From this year’s statement of the 39th Commandant on the Posture of the United States Marine Corps Before Congressional Defense Committees:
“From the complexity of the cyber domain to the maritime chokepoints of the Indo-Pacific, Marines remain committed to being the most ready when the Nation is least ready - - a force that thrives in chaos and delivers victory whenever and wherever required.”
“The Marine Corps will be ready to respond to any crisis or contingency in the future, just as we have in the past.”
“After five budget cycles under the ‘divest-to-invest’ approach, we have identified efficiencies, eliminated outdated capabilities, and ensured every dollar spent directly supports our mission to build a more lethal, capable force.”
If you are a Senator or Representative, what is not to like about these assurances? Of course, more discerning Members might have asked how all of this is possible with only 12-14 operationally ready L-class amphibious ships; 7 ships in the MPSRONs; the recent sidelining of 17 MSC ships due to manning issues; a significantly degraded and less resilient MAGTF combined arms capability; no fully operational MLR; and no means of logistically supporting a SIF. The Devil is always in the details.
General, I really think that members of Congress are in awe over the CMC's rhetoric and word salad. Cyber and Indo-Pacific are all buzz words that they eat up. I don't think Congress has a clue as to what is being lost by the FD boondoggle. They are like lost sheep being led around.
“From the complexities of the cyber domain to the maritime check points of the Indo Pacific, Marines remain committed to being the most ready when the Nation is least ready —a force that thrives in chaos and delivers victory whenever and where ever require.” ……truth or fiction? Perhaps the one of the vociferous defenders of Force Design, frequently lecturing MCCP about the wonders of the magical Force Design, could reveal some of the secret means available at this moment to accomplish such a Herculean set of simultaneous, global war fighting tasks.
To compare the Maginot line and FD-2030 is an insult to the Maginot Line. The experience of WWI made the Maginot Line seem logical and of great value. Nor did it leech too much from the French military as the Army, Navy and Air Force out number the Wehrmacht. The tactics, training and leadership of the Wehrmacht was the difference. FD 2030 took the flexible, time tested and constantly improving MAGTF and sold it off in a garage sale to design a develop the Maginot Line in the South China Sea that has, six years later, failed to field a single, fully operation unit. Increasingly the language has changed to “sensing and disrupting” with less and less said about missiles sinking ships.
Some later claimed the French Maginot Line was designed to extract a terrible toll on the attacker and the tattered units that emerged on the far side would be finished off by the French Army. I note that the FD-2030 effort is adopting similar language to decrease expectations.
You know your football team, in the pre season, is in deep trouble when there is too much talk about the field goal kicker and the new uniforms.
In the Quintin Tarantino film "True Romance," Christopher Walken plays a mob boss who claims: "Sicilians are great liars. The best in the world." Unfortunately, the current crop of Marine Corps leaders are as adept at lying as mobsters are.
(This is not meant to be a thumb in anyone's eye, just an example. I accept that the changes to Marine Reconnaissance in the early '90s were made in good faith)
From the Lineage of 1st Recon Bn:
"-Deactivated 12 June 1992
-Reactivated 1 October 1993 as Reconnaissance Company, H&S Battalion, 1st MarDiv
-Redesignated 1 June 2000 as 1st Recon Battalion, 1st MarDiv."
The other 2 Recon Battalions have similar entries.
Sometimes the USMC asks for something the Congress approves of, which turns out to be a slow motion train wreck anyway. Something that gets met with a lot of noise from a circle of active, former, and retired members of the USMC. Something that was demonstrably troublesome at the time it was put in effect, and severely degraded an important capability. Something that in hindsight was unnecessary...and necessitated informal means of correction before it was formally corrected.
Force Design proponents are leaning hard on - "nobody doesn't like it. Congress loves it, and all the COCOMS are asking for more Force Design Marine Corps Capability". That is not the whole story and it isn't validation by it's own accord. The record is long on backslapping for the patsy, but what are they actually backslapping the USMC for?
(PS; I do appreciate that the 'campaign of learning for FD(2030)' is showing signs of moving goalposts. That is a hopeful sign since it means we can move back towards the center, even if they keep calling it FD(2030)+ )
What makes this one different is that, for the first time, retired generals have actively lobbied Capitol Hill and appealed to senior members of the Administration in an effort to override a sitting Commandant.
By General Van Riper’s own admission, they’ve met with principals. And yes, they’ve been to the Hill. But despite all that effort—years of letters, op-eds, panels—they’ve achieved nothing.
“My good corporal, you have a very limited view of what members of Chowder Society II are accomplishing. Apparently, you are unaware of meetings our members have recently had in the White House, Pentagon, and on the Hill. These were meetings with principals, not staff.”
- June 6 2025
So the whole story looks like this.
- USMC dominates on the Hill because the Hill loves the Corps (to your point)
- Limited retired crowd tries to lobby against two sitting Commandants; for 6 years
- Retired crowd has not moved the needle an inch.
