Compass Points - Pirate Priority?
Leaders must set the right priority.
Compass Points - Pirate Priority?
Leaders must set the right priority.
March 28, 2026
.
Leaders must set the right priority.
When Thomas Jefferson was President of the fledgling United States, Islamic pirates demanded that the US pay them tribute. The pirates demanded US ships pay transit tolls in the Mediterranean Sea.
The priority established by President Jefferson was a variation of the famous quote by Robert Goodloe Harper.
.
-----------------------
-----------------------
.
Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.
-- Robert Goodloe Harper
.
-----------------------
-----------------------
.
President Jefferson sent US Navy ships with US Marines onboard to fight the Islamic pirates. In 1805 during the first Barbary War, US Marine 1st Lieutenant Presley O’Bannon led a force of less than a dozen Marines along with several hundred mercenaries on a march from Alexandria, Egypt, across the desert, to capture Derna, Tripoli. The victory is commemorated in the Marines’ Hymn.
Today, the USS Tripoli ARG-MEU with the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit onboard is arriving in the Middle East to take action against the latest version of Islamic pirates. With Marines arriving in the Middle East, and more Marines on the way behind them, as well as even more Marines still patrolling the waters of the Caribbean, most Americans would think that the priority of the US Marine Corps today is global crisis response. Unfortunately, that is not true today.
Back in the summer of 2019, new Marine Corps leadership abruptly changed the focus of the Marine Corps from global crisis response to a plan called Force Design with so called Stand-in-Force units, i.e. sensor and missile units off the coast of China. The current Commandant still embraces the Force Design detour.
.
-----------------------
-----------------------
.
Force Design remains a righteous journey . . .
-- Marines CPG August 2024
.
-----------------------
-----------------------
.
Although it is not clear what the Commandant means by the messianic phrase "righteous journey," just a few sentences later, he removes all doubt about the Marine Corps' priority:
.
-----------------------
-----------------------
.
Force Design remains our strategic priority and we cannot slow down.
-- Marines CPG August 2024
.
-----------------------
-----------------------
.
By changing the Marine Corps priority from worldwide crisis response to regional sensor and missile units, much has been lost. The Marine Corps has forfeited long standing agreements on the need for enough amphibious ships and prepositioning ships for a two MEB lift. The Marine Corps also has eliminated or eviscerated combined arms units, equipment, and capabilities including armor, air, artillery, infantry, engineering, snipers and more. The reduction in proven combat capabilities was no accident; the reduction is what Marine leaders intended. They intentionally chose regional SIF sensor and missile units over global crisis response.
Strangely, however, instead of celebrating the decline of Marine global crisis response capabilities — which they were trying to reduce — now Marine leaders are complaining. Both the current Commandant Gen Eric Smith and the Acting Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jim Kilby told a crowd at a past Modern Day Marine Exposition in Washington,DC, that the Marine Corps needs more amphibious ships.
.
-----------------------
-----------------------
.
“A MEU embarked on a three-ship Amphibious Ready Group is the most versatile, flexible and lethal global response force the United States has to offer,” Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Eric Smith told the crowd here just hours before Kilby spoke. The ARG-MEU is “the most called for asset after the carrier strike groups… It brings with it the ability to strike from range and to return to the sea without the need for access, basing and overflight.”
-- Gen Eric Smith, Modern Marine Expo 2025
.
-----------------------
-----------------------
.
What is the Marine Corps’ current ‘strategic priority’ Force Design sensor and missile units, or global crisis response? If global crisis response is now going to be the Marine Corps’ strategic priority, then Marine leaders need to stand up forthrightly and repudiate Force Design and clearly establish a new strategic priority for the Marine Corps -- no longer regional SIF sensor and missile units, but once again global crisis response.
Beginning in 2019, the promise of the Marine SIF regional sensor and missile units was that in the next missile war, the Marine SIF would command a central role as a crucial node in the joint kill chain. Years have gone by now. The missile war is here, and the Marine SIF sensor and missile units do not have a central role.
It is long past time for the Marine Corps to reject both the amphib mistake of 2019 and the misguided ‘righteous journey’ of Force Design. With the help of the entire Marine community and Congress, the Marine Corps must embark on a new journey with a new priority: rebuilding, restoring, and enhancing the amphibious ships, and prepositioning ships, as well as all the upgraded and enhanced armor, artillery, air, infantry, engineering, snipers and more needed by America’s global, always ready, 9-1-1 force, the US Marines.
Firing batteries always need a priority of fires. What is the POF of the Marine Corps today? The world is filled with pirates. President Jefferson needed US Marines to fight the pirates in the earliest days of the United States. The current US President needs US Marines to go fight the Middle East pirates today.
