When leaders play fast and loose with information by gaslighting those who look up to them and who actually are informed, not only do they do harm to trust but to the entire Marine Corps as an institution. It is shameful for Gen Smith to deny DEI was part and parcel of Talent Management. Smith needs to fold his flag and retire like yesterday!
Perhaps its time for our CMC to take an early retirement. He can legitimately claim health issues since he nearly dropped dead of a heart attack a couple of years ago. The new administration is cleaning house, just look at what happened to the Commandant of the Coast Guard this week. Our CMC is too closely associated with the failed Force Design 2030 to be change agent in restoring our readiness. Can't recall how many bells but its time for "Marine Corps, departing".
I like Eric, but the MC instituted DEI offices and Officers at lots of commands (so did USSOCOM, MARFORSOC and other Services and Combatant commands) It was directed as an order from the CINC Biden and SecDef Austin. The question more becomes, to what degree, in his mind and the Corps'. Was it to the detriment of the Corps, or mentality, and Warrior ethos, or just enough to "go along to get along". Can he honestly say he didn't implement the previous DoD guidance...I don't think so! Did it cause damage to our Corps? That question should be posed to 100 straight forward, no bullshit, in your face 0369 GySgts and 0302 Majs/ LtCols (they have been around for more than 4 yrs and are not careerists yet). The true question becomes what Sr GO/FO stands up to be CJCS (someone who understands Assessment/Selection as the key tenants of meritocracy, understands global ID, and NDS threats, and respected as true Warriors ) I believe Gen Fenton, (or Gen Frank Donovan) meet that criteria. Then who becomes CMC if Eric is asked to resign. We, as overall Services, and the MC , must move forward, without a skip in training and focus on the global threats in front of us today. My opinion only. Spiritus Invictus, SemperFi, Essayons Respectfully M2
The other comment I will make, is I saw lots of 4 stars negative comments on FD2030/35 captivating Eric and previously Dave Berger, but I didn't see almost the GO/FOs castigating the SecDef Austin for his policy making it mandatory for all Services implementation of DEI??? I have made numerous comments on "its acumen not race, creed, color, sex, or sexual preference that should be the focus". But where were all the Retired 4* GO/FO comment then. I didn't see any castigating SecDef Austin or CJCS Milley or Brown? Yet now all jump on Smith!! The question again is: to what level, and degree? My opinion only. M2
And you won't see criticism other than of the Marine Corps and its leaders on this site from those of us who identify as members of Chowder Society II because FD 2030 and TM 2030 are our focus of effort. We have varied and strong opinions on many other topics but we don't bring those to Compass Points posts or comments.
If there were no DIE policies then when the Marine Corps protested and fought to keep women out of the 0302 MOS no women would have entered IOC. But they did and at one point two WM’s made it through the course. What this writer does not know, is if those two and subsequent WM’s assigned 0302 MOS’s and onward to IOC if the standards were changed to allow them to pass the course. This is just one small ray of disinfectant what we are seeing the current CMC procure. “No DIE Damn it! I am the CMC!” Yep…This is the same individual that listens to Chowder Society II generals (Who were putting mortars down a tube before this CMC was born or still in short pants) and not hear what they were saying. Now a new political theater comes to town and lo and behold the ARG/MEU is dandy, we never did DEI and there WMD’s in Iraq, check that, there were no WMD’s in Iraq. We will know the grift is complete when the armor rolls back into the abandoned tank parks in all 3 divisions. “Why I never said we didn’t need tanks! We had them in Hue’ and Fallujah to great effect, just super to have armor and infantry working together!!” The last time we had someone quiet as political as the current CMC he was replaced by a guy who really didn’t want the job, but he had a leadership style all his own and the MOH hung from his neck in dress blues and whites. General Smith is obviously no fool, but he is sensing a massive sea change and hoping to ride the new incoming tide. For the sake of the Corps let’s hope the next unwilling “Lou Wilson” is out there and ready to move into the oldest standing structure in Washington DC. Maybe he will say something short and to the point “Marines…get in line behind me, and do so smartly…” sound familiar anyone!?!