- Grable and many others (plus 169,000 active serving Marines) slap each other on the back and watch “legends” fall as they do the opposite of what they taught others to do. The last part is actually sad. . . Sad in so many ways.
Well, I do know not all the AD Marines are back slapping over this. They may 'shut up' and color, then carry on. They may be doing the good and faithful thing by working to make lemonade out of lemons. They may live 'Corps and Country. But reality is that divestment was made 4 years ago and the AD, whether they think FD is well founded or not, are living with that reality. That doesn't mean all the AD are out there backslapping and high fiving over the divestment and loss of capability. We continue to see trickles of professional suggestion to address potential shortfalls. By the way, maybe someone you know can highlight exactly what the stern landing experiment is accomplishing at this point (beyond cruising from pier to pier).
This installment is actually a call to arms-an opportunity! It is time to draft two letters -to your senators and ask them to ask hard question at the senate budget hearings on military appropriations. (For those senators who are not on military committees, ask them to have their fellow senators on the committees to ask questions for them) The question revolve around “WHAT”. What are we gaining and what are we losing in terms of capabilities across the varied spectrum of conflict in this budget? Remind them that few Americans could place a finger on the globe on Afghanistan 10 years ago. None of us know when/where the next crisis will require a robust military response. Then ask the “WHO” question-who will get there in a timely manner with the proper gear for that kind of war. Then draft one to your representative. Whether a “D”’ “R” or “I” these representatives take note of many people asking them the same questions.
Much is made of the German end run through the Ardennes in 1940, cutting off the British and Belgian, but most forget that the Wehrmacht punched through the Maginot line on a broad front, took Verdun and were in Chaumont, SW of Paris when the French sued for peace. Fixed fortifications had run their course and mobile warfare became dominant from then onward. Gathering forces at one point will always overcome a local defense.
The Edsel sat on Ford Dealership lots for a while, the assembly continued to push the cars off the line and into the lots to wait, and wait and wait, for buyers. Pulp and paper mills were intensive industries, they had to run 28 days at a loss and hope like Hell day 29-30 or 31 would make the margin, profitable. Often in soft markets they continued to run because it was cheaper to have a small loss than shut down and have a big loss. So the reasoning went. But, in point of fact shutting down was economically a better choice, sitting unsold inventory costs, it costs a lot. So we continue to hear the hum drum, FD crapola is winning the hearts and minds of the Congress, whom with rare exception haven’t a clue about the situation. This reader met Representatives Massie and Roy (2 of the more switched on Reps apparently, Massie unpopular with the POTUS and so in the limelight) a year ago and flat out asked what they knew and what they thought of “divest to invest” and FD2030. They knew…wait for it…nothing. Just looked at the writer as if he was making it up. Promised the writer to have a look. Want to bet they still don’t know anything about it? Will take the odds, that they are still not aware. They are being pitched a dream, an Edsel, “com’on Family Ford, you can afford to take a flyer at the Edsel, heck we’ll even name the car after the son of the founder!”People will love it. We have to destroy the village to save it! There were WMD’s in Iraq, Artificial Sweeteners are good for you, and Anna Nicole married for love. Peepers and creepers and sensors oh my, and rockets will hold the PLAN at bay in our imaginary war with as Dick Nixon would say “Chiner”. Yes, of course they will. In the meantime the world turns, not waiting for the US and China to face off, but rather the hum drum of small time, petty dictators, floods and typhoons and the occasional riot control role in an American city. The Marines will never need gas masks, riot shields, and batons, why weren’t they divested? They could have just hung out in front of the federal buildings and shouted “BOO!” At the Billy Bad Asses across the street. No doubt the SecNav when he hung out with the shooters at Quantico in the recent past, let it be known that he was all in on FD2030. He just forgot to say it out loud. Sure he did.
Having been a former grunt, I have a problem with force design giving up armor (tanks). Sometimes they are essential for small units to get something done. Instead of giving up armor why not bring back the ONTOS. They were small (not heavy at all), transportable, and could go anywhere. The six 106 recoilless rifles were awesome. Probably had fewer maintenance issues too. They would provide a small footprint but large muscles when needed. They could provide most of the support needed for small units. The small footprint and size could be a good workaround for the problems Russian armor have had in Ukraine.
Ontos needed tanks to survive and fight. They are not good 'solo' assets for quite a few reasons. Not the least is that they are a lousy machine gun bus, lousy for fire and manuever, and and a lousy FiST platform. I will concede the 'broadside' was remarkable and compelling, especially for the Marines in the Citadel during Hue (as long as a tank was suppressing).
TBN Israel (You Tube) IDF DARK HORSE, TURNS THE TIDE IN BATTLE”…re Tanks and their eternal relevance in combined arms combat. The tank is far from obsolete!
