Having served in Mike Company 3/2 when General Conway was CO of Kilo Company I tell you first hand how COMPETENT he was and probably still is, and if he says that there are senior “leaders” aka this hopeless lot of poor “managers”, are incompetent than they are INCOMPETENT. This is years in the making, they didn’t just wake up as General officers that can’t direct the digging of a fighting hole or create fields of fire, canalize avenues of approach, they can’t see the big “stuff” either. If your perspective was deep reconnaissance and drone strikes and just tolerated the straight leg infantry and the power of combined arms it’s seems easy to be swept up in the hand jive of foggy bottom and the puzzle palace nonsense. That Congress let this blizzard of BS continue is equally telling. Where were the JCS? The Chair of the JCS. Where were the combatant commanders? Don’t bother answering. They were UA.
There is practically no one that comments frequently that would not jump right in to help if called.
If there is traction to reversing the damage done with FD2030 then it seems like a good time to push harder. Like in pugul stick fighting once you have the opponent on his heels you keep attacking and attacking until the whistle blows. Haven’t heard a whistle yet….
If there is a change of administration this November then among other things the new president should request the wholesale resignation of all senior Marine Corps officers who are proponents of FD 2030. Resignation is the only option. They are beyond redemption! We need officers who cam and will rebuild the Marine Corps. Getting back all that was discarded will be a herculean task. This in conjunction with rebuilding our amphibious fleet. FD 2030 is as dead as DEI.
I wonder if the current CMC has accepted that FD 2030 is an utter fiasco and has ACTED from that acceptance and created a task group to begin planning AND EXECUTING the essential emergency rebuilding of our Corps. Many of our “retired” senior leaders could assist in this effort IF they saw that current flag officers, especially CMC had gotten the word. I’m just wondering if there is any real evidence that the “debate” is over and the urgency to rebuild is understood.
General Smith ceased talking to those in the retired Marine Corps community who oppose FD 2030 several months ago. Other active-general officers stopped talking with us at about the same time. Draw your own conclusions.
Rest assured that those who bought into the operational aspects of FD-2030 are either grossly incompetent or lack moral courage. It does not take an experienced senior officer to look at it and understand that it is not workable.
The former Commandant did not wish to discuss it nor does the current one. Why? Certainly they have the fundamental concepts behind MAGTF operations as taught at AWS down pat. Certainly they understand what was taught at C&S and have a working knowledge of military history. Or….?
When a leader runs into questions and concerns they openly, honestly and clearly brief the plan and explain it. That never happened. Silence, lies, impugning the motives of Marines, defamation and ghosting. I never thought I would see something like that.
It was Samuel W. that turned me on to the Marine Corps Training and Educational Annual Report (TEAR) (June 12, 2024) in the ”CP- LSM Questions” posting. Samuel, I am glad I read it and like you, I am very disappointed in the content of the document. For openers, the “INTRODUCTION” is the biggest pile of gobbledygook I have waded through in a long while. (Generally speaking IMO, gobbledygook applies to the entire document.)
The word “amphibious” appears three times in the 20 page document. Two of the three instances appear in the below paragraph and the third references the “Amphibious Combat Vehicle driver simulation.”
“As experts in amphibious operations, the Marine Corps will provide Marines a practical baseline in the principles of amphibious defense and counter landing operations consistent with current and future operating environment realities and will inform the development of Naval, Joint, Allied, and Partner doctrine.”
When have “amphibious experts” ever looked for the baseline principles of amphibious defense and counter landing operations? I know the WW2 Japanese did after they over extended their forces and lost the initiative. I know Rommel worked hard at unsuccessfully defending the beaches of France. General Smith got the fact right that the US Marine Corps is supposed to be the amphibious experts. When is he going to start acting like it?
Then the Marine Corps is going to “inform the development of Naval, Joint, Allied and Partner doctrine’. The Navy is too busy trying to build and maintain ships. Joint doesn’t care but they should. I suspect that Allies are laughing at us, and who is our “Partner”?
The now famous word “Lethality” appears four times in this TEAR. It appears in the section labeled OPERATIONAL APPROACH…”revolutionary change and accelerate modernization through an informed, balanced, and synchronized approach to increase the lethality of the force”. The last four years we seem to be trying to increase lethality but we are still waiting for the revolutionary increase in force combat power. In addition, I don’t like that word “synchronize”. You synchronize machines, in combat operations you coordinated and maneuver Marines.
The other concern is when I read comments from respected retired Marine Corps general officers like: “General Smith ceased talking to those in the retired Marine Corps community who oppose FD 2030 several months ago. Other active-general officers stopped talking with us at about the same time. Draw your own conclusions.” I have. Hey General Smith, once a Marine; always a Marine. Semper Fi?