Future US Presidents will need US Marines to arrive around the globe to the next crisis to deter, assist, rescue, strike, and fight. It is time for the Marine Corps to prioritize global crisis response. When Admiral Cooper needed Marines in the Middle East fight today, he did not have any particular need for the Marine ‘righteous journey’ sensor and missile units. What he needs is all the global, combined arms, crisis response Marines on Navy amphibious ships that he can get. Crisis response Marines on Navy amphibious ships is a priority of the Combatant Commander at war today. Why should the priority of the US Marine Corps be any different?
.
- - - - -
.
Middle East Forum - 03/28/2023
1786: America’s First Brush with Islamic Jihad
By Raymond Ibrahim
https://meforum.org/1786-america-first-brush-with-islamic-jihad
.
- - - - -
.
Breaking Defense - 05/02/2025
Navy, Marine Corps Chiefs Hammer Amphib Readiness In Back-To-Back Addresses
At Modern Day Marine, Acting Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jim Kilby acknowledged he “owes” themMarine Corps a three-ship Amphibious Ready Group.
By Justin Katz
.
I came across this article on RCP-Defense. Definitely worth the read. https://mwi.westpoint.edu/how-to-kill-a-multidomain-task-force/
The article’s thesis is warning the US Army bureaucracy may destroy the MDTF. (Hence the title; “How to Kill a Multidomain TF”). Having seen a number of public articles featuring similar warnings, this may be an issue across the entire US Army organization.
This issue, however, is not what got my attention. What concerns me is how far the MDTF out paces the MLR in mission, organization and capabilities. The US Army has developed a first-class JOINT FORCE Multidomain TASK FORCE capability that any Combatant Commander would want and request as a SIF (Stand In Force).
The MDTF is developed as an Operational (in theater) asset. Generally speaking, “the MDTF opens doors by breaking systems, and creating windows of advantage. The MLR holds, exploits and hides, enabling the denial of key SLOCs, enabling naval maneuver complicating any amphibious or blockade strategy.”
The MDTF’s four battalions, Headquarters & Headquarters Battalion (HHB),
Intelligence, Information, Cyber, Electronic Warfare & Space (I2CEWS) Battalion,
Long-Range Fires Battalion, and the Multi-Domain Effects Battalion are its mission integration showcases. The key being the I2CEWS Battalion that detects the threats enabling the integrated long and medium range surface, anti-missile, and anti-air engagement. It is “designed to penetrate and dis-integrate A2/AD networks, by delivering long range fires, to create windows of advantage for the Joint Force.”
I know talk is cheap but as of 2026, the US Army has activated:
• 1st MDTF – Indo-Pacific (JBLM, forward in Japan/Philippines)
• 2nd MDTF – Europe (Wiesbaden, Germany)
• 3rd MDTF – Indo-Pacific (Hawaii, forward in Australia)
• With the 4th and 5th MDTF planned (In addition, Japan and Australia have shown more than a passing interest).
In addition, the US Army believes it is ESSENIAL that the MDTF be forward deployed. This is important because the Joint Force’s strategic mobility is essential and dependent on operating air and seaports of debarkation.
The MLR is a force provider solution focused on the US Navy’s anti-ship mission and not the Combatant Commanders theater problem. The USMC does not possess the resources of the US Army. USMC developing anti-ship missile units to hide on small islands is a bad idea. The Commandant/US NAVY, and especially the Joint Staff, should have let the JOINT Force (ie. US ARMY) work the problem. The US needs to turn the big islands (like Japan, Luzon, and Taiwan and include Malaysia) into MDFT “porcupines”. The USMC should have stayed true to its crisis response and amphibious roots. Hiding on small islands ain’t for the Marines. S/F
To use an old phrase, it appears that the Commandant "wants his cake and eat it too." The focus of the Marine Corps must be in one direction. It can only be a missile force or an expeditionary force. If one wants to use the Defense Battalions of WWII as an example for FD, there are many examples of the differences. The Defense Bns did not take away from the Marine Divisions. There was no divestment of units from the Divisions. Plus, to my understanding, the Divisions took priority.
The Army has for the most part has always taken the lead in Theater defense and offensive fires. The Army is the larger force and able to absorb the costs of such units. The Commandant wants to duplicate what the Army is doing and doing very well. To my knowledge, after six years the Marine Corps still does not have a fully equipped NMESIS battery.
General Berger and now General Smith must not understand what the true mission of the Marine Corps is. In wanting to be relevant, they have changed the Marine Corps mission. If they understood the Marine mission, they would have understood that the Marine mission is expeditionary warfare. Capabilities such as anti-ship missions could have been added to the pre-FD Marine Corps. The Marine Corps did not have to change in order to conduct this mission.