As they have done away with armor, The ONTOS would give the grunts more capability. Even without tank cover they would be an awesome complement to ground forces. With drones handling most of the anti tank capabilities(as they are doing in the Ukraine) the ONTOS could be used effectively on the ground. I would like to know why the corps did away with them. Hopefully someone reading this can enlighten me on the reasons as well as maintenance concerns.
The Ontos would be an Albatross in today's fight. They are not survivable and not tactically worth the logistics to support them, today. In Ukraine, drones are effectively combined with armor and IFVs. There are much better 'low armor' modern platforms than the Ontos to couple into a combined arms stack with drones (sUAS/FPV) and loitering munitions. The USMC stated reasons for divesting of armor was to invest the alleged cost savings and personnel elsewhere. It is impressive what the Marine's were able to do in Vietnam with this 'Sows' Ear' , but ti doesn't validate the concept. The USMC has already lost it's armor capability; it should not race 'just to get something' like the Booker or an Ontos and wind up with an even bigger Albatross around it's neck.
Regarding the Wisdom of elected politicians and the Naval Forces, Grok “After the American Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress, under financial strain and the weak Articles of Confederation, disbanded the Continental Navy by 1785, selling its last ship, the *Alliance*. The U.S. was without a navy until the Naval Act of 1794, when Congress authorized six frigates, establishing the modern U.S. Navy.
Pre WW1 **U.S. Navy Pre-WWI**: The U.S. Navy, with ~40,000 personnel and ~200 ships, was modernizing into a global force under the "New Navy" initiative, featuring steel battleships like the *South Carolina*-class. It focused on protecting U.S. interests in the Western Hemisphere and supporting interventions (e.g., Spanish-American War, Panama Canal). Despite the "Great White Fleet" showcasing power, it lagged behind European navies in size, submarines, and destroyers, with naval aviation just beginning.
U.S. Marine Corps Pre-WWI**: The Marine Corps, with ~10,000 personnel, served as a small expeditionary force for shipboard security and interventions in the Caribbean ("Banana Wars"). It was developing the Advanced Base Force concept for amphibious operations but relied on small arms and lacked heavy equipment. Both branches were modestly capable but not ready for large-scale global conflict.
Pre WWII **U.S. Marine Corps Pre-WWII**: The USMC, with ~19,000 personnel by 1939, was a small, elite force focused on amphibious warfare, naval base defense, and expeditionary missions. Active in the "Banana Wars" and China, it developed key amphibious doctrine (e.g., 1934 *Tentative Manual for Landing Operations*) and the Fleet Marine Force (1933) for Pacific operations. Limited by Great Depression budgets, it relied on small arms and lacked heavy equipment but was well-trained for small-scale interventions, laying groundwork for WWII success despite not being ready for large-scale conflict. “ .
Good Morning, Marines & Friends! Question: Does FD2030 merit any trust & confidence within the halls of Congress, or DOD, for that matter? If not, why does it linger? Semper Fidelis?
What you must understand is the site administrators ban me when I hit too close to home. Once that happens, I am unable to post anything for 24 hours.
So much for wanting a free debate, eh?
My answers is as follows, all you had to was Google it. Regret the delay.
USNORTHCOM is seeking a stronger Marine presence in Alaska, including Forward Operating Locations like Adak and Arctic-trained units—aligning with Force Design’s emphasis on distributed, expeditionary posture in extreme environments.
USEUCOM has endorsed II MEF’s Stand-In Force role for deterrence in Europe, reflecting direct alignment with Force Design concepts like forward persistence and integration with allied forces.
USINDOPACOM remains the primary driver of Force Design, with the entire construct—Littoral Regiments, EABO, and Stand-In Forces—designed to meet the operational demands of the Indo-Pacific theater.
USAFRICOM is actively requesting Marine capabilities like ISR, early warning, and rapid-response teams—key enablers that support partner-led operations and modular force employment.
Ah, you just said it, “USAFRICOM is actively requesting Marine capabilities like ISR, early warning, and rapid-response teams”. Any mention of SIRs/MLRs/NMESIS/NAMs? Every asset being asked for can be provided under the a MEU(SOC)’s/MEU’s old T/O T/E.
Every other Combatant Commander’s statement uses words like seeking, endorsed, and driver. Not exactly a ringing endorsement. After 6 years where’s the operational units on the ground in PACOM? What Pacific nation has agreed to a concrete basing arrangement for these awesome sensing nodes and integral parts of the kill chain?
So Adm. Papro’s comments earlier this year were more telling than “the Congress loves it” line you keep shoveling. His comments specifically excluded any mention of FD/SIFs/MLRs. Why was that. Because he knows that the Corps’s claims about them are “all hat and no cattle”.
The Army is moving forward in replacing the Corps as the go to force in readiness. Don’t believe me? Here are two recent articles on their progress. Both are hypersonic and can hit moving targets.
Where’s the Corps? Still stuck with NMESIS/NAM, an outdated short range subsonic anachronism and a T/O and T/E that after 6 years still hasn’t solved the logistics problem.
