Compass Points - The Tenant's Delusion
Only the owner can make massive changes
Compass Points - The Tenant’s Delusion
Only the owner can make massive changes
November 29, 2024
.
Airbnb is an American service business which provides a way for property owners to rent to temporary tenants. With annual revenues in the billions, Airbnb has rapidly grown into a major player in the temporary lodging business.
In the world of Airbnb there are three types of people:
.
1. Property Owners
2. Temporary Tenants
3. Board of Directors
.
All goes smoothly in the world of Airbnb as long as all parties know and understand their role. Property Owners, own the property, they can do with their property what they wish.
Temporary Tenants only live in the property for a short time. While there, tenants may seem to be owners, but they are not owners. Tenants can enjoy the property but they cannot repaint it, or sell it, or destroy it. The property does not belong to them. It belongs to the owners.
Finally, the Board of Directors is the informal group of all the people who have stayed at the property at one time and who still love the property and want to help preserve and protect the property.
One of the worst things that can happen to an Airbnb transaction is when a Temporary Tenant becomes infected with Tenant’s Delusion.
Surprisingly, Tenant’s Delusion is also a problem in the military.
In every large military organization, department, agency, and command, one senior military officer sits at the top. In the Marine Corps, the senior military officer is the Commandant of the Marine Corps.
These senior generals and admirals at the top of their organizations are the owners. Or are they? They can do whatever they want. Or can they?
It all comes down to the difference between Property Owners and Temporary Tenants. The property owner can knock down walls, tear out cabinets, and do whatever they want. Temporary tenants are not owners. They are only temporary stewards of the house. They cannot knock down walls or even paint a single room without first getting permission from the owner. Temporary Tenants are not owners.
In August of 2019 the new Commandant of the Marine Corps, issued his Commandant's Planning Guidance where he plainly said he would not allow others to interfere with his new plans for the Marine Corps:
.
We cannot allow individuals within the decision-making chain to prevent the procurement of advanced systems and modern capabilities . . .
.
A few months later, in March of 2020, the Commandant released Force Design 2030 where among many other decisions, he abruptly decided the Marine Corps would jettison the long term requirement of at least 38 amphibious ships. In fact, in Force Design 2030, the Commandant said he did not want to be constrained by anything in the Marine Corps, "Do not be restrained by current programs-of-records." Simply start with an entirely, "blank sheet of paper." This started the wholesale divestment of critical Marine Corps units, equipment, and capabilities.
Who are these "individuals within the decision-making chain" the Commandant was so determined to ignore? He apparently is talking about the people and processes that are required to review and approve any large-scale changes like those in Force Design 2030.
How did Force Design 2030 ever get implemented without the required levels of review? It is a substantial list of errors and omissions.
.
1. Little or no review inside the Marine Corps.
Over many years, the Marine Corps has developed a Combat Development Process. While the name has shifted, the purpose has remained the same, to make sure substantial changes in the Marine Corps are thoroughly tested and vetted before they are implemented.
Changes are first proposed and reviewed by a series of program "Advocates" who make sure the needs and views of Marine Commanders and DOD Combatant Commanders are well represented. Then, senior Marine Corps leaders discuss the proposed changes at Executive Off-Sites. The Marine Requirements Oversight Council (MROC) reviews those changes that pass this initial look. The Department of Defense senior coordinating board, the JROC - the Joint Requirements Oversight Council reviews and approves those changes that will have an effect beyond the Marine Corps.
Unfortunately, Force Design 2030 silenced the Advocates, circumvented the Marine Corps Combat Development Process, and reportedly never won formal approval from the MROC. The Marine level of review never happened the way it should have.
.
2. Little or no review inside the Department of the Navy.
In the 24 months from August of 2019 when the Commandant's Planning Guidance was first released, until August 2021 when the current Secretary of Navy took office, there were a total of six people serving or acting as the Secretary of the Navy. In other words, for the critical 24 months when Force Design 2030 was first being implemented, there was a new Secretary of the Navy on average every 4 months. The Department of the Navy review of Force Design never happened the way it should have.
