I get the sentiment but have you been keeping up with some of the statements made by those that are ARDENT supporters of FD2030 against many that I consider some of the greats of the Marine Corps? Is "reasoned" debate even possible? The refusal to look at things as they are and not how they wish them to be makes debating the subject damn near possible. The info campaign in my opinion and from my seat is working. Why stop now?
Sir, I can't speak for the staff of Compass Points, but the many who identify as members of Chowder Society II have no plans to stop voicing our concerns about the path the Corps appears to be continuing along, that is, Force Design 2030. We see it as an existential threat to the Corps. We have attempted to engage in a professional discourse with the Corps' active-duty leadership. Reportedly, General Berger told his staff to ignore us, which with a few exceptions they did. In his first weeks as Commandant General Smith and later on two of his lieutenant generals exchanged emails with us; that ended about a month ago with no explanation. General Gray told me when I became the Director of Command and Staff College that if the Corps' ideas and concepts could not withstand the criticism of its own Marines and those outside of the Corps (Bill Lind being most prominent) then it was likely there was something wrong with our ideas and concepts. Under his and succeeding commandant's leadership rich and heated debates were frequent and welcomed. We learned much from those "intellectual gunfights." That ended with General Berger.
I am not CP, but I agree with the article. To address your point, yes, I think we all understand the ad hominem attacks and hyperbole made as part of the IO campaign against the critics of FD (2030). The problem is that when everyone is flinging poo, it's just a big shtshow to no purpose. It especially doesn't help the active duty and other actual influencers and decision makers. It turns off those professionals that would otherwise share our concerns over the loss of capabilities and the focus of the USMC. We would do well to remember that the Active Duty is eating the 'buffet of consequences' right now that is the fallout of the implementation of FD(2030). They may be, on the whole, a lot more willing to consider the points we have been making consistently, provided we continue to present them rationally and free of excessive diatribe. Rome wasn't built / rebuilt in a day. It takes consistency and strategic patience. Now, that doesn't mean we just eat sht and drink our tea with pinky raised while the poo gets flung. I have been very pointed and detailed in the face of opposition. It means sticking to the points being discussed....rather than deflecting into nonsense or ad hominem attacks of our own. I'll give away a trade secret...in some exchanges here on CP, I knew I was making a winning point the second the FD proponents segued into something personal. I have made jokes about it. I consider myself the official spokesman for FD(2030) because I know the talking points and dodges. CP itself has several excellent articles breaking down the dodges and deflections made by official and unofficial FD(2030) supporters. We can have a reasoned and spirited debate, at least on our side of the discussion. There is even room for gentlemanly behavior as called for by Gen. Krulak. I have found myself defending the combat record of an Officer I otherwise seriously disagree with on almost every point about Force Design. I simply cannot abide the ad hominem attacks that are just smoke to cover the 'out of answers' syndrome.
cfrog, great point about trade secrets. Here are two more:
"Double-down": Whenever someone uses this phrase it tells me (and most other people) that the speaker has decided that he already knows all that is or ever will be relevant about a topic. That person is beyond reason.
Won't engage/discuss: Cancel culture trick: "We will ignore; we won't invite to speak/teach; we will censure; not only will we act as though that person is dead, we will act as though he never existed; we will erase his work; we will over-write it with some people/work who support our (narrow) thinking (indoctrination). Those people are also beyond reason.
Whether or not the Marine Corps has a renaissance is greatly dependent on two major factors:
1) A critical mass of Marines who so want to accomplish missions at the lowest cost in life that they will leave their comfort zones and any thought of self-promotion/self-aggrandizement and venture into tough, hard-to-understand mental territory --- probably on their own time and almost certainly without support.
2) A repository of hard-earned experience, knowledge, and wisdom that shows how Marines from other generations built the renaissance of their era. Compass Points! The Index of Articles is a superb inventory of articles/ideas.