You may talk about how much Congress loves the Corps, but Congressional memories are short, and they don’t give a fig about who defends WESTPAC, only that the U.S.gets its greatest bang for it’s buck.
The Corps’s salvation lies in its ability to continue to serve as the Nation’s 911 force in readiness. Again I ask you where’s the MEUs in the Mediterranean, the Red Sea, the Indian Ocean, the Gulf of Oman, the Straits of Hormuz? Your silence on where they are says more than your PAO style comments on military exercises in the Philippines, or embarking from the East Coast or being “forward deployed” somewhere on the “very ground” they’ll be fighting on.
The Corps is needed today around the world and its absence is not gone unnoticed by our adversaries.
Regarding Politicians and their valuing advice from experienced warriors and scholars. Grok….”Socrates, before becoming known as a philosopher, served as a hoplite—a citizen-soldier—in the Athenian army during the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BCE). His military service is documented in Plato’s dialogues (*Apology*, *Symposium*, *Laches*) and Xenophon’s writings, showcasing his bravery, endurance, and commitment to duty.
- **Battles**: Socrates fought in at least three significant campaigns:
- **Potidaea (432 BCE)**: He served in the prolonged siege, enduring harsh conditions. Alcibiades, in Plato’s *Symposium*, recounts Socrates’ courage, noting how he saved Alcibiades’ life during the battle and stood firm amid chaos.
- **Delium (424 BCE)**: During the Athenian retreat, Socrates displayed remarkable composure. Plato’s *Laches* describes him retreating calmly, deterring enemies with his steady demeanor, which inspired others to rally.
- **Amphipolis (422 BCE)**: He likely participated in this campaign, though less is documented about his role.
- **Characteristics as a Warrior**:
- **Physical Endurance**: Alcibiades describes Socrates marching barefoot in freezing conditions at Potidaea, outlasting others in stamina and maintaining high spirits.
- **Courage**: He faced danger without flinching, as seen in his refusal to panic during retreats and his willingness to risk his life for comrades.
- **Discipline**: Socrates adhered to Athenian civic duty, serving when called upon, despite his later critiques of societal norm.”
Socrates was sentenced to death in 399 BCE by an Athenian jury for impiety and corrupting the youth. His execution method was drinking a hemlock-based poison, a common practice in ancient Athens for carrying out death sentences. Hemlock, derived from the plant *Conium maculatum*, causes paralysis that starts in the limbs and progresses to the respiratory system, leading to death by asphyxiation.
According to Plato’s *Phaedo*, Socrates faced his death calmly, discussing philosophy with his followers until the end. He drank the hemlock willingly, refusing to flee Athens or beg for mercy, as he believed in upholding the city’s laws even when unjustly applied. His death became a powerful symbol of integrity and the pursuit of truth over personal survival.
When dealing with Congress representatives it is their adds that you really have to deal with. The ones we dealt (Goldwater) with at HQMC Aviation staff were very sharp and knew Exactly what to ask you. They came with an agenda to get their way.
Fear not. Your active-duty Marines will never give in — and they haven’t.
Force Design isn’t static — it’s evolving, delivering tangible gains for the Corps, the Joint Force, and our allies. The mission endures. So do the Marines.
Thanks for the motivation. We’re more committed than ever to countering the noise from a small circle of retired detractors. Marines don’t retreat — not in combat, not in transformation.
And isn’t it telling? After all the meetings and op-eds… not a single sitting decision-maker backs you. Not one. That silence says it all.
well, with that in mind, I am now convinced the Maginot Line - not a single decision maker opposed; the silence said it all! - was the rootin' tootin' best possible Force Design of its time. Asserting paradigm superiority that has not been contested in Combat reminds me of the first time I read Thomas Kuhn on The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. - Paradigms rule and there is no dissent.... Silence is not truth.
From this year’s statement of the 39th Commandant on the Posture of the United States Marine Corps Before Congressional Defense Committees:
“From the complexity of the cyber domain to the maritime chokepoints of the Indo-Pacific, Marines remain committed to being the most ready when the Nation is least ready - - a force that thrives in chaos and delivers victory whenever and wherever required.”
“The Marine Corps will be ready to respond to any crisis or contingency in the future, just as we have in the past.”
“After five budget cycles under the ‘divest-to-invest’ approach, we have identified efficiencies, eliminated outdated capabilities, and ensured every dollar spent directly supports our mission to build a more lethal, capable force.”
If you are a Senator or Representative, what is not to like about these assurances? Of course, more discerning Members might have asked how all of this is possible with only 12-14 operationally ready L-class amphibious ships; 7 ships in the MPSRONs; the recent sidelining of 17 MSC ships due to manning issues; a significantly degraded and less resilient MAGTF combined arms capability; no fully operational MLR; and no means of logistically supporting a SIF. The Devil is always in the details.
