Compass Points believes the Gazette has a critical role in encouraging robust discussion. Many Compass Points readers agree. One reader took the time to recall how, some years ago, the Gazette encouraged professional discussion and debate.
Recollections of the Gazette During the
Development of Maneuver Warfare
During the formative years of maneuver warfare in the 1970s and ’80s, the Marine Corps’ professional journal played an essential part. For the better part of a decade, Marines argued over the merits of maneuver warfare theory on the pages of the Marine Corps Gazette in a candid, substantive, and often heated running debate. This argumentation served a critical function by forcing the Maneuverists to strengthen their argument and tighten their logic. This is precisely the proper role of a professional journal, and the Gazette played that role masterfully under the leadership of retired Col. John Greenwood, the editor at the time.
By far the most important contribution of the Gazette was to provide a free and open platform for debate. If Gazette editorial policy tilted in any direction at the time, it was in favor of articles that questioned the status quo. That atmosphere of openness proved essential to the successful development of maneuver warfare. The result was that by the time Gen. Alfred M. Gray became Commandant in 1986 and pronounced maneuver warfare official doctrine, maneuver warfare theory was tightly constructed, thoroughly vetted, and widely (although not unanimously) accepted throughout the Marine Corps. First published in 1989 as FMFM 1, Warfighting, that doctrine has stood largely unchanged since.
- John F. Schmitt, author of FMFM 1, Warfighting
John,
The Gazette did provide a venue for debate -- and still does. But like most professional journals, it requires the author sign his/her work and that the data be factually correct. In an on line version, a thoughtful research would hotlink the data points.
The Gazette has published unsigned articles when there is a significant change of professional damage to an active duty officer. While some of the dissenters (like yourself) have been willing to sign their posts, many have not. Given they state they are very senior retired personnel, I find it difficult to undertand why they will not sign their articles -- and provide sources for their facts.
Semper Fi,
T. X. Hammes
Col USMC (Ret)
Thank you Col John F Schmidt for your Recollections of when the Gazette was our professional journal hosting the debates, explanation and explication of Maneuver Warfare.
T H Eagen, LtCol USMC(ret)