This is typical of people who lack historical Knowledge and the fundamentals of what the modern Marine Corps ought to be.
“…In reply, the island missile proponents have begun to criticize the MAGTF.” So, when the intellect is devoid of concrete reasons why their “idea for FD” is better than the MAGTF, they resort to the tried and true concept of isolating what you hate, attack it and eliminate it…“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.”
This is exactly what the proponents of FD are intent on doing. Attacking “graybeards” and the MAGTF is the same tenant and ideology we guarded and fought against in the past and here it is on full display by the current crop of cadres who are too afraid to engage highly experienced, accomplished and tactful warriors…the question is, why are they fearful to have a robust debate and allow others in uniform to learn for themselves the value of the MAGTF vs SIF.
My advice to our active duty comrades, rebuilt the Marine Corps as it used to be pre 2019. AND, add other lethality to meet the pacing threat in the Pacific. If rebuilding is about money, hell, let’s join forces and pressure Congress to fund the Corps properly and have them force the navy in bolstering its Amphibs to meet the Corps needs.
You're flat out wrong in your observations here! Kiew and Russia BOTH have sought to purchase/acquire more tank assets and 155mm artillery as this war has proven the need and lethality of BOTH of these assets that the Corps foolishly divested (all tanks and 85% of tubed cannon arty) in the FD2030 insanity!!!! Berger's obsession with fighting the CHICOMs on remote Pacific islands while neglecting the other 98% of real world threats has rendered our beloved Corps' MAGTF capabilities impotent and irrelevant as such! His "littoral regiments" could've been accomplished for the Pacific theatre without neutering the Corps as he did!
The Corps should and could reverse this insanity and bring back lighter yet lethal tanks than the M1 Abrams versions, as well as restore the previous TO&E M77 Howitzer capabilities and augment these with the rocket launcher systems for specific needs. The divesting of combat engineering bridging capabilities must be restored as well! And the STA platoons and Scout Sniper courses must be returned due to their valuable intel and recon and lethal capabilities afforded infantry commanders with such!
There is one topic the MAGTF Snapshot missed, that of the successful role of deterrence the deployed MAGTF played from the mid 80s thru the 90s. Although hard to measure it's easy enough to look at today's world and how we are always reacting instead of shaping events as we had in the past. Our Nation's leadership continues to react to world events as if a strong military deterrence force still exists. As an example look at US policy & actions post Oct 7th ME in an attempt to keep Iran & its proxies in line and in the Pacific restraining China's expansionist objectives. It's obvious with the failures to stop the Houtis from threatening maritime shipping and China from threatening and taking Filipino shoals that our ability to deter our adversaries has greatly diminished.
Exactly! I served with C/E 26th MEU (SOC) from July 1987-July 1990 and you are absolutely correct in your observations! With the advent of the "Special Operations Capable" aka "SOC" for each MEU, the lethality and versatility of the MEU was enhanced... thanks to former CMC Gen Al Gray for his keen forsight in bringing this about upon assuming his role as CMC!
In the comments to yesterday’s CP post, we saw a new tactic to attack those who are not aboard the FD hype train - - denigrate the Marine Corps for 70 years of mostly fabricated past failures and blame those who served during this period for the shortcomings. Today’s post should disabuse anyone of the notion that the Marine Corps was hidebound and irrelevant before Force Design.
For those who want more proof: Earlier this month after Russian and Chinese military jets patrolled too close to the western Aleutian Islands, the Department of Defense tapped the Army to send a show of force to the region. Included in the Army force that deployed to Shemya Island was a MLRS rocket system from one of the Army MDTFs. Where were the Marines? For more details, please refer to the article at the link: https://mustreadalaska.com/military-makes-show-of-force-on-shemya-island/
Saw that and asked my self the same question. As we rally our support against island defense missions, their taking the Shemya deployment might be better for us in the long run.
As an aside: we subjected Marines to that horrible weather long enough-don’t have to practice being miserable!
