In a powerful article in Forbes, Senior Contributor Loren Thompson raises a series of questions about the Marine Corps focus on China. In his article, "Marine Corps War Plans are too Sino-Centric. What About the Other 90% of the World?" (link below) Thompson asserts the Marine Corps role as the nation's force in readiness is already being undermined. He goes on to say the current Marine Corps plan to field, dozens of light amphibious warships will likely "prove useless in most contingencies."
Forbes (forbes.com) October 17, 2022
Aerospace & Defense
Marine Corps War Plans Are Too Sino-Centric. What About The Other 90% Of The World?
By Loren Thompson, Senior Contributor
. . . The more immediate issue, though, is how this problematic approach to the China challenge might deprive the Marine Corps of capabilities needed to respond elsewhere. We are already seeing evidence that the consensus supporting a fleet of large amphibs suitable for responding to crises in other places is being undermined by confusion over Marine plans.
Getting rid of all the tanks on the assumption the Army can supply heavy armor in a timely fashion seems unrealistic. And eliminating squadrons of heavy, medium, and light rotorcraft is doubly questionable, given the fact that Marines are already breaking up deployed readiness groups to cope with diverse regional challenges. Those rotorcrafts may not be needed to fight China, but there are dozens of other places around the world where they could prove more useful than a light amphibious warship.
Loren Thompson is the COO of the Lexington Institute
Too Sino-centric? I am a critic of FD 2030, but I would suggest that Sino centric approach may not be a problem if we anticipate possible physical competition and conflict with China and proxies in a myriad of potential geographic locations as well as digital spaces (although FD 2030 does not take other geographic locations into account).
I think one of the bigger problems with FD 2030 is that pulling on one thread leads to a myriad of questions about capabilities not in evidence now or in the near future. I would argue that FD 2030 is analogous to the concept of a Special Purpose Acquisition Company (SPAC) in the financial markets. A SPAC is a hollow entity that is sold to investors even though it has no structure, profits, operations, etc.. It’s mortgaging the present for un-demonstrated capabilities at a cost that greatly exceeds the risk and cost of purchasing the security. In this case, we have already bought the SPAC, and the current capability set that it provides.