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.
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.
Perfectly stated! Not only is there lack of trust, but the denigration of retired military personnel, by active duty proponents of FD2030, is sickening at best and disgusting at worst!
It's not that bad...we get some good comedy out of it. For instance, if you have not already read it, on page 63 of the July 2023 Gazette is a 'Ideas and Issues (Useful Fiction)' piece entitled "The General Ascends". It's a thinly veiled analogy to critics of FD2030 that uses a fossilized Russian General, characterized by his misconceptions of war from ages past, poor leadership ability, and inability to comprehend modern battlefield reality. He is bellowing his thoughts to a group of young Russian Officers from atop a T-90 and eventually gets killed by a switchblade strike (he ignores all signs leading to the imminent attack). He rails about loss of armor and against reformers who would give "space experts, cyber warriors, influence peddlers, , missiles, and other officers with the skills of insects...". After he gets killed, we get the viewpoint from he Ukrainian outpost that managed the strike. They are nimble, managing ISR feeds and IW efforts while subtly ridiculing the old Russian General. The Ukrainian unit commander ends the story by clearly knowing that "In the grand scheme of things, between old wars and new,...(he) knew where he wished to stand.".
It's a really bad hack job of fan fiction, I had to laugh and read it all the way through. The broad black and white, or good and evil characterization of proponents and critics as regards FD2030 was so unintentionally ham fisted; it was cartoonish in effect. Of course, I am sure the author would say something like 'you read into it what you bring to the reading' as a continued effort to appear clever while actually not being clever.
In 2022 two professors and one school director asked for permission for me to attend their seminars and discuss Force Design 2030. The MCU President denied these requests. Subsequently, I wrote her and asked to speak in a forum outside of classroom hours and with voluntary attendance. She replied that I did not have the expertise to speak at MCU. Note that I was a Director of Command and Staff College, the first president of MCU, taught there from 2005-2017, and have 41 years of Marine Corps service, but according to her I don't have the needed expertise. Do you need any additional evidence? General Zinni can tell you of a similar experience.
Members of Chowder Society II had long discussions after the editor of the Marine Corps Gazette lied about "heavy fire" from HQMC when he refused at the last minute to publish three of our articles. (See the Compass Points post of 8 December 2022.) We considered the merits of an expose and other options. In the end we decided that despite its flaws the Gazette is our professional journal and one day it will recover its former standards so we would take no actions to damage it further. As to the President of MCU, I have my original email to her, her insulting response, and my strong response to her. Once again members of Chowder Society II discussed various courses of action and decided to keep all the correspondence private and wait for a new CMC who would direct MCU to allow free and open discussion as it did from the General Gray ear until the present. We will soon know if our confidence in a future CMC was justified.
To erase any doubts you may have about my reply below I have copied the following from the MCU President's email to me: "We invite individuals to lecture at the University based on their expertise. If there is a time that we would like for you to come to the University, we will reach out to have you speak."
Ian, my friend, you are missing the point in your counter arguments.
First, you may not have found the President of MCU’s words insulting (granted you only saw two sentences from the entire email) but every retired and former Marine who read the entire email did find them insulting. This includes several former Commandants, one an icon of our Corps, who was reported to be “incensed” by the content of the email.
Second, two professors did invite me to visit and speak to their seminars, which the President of MCU ignores with her words, “If there is a time that we would like for you to come to the University, we will reach out to have you speak.” They wanted their students to be able to hear the views of the retired and former Marine community and to have an opportunity to debate those views. One professor who has been at MCU for more than ten-years told me he never had a previous request for a visitor to attend one of his seminars denied.
Third, your contention that plans, policies, and doctrine that have been approved should not be challenged because it runs counter to good order and disciplines mimic the words of the President of MCU in her email. Acceptance of this position means that nothing can be challenged except items under consideration—anything approved is off-limits. In applying this criteria, John Boyd, who you wrote so masterfully about in your book, for which I was privileged to write the introduction, would not have been allowed to speak at any of the Quantico PME schools in the 1980s. As the Director of Command and Staff College and President of MCU in those years, in accordance with General Gray’s instructions, I not only allowed him to speak, but I also invited him to speak at length as I did the even more controversial William “Bill” Lind. And students and the Corps were all the better for the debates that ensued.
Fourth, nearly every retired four-star Marine Corps general opposes what General Berger has done to our Corps. I know of none who has spoken actively in his defense. There were 22 who signed the very first letter that went to General Berger expressing their concerns. A recent letter had 18 four-star signatures. Collectively, these generals represent thousands of years of wartime and peacetime experience. In the many interactions of which I have been a part they have held the position that General Berger’s Force Design 2030 poses and existential threat to the Corps. This is why members of the Chowder Society II have taken what you call a “maximalist” position. We believe the Corps is self-destructing, which by the way is the view of a recently retired Secretary of Defense (not General Mattis) and many members of the other Services. One of the most common questions we get from those outside the Corps is, “What the hell is the Commandant doing?”
