Berger was and is a horrible change agent. But even worse? He played games with us instead of coming at those he led straight on.
It was all bullshit and this "Sir Who Am I" letter was the first indication but I missed it and I'm betting so did many others.
Read the entire thing here, but check out this portion...
Instead, if the Corps is naval in purpose, then our paradigm will radically shift as the mission of naval forces, reinforced again recently by the undersecretary of the Navy, is sea control tied directly to protect U.S. interests and those of our allies and partners. Infantry – with either 13 or 15 marines per legacy rifle squad with no ability to affect enemy fleets – gives way to new “infantry” and new “artillery” with anti-ship neutralization and destruction capabilities – whether land-, air-, or sea-based – as our organizing principle. We can develop amphibious concepts for the missile-age that do not require 30 amphibious ships (plus numerous surface combatants and auxiliaries, transporting two Marine Expeditionary Brigades), to loiter well within the enemy weapons engagement zone to land marines ashore while we provide “protection” to our Navy shipmates. We can stop creating redundant capabilities – such as MARFORCYBER or MARSOC – that other services provide the joint force. Namely, we can get back to the majority of our Title 10 mandate instead of organizing around the catch-all “…such other duties as the President may direct.”
Notice the part that I put in bold.
Berger was aiming further than I thought. What backed him down is beyond me but be advised tribe.
We were all played.
Lt. Gen. Berger, please choose a single core attribute: a distributed littoral force, a sea control/denial force, a general purpose force, a small wars force, a heavy mech force, etc. Next, name two or three distinguishing attributes that – in accordance with the National Defense Strategy – differentiate the Corps from the other services and their roles in the National Defense Strategy.