.
3. Little or no review inside DOD.
Proponents of Force Design could not silence the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC), so apparently, they just ignored it. There is scant evidence that the Marine Corps ever sought official approval from the JROC.
In addition, during the crucial months when Force Design was first being implemented, the Secretary of Defense turned over five times. The DOD level of review did not happen the way it should have.
There were other obstacles to the review and oversight for Force Design.
With the restrictions caused by COVID, Congress was not in session on a regular schedule. Many vital hearings and oversight did not occur. In normal times, as soon as the new Commandant issued his Planning Guidance back in 2019, he would have had to sit down in front of Congress and answer hard questions. Even if the new Marine Corps Commandant had been allowed to proceed, he would have been required to report back to Congress to update the progress and problems of the new plan.
If that had happened, that would mean that by this Spring of 2023, the Commandant would have had to report to Congress in person about Force Design 2030 perhaps as many as 10 - 15 times. We can find no evidence that more than one hearing took place.
Under Force Design 2030, the new Commandant launched into renovating the Marine Corps like he was the owner of the Marine Corps. But he was never the owner. In his reckless haste to renovate the Marine Corps, the Commandant acted more like an out-of-control renter.
Is the Commandant the owner of the U.S. Marine Corps? No. The Commandant is merely the senior commander for a brief period. When senior military leaders take time to report to Congress, the senior leaders demonstrate they understand they are not owners. The true owners of all American military organizations are the American people. And the representatives of the American people are in Congress.
No Commandant owns the Marine Corps. Before the extreme divestments of Force Design 2030 ever began, they should have been reviewed again and again, in depth:
.
1. Inside the Marine Corps;
2. Inside the Department of Navy;
3. Inside the Department of Defense; and, most importantly
4. By the Congress of the United States.
.
The Marine Corps is not a house to be radically redesigned at the whim of a temporary tenant.
The Marine Corps is the property of the American people. All Marines and friends of the Marine Corps are merely temporary stewards. Those who love and care for the Marine Corps hold it in stewardship for only a moment. Then, the Marine Corps is passed along, like a treasured family heirloom, to the next generation of Marines and friends of the Corps, who voluntarily take on the sacred trust, to preserve and protect the best of the Marine Corps and leave it always stronger and better than it was before.
Congress, on behalf of the American people, are the owners of the Marine Corps. Commandants are only temporary. As the owner, Congress must be quick to quash any temporary military leader suffering from Tenant’s Delusion.
It is time for all those in Congress and the new incoming leadership in the DOD and DON, to begin to review the misguided decisions of temporary Marine leaders and get the Marine Corps back focusing on serving as the Nation’s worldwide 9-1-1 crisis response force. With an upgraded, restored, and enhanced Marine Corps, when the next crisis arrives, Congress will once again get the reassuring report: "The Marines have landed, and the situation is well in hand."
I recall reading that Marines involved in the development of Force Design were required to sign non-disclosure agreements. This practice seems to contradict the core values of trust and transparency that define Marine leadership. I would genuinely like to hear from someone involved in the planning process—what was so sensitive that it couldn’t be shared with fellow Marines? Was it perhaps to avoid scrutiny or criticism of a potentially flawed concept? To encourage little or no review?
The AirBnB analogy makes a lot of sense to me. In its closing sentences, this piece strikes me as asking the right questions of the right audience, to wit: U.S. Congress. This will be a most uncomfortable time … no Marine wants to call into question wisdom of its senior leadership: Marines don’t do that. But, here we are, doing just that, and for a very upright reason - the rebuilding of the Corps in a time of global disquiet. We are blessed in having retired senior officers who have moved in that rarified atmosphere, & have a feel for what needs to be done. I think our salvation rests in their hands, as uncomfortable as that may be. Lead on! Semper Fidelis!