I find the new officer's comment about being "forbidden to ask about FD 2030" to be shocking for our Corps. What else is "forbidden"? Instructors of future leaders should be able to answer questions like this--even the very challenging, difficult questions about the direction of the Corps. "Forbidden" could be interpreted that the leaders are unable, unwilling or unqualified to answer that question. That is unsat.
Forbidden to talk about…. Why would it be permitted because it is forbidden in the active duty force too.
I am conflicted and not sure if I should be surprised by a newly commissioned officer asking a question like this. Perhaps I should think this is a good thing. Perhaps I am showing my age. As a new, 21 year old Lieutenant I was focused in trying to become the best infantry platoon leader possible. The tactics, weapons, ranges, communications equipment, patrolling, anti tank barriers, how to call in artillery or CAS, how my platoon fit into the company, how to step up to be a Company Commander in extremis, physical fitness, USMC standards, the UCMJ and policy and regulations. That was my world. It seemed everything else was above my pay grade and I trusted that my leaders had the integrity to do the right things, the right way for the right reasons. Different times….
Ummm... who other than a brand new still pooping naval academy chow second lieutenant says that Force Design is a forbidden conversation? Force Design is not only what we do, but a daily topic of conversation in III MEF.
In line with today's post: "The Ukrainian incursion in Kursk Oblast is a partial proof of concept of how limited Ukrainian battlefield activity that leverages vulnerabilities in Russia's warfighting capabilities and that integrates technological adaptations with mechanized maneuver can have theater-wide impacts on operations." - from "Ukraine's Kursk Incursion: 6 Month Assessment" by Angelica Evans, ISW (https://understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Six%20Month%20Kursk%20Retrospective%20PDF.pdf).
The Ukr / Rus conflict is not the end all and be all, but it is giving a glimpse into current/future war. It continues to demonstrate that emerging capabilities are mostly additive to the capability stack, not replacing legacy capabilities in the stack.
I agree 100% with LtGen McMaster's observations and response here... FD2030 is a proven colossal failure!!! FD2030 has destroyed our Corps' MAGTF capabilities and relegated the Corps to being an irrelevant island missile battery asset that neither deters or reacts to any CHICOM naval threats in the Pacific, while totally neglecting the other 95% of real world threats! VISION2035 is a MUST to save and restore our Corps' assets and platforms forfeited in 2019 and restore our MAGTF lethality!
you gents at Compass Points should feel proud. even a young LT just out of OCS is hearing what you're putting out. that at least indicates that they haven't infected the whole tribe or even the newest members with the virus that is Force Design 2030. i've been looking for signs of hope and they're beginning to sprout!
Marines and Friends of Marines … The Corps was able to win very grim fights in the Pacific precisely because we asked uncomfortable, technically difficult questions in the Interwar years. It was an era of impressive intellectual combat with budgets, other services, and ourselves. To our credit, and thanks to enlightened leadership of general officers like George Barnett, John LeJeune, Russell, Breckenridge, among others, and a band of upcoming younger officers the likes of Victor Krulak, et.al., we put together doctrine that put all US forces ashore in every theatre of WW II. That was an intellectual triumph of the first order, and, we won against tough foes. So, what does that have to do with this young Marine’s engagement with LtGen McMaster? We should applaud that young man’s curiosity, insight, and courage! We should also slew our sights on our precious - yes, precious - Marine Corps University. Focusing laser-like on its leadership, faculty & staff, and curriculum, we must repeat must eliminate any notion of intellectual frigidity, and return our educational system to its “Golden Era” of the late 1980’s/early 90’s. Let’s also remember it was MCU’s C&SC which was the first of all ILE institutions to be accredited. My point? We know what has been our key to success: our intellectual freedom and toughness. So, let our “Gray Beard” senior officers point the way to recovery, & let our PME institutions put flesh on the Skelton. We’ve been here before, & we know how to do this mission. Semper Fidelis!