Well, as a young guy who called bs on the USMC shift on recon in the early '90s, I learned you take it when you can get it. I live in the real world. The best time to do something is when you should (or should not) have done it. The next best is 'now'. So, in lieu of anything else, I'll take now. (if it is now).
I don’t think for a moment that it is easy to navigate public policy that comes out of a “government” and is designed to socially engineer something as divergent and as far flung as the Military “machine” in the USA. It would be one thing for General Smith, even if he had to use DC speak, to say “hey we are reassessing the old/current DIE policies and mandates and further will comply with the new policies and mandates and eliminate then as directed.” Okay it’s a little gobble de gook, but to just say we had/have no DIE policy when you know you do, doesn’t look forth right and honest. Frankly this CMC has come off that way a couple of times. So that notion of trust and confidence comes in to play. No doubt you recall the old saw, “one ah sh*t wipes out a 1000 atta boys.” This all said, I agree and in fairness the CMC has said the ARG/MEU is a key stone of the Corps. His ability to back that up one could argue has been somewhat less than full throated. Also in agreement if we have a new NOW, well then great, move on to the next issue, the ships to move the MEU and the ARG. What lies ahead remains to seen, it certainly feels like it is going to be interesting.
Thank you very much for the link. Interesting for sure. I was in the 6th IOC Class, at the time, November and December of 1978, the class was small (36 0302’s) and lasted 6 weeks. As it was, it was a huge step in the right direction. When we got to the FMF, we had some real advantages over those before us in terms of knowledge of tactics, weapons, and thinking. IOC has evolved into what seems to be a SAS light selection process and high intensity on all levels. Regardless of the physical and mental stress, assuming a WM makes it, now she is part of the division’s TO. Now the infantry Regiment, Battalion and Company where she is assigned is carrying her on the unit diary. HQMC looks at it likely as one less 03 billet to fill. But the problem is, the units have to accommodate her. No matter good she may be and that is up for grabs, the level of resentment and angst is going to naturally flow through the ranks. The public reflects and DOD directs. There isn’t a senior officer alive that really thinks this is a good idea But General Berger and General Smith have sold their souls out to the mob think on it all. This is not to say women Marines are not a valuable part of the MArines Corps, they are! It is to say from a very grumpy and cranky 0302 too long in the tooth to matter, that it is a bad idea. It does seem that the DOD with the just confirmed SecDef is going to be taking a hard look at the whole thing. Thank you again for the link.
Below is a pretty good article about the history of IOC standards with reference to women. A few passed the Combat Endurance Test but most stilled dropped due to inability to hike under load. Three graduated. The first one to graduate (in 2017) made it to captain and EAS'ed. Not sure about the other two. Passing IOC is one thing, but the ability for a woman to endure the sustained stressors on the body that an entire career in the infantry requires is TBD.
Long before DEI was a formal program the Corps hade embraced DEI without reservation. It was a constant source of irritation and undermined the leader to led trust and integrity so important to the proper functioning of the institution. Anyone who claims otherwise was either, deaf, dumb and blind or is grossly dishonest. It was practiced for the last 30 years and I have more examples than I can possibly list. The easy and honest answer is this: When DEI was ordered from above the Corps followed orders. We did not even need specific orders. We understood intent and acted accordingly. Now this concept, one we often objected to, but executed as directed, has been stopped. We still follow orders and will remove all DEI policies and its very intent as ordered.”
Leaders who swore to support and defend the Constitution violated their oath continuously for years.
There were some stalwarts who stood on the ramparts and refused to back down on DEI related issues. General Dunford made it clear as CMC and CJCS that women should not be in ground combat units. SecNav Mabus overruled the MarineCorps study led by General George Smith that was unequivocal in its findings that women were not able to perform to standards and degraded the overall effectiveness of infantry units. (See the link to that study at: https://www.cmrlink.org/data/Sites/85/CMRDocuments/InterimCMRSpecialReport-PartII_122015.pdf). General Krulak flatly refused demands that women be fully integrated into recruit training--laid his stars on the line. Going back a little further, General Barrow gave powerful testimony to the SASC on the topic of women in ground combat. (A video of this testimony is at this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy--whDNNKk). Granted, he was retired at the time but I personally heard him say the same thing when he was the Commandant. Bottom line, there were some leaders (any is too many) who folded but others who stood their ground over not the past 30 but 50 years. That is how long the issue has ben with us.