See: https://www.cmc.marines.mil/Speeches-and-Transcripts/Transcripts/Article/4186803/statement-of-general-eric-m-smith-commandant-of-the-marine-corps-on-the-posture/
Previous Posture Statements by the 38th Commandant were similar. See:
https://www.cmc.marines.mil/Speeches-and-Transcripts/Transcripts/Article/3186586/statement-of-general-david-h-berger-commandant-of-the-marine-corps-as-delivered/
and
https://www.cmc.marines.mil/Speeches-and-Transcripts/Transcripts/Article/3360019/statement-of-general-david-h-berger-commandant-of-the-marine-corps-on-the-postu/
General, I really think that members of Congress are in awe over the CMC's rhetoric and word salad. Cyber and Indo-Pacific are all buzz words that they eat up. I don't think Congress has a clue as to what is being lost by the FD boondoggle. They are like lost sheep being led around.
“From the complexities of the cyber domain to the maritime check points of the Indo Pacific, Marines remain committed to being the most ready when the Nation is least ready —a force that thrives in chaos and delivers victory whenever and where ever require.” ……truth or fiction? Perhaps the one of the vociferous defenders of Force Design, frequently lecturing MCCP about the wonders of the magical Force Design, could reveal some of the secret means available at this moment to accomplish such a Herculean set of simultaneous, global war fighting tasks.
To compare the Maginot line and FD-2030 is an insult to the Maginot Line. The experience of WWI made the Maginot Line seem logical and of great value. Nor did it leech too much from the French military as the Army, Navy and Air Force out number the Wehrmacht. The tactics, training and leadership of the Wehrmacht was the difference. FD 2030 took the flexible, time tested and constantly improving MAGTF and sold it off in a garage sale to design a develop the Maginot Line in the South China Sea that has, six years later, failed to field a single, fully operation unit. Increasingly the language has changed to “sensing and disrupting” with less and less said about missiles sinking ships.
Some later claimed the French Maginot Line was designed to extract a terrible toll on the attacker and the tattered units that emerged on the far side would be finished off by the French Army. I note that the FD-2030 effort is adopting similar language to decrease expectations.
You know your football team, in the pre season, is in deep trouble when there is too much talk about the field goal kicker and the new uniforms.
In the Quintin Tarantino film "True Romance," Christopher Walken plays a mob boss who claims: "Sicilians are great liars. The best in the world." Unfortunately, the current crop of Marine Corps leaders are as adept at lying as mobsters are.
(This is not meant to be a thumb in anyone's eye, just an example. I accept that the changes to Marine Reconnaissance in the early '90s were made in good faith)
From the Lineage of 1st Recon Bn:
"-Deactivated 12 June 1992
-Reactivated 1 October 1993 as Reconnaissance Company, H&S Battalion, 1st MarDiv
-Redesignated 1 June 2000 as 1st Recon Battalion, 1st MarDiv."
The other 2 Recon Battalions have similar entries.
Sometimes the USMC asks for something the Congress approves of, which turns out to be a slow motion train wreck anyway. Something that gets met with a lot of noise from a circle of active, former, and retired members of the USMC. Something that was demonstrably troublesome at the time it was put in effect, and severely degraded an important capability. Something that in hindsight was unnecessary...and necessitated informal means of correction before it was formally corrected.
Force Design proponents are leaning hard on - "nobody doesn't like it. Congress loves it, and all the COCOMS are asking for more Force Design Marine Corps Capability". That is not the whole story and it isn't validation by it's own accord. The record is long on backslapping for the patsy, but what are they actually backslapping the USMC for?
(PS; I do appreciate that the 'campaign of learning for FD(2030)' is showing signs of moving goalposts. That is a hopeful sign since it means we can move back towards the center, even if they keep calling it FD(2030)+ )
You’re right, Cfrog—it’s not the whole story.
What makes this one different is that, for the first time, retired generals have actively lobbied Capitol Hill and appealed to senior members of the Administration in an effort to override a sitting Commandant.
By General Van Riper’s own admission, they’ve met with principals. And yes, they’ve been to the Hill. But despite all that effort—years of letters, op-eds, panels—they’ve achieved nothing.
“My good corporal, you have a very limited view of what members of Chowder Society II are accomplishing. Apparently, you are unaware of meetings our members have recently had in the White House, Pentagon, and on the Hill. These were meetings with principals, not staff.”
- June 6 2025
So the whole story looks like this.
- USMC dominates on the Hill because the Hill loves the Corps (to your point)
- Limited retired crowd tries to lobby against two sitting Commandants; for 6 years
- Retired crowd has not moved the needle an inch.
- Grable and many others (plus 169,000 active serving Marines) slap each other on the back and watch “legends” fall as they do the opposite of what they taught others to do. The last part is actually sad. . . Sad in so many ways.