I find the new officer's comment about being "forbidden to ask about FD 2030" to be shocking for our Corps. What else is "forbidden"? Instructors of future leaders should be able to answer questions like this--even the very challenging, difficult questions about the direction of the Corps. "Forbidden" could be interpreted that the leaders are unable, unwilling or unqualified to answer that question. That is unsat.
Forbidden to talk about…. Why would it be permitted because it is forbidden in the active duty force too.
I am conflicted and not sure if I should be surprised by a newly commissioned officer asking a question like this. Perhaps I should think this is a good thing. Perhaps I am showing my age. As a new, 21 year old Lieutenant I was focused in trying to become the best infantry platoon leader possible. The tactics, weapons, ranges, communications equipment, patrolling, anti tank barriers, how to call in artillery or CAS, how my platoon fit into the company, how to step up to be a Company Commander in extremis, physical fitness, USMC standards, the UCMJ and policy and regulations. That was my world. It seemed everything else was above my pay grade and I trusted that my leaders had the integrity to do the right things, the right way for the right reasons. Different times….
But it does show he has guts!
Yes it does. Well informed and courageous or a spring butt.
Ummm... who other than a brand new still pooping naval academy chow second lieutenant says that Force Design is a forbidden conversation? Force Design is not only what we do, but a daily topic of conversation in III MEF.
I guess you needed to read the article. He just graduated from OCS.
In line with today's post: "The Ukrainian incursion in Kursk Oblast is a partial proof of concept of how limited Ukrainian battlefield activity that leverages vulnerabilities in Russia's warfighting capabilities and that integrates technological adaptations with mechanized maneuver can have theater-wide impacts on operations." - from "Ukraine's Kursk Incursion: 6 Month Assessment" by Angelica Evans, ISW (https://understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Six%20Month%20Kursk%20Retrospective%20PDF.pdf).
The Ukr / Rus conflict is not the end all and be all, but it is giving a glimpse into current/future war. It continues to demonstrate that emerging capabilities are mostly additive to the capability stack, not replacing legacy capabilities in the stack.
I agree 100% with LtGen McMaster's observations and response here... FD2030 is a proven colossal failure!!! FD2030 has destroyed our Corps' MAGTF capabilities and relegated the Corps to being an irrelevant island missile battery asset that neither deters or reacts to any CHICOM naval threats in the Pacific, while totally neglecting the other 95% of real world threats! VISION2035 is a MUST to save and restore our Corps' assets and platforms forfeited in 2019 and restore our MAGTF lethality!
you gents at Compass Points should feel proud. even a young LT just out of OCS is hearing what you're putting out. that at least indicates that they haven't infected the whole tribe or even the newest members with the virus that is Force Design 2030. i've been looking for signs of hope and they're beginning to sprout!
often hear of AI referred to as pixie dust. got a problem? no worries, AI will solve it. same as it ever was.
Marines and Friends of Marines … The Corps was able to win very grim fights in the Pacific precisely because we asked uncomfortable, technically difficult questions in the Interwar years. It was an era of impressive intellectual combat with budgets, other services, and ourselves. To our credit, and thanks to enlightened leadership of general officers like George Barnett, John LeJeune, Russell, Breckenridge, among others, and a band of upcoming younger officers the likes of Victor Krulak, et.al., we put together doctrine that put all US forces ashore in every theatre of WW II. That was an intellectual triumph of the first order, and, we won against tough foes. So, what does that have to do with this young Marine’s engagement with LtGen McMaster? We should applaud that young man’s curiosity, insight, and courage! We should also slew our sights on our precious - yes, precious - Marine Corps University. Focusing laser-like on its leadership, faculty & staff, and curriculum, we must repeat must eliminate any notion of intellectual frigidity, and return our educational system to its “Golden Era” of the late 1980’s/early 90’s. Let’s also remember it was MCU’s C&SC which was the first of all ILE institutions to be accredited. My point? We know what has been our key to success: our intellectual freedom and toughness. So, let our “Gray Beard” senior officers point the way to recovery, & let our PME institutions put flesh on the Skelton. We’ve been here before, & we know how to do this mission. Semper Fidelis!