Perhaps there will be more than 1 Commandant Relieved from Duty by the Commander in Chief or his acting representative ? In the case of
Our Marine Corps for failing to maintain the Corps’s lawful “Composition and Functions” and to protect, improve and or perform them in accordance with 10 U.S. Code 8063. The Commandant is also expected to maintain their Integrity by being truthful about “bending a knee to DEI”!
It occurs to me that the CMC has repeatedly failed to remember or made statements inconsistent with previous statements. In light of the severe, near fatal heart attack, facial injuries and prolonged recovery Gen Smith may have some classic memory issues and cognitive problems. The post recovery fog and cognitive disconnects are not unusual. I would suggest that his subordinates push for a thorough and complete evaluation and consider his retirement. We as a nation just suffered through a President with severe cognitive impairment. The Corps is a critical period that could result in severe cut backs and even being disbanded. This is no time for being delusional, obstinate or dismissive of facts. The leader at the wheel must be without flaw or hesitation. For a multitude of reasons, obvious and unknown, Gen Smith is not that individual.
I was raised in a Marine Corps in which all Marine officers were held to a zero-defects standard regarding Integrity and being honest and truthful at all times.
A standard that CO of TBS, Colonel Gene Deegan (I believe he retired as a Major General) explained to my student company:
"Marine officers are expected to be perfect in regard to their Character, Honor and Integrity. There are no "second chances" for any officer found to have engaged in dishonest behavior, and any proven breach of integrity, however slight, will result in your rapid dismissal from from our Corps."
My observations the past several years, and especially as active duty general officers presented the Force Design concept, have been that many of them have repeatedly made deceitful and untruthful statements in public and in front of various Congressional hearings.
Perhaps I am too idealistic, but I remember when Marine Corps generals could be counted on to speak the truth on any issue, in front of any audience, even when doing so was likely to anger or aggravate those doing the questioning.
What I've seen over the recent years is that many of them now engage in "spinning the truth" and "double-talk" to suit their agenda or that of their seniors, both military and political.
Many have become adept at protecting the "Party Line" via providing "half-answers" and "sanitized facts" to the point they appear to have adopted and mastered the tactics and techniques of White House press secretaries or the "government spokesmen," who routinely appear on nation media telling blatantly obvious untruths to protect the official narrative.
I am honestly wondering if today's Marine Corps officer corps was raised to the same standard of Integrity and Special Trust & Confidence as previous generations?
While many of us "old guys" were incredulous and rendered speechless by General Smith's recent untruthful remarks regarding the existence of DEI policies and practices in the Corps, and saw his remarks as being an undeniable breach of his integrity, I find that on social media, many serving officers do not feel this way at all, and find ways to justify what the CMC said.
I have no personal history with General Smith, and no angst or hostility toward him.
I simply believe he's violated his Integrity while lying to the media, America and his Marines on this DEI issue.
Objective active duty Marines must be wondering what else General Smith and other senior leaders have lied to them about?
If the Commandant of the Marine Corps is allowed to lie, how can any other Marine be held to a different standard?
I think General Smith is so compromised by his lapse of judgement and obvious untruthful statement that he should resign and be immediately retired from the Service.
The Corps has ALWYAS had DEI. If there wasn't, why are ALMARS released after every board breaking down the ethnicity, sex, percentage of selection, hair color, and type of shoes (last two thrown in for fun) of the Marines that were selected to the next rank?
What the US Military Leadership needs is less DEI and a true dedication to warfighting. The metric to confirm if this happens is general officers that understand the LOAC and establish correct and workable ROEs. Read: Fighting Todays Wars Americas: How America’s Leaders Failed Our Warriors by David G. Bolglano and
Humane: How the United States Abandoned Peace and Reinvented War by Samuel Moyn S/F
This is the same guy who put a Combat Camera Col (O-6) in command at 8th and I, also the same guy that has combat service support Captains (not infantry officers) serving as rifle platoon commanders at 8th and I simply because he wants minorities and women on the poster. DEI is gross and not in keeping with the values of the Corps.
