The professional discussion among Marines about FD 2030 is a discussion of means, not of ends. The desired end state is agreed: a stronger Marine Corps and a safer nation. The question is how best to accomplish that. The discussion grows heated at times because — as author Josh Rushing reminds us below — Marines are always determined to do what they see as right.
1 Comment
No posts
Good food for thought. "The professional discussion among Marines about FD 2030 is a discussion of means, not of ends. The desired end state is agreed: a stronger Marine Corps and a safer nation. The question is how best to accomplish that.".
One thing I've noticed; proponents of FD 2030, in posts, articles and interviews, have been taking the tactic of either ad hominem attacks or admitting 'messaging and communication problems'. This fits with a strategy of delay, delay, ridicule, and delay until it doesn't matter. The 'battle' over FD 2030 is over and decided. The fight now is over what comes after, Vision 2035 (or the Big Green Phoenix as I like to think of it). The incumbent's strategy is to undermine the validity of the Vision 2035 proponents perspective. I think this is an emergent organic phenomenon, not a purposeful malicious one, but the strategy remains apparent and effective if tolerated. I'd recommend the proponents of Vision 2035 et al, wear their figurative cammies, not Blues, to this fight. It will get muddy and bloody; the stakes are too high. It will get heated - this discussion is going to conceptually have moments of bull in the ring, a bar fight, a barracks slug fest. Proponents of Vision 2035 didn't ask for that, but it is the reality. Get the incumbents in a choke hold if need be and insist that they address the capabilities gaps until answers are forthcoming. This is especially for retirees and formers engaged in this fight; anything else just makes us time sponges telling freeze-dried sea-stories about fairy tales (retirees and formers need to sharpen their knowledge for this fight).
Of course we back the CMC and the USMC 100%, especially with respect to active operations. That is not a question, and we should not have to say it when we highlight what seems to be a battlefield need matched with a capability gap. We understand the necessity of supporting current execution, especially if still on Active Duty (probably more so, since the Active Marine is the one who has to eat the consequences). That doesn't mean discussing the consequences of and solutions for what comes after executing the current force plan is some type of loyalty gauge for retired or active duty, and to treat as such is unacceptable, in this one man's opinion.
Despite my tirade, I'll close by saying that, as in all such disputes, after a heated discussion I'll always drink a beer with my fellow Marines, regardless of which side they are on...because it's all the Marine side.