I'm no great reader of social media, but publishing articles in a few places has exposed me to comments about both my articles and those of others. I have read political rants; ad hominem attacks; and seen trolls at work.
Those commenting on CP are exceptional. Look at this page as an example: Reason; discourse (I much prefer that term to debate --- discourse can lead to a higher plane); the sharing of references; and so on.
They have such a deep professional commitment to the Nation and its security that they make the effort to improve understanding, to share perspectives and hard-earned combat experience. In short, they care enough to contribute ... and to do so in a meaningful way. Thoughts that will stand the test of time and combat.
Great points on your end as well...For entertainment purposes only: "As the Official Spokesman for FD (2030), we are confident and prepared to double down on these essential changes. We also want to be clear that we will not engage in discussion concerning topics better suited to the pre-implementation phase. We are confident that truly informed professionals will appreciate this policy." (It just writes itself)
In helping to maintain humor throughout this effort, it occurred to me that you as the Official Spokesman for FD could develop and maintain The Official Lexicon of FD Doublespeak (apologies to George Orwell's 1984 "doublethink" and "newspeak").
Consider some oxymorons: friendly fire or civil war --- irony and truth. One of my favorites is the title of the 3rd book of Sir Alistair Horne's excellent trilogy of French Wars: "A Savage War of Peace: Algeria, 1954-1962". A savage war of peace says it all..
(BTW: This eminent British historian's last book "Hubris: The Tragedy of War in the Twentieth Century" is more of an end of life reflection than one of his thoroughly researched histories, and is all the more valuable for that distinction.
Very relevant to our Nation in the current era!)
At any rate, I don't have the talent but it seems that FD2030 provides wonderful material for oxymorons and irony. I submit the following two for your consideration, refinement, and amplification:
After reading these comments, I'll add for public consumption, and for all my active friends that lurk on these pages!
-After having been brought up in the Corps of the mid-80's and 90's, the stifling of internal discussion in the Corps' PME halls and professional publications was a new and developing phenomenon that I marked and recorded happening starting in about 2006, when the Long War and the political pressure to cower got really difficult for those leaders that may be unaccustomed to finding creative ways to stand up to it.
-The maturation of that discourse-stifling tendency into the info-ops shutdown of 2019 was alarming. I felt the evidence in the Fleet, saw it in the 2022 reaction to Chowder II, and would call it a "tectonic cultural shift" in the way we behave as Marines.
-On the reading list: I would recommend going to the CPRL page linked elsewhere, and look for the tab that says "Archives." It has all the reading lists going back to 1989. I'm currently on a James Webb re-reading marathon. He is a truth-teller that particularly inspires. The other classics that I hand Lieutenants when they check in with me are there in the older versions.
-In terms of "comments" driven content, CP is a well-moderated and professionally-focused forum that has all the marks of a good afternoon at the Officer's Club in 1990. Or an afternoon in Reasoner Hall in 1996 with the Acolytes. Of course, there is always the one "springbutt;" the guy who everyone in the room knows, who has to take us on a non-relevant tangent...but what would the Corps be without that guy?
General Van Riper hope the next interview with the editor happens, and sooner than later. This whole focus on the reading lists and materials to begin locating, reading and digesting is enormously helpful. As mentioned we really didn’t have any nearly like a reading list back in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. Partly our own fault but guidance is always welcome. All of it can help refine and improve one’s ability to contribute to the ongoing dialog in a civil manner! Intelligence wins the debate!
Captain Burr, I have several lists. Among these are ones on Strategy, Operational Art (annotated), tactics, Close Combat (overlaps with Tactics), Clausewitz (annotated), and System Theory (Nonlinear dynamics or chaos/complexity theory). I am glad to share any or all. You might be interested also in a chapter I wrote in The Past as Prologue edited by Williamson Murray and Richard Sinnreich. It is titled, “The relevance of history to the military profession: an American Marine’s view” and chronicles my reading over six-decades. Of interest, I have offered to conduct another interview with the Compass Points Editor on my approach to professional reading, which might occur in the near future. Please let me know if you are looking for anything else. “Rip” Van Riper
General Van Riper~ Thank you for the kind offer in your response. I would greatly appreciate your sharing all of your lists (it's difficult to be selective with those very relevant topics) and The Past of Prologue edited by Messrs. Murray and Sinnreich. (Perhaps in a pdf format?) My personal email is: kapena60@gmail.com.