Amidst the DEI theatre...a little ray of MAGTF hope. In his interview, the CMC spoke about his focus on "3.0 ARG/MEU Presence". That's an East Coast, West Coast, and Far East goal. He made very strong comments about it: "The importance of a 3.0 ARG/MEU presence, one off the East Coast, one off the West Coast, and the 31st MEU out of Okinawa is that crises don’t avail themselves to anyone’s timeline. I’ve evacuated two embassies in my life. One in Monrovia, Liberia; and one in Freetown, Sierra Leone and they happen when they happen. They required evacuation and they required it immediately.".
He went on to add: "When an ARG/MEU is not present, it puts Americans at risk. It puts the combatant commander at a disadvantage because he doesn’t have a credible, capable combat force that’s capable of spanning the ROMO -- the Range of Military Operations.
Finally, "Right now we’re mandated at 31 as a minimum -- key word minimum -- by law.". His focus on "...minimum...", implies that more is much better and that's where his thoughts are.
*(yes, there are other bits in their to pick apart, but all in all, I found General E. Smith's comments in total, given the context of the reality he has been/is living, to be unusually reasonable, even with the little bit of gaslighting about DEI. My sense is that it may be freeing to stop kowtowing to the non merit based interpretation that was, until recently, in vogue. He may be making a statement...ie...let's be sure to be about what Marines have always claimed to be about. He cannot, as CMC, just wholesale dump on every initiative, program, etc. He's got to turn the USMC gradually and cannot have the crew jump overboard. Nor he can he suddenly start pulling a Brando style General Kurtz impression, operating without accountability. He's the guy stuck balancing where the 'Corps is with where it's got to go.)
CMC has made it plain to former CMCs and others that he has no intention of changing course with FD 230/FD. In fact, he has refused to discuss the issue with some of our Corps' most distinguished generals. Many of us who identify as members of Chowder Society II now refer to him as "Berger Two."
Sir, I know that was the case over a year ago; is that still current? In his comments(from this month), he sounds like a man in the hot seat who is starting to taste the consequences of an accumulated 5 years of the FD COA, despite his original intentions.
His 4th MLR Guam idea just got torpedoed by Admiral P (INDOPACOM) a few weeks back. So he has had to double back publicly and acknowledge how stupid it was to create an MLR, and then put it 1,600 miles away from the FIC.
I see an irony in CMC Smith's statement about not having an ARG/MEU present, since "It puts the combatant commander at a disadvantage because he doesn't have a credible, capable combat force that's capable of spanning the ROMO....)." Does that suggest that the CMC understands the need for a direct-fire armored force and sufficient artillery and other arms to support all combat operations? Because from what I know, armor and artillery are part of the "range of military operations" which make a combat force capable and credible.
I don't know, I just work here. When we've been getting 'nothing and worse', 'something slightly better' is significant. Next you'll be asking the Senior Drill Instructor where the Lobster Thermidore is ;)
*(In all sincerity, I have a feeling CMC is starting to appreciate the erosion of capability, but he has his hands full just dealing with the ACV issues and the loss of function in higher sea states (compared to the AAV), among other system challenges. One can clearly see it reading through the questions and remarks. His clarity of focus on the ARG/MEU was startling...and the right place to start. There's no point to a perfect MEU if there's no ARG or lift to carry it. )
We were fortunate, in the past, for an incompetent Commandant to be replaced by a savior. Unfortunately, this hasn’t happened today…This guy is not even an accomplished liar, and the sooner he is exposed to those who can effect change, the better. Semper Fi is still used, but “faithful” to what or whom?
When leaders play fast and loose with information by gaslighting those who look up to them and who actually are informed, not only do they do harm to trust but to the entire Marine Corps as an institution. It is shameful for Gen Smith to deny DEI was part and parcel of Talent Management. Smith needs to fold his flag and retire like yesterday!
Gotta wonder what Al Gray woulda done with DEI? The Corps desperately needs more Al Gray, less Eric Smith, and we better hurry.
