How to discuss and debate Force Design 2030
From the begining, Force Design 2030 has generated questions. The questions have been about what is best for the Marine Corps. These are momentous topics, worthy of a robust discussion and debate. This is not a petty discussion of personalities or persons. Rather, we are at a critical time, facing critical topics. The urgency of the issues dictates the frankness of the debate.
The discussion and debate over Force Design 2030 involes many people, but primarily it is a professional discussion among leaders of Marines. All of us are bound together on the same journey. We all share the same goal: to ensure the Marine Corps is strong today and stronger tomorrow.
If the Marine Corps grows stronger in the future, then all of us — on all sides — will win. If the Marine Corps grows weaker, then we all lose.
Writing in the Marine Corps Times (link below), General Charles Krulak, the 31st Commandant of the Marine Corps addressed the ongoing controversy over Force Design 2030. At the end of his aricle, he makes clear his view of how the discussion should be conducted.
Marine Corps Times (marinecorpstimes.com) May 27, 2022
Whose Marine Corps?
Why a Force Design battle is losing sight of the basics.
By General Charles Krulak
. . . In closing, I urge all to reflect deeply on our long-standing bedrock principles and to consider carefully the following points:
· We need to move from waging information campaigns against one another after serious decisions about our Corps future have been made to a much more inclusive and transparent process before decisions are made.
· We need to move from generalizations and straw man characterizations of contending views to serious, in-depth discussions about operational capabilities and the dependencies they have, discussions befitting professionals.
· We need to clearly articulate a future end-state and the means by which we will get there to include, rigorously red-teamed transitions that minimize exploitable opportunities by this nation’s enemies each step of the way.
We need to return to a time when we “cast our nets widely” and think deeply and carefully about our own dynamic, complex adaptive system, and the many other dynamic complex systems with which we operate.
This is our Marine Corps, and we all have roles to play in helping it adapt to an increasingly complex future.
We must never denigrate or marginalize those who want to help shape its future. We must encourage, rather than suppress, different perspectives and life experiences. Open, inclusive stress-testing of hypotheses about our Corps make for both a stronger, more relevant Corps and a more cohesive and unified Corps.
Whose Marine Corps? Why a Force Design battle is losing sight of the basics (marinecorpstimes.com)
For anyone wanting to see "what a better, more realistic, solution set would be," the outline of an FD 2030 alternative is on the way. -- Compass Points
The Third Division has always been a different place. In WWII there were 20 FMF defense battalions. Why not bring them back to defend the First Island Chain ? The new regiments are just reinforced Battalions. We need to study what worked on Midway and what did not on
Wake Island. Same mission different results. Force protection and hardened assets are the
real issues evading review in the debate. If you can't hide you better be able to survive on
some little rock between Taiwan and Okinawa when you get hit hard. What is needed for
support is a C-130 drone to get people and equipment in and out of the action and new
ships which convert to bases when they are beached. This is really a Pacific vs Europe problem. Division sized formations are not what is needed to respond to the PRC . We are
going to be fighting WW 2 all over again from Guam to Darwin. We need a nimble force
structure to match the mission not a formula of three divisions and three air wings. Conventional thinking is not what is required to solve the First Island chain defense problem.