Compass Points - To Remain Relevant
Times have changed and change is needed
Compass Points - To Remain Relevant
Times have changed and change is needed
September 4, 2024
.
The Marine Corps never stands still. Throughout its entire history the Marine Corps has been continually making changes. As world events change, as technologies change, and as threats change, the Marine Corps constantly updates, reorganizes, and refocuses its organizations, training, equipment, and capabilities. The Marine Corps is so dedicated and adept at remaining relevant, updated, and useful that it adopted a warfighting philosophy and a warfighting structure that are inherently flexible and adaptable.
For decades the Marine Corps used a high tempo, maneuver warfare approach that emphasized combined arms, decentralized command and control, and aggressive, high initiative, small unit leadership. That maneuver philosophy was finally captured in the slender volume FMFM 1 – Warfighting, later updated in MCDP 1.
In addition to a flexible and adaptable philosophy, the Marine Corps created a flexible and adaptable warfighting structure, the Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF). The MAGTF combines a command element with air, ground, and support elements into expeditionary battalion/squadron-size units, brigades, or a corps-level force. The combined arms MAGTF can be forward deployed and sized and tailored for a wide range of missions.
MAGTFs can be easily upgraded and enhanced with new technologies like drones, missiles, and cyber. MAGTFs onboard Navy ships can quickly arrive around the globe at any troubled shore ready to deter, assist, or fight. When world events change, when technologies change, and when threats change, the Marine Corps does not need to create new structures or organizations, the flexible, adaptable MAGTF is easily updated, enhanced, augmented, and reinforced which keeps the Marine Corps always ready and relevant.
In their article at Real Clear Defense, "To Remain Relevant the Marines Must Adapt to a Changing World" Marines Walter Boomer, James Conway, and Anthony Zinni, argue that it is time for the Marine Corps, once again, to make changes to remain ready and relevant.
The article grows out of decisions the Marine Corps made several years ago. In a misguided response to the US National Security Strategy document in 2018, the Marine Corps turned its attention away from maneuver warfare and away from the MAGTF to a new, narrower, focus on small, defensive Marine missiles units on islands in the Pacific. As years have gone by, it has become clear that the National Security Strategy 2018 did not require the Marine Corps to narrow its focus and narrow its capabilities. In addition, recent changes in word events make it clearer that it is time for the Marine Corps to make changes to remain ready and relevant.
.
=============
.
As remarkable as it sounds, the United States Marine Corps is currently organized and equipped for the wrong mission. The Service, once renowned for its offensive mantra as “first to fight”, has become too focused on defending against the highly unlikely scenario in which the Chinese navy projects from the South China Sea to engage U.S. forces and seize control of the Pacific and beyond. To meet this potential threat, the Marines embraced a new operating concept called “Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations” (EABO) and significantly altered Marine Corps force structure and capabilities by implementing a supporting plan called “Force Design 2030” (now called simply “Force Design”).
The intent of Force Design was to convert existing Marine infantry and artillery formations into small, mobile, self-sufficient missile-equipped units spread across the Pacific Ocean’s first island chain through which the Chinese Navy ships must transit on their way to points east, south and north. It must be noted that these dispersed units are themselves unlikely to contribute in any meaningful way to prevent a Chinese invasion of Taiwan . . . .
. . . The Marines went too far in their shift from counterterrorism to great power competition with China. By divesting too much of their proven combat capabilities to invest in small, dispersed units (termed Stand-in Forces or SIFs), they lost the capability to remain relevant in other regions where U.S. interests are threatened and conflicts are more likely to occur.
. . . Marines have always adapted to change while retaining their relevance as America’s premier 9-1-1 force across the spectrum of conflict. As it has always done, the Corps must prepare now for future challenges without losing the flexibility to adjust to the uncertain demands of a dangerous world.
-- Real Clear Defense
.
=============
.
Compass Points salutes Real Clear Defense for publishing the timely warning from Walter Boomer, James Conway, and Anthony Zinni that makes clear, "To Remain Relevant the Marines Must Adapt to a Changing World." The Marine Corps never stands still. Throughout its entire history the Marine Corps has been continually making changes. As world events change, as technologies change, and as threats change, the Marine Corps constantly updates, reorganizes, and refocuses its organizations, training, equipment, and capabilities. Once again, it is time for the Marine Corps to make changes. The world will not wait for the Marine Corps to catch up. It is time for the Marines to get out in front of change instead of remaining stuck in the past.
.
- - - - -
.
Real Clear Defense - 09/04/2024
To Remain Relevant the Marines Must Adapt to a Changing World
By Walter Boomer, James Conway, and Anthony Zinni
General Walter (Walt) Boomer, USMC (ret.) is a career infantry officer. His last assignment was the 24th Assistant Commandant of the United States Marine Corps.
General James (Jim) Conway, USMC (ret.) is a career infantry officer. His last assignment was the 34th Commandant of the United States Marine Corps.
General Anthony (Tony) Zinni, USMC (ret.) is a career infantry officer. His last assignment was Commander, United States Central Command.
100% on time and on target. Checkmate.
You have to wonder what in General Berger’s and Smith’s experience and education had them thinking that the 2030 Design was a good idea. What really troubles me is General Berger missed a golden opportunity to establish the US Marine Corps senior leadership as DOD’s best military strategist. He could have stood up in 2019 and stated that the US has significant gaps in the peer-to-peer strategy. He could have stated that the best way to fill those gaps is for each service to focus on their expertise under the US Joint Service Doctrine. The US Air Force needs to concentrate on the Cyber and Space domain. The USAF also has gotten use to operating with complete air superiority. In a peer-on-peer war air superiority that may take more time to establish than the US can afford. For the US Army, this country is going to need an exceptional ground based anti-missile defense. In addition to its infantry and armor brigades, the US is going to need Army’s specialty units like the 101st Airborne. (One of the highlights of Desert Storm was 101st Division 170 mile penetration into Iraq to cut the enemy’s main supple route.) The US Navy should concentrate on maintaining their strategic mobility by securing SLOCs and denying them to the enemy. BTW the US Marine Corps can be a big help there. OH! If you have a ship building and maintenance problem fix it. For the Marines, concentrated on your amphibious forces and MAGTF doctrine. MAGTF strategic mobility will be very important in a peer-on-peer “global” war. Remember that our enemy fears the United States strategic mobility and the US Marine Corps (amphibs and MPFs) fills the gap between strategic airlift and the arrival of sea lift forces and sustainment. Yep, we missed a golden opportunity.