I look forward to future interviews you might have with Compass Points. Much good is contained therein. Very Respectfully and Semper Fi, Sir. David Burr
I think the article of Fantasy Island, from May 28, was a good piece. The author, Niharika Mandhana, made it seem like FD was a good idea: Marines sinking Chinese ships: how cool is that? The author however, has no idea what the Nation is losing and what the Marine Corps is eliminating to achieve this concept. She probably has no clue that "divest to invest" has damaged the Marine Corps as a combined arms naval expeditionary force. Ms. Mandhana probably does not realize the importance such a force can have. If possible, could someone with authority contact Ms. Mandhana and give her a brief on the importance of the United States Marine Corps as a combined arms naval expeditionary force? Also, to explain to her why FD is such a bad idea. With this information, she could do an article in the WSJ about the damage being done to our Marine Corps.
I just read General Van Riper’s Chapter 4 of “The Past as Prologue, edited by Williamson Murray and Richard Sinnreich. It is exceptional, he also references several books not listed in his comment today. “This Kind of War” TR FEHRENBACH is one of many referenced that is a favorite of mine.
I get the sentiment but have you been keeping up with some of the statements made by those that are ARDENT supporters of FD2030 against many that I consider some of the greats of the Marine Corps? Is "reasoned" debate even possible? The refusal to look at things as they are and not how they wish them to be makes debating the subject damn near possible. The info campaign in my opinion and from my seat is working. Why stop now?
Sir, I can't speak for the staff of Compass Points, but the many who identify as members of Chowder Society II have no plans to stop voicing our concerns about the path the Corps appears to be continuing along, that is, Force Design 2030. We see it as an existential threat to the Corps. We have attempted to engage in a professional discourse with the Corps' active-duty leadership. Reportedly, General Berger told his staff to ignore us, which with a few exceptions they did. In his first weeks as Commandant General Smith and later on two of his lieutenant generals exchanged emails with us; that ended about a month ago with no explanation. General Gray told me when I became the Director of Command and Staff College that if the Corps' ideas and concepts could not withstand the criticism of its own Marines and those outside of the Corps (Bill Lind being most prominent) then it was likely there was something wrong with our ideas and concepts. Under his and succeeding commandant's leadership rich and heated debates were frequent and welcomed. We learned much from those "intellectual gunfights." That ended with General Berger.
I am not CP, but I agree with the article. To address your point, yes, I think we all understand the ad hominem attacks and hyperbole made as part of the IO campaign against the critics of FD (2030). The problem is that when everyone is flinging poo, it's just a big shtshow to no purpose. It especially doesn't help the active duty and other actual influencers and decision makers. It turns off those professionals that would otherwise share our concerns over the loss of capabilities and the focus of the USMC. We would do well to remember that the Active Duty is eating the 'buffet of consequences' right now that is the fallout of the implementation of FD(2030). They may be, on the whole, a lot more willing to consider the points we have been making consistently, provided we continue to present them rationally and free of excessive diatribe. Rome wasn't built / rebuilt in a day. It takes consistency and strategic patience. Now, that doesn't mean we just eat sht and drink our tea with pinky raised while the poo gets flung. I have been very pointed and detailed in the face of opposition. It means sticking to the points being discussed....rather than deflecting into nonsense or ad hominem attacks of our own. I'll give away a trade secret...in some exchanges here on CP, I knew I was making a winning point the second the FD proponents segued into something personal. I have made jokes about it. I consider myself the official spokesman for FD(2030) because I know the talking points and dodges. CP itself has several excellent articles breaking down the dodges and deflections made by official and unofficial FD(2030) supporters. We can have a reasoned and spirited debate, at least on our side of the discussion. There is even room for gentlemanly behavior as called for by Gen. Krulak. I have found myself defending the combat record of an Officer I otherwise seriously disagree with on almost every point about Force Design. I simply cannot abide the ad hominem attacks that are just smoke to cover the 'out of answers' syndrome.