Perhaps its time for our CMC to take an early retirement. He can legitimately claim health issues since he nearly dropped dead of a heart attack a couple of years ago. The new administration is cleaning house, just look at what happened to the Commandant of the Coast Guard this week. Our CMC is too closely associated with the failed Force Design 2030 to be change agent in restoring our readiness. Can't recall how many bells but its time for "Marine Corps, departing".
I like Eric, but the MC instituted DEI offices and Officers at lots of commands (so did USSOCOM, MARFORSOC and other Services and Combatant commands) It was directed as an order from the CINC Biden and SecDef Austin. The question more becomes, to what degree, in his mind and the Corps'. Was it to the detriment of the Corps, or mentality, and Warrior ethos, or just enough to "go along to get along". Can he honestly say he didn't implement the previous DoD guidance...I don't think so! Did it cause damage to our Corps? That question should be posed to 100 straight forward, no bullshit, in your face 0369 GySgts and 0302 Majs/ LtCols (they have been around for more than 4 yrs and are not careerists yet). The true question becomes what Sr GO/FO stands up to be CJCS (someone who understands Assessment/Selection as the key tenants of meritocracy, understands global ID, and NDS threats, and respected as true Warriors ) I believe Gen Fenton, (or Gen Frank Donovan) meet that criteria. Then who becomes CMC if Eric is asked to resign. We, as overall Services, and the MC , must move forward, without a skip in training and focus on the global threats in front of us today. My opinion only. Spiritus Invictus, SemperFi, Essayons Respectfully M2
The other comment I will make, is I saw lots of 4 stars negative comments on FD2030/35 captivating Eric and previously Dave Berger, but I didn't see almost the GO/FOs castigating the SecDef Austin for his policy making it mandatory for all Services implementation of DEI??? I have made numerous comments on "its acumen not race, creed, color, sex, or sexual preference that should be the focus". But where were all the Retired 4* GO/FO comment then. I didn't see any castigating SecDef Austin or CJCS Milley or Brown? Yet now all jump on Smith!! The question again is: to what level, and degree? My opinion only. M2
And you won't see criticism other than of the Marine Corps and its leaders on this site from those of us who identify as members of Chowder Society II because FD 2030 and TM 2030 are our focus of effort. We have varied and strong opinions on many other topics but we don't bring those to Compass Points posts or comments.
If there were no DIE policies then when the Marine Corps protested and fought to keep women out of the 0302 MOS no women would have entered IOC. But they did and at one point two WM’s made it through the course. What this writer does not know, is if those two and subsequent WM’s assigned 0302 MOS’s and onward to IOC if the standards were changed to allow them to pass the course. This is just one small ray of disinfectant what we are seeing the current CMC procure. “No DIE Damn it! I am the CMC!” Yep…This is the same individual that listens to Chowder Society II generals (Who were putting mortars down a tube before this CMC was born or still in short pants) and not hear what they were saying. Now a new political theater comes to town and lo and behold the ARG/MEU is dandy, we never did DEI and there WMD’s in Iraq, check that, there were no WMD’s in Iraq. We will know the grift is complete when the armor rolls back into the abandoned tank parks in all 3 divisions. “Why I never said we didn’t need tanks! We had them in Hue’ and Fallujah to great effect, just super to have armor and infantry working together!!” The last time we had someone quiet as political as the current CMC he was replaced by a guy who really didn’t want the job, but he had a leadership style all his own and the MOH hung from his neck in dress blues and whites. General Smith is obviously no fool, but he is sensing a massive sea change and hoping to ride the new incoming tide. For the sake of the Corps let’s hope the next unwilling “Lou Wilson” is out there and ready to move into the oldest standing structure in Washington DC. Maybe he will say something short and to the point “Marines…get in line behind me, and do so smartly…” sound familiar anyone!?!
Well, as a young guy who called bs on the USMC shift on recon in the early '90s, I learned you take it when you can get it. I live in the real world. The best time to do something is when you should (or should not) have done it. The next best is 'now'. So, in lieu of anything else, I'll take now. (if it is now).
