Thanks to FormerDirtDart for the link!
I've been digging into the Commandant's Planning Guidance and trust me on this one folks. There is alot of what I consider good. There are a few things I consider bad. Risk is assumed in parts of it. Oh...and feathers will be ruffled before the dust settles.
We'll get to that this week.
But check out this tidbit from Military.com.
Just days into his term as commandant, Gen. David Berger has unveiled a bold new plan for the Marine Corps that could put an end to swirling debate that the service is trying to be everything to everyone.
The service can't afford to build tailor-trained units designed to fight specific missions, such as urban, desert or Arctic operations, Berger wrote in his planning guidance, which was released Tuesday.
Instead, he said, "We will build one force -- optimized for naval expeditionary warfare in contested spaces, purpose-built to facilitate sea denial and assured access in support of the fleets.
"That single purpose-built future force," Berger added, "will be applied against other challenges across the globe; however, we will not seek to hedge or balance our investments to account for those contingencies."
In other words, Marines will be able to operate in urban or cold-weather environments, but they'll be trained and equipped first and foremost as a naval expeditionary force. The commandant's vision follows several new global threats, including China's buildup of militarized islands in the South China Sea; Russia's naval plus-up in the Black Sea, Arctic and other locations; and Iran's recent aggression near a vital international shipping route.
Berger's announcement is also a big change from what one officer described earlier this year as the Marine Corps' attempt to prepare for a "dizzying array" of missions.
Maj. Leo Spaeder, an air-ground task force planner at the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory, said the service was at a crossroads of multiple personality disorder in a commentary he wrote for War on the Rocks titled, "Sir, Who Am I? An Open Letter to the Incoming Commandant of the Marine Corps."
"Urban/megacities, jungle, sea control, forcible entry operations, amphibious, expeditionary, naval, crisis responders," Spaeder wrote, referencing just some of the missions he'd heard the Marine Corps would pursue. "... I could go on, but it's starting to feel absurd."
Military.com asked Berger about that major's concerns during a recent interview at the Pentagon, and the commandant promised the Marine would get the direction he sought.
"There is an answer, and I'm ready to lay it out," Berger said. "But I have to have that discussion with senior leaders first. I know exactly what he's asking, and [my answer] will be very clear."
Story here.
If the Commandant delivers. If he's able to give the Major and other Marines a clear vision then we can finally turn to and execute.
The real problem the Corps has been wrestling with?
Traditionally other services have had difficulty in understanding their roles/functions in the US defense establishment. Other services had issues in trying to do all things, all missions...assume all roles.
Traditionally the USMC never had that problem.
It was quite the opposite. The Marine Corps mission, identity and reason for being was clear.
No waffling.
No apologies.
No doubts.
Something happened with the last two Commandant's and that clarity of focus was lost. Hopefully Berger can bring it back.
The ruffled feathers with this approach? We've always been about Marines as the primary factor on the battlefield AND we were totally focused on winning battles.
My fear is that we're about to see a continued swing toward tech instead of Marines. Make no mistake about it. If he's talking about peer vs peer combat as the end all, be all then that means more big ticket items. A continuation of the pursuit of an all F-35 force instead of taking stock of the cost. A fixation on a CH-53K that blows cost out of the water. The only mitigating factor is that we're hearing talk of reducing the size of the Corps and moving away from 2.0 MEBs.
That could possible mean less of those aircraft which will tremendously lower the cost of the force and allow for more trigger pullers instead.
Time will tell but whether good or bad (in your opinion) at least we'll have a star to navigate by instead of the lurching back and forth we've seen for almost a decade.
