Marine Corps Gazette, and a Marine Corps University frantically blocking unapproved speakers and emails. If Force Design 2030 is the monumental advance its proponents claim, why not show it off, put the spotlight on, and encourage rigorous review? Stop trying to hide the source code of Force Design 2030. Any new approach needs to be openly and robustly discussed and debated. Why the lack of trust in open discussion and debate?
Compass Points agrees with the outgoing Commandant when he uses the phrase, "lack of trust." The proponents of Force Design have shown a destructive lack of trust in Marine Corps history, units, equipment, and capabilities. Compass Points is hopeful that with new Marine Corps leadership, the lack of trust that has damaged the Marine Corps will be erased and the Marine Corps, once again, will grow stronger.
.
- - - -
.
Marine Corps Times (marinecorpstimes.com) 06/22/2023
Top Marine pushes back on critics’ ‘lack of trust’ in Corps overhaul
By Irene Loewenson
With respect to the exchange between Ian and General Van Riper: At the end of the day, neither General Van Riper nor General Zinni have been invited to speak with faculty and students at the MCU. That is the action. All the emails and comments are just various verbal dressings of what has become a repressive command climate.
Last year, I wrote an article which was published on line in the National Interest: https://nationalinterest.org/feature/how-marines-can-fight-stifling-independent-thought-205154. That article attempted to both frame the problem and to pose positive steps to encourage independent thought and respectful discussion.
Interestingly, I received positive comments from professors outside the Marine Corps who are experiencing their own challenges with independent thinking in a "cancel culture" environment. One, a mathematics professor who has taught in prestigious universities of several nations read and forwarded that article to colleagues.
Regrettably, the MCG and the MCU chose to "double-down" on repression and censorship as indicated by subsequent actions.
Reading, reflecting, and building on that article offers a positive way for all to develop and sustain a positive learning culture.
Hear, Hear! Eight valid points about the Commandant's "lack of trust" issues. The Commandant apparently missed the Training Objective that "Trust" is a two-way street. From FMFM-1 Warfighting (6 March 1989) p. 45 "trust is an essential trait among leaders - trust by seniors in the abilities of their subordinates and by juniors in the competence and support of their seniors. Trust must be earned, and actions which undermine trust must meet with strict censure." When I pull FMFM-1 off of my bookshelf, it opens to page 45 where the above text is highlighted. I don't think the Commandant (outgoing or new) can say the same.