I don’t think for a moment that it is easy to navigate public policy that comes out of a “government” and is designed to socially engineer something as divergent and as far flung as the Military “machine” in the USA. It would be one thing for General Smith, even if he had to use DC speak, to say “hey we are reassessing the old/current DIE policies and mandates and further will comply with the new policies and mandates and eliminate then as directed.” Okay it’s a little gobble de gook, but to just say we had/have no DIE policy when you know you do, doesn’t look forth right and honest. Frankly this CMC has come off that way a couple of times. So that notion of trust and confidence comes in to play. No doubt you recall the old saw, “one ah sh*t wipes out a 1000 atta boys.” This all said, I agree and in fairness the CMC has said the ARG/MEU is a key stone of the Corps. His ability to back that up one could argue has been somewhat less than full throated. Also in agreement if we have a new NOW, well then great, move on to the next issue, the ships to move the MEU and the ARG. What lies ahead remains to seen, it certainly feels like it is going to be interesting.
Thank you very much for the link. Interesting for sure. I was in the 6th IOC Class, at the time, November and December of 1978, the class was small (36 0302’s) and lasted 6 weeks. As it was, it was a huge step in the right direction. When we got to the FMF, we had some real advantages over those before us in terms of knowledge of tactics, weapons, and thinking. IOC has evolved into what seems to be a SAS light selection process and high intensity on all levels. Regardless of the physical and mental stress, assuming a WM makes it, now she is part of the division’s TO. Now the infantry Regiment, Battalion and Company where she is assigned is carrying her on the unit diary. HQMC looks at it likely as one less 03 billet to fill. But the problem is, the units have to accommodate her. No matter good she may be and that is up for grabs, the level of resentment and angst is going to naturally flow through the ranks. The public reflects and DOD directs. There isn’t a senior officer alive that really thinks this is a good idea But General Berger and General Smith have sold their souls out to the mob think on it all. This is not to say women Marines are not a valuable part of the MArines Corps, they are! It is to say from a very grumpy and cranky 0302 too long in the tooth to matter, that it is a bad idea. It does seem that the DOD with the just confirmed SecDef is going to be taking a hard look at the whole thing. Thank you again for the link.
Below is a pretty good article about the history of IOC standards with reference to women. A few passed the Combat Endurance Test but most stilled dropped due to inability to hike under load. Three graduated. The first one to graduate (in 2017) made it to captain and EAS'ed. Not sure about the other two. Passing IOC is one thing, but the ability for a woman to endure the sustained stressors on the body that an entire career in the infantry requires is TBD.
https://breakingintothebrotherhood.com/2021/11/08/the-infantry-officers-course/
Long before DEI was a formal program the Corps hade embraced DEI without reservation. It was a constant source of irritation and undermined the leader to led trust and integrity so important to the proper functioning of the institution. Anyone who claims otherwise was either, deaf, dumb and blind or is grossly dishonest. It was practiced for the last 30 years and I have more examples than I can possibly list. The easy and honest answer is this: When DEI was ordered from above the Corps followed orders. We did not even need specific orders. We understood intent and acted accordingly. Now this concept, one we often objected to, but executed as directed, has been stopped. We still follow orders and will remove all DEI policies and its very intent as ordered.”
Leaders who swore to support and defend the Constitution violated their oath continuously for years.
There were some stalwarts who stood on the ramparts and refused to back down on DEI related issues. General Dunford made it clear as CMC and CJCS that women should not be in ground combat units. SecNav Mabus overruled the MarineCorps study led by General George Smith that was unequivocal in its findings that women were not able to perform to standards and degraded the overall effectiveness of infantry units. (See the link to that study at: https://www.cmrlink.org/data/Sites/85/CMRDocuments/InterimCMRSpecialReport-PartII_122015.pdf). General Krulak flatly refused demands that women be fully integrated into recruit training--laid his stars on the line. Going back a little further, General Barrow gave powerful testimony to the SASC on the topic of women in ground combat. (A video of this testimony is at this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy--whDNNKk). Granted, he was retired at the time but I personally heard him say the same thing when he was the Commandant. Bottom line, there were some leaders (any is too many) who folded but others who stood their ground over not the past 30 but 50 years. That is how long the issue has ben with us.