I love good Fiction stories, but the problem for the FD proponents is that they've forgotten Fiction will turn out whatever ending the author says...and just because the author writes it doesn't mean it's actually true or possible in real life. FACTUALLY, the Navy-Marine Corps team have failed to meet commitments over the past half-decade plus. Do they correlate to impacts from FD? In many ways, yes. Are they caused by FD? Perhaps. I love Gen Z - he's brilliant and I like that he focused on how we've succeeded in the past and how we've failed recently. Nevertheless, while correlation MAY include causation...correlation may also not indicate causation. Regardless, imo there does seem to be a probable causation link between FD and failure. Yelling at Greybeards has a near 100% correlation with willful ignorance though.
As I read this list of accomplishments, I can’t help but to have the sting of salt air of compressed living compartments sting my nostrils (no small feat considering Nevada is far from the sea). Can’t help but think “how many our senators and representatives have made a 3 or 4 day foray out with an ARG?” Perhaps if more of those enlightened folks saw, heard and felt the rigors of seaborne life they might look upon requests from the services from a more serious, informed standpoint. Now they view the sea services as grey boats lurching in the sea, but a trip on one might show them how important those ARG’s are to national defense and our foreign relations.
All well and good; where will the money come from to pay for the rebuilding of these capabilities? Complaining about how the USMC or the military in general can't do XX means nothing if the ability to pay for XX isn't also explained. Cuts elsewhere? Higher taxes? Let's hear the ideas.
Actually, the military Services are responsible for developing capabilities and requirements and turning them into programs for Congressional funding. Only the Congress has the power of the purse through the authorizations and appropriations processes. Said another way, the Services are responsible for determining requirements and the Congress is responsible for finding the funding or not. As an example, the Marine Corps has stated a requirement for 35 LSMs. The Congress will ultimately decide to fund all, part, or none of the requirement. It's not up to the Marines to find the funding. The Commandant has correctly stated on several occasions that requirements are requirements. It's up to the Congress to fund them or not.
Fully aware of the source of funding, however I did not realize that the two authors, retired, were speaking FOR the military?
No, the article comes across as 'the military needs more funding because it needs more capabilities/assets'. Assuming that the Marines have already spelled out their requirements to Congress, and Congress chose not to fund them, then this is an exercise without meaning.
However as they are NOT speaking for the military then they most certainly should be able to explain their opinions on how these gaps in capability should be funded. What should in their estimation be cut, or how much should taxes be raised to pay for this (as opposed to hiding behind the appropriations process)?
All well and good; where will the money come from to pay for the rebuilding of these capabilities? Complaining about how the USMC or the military in general can't do XX means nothing if the ability to pay for XX isn't also explained. Cuts elsewhere? Higher taxes? Let's hear the ideas.
Is war with China inevitable? Yes, no, I don't know, maybe so! However, some type of world crisis happening in the near future is inevitable. It could be another Benghazi event, rebels in a desert firing missiles at ships (oh, yea, the Houthis), or a humanitarian event. If the Marine Corps is not a robust combined arms naval expeditionary force, what military force will accomplish these missions? In "Afloat-Ready Battalion" Colonel Douglas Nash maintains that prior to WWII, the "the Navy wanted an afloat-ready battalion, and the Marine Corps wanted an advance base force." This problem was resolved in 1947/8 when Ambassador George F. Kennan requested a "mobile amphibious reaction force" in the Mediterranean to help deter Communist expansion. We are faced with the same problem today as, what is the Marine Corps' mission. The MEU/MAGTF is the only force capable of conducting such operations. The MEU/MAGTF is a Swiss Army knife of combat capabilities. In the Indo-Pacific, the MEU could leave their tanks behind and carry HIMARs for precision strikes against Chinese ships. In the Mediterranean and Middle East, they could bring the tanks for land combat operations. The MEU/MAGTF are afloat worldwide for various crises. The Army cannot do it because they cannot loiter for long periods. The MEU/MAGTF in theater, is only sailing distance away from a crisis, with all their equipment. If the situation is larger than a MEU can handle, it has the building blocks to enlarge the force. The value of the Marine Corps as a crisis intervention force is greater than as a missile force aimed at China. Which the Army already maintains. This is why the MEU/MAGTF needs to be a robust combined arms naval expeditionary force. It can be ready for anything, anywhere, anytime: Every clime and place.
I’m sorry did you just forget or do away with Title 10, § 8063 (a), you know that pesky thing called a law? You’re quick to denigrate past Marine Corps accomplishments, and the efforts of this forum, to ensure that the Corps has the ability to meet its Title 10 mission, which the current FD structure can’t. If it can, please show me how it can.