cfrog, great point about trade secrets. Here are two more:
"Double-down": Whenever someone uses this phrase it tells me (and most other people) that the speaker has decided that he already knows all that is or ever will be relevant about a topic. That person is beyond reason.
Won't engage/discuss: Cancel culture trick: "We will ignore; we won't invite to speak/teach; we will censure; not only will we act as though that person is dead, we will act as though he never existed; we will erase his work; we will over-write it with some people/work who support our (narrow) thinking (indoctrination). Those people are also beyond reason.
Whether or not the Marine Corps has a renaissance is greatly dependent on two major factors:
1) A critical mass of Marines who so want to accomplish missions at the lowest cost in life that they will leave their comfort zones and any thought of self-promotion/self-aggrandizement and venture into tough, hard-to-understand mental territory --- probably on their own time and almost certainly without support.
2) A repository of hard-earned experience, knowledge, and wisdom that shows how Marines from other generations built the renaissance of their era. Compass Points! The Index of Articles is a superb inventory of articles/ideas.
I'm no great reader of social media, but publishing articles in a few places has exposed me to comments about both my articles and those of others. I have read political rants; ad hominem attacks; and seen trolls at work.
Those commenting on CP are exceptional. Look at this page as an example: Reason; discourse (I much prefer that term to debate --- discourse can lead to a higher plane); the sharing of references; and so on.
They have such a deep professional commitment to the Nation and its security that they make the effort to improve understanding, to share perspectives and hard-earned combat experience. In short, they care enough to contribute ... and to do so in a meaningful way. Thoughts that will stand the test of time and combat.
Great points on your end as well...For entertainment purposes only: "As the Official Spokesman for FD (2030), we are confident and prepared to double down on these essential changes. We also want to be clear that we will not engage in discussion concerning topics better suited to the pre-implementation phase. We are confident that truly informed professionals will appreciate this policy." (It just writes itself)
In helping to maintain humor throughout this effort, it occurred to me that you as the Official Spokesman for FD could develop and maintain The Official Lexicon of FD Doublespeak (apologies to George Orwell's 1984 "doublethink" and "newspeak").
Consider some oxymorons: friendly fire or civil war --- irony and truth. One of my favorites is the title of the 3rd book of Sir Alistair Horne's excellent trilogy of French Wars: "A Savage War of Peace: Algeria, 1954-1962". A savage war of peace says it all..
(BTW: This eminent British historian's last book "Hubris: The Tragedy of War in the Twentieth Century" is more of an end of life reflection than one of his thoroughly researched histories, and is all the more valuable for that distinction.
Very relevant to our Nation in the current era!)
At any rate, I don't have the talent but it seems that FD2030 provides wonderful material for oxymorons and irony. I submit the following two for your consideration, refinement, and amplification:
The Double Down Learning Campaign
The Cancel Culture Education
Re FD, “Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears: I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.’
(Julius Caesar, Act 3, Scene 2)
After reading these comments, I'll add for public consumption, and for all my active friends that lurk on these pages!
-After having been brought up in the Corps of the mid-80's and 90's, the stifling of internal discussion in the Corps' PME halls and professional publications was a new and developing phenomenon that I marked and recorded happening starting in about 2006, when the Long War and the political pressure to cower got really difficult for those leaders that may be unaccustomed to finding creative ways to stand up to it.