Fifth, In your response and in many others, you return to the complaint that you and others don’t know who makes up Chowder Society II and suggest it is a very small group. We make no attempt to hide our membership, which is informal in any case. It is not a small group, and it consists of officers like me who retired years many ago and others—including three and four-stars—who retired in the past two years, and a surprising number of active-duty officers. Seven of us work on a full-time basis, that is, every day and most of the day. Another dozen put in part of a week and upwards of thirty more author articles for us and share information on a routine basis. Then there are dozens of additional folks who I would classify as supporters but most of whom likely consider themselves members. A better idea of the order of magnitude of our effort is the size of some of our email lists, the largest has 1,200 addressees and the smallest 40), and the number of views Compass Points has each day—averages 3,500-4,500 and frequently exceeds 5,000.
Finally, I know of no allegation we have made for which there is not solid evidence. As an example of one issue you site, “fixed” FD2030 wargames. I have personally talked with a retired lieutenant colonel who participated in these games who spelled out in detail their shortcomings. I also have in my possession written reports from others who tell of the defects that were hidden from view. A major newspaper has found enough evidence that it is contemplating doing an expose; let’s hope it does. We simply don’t make up or assert anything without convincing evidence. As to our charges against the Marine Corps Gazette, you either missed or forgot the details laid out in the Compass Points post of 8 December 2022 where the contents of emails from the editor are shown along with date/time groups. In short, he lied in an online post claiming he did not receive “heavy fire” from HQMC when in fact those were the very words he used in an email to me. I will gladly scan copies of these emails and the online MCG post and send them to you if my words are insufficient.
Let me close by saying that members of Chowder Society II are eager to move beyond the disastrous General Berger era and work with the new Commandant when he assumes the office. General Berger, however, can’t seem to let go of the idea that we don’t trust him, which we don’t, as evidenced by his comments recently on a Krulak Center podcast (see the Compass Points post of 23 June). Ironic for a man who required his officers to sign non-attribution agreements and was known to give his generals loyalty lectures, hardly indications of trust.
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.
Perfectly stated! Not only is there lack of trust, but the denigration of retired military personnel, by active duty proponents of FD2030, is sickening at best and disgusting at worst!
It's not that bad...we get some good comedy out of it. For instance, if you have not already read it, on page 63 of the July 2023 Gazette is a 'Ideas and Issues (Useful Fiction)' piece entitled "The General Ascends". It's a thinly veiled analogy to critics of FD2030 that uses a fossilized Russian General, characterized by his misconceptions of war from ages past, poor leadership ability, and inability to comprehend modern battlefield reality. He is bellowing his thoughts to a group of young Russian Officers from atop a T-90 and eventually gets killed by a switchblade strike (he ignores all signs leading to the imminent attack). He rails about loss of armor and against reformers who would give "space experts, cyber warriors, influence peddlers, , missiles, and other officers with the skills of insects...". After he gets killed, we get the viewpoint from he Ukrainian outpost that managed the strike. They are nimble, managing ISR feeds and IW efforts while subtly ridiculing the old Russian General. The Ukrainian unit commander ends the story by clearly knowing that "In the grand scheme of things, between old wars and new,...(he) knew where he wished to stand.".
It's a really bad hack job of fan fiction, I had to laugh and read it all the way through. The broad black and white, or good and evil characterization of proponents and critics as regards FD2030 was so unintentionally ham fisted; it was cartoonish in effect. Of course, I am sure the author would say something like 'you read into it what you bring to the reading' as a continued effort to appear clever while actually not being clever.
Hmmmm....."Trust is by nature a relationship." Seems the outgoing CMC has lost sight of that and wants to refine trust as a one way street.
Ian, if this is "unadorned horse 💩 please reach out to the MCU President and powers-to-be to confirm and document this in writing.
In 2022 two professors and one school director asked for permission for me to attend their seminars and discuss Force Design 2030. The MCU President denied these requests. Subsequently, I wrote her and asked to speak in a forum outside of classroom hours and with voluntary attendance. She replied that I did not have the expertise to speak at MCU. Note that I was a Director of Command and Staff College, the first president of MCU, taught there from 2005-2017, and have 41 years of Marine Corps service, but according to her I don't have the needed expertise. Do you need any additional evidence? General Zinni can tell you of a similar experience.