Second comment on this post. I would propose that we who are not on the active rolls remember how challenging this era has been for the competent senior leaders, both those known and called out by Generals Conway and Boomer, as well others. For these leaders are in a dilemma. There isn't another USMC, they still want to serve, and Marines still need leadership. The meat eaters in the ranks still need leadership. The country still wants the USMC. For those competent senior Marines, simply badmouthing policy from higher is p*** poor leadership. Personally, I know Marines that have felt very much crushed between a rock and a hard place...and have had to make the best of it. Pulling a 'Scheller' and having a public meltdown is not a solution, nor a model to emulate(As my old tac instructor would say, it is 'a' technique, but it is not a good technique). These Marines are still out there. They are the best option to correct the deficiencies put in place over the last few years. Bad ideas are not the same as unlawful orders. Deliberately disobeying bad ideas is not always an option; we know that sometimes you have to execute while striving to do as little damage as possible. These leaders I am speaking of are not "yes'ing" their way through/to assignments. They are very competent, and working for the best of mission accomplishment and troop welfare. For what it's worth, I have a pet theory that eventually the 'buffet of consequences' will put the meat eaters back at the white board. To borrow from the US Army, we didn't find Jim Gavin by firing entire cohorts. Nor did we find Grant through that method. (And yes, I am familiar with LtGen Gavin's retirement; that's actually why I used his example). It will take longer than we want to fix this mess...but I think relative stability in transition will give the USMC a strategic edge (given the circumstances) versus flipping the table, storming the 'Bastille and putting Pvt Robespierre in charge (LCpl cFrog served with him; he was gross. Among more onerous behaviors, he kept dirty laundry in his cubicle fridge until caught).
Cfrog, you are certainly correct in your assessment of the individual leader. There are many factors in a personal decision to say something, do something, or not. I once made that specific decision amidst a crisis of faith in the institution's leaders; that in my continued service I would focus on leading, protecting, and training the Marines within my sphere of influence, sometimes in spite of the institution's failures. I can empathize with any leader continues to ride for the brand, is clear-eyed about their role, and does their best within their lane.
I was recently pointed to an exchange between Jim Cramer and the CEO of Starbucks, in which Jim specifically identified a possible cause of their sudden loss in value, but the CEO continued to meander through corporate buzzwords and "action plan" talk. Like this CEO, much of corporate America makes a practice of just describing the current deplorable state and "let's focus on moving forward." Sure, but let's have a clear AAR and identify the failures and those who enabled them.
A great concern is that the culture of the Corps may be suffering irreparable damage due to misguided IO efforts. There is a straight cause-and-effect line from 2022's ad-hominem IO campaign against the persons representing FD2030 questions, and the future way in which average FGOs and SNCOs will regard their forebears and history. The line starts with dismissiveness and half-truths at the highest levels, trickles down to comments and speeches at the next echelon of leadership (from some who I would have placed in your competent category, but was surprised to hear that they couldn't help perpetuating the IO line), is amplified into official dismissal in the PME institutions--official shunning of those forebears, and results in FGOs and SNCOs, present and future, that actively think that the old-guard is stupid. This results in more than personal animus, but an implicit dismissal of the Corps fundamental philosophy, and those who wrote it, represented in the understanding of war pre-2001. This is a dangerous disease to plant in our young Marines minds. I think it's probable that this will significantly change the Corps ethos in future years, and we shouldn't memory-hole the culprits.
"We do not intend to imply that the entire generation of current and recently retired senior Marine Corps leaders are operationally incompetent because WE KNOW SEVERAL WHO DISPLAY EXCEPTIONAL COMPETENCE.". As the kids say...this 100!
Considering Gen Van Riper’s information it seems CMC is doubling down on dumb. Pride? Hubris? He now owns FD 2030 and all its consequences. What is to be determined is how many Marines will pay the costs. The years during Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan “taught” misleading assumptions in today’s world. lWe no longer can confidently plan and act as though it is our decision if we fight, where we fight, the level and tempo of combat, or that we can unilaterally end the fight.
I have no doubt that the Marines who envisioned and implemented Force Design believed what they were doing was best for the Corps. I know that because they are Marines, and would never do anything to harm our beloved Corps. However, upon closer examination of Force Design by a wider population of Marines, both older and younger, senior and junior, numerous flaws were noted and widely documented. Now it is incumbent upon the current Marine Corps leadership to recognize that mistakes were made and correct those mistakes before it is too late.
“Mistakes were made” is as corrosive to integrity as seawater to batteries. There are specific leaders with names and contributions, that unless identified as the cause will continue to deteriorate the repair.