-The maturation of that discourse-stifling tendency into the info-ops shutdown of 2019 was alarming. I felt the evidence in the Fleet, saw it in the 2022 reaction to Chowder II, and would call it a "tectonic cultural shift" in the way we behave as Marines.
-On the reading list: I would recommend going to the CPRL page linked elsewhere, and look for the tab that says "Archives." It has all the reading lists going back to 1989. I'm currently on a James Webb re-reading marathon. He is a truth-teller that particularly inspires. The other classics that I hand Lieutenants when they check in with me are there in the older versions.
-In terms of "comments" driven content, CP is a well-moderated and professionally-focused forum that has all the marks of a good afternoon at the Officer's Club in 1990. Or an afternoon in Reasoner Hall in 1996 with the Acolytes. Of course, there is always the one "springbutt;" the guy who everyone in the room knows, who has to take us on a non-relevant tangent...but what would the Corps be without that guy?
General Van Riper hope the next interview with the editor happens, and sooner than later. This whole focus on the reading lists and materials to begin locating, reading and digesting is enormously helpful. As mentioned we really didn’t have any nearly like a reading list back in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. Partly our own fault but guidance is always welcome. All of it can help refine and improve one’s ability to contribute to the ongoing dialog in a civil manner! Intelligence wins the debate!
I'l work with the Editor of Compass Points to see how we can advance the topic in the most useful and professional manner.
Does the good General Van RIper have an updated and indexed list that Compass Points can share with its readership? I'd be interested.
Kindest Regards,
David Burr
CAPT, USN (Ret.)
Captain Burr, I have several lists. Among these are ones on Strategy, Operational Art (annotated), tactics, Close Combat (overlaps with Tactics), Clausewitz (annotated), and System Theory (Nonlinear dynamics or chaos/complexity theory). I am glad to share any or all. You might be interested also in a chapter I wrote in The Past as Prologue edited by Williamson Murray and Richard Sinnreich. It is titled, “The relevance of history to the military profession: an American Marine’s view” and chronicles my reading over six-decades. Of interest, I have offered to conduct another interview with the Compass Points Editor on my approach to professional reading, which might occur in the near future. Please let me know if you are looking for anything else. “Rip” Van Riper
General Van Riper~ Thank you for the kind offer in your response. I would greatly appreciate your sharing all of your lists (it's difficult to be selective with those very relevant topics) and The Past of Prologue edited by Messrs. Murray and Sinnreich. (Perhaps in a pdf format?) My personal email is: kapena60@gmail.com.
I look forward to future interviews you might have with Compass Points. Much good is contained therein. Very Respectfully and Semper Fi, Sir. David Burr
I think the article of Fantasy Island, from May 28, was a good piece. The author, Niharika Mandhana, made it seem like FD was a good idea: Marines sinking Chinese ships: how cool is that? The author however, has no idea what the Nation is losing and what the Marine Corps is eliminating to achieve this concept. She probably has no clue that "divest to invest" has damaged the Marine Corps as a combined arms naval expeditionary force. Ms. Mandhana probably does not realize the importance such a force can have. If possible, could someone with authority contact Ms. Mandhana and give her a brief on the importance of the United States Marine Corps as a combined arms naval expeditionary force? Also, to explain to her why FD is such a bad idea. With this information, she could do an article in the WSJ about the damage being done to our Marine Corps.
I just read General Van Riper’s Chapter 4 of “The Past as Prologue, edited by Williamson Murray and Richard Sinnreich. It is exceptional, he also references several books not listed in his comment today. “This Kind of War” TR FEHRENBACH is one of many referenced that is a favorite of mine.
Roger that.
It is available in Kindle so you can get it today.
Williamson Murray and 1 more
The Past as Prologue: The Importance of History to the Military Profession
1st Edition
ISBN-13: 978-0521619639, ISBN-10: 0521619637
4.7 4.7 out of 5 stars 27
4.3 on Goodreads (61). Available from Amazon