It sure seems so that they forget what they said when they raised their right hand and took that sacred oath….
Perhaps there will be more than 1 Commandant Relieved from Duty by the Commander in Chief or his acting representative ? In the case of
Our Marine Corps for failing to maintain the Corps’s lawful “Composition and Functions” and to protect, improve and or perform them in accordance with 10 U.S. Code 8063. The Commandant is also expected to maintain their Integrity by being truthful about “bending a knee to DEI”!
The current and past “leadership” of the Corps are as honest and straightforward as the last Commander in Chief. Semper Fi
It occurs to me that the CMC has repeatedly failed to remember or made statements inconsistent with previous statements. In light of the severe, near fatal heart attack, facial injuries and prolonged recovery Gen Smith may have some classic memory issues and cognitive problems. The post recovery fog and cognitive disconnects are not unusual. I would suggest that his subordinates push for a thorough and complete evaluation and consider his retirement. We as a nation just suffered through a President with severe cognitive impairment. The Corps is a critical period that could result in severe cut backs and even being disbanded. This is no time for being delusional, obstinate or dismissive of facts. The leader at the wheel must be without flaw or hesitation. For a multitude of reasons, obvious and unknown, Gen Smith is not that individual.
Exactly
I was raised in a Marine Corps in which all Marine officers were held to a zero-defects standard regarding Integrity and being honest and truthful at all times.
A standard that CO of TBS, Colonel Gene Deegan (I believe he retired as a Major General) explained to my student company:
"Marine officers are expected to be perfect in regard to their Character, Honor and Integrity. There are no "second chances" for any officer found to have engaged in dishonest behavior, and any proven breach of integrity, however slight, will result in your rapid dismissal from from our Corps."
My observations the past several years, and especially as active duty general officers presented the Force Design concept, have been that many of them have repeatedly made deceitful and untruthful statements in public and in front of various Congressional hearings.
Perhaps I am too idealistic, but I remember when Marine Corps generals could be counted on to speak the truth on any issue, in front of any audience, even when doing so was likely to anger or aggravate those doing the questioning.
What I've seen over the recent years is that many of them now engage in "spinning the truth" and "double-talk" to suit their agenda or that of their seniors, both military and political.
Many have become adept at protecting the "Party Line" via providing "half-answers" and "sanitized facts" to the point they appear to have adopted and mastered the tactics and techniques of White House press secretaries or the "government spokesmen," who routinely appear on nation media telling blatantly obvious untruths to protect the official narrative.
I am honestly wondering if today's Marine Corps officer corps was raised to the same standard of Integrity and Special Trust & Confidence as previous generations?
While many of us "old guys" were incredulous and rendered speechless by General Smith's recent untruthful remarks regarding the existence of DEI policies and practices in the Corps, and saw his remarks as being an undeniable breach of his integrity, I find that on social media, many serving officers do not feel this way at all, and find ways to justify what the CMC said.
I have no personal history with General Smith, and no angst or hostility toward him.
I simply believe he's violated his Integrity while lying to the media, America and his Marines on this DEI issue.
Objective active duty Marines must be wondering what else General Smith and other senior leaders have lied to them about?
If the Commandant of the Marine Corps is allowed to lie, how can any other Marine be held to a different standard?
I think General Smith is so compromised by his lapse of judgement and obvious untruthful statement that he should resign and be immediately retired from the Service.
The Corps has ALWYAS had DEI. If there wasn't, why are ALMARS released after every board breaking down the ethnicity, sex, percentage of selection, hair color, and type of shoes (last two thrown in for fun) of the Marines that were selected to the next rank?
What the US Military Leadership needs is less DEI and a true dedication to warfighting. The metric to confirm if this happens is general officers that understand the LOAC and establish correct and workable ROEs. Read: Fighting Todays Wars Americas: How America’s Leaders Failed Our Warriors by David G. Bolglano and
Humane: How the United States Abandoned Peace and Reinvented War by Samuel Moyn S/F
This is the same guy who put a Combat Camera Col (O-6) in command at 8th and I, also the same guy that has combat service support Captains (not infantry officers) serving as rifle platoon commanders at 8th and I simply because he wants minorities and women on the poster. DEI is gross and not in keeping with the values of the Corps.