Well, I do know not all the AD Marines are back slapping over this. They may 'shut up' and color, then carry on. They may be doing the good and faithful thing by working to make lemonade out of lemons. They may live 'Corps and Country. But reality is that divestment was made 4 years ago and the AD, whether they think FD is well founded or not, are living with that reality. That doesn't mean all the AD are out there backslapping and high fiving over the divestment and loss of capability. We continue to see trickles of professional suggestion to address potential shortfalls. By the way, maybe someone you know can highlight exactly what the stern landing experiment is accomplishing at this point (beyond cruising from pier to pier).
So it is not FD this week?
This installment is actually a call to arms-an opportunity! It is time to draft two letters -to your senators and ask them to ask hard question at the senate budget hearings on military appropriations. (For those senators who are not on military committees, ask them to have their fellow senators on the committees to ask questions for them) The question revolve around “WHAT”. What are we gaining and what are we losing in terms of capabilities across the varied spectrum of conflict in this budget? Remind them that few Americans could place a finger on the globe on Afghanistan 10 years ago. None of us know when/where the next crisis will require a robust military response. Then ask the “WHO” question-who will get there in a timely manner with the proper gear for that kind of war. Then draft one to your representative. Whether a “D”’ “R” or “I” these representatives take note of many people asking them the same questions.
Fixed defensives are “reliable targets”.
Yes, please answer this call to arms.
You can find your elected official here.
https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative
Please make sure you include the Compass Points link so they can follow along.
Much is made of the German end run through the Ardennes in 1940, cutting off the British and Belgian, but most forget that the Wehrmacht punched through the Maginot line on a broad front, took Verdun and were in Chaumont, SW of Paris when the French sued for peace. Fixed fortifications had run their course and mobile warfare became dominant from then onward. Gathering forces at one point will always overcome a local defense.
Patton said that fixed fortifications were a monument to stupidity.
The Edsel sat on Ford Dealership lots for a while, the assembly continued to push the cars off the line and into the lots to wait, and wait and wait, for buyers. Pulp and paper mills were intensive industries, they had to run 28 days at a loss and hope like Hell day 29-30 or 31 would make the margin, profitable. Often in soft markets they continued to run because it was cheaper to have a small loss than shut down and have a big loss. So the reasoning went. But, in point of fact shutting down was economically a better choice, sitting unsold inventory costs, it costs a lot. So we continue to hear the hum drum, FD crapola is winning the hearts and minds of the Congress, whom with rare exception haven’t a clue about the situation. This reader met Representatives Massie and Roy (2 of the more switched on Reps apparently, Massie unpopular with the POTUS and so in the limelight) a year ago and flat out asked what they knew and what they thought of “divest to invest” and FD2030. They knew…wait for it…nothing. Just looked at the writer as if he was making it up. Promised the writer to have a look. Want to bet they still don’t know anything about it? Will take the odds, that they are still not aware. They are being pitched a dream, an Edsel, “com’on Family Ford, you can afford to take a flyer at the Edsel, heck we’ll even name the car after the son of the founder!”People will love it. We have to destroy the village to save it! There were WMD’s in Iraq, Artificial Sweeteners are good for you, and Anna Nicole married for love. Peepers and creepers and sensors oh my, and rockets will hold the PLAN at bay in our imaginary war with as Dick Nixon would say “Chiner”. Yes, of course they will. In the meantime the world turns, not waiting for the US and China to face off, but rather the hum drum of small time, petty dictators, floods and typhoons and the occasional riot control role in an American city. The Marines will never need gas masks, riot shields, and batons, why weren’t they divested? They could have just hung out in front of the federal buildings and shouted “BOO!” At the Billy Bad Asses across the street. No doubt the SecNav when he hung out with the shooters at Quantico in the recent past, let it be known that he was all in on FD2030. He just forgot to say it out loud. Sure he did.
Having been a former grunt, I have a problem with force design giving up armor (tanks). Sometimes they are essential for small units to get something done. Instead of giving up armor why not bring back the ONTOS. They were small (not heavy at all), transportable, and could go anywhere. The six 106 recoilless rifles were awesome. Probably had fewer maintenance issues too. They would provide a small footprint but large muscles when needed. They could provide most of the support needed for small units. The small footprint and size could be a good workaround for the problems Russian armor have had in Ukraine.
Ontos needed tanks to survive and fight. They are not good 'solo' assets for quite a few reasons. Not the least is that they are a lousy machine gun bus, lousy for fire and manuever, and and a lousy FiST platform. I will concede the 'broadside' was remarkable and compelling, especially for the Marines in the Citadel during Hue (as long as a tank was suppressing).
TBN Israel (You Tube) IDF DARK HORSE, TURNS THE TIDE IN BATTLE”…re Tanks and their eternal relevance in combined arms combat. The tank is far from obsolete!
As they have done away with armor, The ONTOS would give the grunts more capability. Even without tank cover they would be an awesome complement to ground forces. With drones handling most of the anti tank capabilities(as they are doing in the Ukraine) the ONTOS could be used effectively on the ground. I would like to know why the corps did away with them. Hopefully someone reading this can enlighten me on the reasons as well as maintenance concerns.
