Compass Points - More Energy
The DON seeks innovation
Compass Points - More Energy
The DON seeks innovation
August 8, 2025
.
Seapower Magazine reports that the Department of the Navy is searching for new innovation and energy to power the Navy and Marine Corps. Compass Points has the answer, the readers of Compass Points! There is no better source of innovation and energy.
Three Compass Points readers have provided their own insightful comments on where the Marine Corps is today and where it is going. Compass Points thanks all readers for their insight and experience.
The first Compass Points comment comes from a reader replying to a recent article attempting to provide support to the Marine Corps' controversial Force Design effort.
.
------------------
------------------
.
Another academic weighs in on the ongoing Force Design disaster. He is in full support of an effort that has lasted six years and has yet to be able to demonstrate that it can locate, identify, target, fire, hit and sink a ship after which it would redeploy. It has yet been able to demonstrate clandestine entry, logistical sustainment or even a rudimentary ability to defend itself.
Worse yet the Army, Navy and Air Force have demonstrated everything the Corps has not and far better than what the Marine Corps hopes to achieve at some future, undetermined date. Out of four ship sinking capabilities the Marine Corps will be in fourth place. To achieve this it has castrated its traditional capabilities. The author further misrepresents what two Presidents and Congress directed: Focus on the threat in the Pacific as represented by China. Gen Berger took this broad guidance, destroyed vast USMC capabilities and crafted a concept in secrecy that six years later remains unable to demonstrate the most basic abilities. If Gen Berger’s vision ever comes true it will render the Marine Corps irrelevant.
Why would every former Commandant object to FD-2030? Why has virtually every Senior Marine leader over the last 20 years objected? Where are the supporters of FD-2030 aside from General’s Berger, Smith and some think tanks? Oh, and those on active duty who were and will be fired and retired if they ask a question?
-- A concerned Compass Points reader
.
------------------
------------------
.
Another reader responded to a list of quotes offering support for the Marine Corps' controversial Force Design.
.
------------------
------------------
.
Excuse the intemperate length here, but the impressive collection of almost two dozen quotes in favor of FD2030 (especially with links to the references) deserves a response.
Unfortunately most of them fail the "so what?" test. Many reminded me of those infuriating ads on television where someone is explaining the virtues of "the product" with comments like "this is great, I PROMISE YOU," or boldly stating that "I have the paperwork to prove it" - to prove...what?
These quotes do not explain what makes FD a warfighting marvel, nor do they counter criticisms of FD. Asserting greatness requires data, and it ain't there. Half of the comments are from members of Congress, and provide no substance, just asserting that the Marines are taking a "bold step", or applauding "force modernization", or that FD is an "important initiative". Some actually think this is "strengthening deterrence" (how?), or "prioritizing lethality" (with what?).
Or one of my favorites, that the Marines will meet the challenges by being "adaptive, flexible, and mobile." Sounds like a phrase from a three random word generator. It would have been more effective to say the Marines would be "mobile, agile, and hostile" (thanks Denzel Washington in Remember the Titans). Or that the Corps would now "adapt, improvise, and overcome" (thanks Gunny Highway, I think). Hackneyed comments do not inspire confidence.
Representative Moulton (D, MA-6) does indeed have a great USMC background (rifle platoon commander in the 2003 battle of Nasariyah), but that doesn't make it true that with FD2030 the Marines are leading "...the Joint Force in Service-level modernization and redesign." The Army's innovative Multi-Domain Task Forces surely present the Combatant Commander with more and better operations than the SIF.
And all the Navy kudos for FD2030 should be expected. The Marines don't need big-deck amphibs any more, and now won't even get any little ones. That frees up lots of bucks for the real Navy! And the enthusiastic description of "roving and elusive units of sensor- and missile-equipped Marines" makes me think the Navy has successfully returned Marines to a modern version of sharpshooters in the rigging - and even better, has gotten them off the ships and left them to fend for themselves on scattered islands in the South China Sea.
Seriously disappointing was Admiral Stavidris (co-author of two great future war novels, 2034 and 2054) who thought FD2030 "aligns the Marines perfectly with naval strategy, enhancing our ability to project power in the Pacific.” Sure, and that was CMC Berger's goal, to tuck in under the Navy. But as a former Supreme Allied Commander Europe, you'd think Stavidris would consider that Marines must contribute to more than naval strategy, but to theater strategy. And how is the SIF projecting power when it can't even feed itself?
So all these quotes don't do anything to argue that FD2030 has any military or geopolitical substance. Just that it is "really, really great"! I promise! In my years of teaching, I learned that students do not react well to having the letters BS written on their work. So I came up with B3, which fits the testimonies collected above : "Blah, Blah, Blah." As Macbeth said, signifying nothing.
-- Compass Points reader, Pete
.
------------------
------------------
.
Finally, a member of Chowder Society II provides an encouraging report.
.
------------------
------------------
.