Having served in Mike Company 3/2 when General Conway was CO of Kilo Company I tell you first hand how COMPETENT he was and probably still is, and if he says that there are senior “leaders” aka this hopeless lot of poor “managers”, are incompetent than they are INCOMPETENT. This is years in the making, they didn’t just wake up as General officers that can’t direct the digging of a fighting hole or create fields of fire, canalize avenues of approach, they can’t see the big “stuff” either. If your perspective was deep reconnaissance and drone strikes and just tolerated the straight leg infantry and the power of combined arms it’s seems easy to be swept up in the hand jive of foggy bottom and the puzzle palace nonsense. That Congress let this blizzard of BS continue is equally telling. Where were the JCS? The Chair of the JCS. Where were the combatant commanders? Don’t bother answering. They were UA.
There is practically no one that comments frequently that would not jump right in to help if called.
If there is traction to reversing the damage done with FD2030 then it seems like a good time to push harder. Like in pugul stick fighting once you have the opponent on his heels you keep attacking and attacking until the whistle blows. Haven’t heard a whistle yet….
For information, General Berger served under 5 Secretaries of Defense and 7 Secretaries of the Navy; "no one was watching the store."
If there is a change of administration this November then among other things the new president should request the wholesale resignation of all senior Marine Corps officers who are proponents of FD 2030. Resignation is the only option. They are beyond redemption! We need officers who cam and will rebuild the Marine Corps. Getting back all that was discarded will be a herculean task. This in conjunction with rebuilding our amphibious fleet. FD 2030 is as dead as DEI.
I wonder if the current CMC has accepted that FD 2030 is an utter fiasco and has ACTED from that acceptance and created a task group to begin planning AND EXECUTING the essential emergency rebuilding of our Corps. Many of our “retired” senior leaders could assist in this effort IF they saw that current flag officers, especially CMC had gotten the word. I’m just wondering if there is any real evidence that the “debate” is over and the urgency to rebuild is understood.
General Smith ceased talking to those in the retired Marine Corps community who oppose FD 2030 several months ago. Other active-general officers stopped talking with us at about the same time. Draw your own conclusions.
Rest assured that those who bought into the operational aspects of FD-2030 are either grossly incompetent or lack moral courage. It does not take an experienced senior officer to look at it and understand that it is not workable.
The former Commandant did not wish to discuss it nor does the current one. Why? Certainly they have the fundamental concepts behind MAGTF operations as taught at AWS down pat. Certainly they understand what was taught at C&S and have a working knowledge of military history. Or….?
When a leader runs into questions and concerns they openly, honestly and clearly brief the plan and explain it. That never happened. Silence, lies, impugning the motives of Marines, defamation and ghosting. I never thought I would see something like that.
TEAR.
It was Samuel W. that turned me on to the Marine Corps Training and Educational Annual Report (TEAR) (June 12, 2024) in the ”CP- LSM Questions” posting. Samuel, I am glad I read it and like you, I am very disappointed in the content of the document. For openers, the “INTRODUCTION” is the biggest pile of gobbledygook I have waded through in a long while. (Generally speaking IMO, gobbledygook applies to the entire document.)
The word “amphibious” appears three times in the 20 page document. Two of the three instances appear in the below paragraph and the third references the “Amphibious Combat Vehicle driver simulation.”
“As experts in amphibious operations, the Marine Corps will provide Marines a practical baseline in the principles of amphibious defense and counter landing operations consistent with current and future operating environment realities and will inform the development of Naval, Joint, Allied, and Partner doctrine.”
When have “amphibious experts” ever looked for the baseline principles of amphibious defense and counter landing operations? I know the WW2 Japanese did after they over extended their forces and lost the initiative. I know Rommel worked hard at unsuccessfully defending the beaches of France. General Smith got the fact right that the US Marine Corps is supposed to be the amphibious experts. When is he going to start acting like it?
Then the Marine Corps is going to “inform the development of Naval, Joint, Allied and Partner doctrine’. The Navy is too busy trying to build and maintain ships. Joint doesn’t care but they should. I suspect that Allies are laughing at us, and who is our “Partner”?
The now famous word “Lethality” appears four times in this TEAR. It appears in the section labeled OPERATIONAL APPROACH…”revolutionary change and accelerate modernization through an informed, balanced, and synchronized approach to increase the lethality of the force”. The last four years we seem to be trying to increase lethality but we are still waiting for the revolutionary increase in force combat power. In addition, I don’t like that word “synchronize”. You synchronize machines, in combat operations you coordinated and maneuver Marines.
The other concern is when I read comments from respected retired Marine Corps general officers like: “General Smith ceased talking to those in the retired Marine Corps community who oppose FD 2030 several months ago. Other active-general officers stopped talking with us at about the same time. Draw your own conclusions.” I have. Hey General Smith, once a Marine; always a Marine. Semper Fi?