The Ontos would be an Albatross in today's fight. They are not survivable and not tactically worth the logistics to support them, today. In Ukraine, drones are effectively combined with armor and IFVs. There are much better 'low armor' modern platforms than the Ontos to couple into a combined arms stack with drones (sUAS/FPV) and loitering munitions. The USMC stated reasons for divesting of armor was to invest the alleged cost savings and personnel elsewhere. It is impressive what the Marine's were able to do in Vietnam with this 'Sows' Ear' , but ti doesn't validate the concept. The USMC has already lost it's armor capability; it should not race 'just to get something' like the Booker or an Ontos and wind up with an even bigger Albatross around it's neck.
Regarding the Wisdom of elected politicians and the Naval Forces, Grok “After the American Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress, under financial strain and the weak Articles of Confederation, disbanded the Continental Navy by 1785, selling its last ship, the *Alliance*. The U.S. was without a navy until the Naval Act of 1794, when Congress authorized six frigates, establishing the modern U.S. Navy.
Pre WW1 **U.S. Navy Pre-WWI**: The U.S. Navy, with ~40,000 personnel and ~200 ships, was modernizing into a global force under the "New Navy" initiative, featuring steel battleships like the *South Carolina*-class. It focused on protecting U.S. interests in the Western Hemisphere and supporting interventions (e.g., Spanish-American War, Panama Canal). Despite the "Great White Fleet" showcasing power, it lagged behind European navies in size, submarines, and destroyers, with naval aviation just beginning.
U.S. Marine Corps Pre-WWI**: The Marine Corps, with ~10,000 personnel, served as a small expeditionary force for shipboard security and interventions in the Caribbean ("Banana Wars"). It was developing the Advanced Base Force concept for amphibious operations but relied on small arms and lacked heavy equipment. Both branches were modestly capable but not ready for large-scale global conflict.
Pre WWII **U.S. Marine Corps Pre-WWII**: The USMC, with ~19,000 personnel by 1939, was a small, elite force focused on amphibious warfare, naval base defense, and expeditionary missions. Active in the "Banana Wars" and China, it developed key amphibious doctrine (e.g., 1934 *Tentative Manual for Landing Operations*) and the Fleet Marine Force (1933) for Pacific operations. Limited by Great Depression budgets, it relied on small arms and lacked heavy equipment but was well-trained for small-scale interventions, laying groundwork for WWII success despite not being ready for large-scale conflict. “ .
Good Morning, Marines & Friends! Question: Does FD2030 merit any trust & confidence within the halls of Congress, or DOD, for that matter? If not, why does it linger? Semper Fidelis?
You’re right to ask — because the why matters.
All this effort against Force Design, all the noise, all the op-eds, all the private meetings… and yet, what’s changed?
Congress continues to fund it.
Combatant Commanders are asking for more of it.
Allies are integrating with it.
The Navy and Joint Force are operating with it.
So yeah — you have to wonder:
If none of that moved the needle, what exactly was the point?
Because at some point, it stops looking like concern… and starts looking like ego.
Please name the Combatant Commanders who are requesting Force Design formations ie SIF, MLR?
Crickets!
Randy-
What you must understand is the site administrators ban me when I hit too close to home. Once that happens, I am unable to post anything for 24 hours.
So much for wanting a free debate, eh?
My answers is as follows, all you had to was Google it. Regret the delay.
USNORTHCOM is seeking a stronger Marine presence in Alaska, including Forward Operating Locations like Adak and Arctic-trained units—aligning with Force Design’s emphasis on distributed, expeditionary posture in extreme environments.
https://www.sullivan.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/indopacom-commander-recommends-reopening-adak-naval-base-in-alaska?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://armedservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/gen_guillot_n-nc_2025_posture_statement.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com
USEUCOM has endorsed II MEF’s Stand-In Force role for deterrence in Europe, reflecting direct alignment with Force Design concepts like forward persistence and integration with allied forces.
https://www.eucom.mil/document/42351/gen-christopher-g-cavoli-2023-posture-statement-to-the-hasc?utm_source=chatgpt.com
USINDOPACOM remains the primary driver of Force Design, with the entire construct—Littoral Regiments, EABO, and Stand-In Forces—designed to meet the operational demands of the Indo-Pacific theater.
USAFRICOM is actively requesting Marine capabilities like ISR, early warning, and rapid-response teams—key enablers that support partner-led operations and modular force employment.
https://defensescoop.com/2024/06/24/dod-turns-to-tech-as-physical-presence-around-africa-dwindles/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Ah, you just said it, “USAFRICOM is actively requesting Marine capabilities like ISR, early warning, and rapid-response teams”. Any mention of SIRs/MLRs/NMESIS/NAMs? Every asset being asked for can be provided under the a MEU(SOC)’s/MEU’s old T/O T/E.