You criticize the current forum and seem really hung up on SSCs, LCACs, LSTs, etc., but you fail to have ever mentioned the force structure of the SIF or MLR. How do they first get emplaced? You, like the current Corps leadership, assume that they’ll be emplaced before a conflict starts. Please provide one example of a country that has agreed to allow an SIF be emplaced? Please explain to us why the CC decided on using an Army MTDF recently rather than an SIF on Shemya ?
Please provide this forum with the make/mod of the missile the SIF will be equipped with? Its range? How about the TO or TE of the SIF? How about how the SIF or the MLR will be logistically supported?
Please explain to this forum how an SIF will protect itself in the close in battle, without supporting arms? Based on your past criticisms I guess you assume that all of those unused amphibious ships the Navy no longer is using will just come steaming over the horizon to extract the SIF, from oh by the way, the FIRST ISLAND CHAIN and avoid the close in battle.
You have been quick to criticize the comments and views of those on this forum, but I have yet to hear your arguments on what to do, other than to just allow Corps leadership continue down the current path with no force development testing. How will the current SIF/MLR force structure meet the TITLE 10, § 8063 (a) mission assignment?
I think I speak for many on this forum, if the SIF/MLR concept is so robust and survivable in the next WORLDWIDE foreign policy of the U.S. then why not wargame it, why not put it in the field and conduct force-on-force evolutions. I mean it’s been over 5 years, and we still don’t have a TO, TE, the “magical” missile, the results of any wargames, the results of any force-on-force evolutions, or the AAR of any actual employments. I have to ask, what has the Commandant and his staff been doing for the last 5+ years?
This is typical of people who lack historical Knowledge and the fundamentals of what the modern Marine Corps ought to be.
“…In reply, the island missile proponents have begun to criticize the MAGTF.” So, when the intellect is devoid of concrete reasons why their “idea for FD” is better than the MAGTF, they resort to the tried and true concept of isolating what you hate, attack it and eliminate it…“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.”
This is exactly what the proponents of FD are intent on doing. Attacking “graybeards” and the MAGTF is the same tenant and ideology we guarded and fought against in the past and here it is on full display by the current crop of cadres who are too afraid to engage highly experienced, accomplished and tactful warriors…the question is, why are they fearful to have a robust debate and allow others in uniform to learn for themselves the value of the MAGTF vs SIF.
My advice to our active duty comrades, rebuilt the Marine Corps as it used to be pre 2019. AND, add other lethality to meet the pacing threat in the Pacific. If rebuilding is about money, hell, let’s join forces and pressure Congress to fund the Corps properly and have them force the navy in bolstering its Amphibs to meet the Corps needs.
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2024/09/25/fixing_the_navys_readiness_crisis_1060690.html?mc_cid=d8351010d2
You're flat out wrong in your observations here! Kiew and Russia BOTH have sought to purchase/acquire more tank assets and 155mm artillery as this war has proven the need and lethality of BOTH of these assets that the Corps foolishly divested (all tanks and 85% of tubed cannon arty) in the FD2030 insanity!!!! Berger's obsession with fighting the CHICOMs on remote Pacific islands while neglecting the other 98% of real world threats has rendered our beloved Corps' MAGTF capabilities impotent and irrelevant as such! His "littoral regiments" could've been accomplished for the Pacific theatre without neutering the Corps as he did!
The Corps should and could reverse this insanity and bring back lighter yet lethal tanks than the M1 Abrams versions, as well as restore the previous TO&E M77 Howitzer capabilities and augment these with the rocket launcher systems for specific needs. The divesting of combat engineering bridging capabilities must be restored as well! And the STA platoons and Scout Sniper courses must be returned due to their valuable intel and recon and lethal capabilities afforded infantry commanders with such!
There is one topic the MAGTF Snapshot missed, that of the successful role of deterrence the deployed MAGTF played from the mid 80s thru the 90s. Although hard to measure it's easy enough to look at today's world and how we are always reacting instead of shaping events as we had in the past. Our Nation's leadership continues to react to world events as if a strong military deterrence force still exists. As an example look at US policy & actions post Oct 7th ME in an attempt to keep Iran & its proxies in line and in the Pacific restraining China's expansionist objectives. It's obvious with the failures to stop the Houtis from threatening maritime shipping and China from threatening and taking Filipino shoals that our ability to deter our adversaries has greatly diminished.
