After the publication in the National Interest of the three articles introducing Vision 2035, the discussion of the future of the Marine Corps continues today in the the publication, The Hill.
In their article in the Hill, Generals Dake and Wilhelm make a compelling case that the Marine Corps needs a better way forward. It needs the advanced, combined arms, maneuver based approach of Vision 2035.
The Hill (thehill.com) 12/21/2022
Opinion>National Security
Reduce the Risk to National Security: Abandon ‘Force Design 2030’
by Terrence R. Dake and Charles E. Wilhelm
. . . These same pundits wrongly assume that a redesigned and reconfigured force narrowly focused on the sureness of war with a pacing challenge has equal utility across the spectrum of conflict. Chowder II disagrees. They believe a force broadly prepared for the contingencies of an increasingly unpredictable world is in the nation’s best interests.
Chowder’s II vision for the Marine Corps is a distinct alternative to Force Design 2030 and the ill-advised stand-in forces concept. A nation without the capability to respond globally to emerging threats risks wider wars, not only with peer competitors but with a host of other secondary actors that are intent on attacking United States sovereignty and interests in areas other than the Western Pacific.
Terrence R. Dake is a retired Marine Corps general and career aviation officer. His last assignment was as the assistant commandant of the Marine Corps.
Charles E. Wilhelm is a retired Marine Corps general and career infantry officer. His last assignment was commander, United States Southern Command.
In the mid- 40's and early 50's, President Harry S. Truman said the following: "The Marine Corps is the Navy's police force and as long as I am President that is what it will remain." He's no longer president, but did remained truthful.
Said by Harry S.: "They have a propagana machine (Marines) that is almost equal to Stalin's." The "little horse artillery officer from Missouri sounded like he was ready to pounce and end the success of the Marine Corps in WW II and Korea out of spite and jealousy.
We still have a Corps, though it's waning. Things are changing. Attitudes are a little different. But, you put a young man in dress blues on the gunnels of a ship and what you are looking at is a picture of perfection, pride, and a man admired by all who catch a glimpse.
In the 1940's - 1950's for "self-protection (preservation) the Corps formed a group called "the Chowder Society" and this group included men who had to retire or resign their careers to speak freely - one, was a general officer (Edson I believe.)
Eventually, they (The Chowder Society) ended up speaking before Congress where, Colonel Brute Krulack began to speak -all 5'4" of him. He said, in his opnion, as to the need, "America does NOT NEED a Marine Corps, but America WANTS a Marine Corps." He wrote the same thing to General Randolph Pate, Commandant of the Marine Corps when Krulak was a Brigadier General in 1958 I think.
"The United States does not need a Marine Corps, However, for good reasons which completely transcend cold logic, the United States wants a Marine Corps."
You know why America wants a Marine Corps? Here's one reason. Because an Army general, during the Grenada incident, said "they have two companies of Marines running all over this island and we have an entire regiment "pinned down." "What the hell is going on?"
It is just different. You become who you think you are, and Marines have big egos and think they can beat anyone in the world. Talk about adventures, esprit-de-corps, history, mystery and romance, the Corps has it all in spades.
The writer, Rick Bursky, makes a few good arguments between combat troops in WW II D-Day, 6Jun44 vs. Iwo Jima (the Army had a couple of other very serious battles and my father was in a few of them.) My father left WW II with an Army "battle-field commission; Silver Star, a Purple Heart and a French honor Medal, and he was a forward observer that brought down over 200 Nazi's in an artillery box.
In Korea, he received the Bronze Star and a second Purple Heart, but lost both of his forward observer teams. He was left to die because they could not find him. Four hours had passed behind enemy lines when they did. He was wounded through the left thigh and laying in the snow. Thank God, It was the Americans, and not the Chinese who found him first.
He was as proud to be a soldier, as I was a Marine. I'm sure of it. His brother was shot down, captured by the Nazi's and had the same medals. I should add, Captain Roy B. Gentry, also made two combat jumps at night in Korea, and was Colonel Wm. C. Westmoreland's adjutant in Korea.
But, "bad weather was brewing." In fact, I recall reading about an Army general who was relieved of command by a Marine general and all hell broke loose. But, you either take the hill, or you don't. Either you can, or you can't. Feathers were ruffled, and friendships chaffed, within the Army and USMC. The USMC continued to fight in the Pacific, but the Army had more troops there., Saipan, Tinian, Iwo Jima, etc. were taken one-by-one. I don't know if the Army has ever forgiven the Corps.
However, it was in Korea that the USMC saved the Army's (America's) bacon. Remember, this is not a contest between two units of the same nation competing with each other to learn who is the "toughest, most-disciplined, most famous and best-trained." It's about need, and soon America will need every nickle, dime and quarter it can get it's hands on just to field an Army to "keep our honor clean." What are we going to do then? I am an ordained minister, and I'm well-aware of what the Bible says about it.