Members of Chowder Society II had long discussions after the editor of the Marine Corps Gazette lied about "heavy fire" from HQMC when he refused at the last minute to publish three of our articles. (See the Compass Points post of 8 December 2022.) We considered the merits of an expose and other options. In the end we decided that despite its flaws the Gazette is our professional journal and one day it will recover its former standards so we would take no actions to damage it further. As to the President of MCU, I have my original email to her, her insulting response, and my strong response to her. Once again members of Chowder Society II discussed various courses of action and decided to keep all the correspondence private and wait for a new CMC who would direct MCU to allow free and open discussion as it did from the General Gray ear until the present. We will soon know if our confidence in a future CMC was justified.
To erase any doubts you may have about my reply below I have copied the following from the MCU President's email to me: "We invite individuals to lecture at the University based on their expertise. If there is a time that we would like for you to come to the University, we will reach out to have you speak."
Ian, my friend, you are missing the point in your counter arguments.
First, you may not have found the President of MCU’s words insulting (granted you only saw two sentences from the entire email) but every retired and former Marine who read the entire email did find them insulting. This includes several former Commandants, one an icon of our Corps, who was reported to be “incensed” by the content of the email.
Second, two professors did invite me to visit and speak to their seminars, which the President of MCU ignores with her words, “If there is a time that we would like for you to come to the University, we will reach out to have you speak.” They wanted their students to be able to hear the views of the retired and former Marine community and to have an opportunity to debate those views. One professor who has been at MCU for more than ten-years told me he never had a previous request for a visitor to attend one of his seminars denied.
Third, your contention that plans, policies, and doctrine that have been approved should not be challenged because it runs counter to good order and disciplines mimic the words of the President of MCU in her email. Acceptance of this position means that nothing can be challenged except items under consideration—anything approved is off-limits. In applying this criteria, John Boyd, who you wrote so masterfully about in your book, for which I was privileged to write the introduction, would not have been allowed to speak at any of the Quantico PME schools in the 1980s. As the Director of Command and Staff College and President of MCU in those years, in accordance with General Gray’s instructions, I not only allowed him to speak, but I also invited him to speak at length as I did the even more controversial William “Bill” Lind. And students and the Corps were all the better for the debates that ensued.
Fourth, nearly every retired four-star Marine Corps general opposes what General Berger has done to our Corps. I know of none who has spoken actively in his defense. There were 22 who signed the very first letter that went to General Berger expressing their concerns. A recent letter had 18 four-star signatures. Collectively, these generals represent thousands of years of wartime and peacetime experience. In the many interactions of which I have been a part they have held the position that General Berger’s Force Design 2030 poses and existential threat to the Corps. This is why members of the Chowder Society II have taken what you call a “maximalist” position. We believe the Corps is self-destructing, which by the way is the view of a recently retired Secretary of Defense (not General Mattis) and many members of the other Services. One of the most common questions we get from those outside the Corps is, “What the hell is the Commandant doing?”
Fifth, In your response and in many others, you return to the complaint that you and others don’t know who makes up Chowder Society II and suggest it is a very small group. We make no attempt to hide our membership, which is informal in any case. It is not a small group, and it consists of officers like me who retired years many ago and others—including three and four-stars—who retired in the past two years, and a surprising number of active-duty officers. Seven of us work on a full-time basis, that is, every day and most of the day. Another dozen put in part of a week and upwards of thirty more author articles for us and share information on a routine basis. Then there are dozens of additional folks who I would classify as supporters but most of whom likely consider themselves members. A better idea of the order of magnitude of our effort is the size of some of our email lists, the largest has 1,200 addressees and the smallest 40), and the number of views Compass Points has each day—averages 3,500-4,500 and frequently exceeds 5,000.
Finally, I know of no allegation we have made for which there is not solid evidence. As an example of one issue you site, “fixed” FD2030 wargames. I have personally talked with a retired lieutenant colonel who participated in these games who spelled out in detail their shortcomings. I also have in my possession written reports from others who tell of the defects that were hidden from view. A major newspaper has found enough evidence that it is contemplating doing an expose; let’s hope it does. We simply don’t make up or assert anything without convincing evidence. As to our charges against the Marine Corps Gazette, you either missed or forgot the details laid out in the Compass Points post of 8 December 2022 where the contents of emails from the editor are shown along with date/time groups. In short, he lied in an online post claiming he did not receive “heavy fire” from HQMC when in fact those were the very words he used in an email to me. I will gladly scan copies of these emails and the online MCG post and send them to you if my words are insufficient.
Let me close by saying that members of Chowder Society II are eager to move beyond the disastrous General Berger era and work with the new Commandant when he assumes the office. General Berger, however, can’t seem to let go of the idea that we don’t trust him, which we don’t, as evidenced by his comments recently on a Krulak Center podcast (see the Compass Points post of 23 June). Ironic for a man who required his officers to sign non-attribution agreements and was known to give his generals loyalty lectures, hardly indications of trust.