Exactly! I served with C/E 26th MEU (SOC) from July 1987-July 1990 and you are absolutely correct in your observations! With the advent of the "Special Operations Capable" aka "SOC" for each MEU, the lethality and versatility of the MEU was enhanced... thanks to former CMC Gen Al Gray for his keen forsight in bringing this about upon assuming his role as CMC!
In the comments to yesterday’s CP post, we saw a new tactic to attack those who are not aboard the FD hype train - - denigrate the Marine Corps for 70 years of mostly fabricated past failures and blame those who served during this period for the shortcomings. Today’s post should disabuse anyone of the notion that the Marine Corps was hidebound and irrelevant before Force Design.
While certainly not perfect, the Corps has always been relevant, which is sadly more than can be said for the Corps today. A case in point: When INDOPACOM recently needed a missile force to remain in the Philippines as a warning to China, the command turned to the Army’s MDTF vice the Marine Corp’s SIF. For details please refer to the article at the link: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3279516/us-typhon-missile-system-philippines-has-china-facing-more-tense-security-situation?module=top_story&pgtype=section
For those who want more proof: Earlier this month after Russian and Chinese military jets patrolled too close to the western Aleutian Islands, the Department of Defense tapped the Army to send a show of force to the region. Included in the Army force that deployed to Shemya Island was a MLRS rocket system from one of the Army MDTFs. Where were the Marines? For more details, please refer to the article at the link: https://mustreadalaska.com/military-makes-show-of-force-on-shemya-island/
Saw that and asked my self the same question. As we rally our support against island defense missions, their taking the Shemya deployment might be better for us in the long run.
As an aside: we subjected Marines to that horrible weather long enough-don’t have to practice being miserable!
Force Design = Maginot Line
Excellent analogy!
I love good Fiction stories, but the problem for the FD proponents is that they've forgotten Fiction will turn out whatever ending the author says...and just because the author writes it doesn't mean it's actually true or possible in real life. FACTUALLY, the Navy-Marine Corps team have failed to meet commitments over the past half-decade plus. Do they correlate to impacts from FD? In many ways, yes. Are they caused by FD? Perhaps. I love Gen Z - he's brilliant and I like that he focused on how we've succeeded in the past and how we've failed recently. Nevertheless, while correlation MAY include causation...correlation may also not indicate causation. Regardless, imo there does seem to be a probable causation link between FD and failure. Yelling at Greybeards has a near 100% correlation with willful ignorance though.
As I read this list of accomplishments, I can’t help but to have the sting of salt air of compressed living compartments sting my nostrils (no small feat considering Nevada is far from the sea). Can’t help but think “how many our senators and representatives have made a 3 or 4 day foray out with an ARG?” Perhaps if more of those enlightened folks saw, heard and felt the rigors of seaborne life they might look upon requests from the services from a more serious, informed standpoint. Now they view the sea services as grey boats lurching in the sea, but a trip on one might show them how important those ARG’s are to national defense and our foreign relations.
One disastrous failure after another thanks to FD2030... and this will only get worse... restore the Corps to its pre-FD2030 capabilities!!!!
All well and good; where will the money come from to pay for the rebuilding of these capabilities? Complaining about how the USMC or the military in general can't do XX means nothing if the ability to pay for XX isn't also explained. Cuts elsewhere? Higher taxes? Let's hear the ideas.
Actually, the military Services are responsible for developing capabilities and requirements and turning them into programs for Congressional funding. Only the Congress has the power of the purse through the authorizations and appropriations processes. Said another way, the Services are responsible for determining requirements and the Congress is responsible for finding the funding or not. As an example, the Marine Corps has stated a requirement for 35 LSMs. The Congress will ultimately decide to fund all, part, or none of the requirement. It's not up to the Marines to find the funding. The Commandant has correctly stated on several occasions that requirements are requirements. It's up to the Congress to fund them or not.
Fully aware of the source of funding, however I did not realize that the two authors, retired, were speaking FOR the military?