More lies and hypocrisy by CMC Gen Smith uncovered here... smh!
Amidst the DEI theatre...a little ray of MAGTF hope. In his interview, the CMC spoke about his focus on "3.0 ARG/MEU Presence". That's an East Coast, West Coast, and Far East goal. He made very strong comments about it: "The importance of a 3.0 ARG/MEU presence, one off the East Coast, one off the West Coast, and the 31st MEU out of Okinawa is that crises don’t avail themselves to anyone’s timeline. I’ve evacuated two embassies in my life. One in Monrovia, Liberia; and one in Freetown, Sierra Leone and they happen when they happen. They required evacuation and they required it immediately.".
He went on to add: "When an ARG/MEU is not present, it puts Americans at risk. It puts the combatant commander at a disadvantage because he doesn’t have a credible, capable combat force that’s capable of spanning the ROMO -- the Range of Military Operations.
Finally, "Right now we’re mandated at 31 as a minimum -- key word minimum -- by law.". His focus on "...minimum...", implies that more is much better and that's where his thoughts are.
Maybe I am doing a victory dance before the ball is in the end zone, but just hearing the CMC speak this clearly about the MEUs is refreshing and indicates the possibility of a much more aggressive mindset behind closed doors. (https://www.cmc.marines.mil/Speeches-and-Transcripts/Transcripts/Article/4033194/defense-writers-group-discussion/)
*(yes, there are other bits in their to pick apart, but all in all, I found General E. Smith's comments in total, given the context of the reality he has been/is living, to be unusually reasonable, even with the little bit of gaslighting about DEI. My sense is that it may be freeing to stop kowtowing to the non merit based interpretation that was, until recently, in vogue. He may be making a statement...ie...let's be sure to be about what Marines have always claimed to be about. He cannot, as CMC, just wholesale dump on every initiative, program, etc. He's got to turn the USMC gradually and cannot have the crew jump overboard. Nor he can he suddenly start pulling a Brando style General Kurtz impression, operating without accountability. He's the guy stuck balancing where the 'Corps is with where it's got to go.)
CMC has made it plain to former CMCs and others that he has no intention of changing course with FD 230/FD. In fact, he has refused to discuss the issue with some of our Corps' most distinguished generals. Many of us who identify as members of Chowder Society II now refer to him as "Berger Two."
Sir, I know that was the case over a year ago; is that still current? In his comments(from this month), he sounds like a man in the hot seat who is starting to taste the consequences of an accumulated 5 years of the FD COA, despite his original intentions.
His 4th MLR Guam idea just got torpedoed by Admiral P (INDOPACOM) a few weeks back. So he has had to double back publicly and acknowledge how stupid it was to create an MLR, and then put it 1,600 miles away from the FIC.
I see an irony in CMC Smith's statement about not having an ARG/MEU present, since "It puts the combatant commander at a disadvantage because he doesn't have a credible, capable combat force that's capable of spanning the ROMO....)." Does that suggest that the CMC understands the need for a direct-fire armored force and sufficient artillery and other arms to support all combat operations? Because from what I know, armor and artillery are part of the "range of military operations" which make a combat force capable and credible.
I don't know, I just work here. When we've been getting 'nothing and worse', 'something slightly better' is significant. Next you'll be asking the Senior Drill Instructor where the Lobster Thermidore is ;)
*(In all sincerity, I have a feeling CMC is starting to appreciate the erosion of capability, but he has his hands full just dealing with the ACV issues and the loss of function in higher sea states (compared to the AAV), among other system challenges. One can clearly see it reading through the questions and remarks. His clarity of focus on the ARG/MEU was startling...and the right place to start. There's no point to a perfect MEU if there's no ARG or lift to carry it. )
We were fortunate, in the past, for an incompetent Commandant to be replaced by a savior. Unfortunately, this hasn’t happened today…This guy is not even an accomplished liar, and the sooner he is exposed to those who can effect change, the better. Semper Fi is still used, but “faithful” to what or whom?