In recent weeks I have grown increasingly concerned by the comments on Compass Points and by articles in the defense media that either assert or hint that the efforts of Chowder Society II are having no effect with key decision makers and that the group is a very small one. I’m not concerned about the contents of these comments and articles; they are vacuous and mainly attack the “messengers” vice the message. These proponents are manifestly unable to defend Force Design 2030.
However, I am concerned that the thousands in our corner may think we are not pressing the fight hard enough because we are, and we are doing very well. As you might expect, those of us who are leading the daily fight to get our Corps back to its legislated mission as the nation’s global rapid response force of combined arms are disciples of John Boyd. I spent many hours in personal discussions with John. We are all proponents of his Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act (OODA) Loop. The reality is we are inside the OODA Loop of those arguing for Force Design 2030 and they don’t even know it. They would obviously like to learn the details of our efforts; but we practice operational security, so they will remain in the dark until we win the argument.
Nonetheless, I will reveal four important facts, they are:
(1) The center of gravity is in Washington DC and we are there,
(2) There are 112 retired Marine Corps Generals who have signed on as supporters of Chowder Society II;
(3) Many are recently retired; among them are former Commandants and Combatant Commanders; and
(4) There are dozens of other retired generals who have sent emails or called and said they are with us. To claim otherwise, as at least one writer has done, is to propagate a lie.
Even more important are the multitude of retired and former Marines of all ranks who support us and show that support every day on Compass Points, in email lists, and personal messages. So, we say to our thousands of supporters who are opposed to Force Design 2030 and angered by the damage it has done to our Corps, stay tough, we are winning the battle.
-- A Compass Points reader and member of Chowder Society II
.
------------------
------------------
.
Compass Points salutes the Secretary of the Navy for seeking more innovation and more energy to power the Navy and Marine Corps team. One source of innovation and energy that can help power the Navy and Marine Corps are the readers of Compass Points, who are never shy about sharing their wisdom and experience. Many thanks!
.
- - - - -
.
Seapower Magazine - 08/07/2025
Department Of The Navy Announces Solicitation For Innovative Energy Resilience Solutions To Power Navy And Marine Corps Installations
My sentiments mirror the comments of the first reader quoted in today’s Compass Points. His comments were in response to an article published in “War on the Rocks” on August 7, 2025 titled “The Marine Corps Americans Want Can’t Be Delivered by a Fake Crisis.”
Like many proponents of Force Design, the author of this article suffers a bad of CDS or Chowder Derangement Syndrome. His hatred of all things Chowder is on full display in the 2nd paragraph of the article, where he states: “… a small but vocal group of retired Marine officers have howled about Berger miring the Marine Corps in a crisis. They call themselves “Chowder II” … Their methods have been unprecedented. They have employed doomsday rhetoric and distortions with such shameless fervor you’d think Force Design 2030 was a Chinese plot and not a strategy to stop one.” With these few sentences, one can surely conclude that all objectivity to focus on the concerns raised by Chowder II has been eclipsed by the typical approach to vilify, demagogue, and denigrate the messenger. In his efforts to follow suit, the author does not disappoint.
Also like many armchair generals who have never worn the cloth of the nation, the author is quick to pontificate on the role of the Marine Corps in the national defense and how it should be organized, manned, and equipped to carry out its mission. How did he become so knowledge about national defense and Marine Corps roles and missions? He tells us how - - by reading books. In case you think I’m wrong, consider the following statements he makes during his discussion of “Defense and Offense in Marine and Military Thought,” during which he attempts to defend the defensive nature of Stand-in Forces:
“During the fight for Guadalcanal, the Marine Corps fought and won two primarily defensive battles: Tenaru and Edson’s Ridge, which were critical to prevailing in the Solomon Islands and the war in the Pacific. And let’s not forget the Battle of the Chosin Reservoir against China during the Korean War. For those who say the Marine Corps only finds true meaning in the offensive, the least offensive thing I can say in reply is this: Read a book! Defense, Offense, and the Stand-in Force.”
Of course, those of us who truly understand Marine Corps history, operations, and strategy, know that Guadalcanal was America’s first offensive operation of World War II. And the Chosin Reservoir was a continuation of offensive operations that began at Pusan and progressed through Inchon, Seoul, and Wonsan. And the Chosin Reservoir was never a defensive battle. It was an offensive fight, up and back or in the words of Major General Oliver P. Smith, “Retreat Hell, we are just attacking in a different direction.” So most of the Marines I know would instead say - - offense, defense, global response. Live it and read a book. You cannot become a Marine or even understand Marines by reading a book. You have to be a Marine to know Marines.
By the way, my father - - who served on Guadalcanal and at Pusan, Inchon, Seoul, Wonsan, and Chosin - - would chime in to agree with me if he was not presently guarding the streets of heaven.
Good to hear something positive about the inside game going on. I admit, I get worried when the "don't worry we got it and that's all the info you get" starts getting thrown around on the 'contra-FD' side of the scrimmage line. I know I am not the only one, whether on or off active duty.