Second comment on this post. I would propose that we who are not on the active rolls remember how challenging this era has been for the competent senior leaders, both those known and called out by Generals Conway and Boomer, as well others. For these leaders are in a dilemma. There isn't another USMC, they still want to serve, and Marines still need leadership. The meat eaters in the ranks still need leadership. The country still wants the USMC. For those competent senior Marines, simply badmouthing policy from higher is p*** poor leadership. Personally, I know Marines that have felt very much crushed between a rock and a hard place...and have had to make the best of it. Pulling a 'Scheller' and having a public meltdown is not a solution, nor a model to emulate(As my old tac instructor would say, it is 'a' technique, but it is not a good technique). These Marines are still out there. They are the best option to correct the deficiencies put in place over the last few years. Bad ideas are not the same as unlawful orders. Deliberately disobeying bad ideas is not always an option; we know that sometimes you have to execute while striving to do as little damage as possible. These leaders I am speaking of are not "yes'ing" their way through/to assignments. They are very competent, and working for the best of mission accomplishment and troop welfare. For what it's worth, I have a pet theory that eventually the 'buffet of consequences' will put the meat eaters back at the white board. To borrow from the US Army, we didn't find Jim Gavin by firing entire cohorts. Nor did we find Grant through that method. (And yes, I am familiar with LtGen Gavin's retirement; that's actually why I used his example). It will take longer than we want to fix this mess...but I think relative stability in transition will give the USMC a strategic edge (given the circumstances) versus flipping the table, storming the 'Bastille and putting Pvt Robespierre in charge (LCpl cFrog served with him; he was gross. Among more onerous behaviors, he kept dirty laundry in his cubicle fridge until caught).
Cfrog, you are certainly correct in your assessment of the individual leader. There are many factors in a personal decision to say something, do something, or not. I once made that specific decision amidst a crisis of faith in the institution's leaders; that in my continued service I would focus on leading, protecting, and training the Marines within my sphere of influence, sometimes in spite of the institution's failures. I can empathize with any leader continues to ride for the brand, is clear-eyed about their role, and does their best within their lane.
I was recently pointed to an exchange between Jim Cramer and the CEO of Starbucks, in which Jim specifically identified a possible cause of their sudden loss in value, but the CEO continued to meander through corporate buzzwords and "action plan" talk. Like this CEO, much of corporate America makes a practice of just describing the current deplorable state and "let's focus on moving forward." Sure, but let's have a clear AAR and identify the failures and those who enabled them.
A great concern is that the culture of the Corps may be suffering irreparable damage due to misguided IO efforts. There is a straight cause-and-effect line from 2022's ad-hominem IO campaign against the persons representing FD2030 questions, and the future way in which average FGOs and SNCOs will regard their forebears and history. The line starts with dismissiveness and half-truths at the highest levels, trickles down to comments and speeches at the next echelon of leadership (from some who I would have placed in your competent category, but was surprised to hear that they couldn't help perpetuating the IO line), is amplified into official dismissal in the PME institutions--official shunning of those forebears, and results in FGOs and SNCOs, present and future, that actively think that the old-guard is stupid. This results in more than personal animus, but an implicit dismissal of the Corps fundamental philosophy, and those who wrote it, represented in the understanding of war pre-2001. This is a dangerous disease to plant in our young Marines minds. I think it's probable that this will significantly change the Corps ethos in future years, and we shouldn't memory-hole the culprits.
"We do not intend to imply that the entire generation of current and recently retired senior Marine Corps leaders are operationally incompetent because WE KNOW SEVERAL WHO DISPLAY EXCEPTIONAL COMPETENCE.". As the kids say...this 100!
Considering Gen Van Riper’s information it seems CMC is doubling down on dumb. Pride? Hubris? He now owns FD 2030 and all its consequences. What is to be determined is how many Marines will pay the costs. The years during Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan “taught” misleading assumptions in today’s world. lWe no longer can confidently plan and act as though it is our decision if we fight, where we fight, the level and tempo of combat, or that we can unilaterally end the fight.
I have no doubt that the Marines who envisioned and implemented Force Design believed what they were doing was best for the Corps. I know that because they are Marines, and would never do anything to harm our beloved Corps. However, upon closer examination of Force Design by a wider population of Marines, both older and younger, senior and junior, numerous flaws were noted and widely documented. Now it is incumbent upon the current Marine Corps leadership to recognize that mistakes were made and correct those mistakes before it is too late.
“Mistakes were made” is as corrosive to integrity as seawater to batteries. There are specific leaders with names and contributions, that unless identified as the cause will continue to deteriorate the repair.