Mr. Bursky also specifically points out the USMC recent losses of aviation, infantry, artillery, tanks, tracks (I used to be the MOS 1800 and 3500 monitor at HQMC and therefore, used to know quite a bit more about it. Anyhow, is the ultimate goal for war to divvy up responsibilities for war-fighting and then go do it? Do what we do best? Heroism is heroism and valor is valor. Both services have plenty.
Aside from inter-service rivalries (as the ramora hangs around a shark for sustanance and power,
the careerists and "hole-punchers" hang around the generals/civilians in power - for power.) They were not elected by anyone.
Very few of these ramoras have even the slightest idea about how things really work in war. If they did, why would they put Ham and Lima's in C-Rations? Just load us up with "Peaches and Pound Cake, some extra Bullets, Beans, and Band-aids and let us go with the thrust points, passwords and "call signs."
I remember in the 80's when General Al Gray began to feel "careerism" begin to creep into the Corps and everyone had to "have their ticket punch" to get promoted. He simply said, "Enough! Give these young officers and sergeants the opportunity to fail and take responsibility for their actions. They'll learn and they'll succeed. Many did "fall on their swords but survived." They did, and we did! Guess what? Careerism is back!
Just watch for the Pentagon War Games of 2230 for some interesting action in years to come (if we are still here.) I also remember when General Sam Jascilka announced in the threatre at MCSC Albany, GA in the Spring of 1977 statinig that he was retiring due to the "Capitol Hill Termites." When asked whaty he meant,
He said: they come up with all these plans that never work, and when we seekout who is responsibile for there failed implementation, they crawl into the walls like termites. He had enough! A four-star general retired!
Within "The Five-Year Defense Plan," I expect to see the Corps really shrink. If we can do away with 6,000 Marines, we can do away with 12,000 due to financial constraints. Eventually, the Corps will become smaller and the Army will become slightly larger. What we can count on is the great meeting of the future where Marine leadership attempts to indoctrinate soldiers (Army) into the pride, and esprit-de-corps, history, and sense of adventure Marines have had for 247 years. The Army can possibly do it if they tighten the straps. But, who knows?
I was a big military football fan in Okinawa in 1972, and witnessed the Army football team BEAT the USMC "grunt team" from Camp Hansen because they were just a little bit more motivated. I was sick for a week - but they won! The Army can do most of what will needs to be done, but not at the expense of the Marines who have already demonstrated they have the will, the fortitude, the esprit-de-corps, the history, the training, and the desire to succeed.
Tradition and "grand standing" isn't everything it's cracked up to be either. Both services (Marines and Army") used to crank off a cannon salute upon Recruit Graduation excercises." Six men would surround the cannon in their assigned spots. One trooper would stand 40' to the left of them and hold his hand straight out. Do you know why? So they could hold the reins of horses they no longer needed or used, so the horses wouldn't take off. Not even the commanding officer knew. This was back when the cannons blasted, and both services used to have horses for ceremonial guard! I wonder how many years ago they stopped using these "invisible horses?"
If our government chooses the past of the "filtered-blend personnel criteria,"the Marines will NEVER be the same, and the ARMY will never be the same - they will just both be different AND not necessarily GOOD DIFFERENT.
R.B. Gentry, Retired U.S. Marine, St. Simons Island, GA
On target from the article: "Chowder II’s vision for the future reduces risk to our national security by building back a Marine Corps capable of responding to multiple threats anywhere in the world. One of the lessons from the Cold War was that the focus on the Soviet Union as our main threat did not reduce the number of lesser threats facing the nation. " - in before we hear the 'threat informed or threat agnostic' buzzword salad again.
As for the proponents of FD 2030, I understand the way CMC laid out the philosophical approach to Force Design in "The Case For Change", where he wrote "The Marine Corps will contribute to such campaigns in accordance with relevant plans and orders, but will not use them as principal determinants of its force design or force structure.". Further, he included "While our force will be purpose-built in accordance with the three major realities noted above, the resultant force will be more capable of competing against and, when necessary, defeat- ing the forces of revisionist powers and rogue states within the context of a naval or joint campaign. It will also retain broad capabilities for forward deployment afloat in support of the range of crisis and contingency operations that have historically been the “bread and butter” of the Marine Corps in the intervals between major wars.". I suspect part of the issue many of us have with FD 2030 is that it is difficult to match the CMC's intent with the implementation of FD 2030 we have seen in the context of the global threats both the authors of "Reduce the Risk to National Security: Abandon ‘Force Design 2030’" and the author of "The Case for Change" speak to.