Every other Combatant Commander’s statement uses words like seeking, endorsed, and driver. Not exactly a ringing endorsement. After 6 years where’s the operational units on the ground in PACOM? What Pacific nation has agreed to a concrete basing arrangement for these awesome sensing nodes and integral parts of the kill chain?
You sound like a State Dept. PAO official.
So Adm. Papro’s comments earlier this year were more telling than “the Congress loves it” line you keep shoveling. His comments specifically excluded any mention of FD/SIFs/MLRs. Why was that. Because he knows that the Corps’s claims about them are “all hat and no cattle”.
The Army is moving forward in replacing the Corps as the go to force in readiness. Don’t believe me? Here are two recent articles on their progress. Both are hypersonic and can hit moving targets.
https://nextgendefense.com/us-army-himars-hypersonic/
https://nextgendefense.com/us-army-dark-eagle-hypersonic/
Where’s the Corps? Still stuck with NMESIS/NAM, an outdated short range subsonic anachronism and a T/O and T/E that after 6 years still hasn’t solved the logistics problem.
You may talk about how much Congress loves the Corps, but Congressional memories are short, and they don’t give a fig about who defends WESTPAC, only that the U.S.gets its greatest bang for it’s buck.
The Corps’s salvation lies in its ability to continue to serve as the Nation’s 911 force in readiness. Again I ask you where’s the MEUs in the Mediterranean, the Red Sea, the Indian Ocean, the Gulf of Oman, the Straits of Hormuz? Your silence on where they are says more than your PAO style comments on military exercises in the Philippines, or embarking from the East Coast or being “forward deployed” somewhere on the “very ground” they’ll be fighting on.
The Corps is needed today around the world and its absence is not gone unnoticed by our adversaries.
Regarding Politicians and their valuing advice from experienced warriors and scholars. Grok….”Socrates, before becoming known as a philosopher, served as a hoplite—a citizen-soldier—in the Athenian army during the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BCE). His military service is documented in Plato’s dialogues (*Apology*, *Symposium*, *Laches*) and Xenophon’s writings, showcasing his bravery, endurance, and commitment to duty.
- **Battles**: Socrates fought in at least three significant campaigns:
- **Potidaea (432 BCE)**: He served in the prolonged siege, enduring harsh conditions. Alcibiades, in Plato’s *Symposium*, recounts Socrates’ courage, noting how he saved Alcibiades’ life during the battle and stood firm amid chaos.
- **Delium (424 BCE)**: During the Athenian retreat, Socrates displayed remarkable composure. Plato’s *Laches* describes him retreating calmly, deterring enemies with his steady demeanor, which inspired others to rally.
- **Amphipolis (422 BCE)**: He likely participated in this campaign, though less is documented about his role.
- **Characteristics as a Warrior**:
- **Physical Endurance**: Alcibiades describes Socrates marching barefoot in freezing conditions at Potidaea, outlasting others in stamina and maintaining high spirits.
- **Courage**: He faced danger without flinching, as seen in his refusal to panic during retreats and his willingness to risk his life for comrades.
- **Discipline**: Socrates adhered to Athenian civic duty, serving when called upon, despite his later critiques of societal norm.”
Socrates was sentenced to death in 399 BCE by an Athenian jury for impiety and corrupting the youth. His execution method was drinking a hemlock-based poison, a common practice in ancient Athens for carrying out death sentences. Hemlock, derived from the plant *Conium maculatum*, causes paralysis that starts in the limbs and progresses to the respiratory system, leading to death by asphyxiation.
According to Plato’s *Phaedo*, Socrates faced his death calmly, discussing philosophy with his followers until the end. He drank the hemlock willingly, refusing to flee Athens or beg for mercy, as he believed in upholding the city’s laws even when unjustly applied. His death became a powerful symbol of integrity and the pursuit of truth over personal survival.
Hemlock anyone?
Another acronym I learned in OCS & TBS: FD=Failed Doctrine!
When dealing with Congress representatives it is their adds that you really have to deal with. The ones we dealt (Goldwater) with at HQMC Aviation staff were very sharp and knew Exactly what to ask you. They came with an agenda to get their way.
Great stack!
Amen
✝️🏕️✝️
QPR
Fear not. Your active-duty Marines will never give in — and they haven’t.
Force Design isn’t static — it’s evolving, delivering tangible gains for the Corps, the Joint Force, and our allies. The mission endures. So do the Marines.
Thanks for the motivation. We’re more committed than ever to countering the noise from a small circle of retired detractors. Marines don’t retreat — not in combat, not in transformation.
And isn’t it telling? After all the meetings and op-eds… not a single sitting decision-maker backs you. Not one. That silence says it all.
well, with that in mind, I am now convinced the Maginot Line - not a single decision maker opposed; the silence said it all! - was the rootin' tootin' best possible Force Design of its time. Asserting paradigm superiority that has not been contested in Combat reminds me of the first time I read Thomas Kuhn on The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. - Paradigms rule and there is no dissent.... Silence is not truth.