No, the article comes across as 'the military needs more funding because it needs more capabilities/assets'. Assuming that the Marines have already spelled out their requirements to Congress, and Congress chose not to fund them, then this is an exercise without meaning.
However as they are NOT speaking for the military then they most certainly should be able to explain their opinions on how these gaps in capability should be funded. What should in their estimation be cut, or how much should taxes be raised to pay for this (as opposed to hiding behind the appropriations process)?
All well and good; where will the money come from to pay for the rebuilding of these capabilities? Complaining about how the USMC or the military in general can't do XX means nothing if the ability to pay for XX isn't also explained. Cuts elsewhere? Higher taxes? Let's hear the ideas.
Is war with China inevitable? Yes, no, I don't know, maybe so! However, some type of world crisis happening in the near future is inevitable. It could be another Benghazi event, rebels in a desert firing missiles at ships (oh, yea, the Houthis), or a humanitarian event. If the Marine Corps is not a robust combined arms naval expeditionary force, what military force will accomplish these missions? In "Afloat-Ready Battalion" Colonel Douglas Nash maintains that prior to WWII, the "the Navy wanted an afloat-ready battalion, and the Marine Corps wanted an advance base force." This problem was resolved in 1947/8 when Ambassador George F. Kennan requested a "mobile amphibious reaction force" in the Mediterranean to help deter Communist expansion. We are faced with the same problem today as, what is the Marine Corps' mission. The MEU/MAGTF is the only force capable of conducting such operations. The MEU/MAGTF is a Swiss Army knife of combat capabilities. In the Indo-Pacific, the MEU could leave their tanks behind and carry HIMARs for precision strikes against Chinese ships. In the Mediterranean and Middle East, they could bring the tanks for land combat operations. The MEU/MAGTF are afloat worldwide for various crises. The Army cannot do it because they cannot loiter for long periods. The MEU/MAGTF in theater, is only sailing distance away from a crisis, with all their equipment. If the situation is larger than a MEU can handle, it has the building blocks to enlarge the force. The value of the Marine Corps as a crisis intervention force is greater than as a missile force aimed at China. Which the Army already maintains. This is why the MEU/MAGTF needs to be a robust combined arms naval expeditionary force. It can be ready for anything, anywhere, anytime: Every clime and place.
I’m sorry did you just forget or do away with Title 10, § 8063 (a), you know that pesky thing called a law? You’re quick to denigrate past Marine Corps accomplishments, and the efforts of this forum, to ensure that the Corps has the ability to meet its Title 10 mission, which the current FD structure can’t. If it can, please show me how it can.
You criticize the current forum and seem really hung up on SSCs, LCACs, LSTs, etc., but you fail to have ever mentioned the force structure of the SIF or MLR. How do they first get emplaced? You, like the current Corps leadership, assume that they’ll be emplaced before a conflict starts. Please provide one example of a country that has agreed to allow an SIF be emplaced? Please explain to us why the CC decided on using an Army MTDF recently rather than an SIF on Shemya ?
Please provide this forum with the make/mod of the missile the SIF will be equipped with? Its range? How about the TO or TE of the SIF? How about how the SIF or the MLR will be logistically supported?
Please explain to this forum how an SIF will protect itself in the close in battle, without supporting arms? Based on your past criticisms I guess you assume that all of those unused amphibious ships the Navy no longer is using will just come steaming over the horizon to extract the SIF, from oh by the way, the FIRST ISLAND CHAIN and avoid the close in battle.
You have been quick to criticize the comments and views of those on this forum, but I have yet to hear your arguments on what to do, other than to just allow Corps leadership continue down the current path with no force development testing. How will the current SIF/MLR force structure meet the TITLE 10, § 8063 (a) mission assignment?
I think I speak for many on this forum, if the SIF/MLR concept is so robust and survivable in the next WORLDWIDE foreign policy of the U.S. then why not wargame it, why not put it in the field and conduct force-on-force evolutions. I mean it’s been over 5 years, and we still don’t have a TO, TE, the “magical” missile, the results of any wargames, the results of any force-on-force evolutions, or the AAR of any actual employments. I have to ask, what has the Commandant and his staff been doing for the last 5+ years?
You're delusional and uneducated on the real world threats we face now...