The New USMC

While I have pretty much remained silent about CMC Berger’s FD 2030, there has been and continues to be a plethora of verbiage about it. And as far as I have been able to ascertain none of it has been good. I reckon I considered it a long gone conclusion with the new CMC simply carrying on his predecessor’s image of the new Corps. In nine days the world is going to change, make no mistake about that; the proverbial shit will hit the fan globally, not just here in the US. Our mainstream nerds will have so much to talk about it isn’t even funny. I will start watching the news again, except it will be either CNN or that ridiculous MSNBC. I can’t wait to hear their spins.

But I digress. FD 2030 is a disaster; our Corps is not the same and there is some serious doubt that it never will again be America’s 911 Force. The divestitures were HUGE, so much so that anyone who thinks it can still respond to an urgent crisis somewhere in the world is living under a rock. Do you actually know what all was given up?

Here is an article written by Captain Dale Dye, USMC (Ret). In case you don’t know of him, once he retired he became a favorite consultant in Hollywood for any producer who wanted to show or talk about Marines. In fact, he convinced producer Oliver Stone to let him put the principal actors—including Charlie Sheen, Willem Dafoe, Johnny Depp, and Forest Whitaker—through an immersive 30-day military-style training regimen before the filming of Platoon. He limited how much food and water they received; when the actors slept, he fired cartridge blanks to keep them awake. Dale who had a small role in the movie as Captain Harris, also wrote the novelization based on Stone’s screenplay.

Here, in his usual uncensored style, is a good recount of everything that has happened since Berger’s stroke of his pen behind closed doors.

Marine Swords Beaten into Puny Plowshares

Not likely anyone in authority will be influenced by a long-retired Mustang bitching about the state of today’s Marine Corps, but I feel compelled to lob a few grenades at Force Design 2030. That’s the radical restructuring of the Corps ordered by former Commandant General David Berger in a sleazy backroom deal that demanded all the sycophants involved sign non-disclosure agreements. Since it was announced three years ago, the revamping of Marine missions, tactics, and techniques has created a defecation deluge from opponents who believe—as I do—that the whole thing has a lot in common with a jet engine. It sucks and blows.

Before I get into the weeds here, let me say a thing or two about the general mission and offensive ethos of the United States Marine Corps. Simply stated, the Corps is—or was—always designed to be the country’s 911 force, most ready to fight when the nation is least ready. It’s meant to be the crash crew in crisis response anyplace and anytime around the world. The key asset for global combatant commanders was a Marine Corps air-ground team (MAGTF) always forward deployed—usually aboard Navy amphibs—trained, equipped, and instantly ready to handle any mission in the full range of military operations.

For some reason known only to General Berger and his clones, that wasn’t good enough for a force facing China in the Western Pacific as the perceived priority threat. Rather than tweak weapons, training, and positioning to meet that challenge as Marines typically do, they decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater and ordered a tactical shift to defense with primary focus on small teams of missile-armed Marines who would jump from island to island in efforts to damage or deter a growing Chinese blue-water fleet in the event of a shooting war in the Western Pacific. The Navy—and certainly the Army—currently has a plethora of missiles capable of sinking ships. Here’s a hint. If you want to avoid redundancy arguments, don’t try to do something another service already does and probably does it better than you can.

Not much thought—if any—was given to moving these small vulnerable Marine detachments, much less resupplying and otherwise supporting them under the ever vigilant eyes of Chinese radars, satellites, and cyber capture networks. And apparently never mind if the sovereign nations that claim the territory Marines would need to launch their ship-killer missiles want no part of a super-power fight. What if—as entirely likely—those sovereign nations deny the Marines those operational bases? I’ll wait while someone thinks that through.

Under this misbegotten concept, the US Navy has a huge vote as the provider of small, fast amphibious ships needed to move Marines. And they voted no. Not only do we have insufficient gator freighters in our current fleet, but the Navy has no apparent plans to produce the smaller inter-island transports called for under FD 2030.

Screwing around with the Marine’s central mission—locate, close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver—threatens to turn the US Marine Corps into a single-mission niche outfit ready to die in place on remote islands and unready to handle crises anywhere else. It puts Marines in a defensive posture when our time-tested ethos has always been the offense, forward deployed and eager to fight any enemy. It’s that attitude that used to permeate Marine ranks and kept us supplied with avid young recruits. Seems to me given the puny recruiting numbers we’re seeing from all the other services, the Marine Corps can ill-afford to sacrifice this aspect of their gung-ho, first-to-fight reputation.

In order to twist itself around this maypole of new war fighting concepts, General Berger cooked the books in what he called “divest to invest” which basically amounts to robbing Peter to pay Paul as my Dad used to call false-economy measures. That little bookkeeping maneuver made some $16 billion available which the new model planners spent on long-range missile batteries, drones, and other high-tech goodies to equip what are now proudly called Marine Littoral Regiments. Fine if all future fights are in littoral areas of the world but history begs us not to bank on that.

Most stunning in an outfit that focuses on the combat power of basic infantry, FD 2030 orders a reduction of three full battalions from the point of the Marine Corps bayonet, or a loss of 14 percent of combat strength. If that wasn’t dumb enough in formations that face inevitable casualties in ground combat, the end-strength for a Marine infantry battalion has been reduced by 200 Marines across the board which translates to a loss of 4,200 frontline war fighters. Marine Corps Reserves won’t be there to fill in the gaps. The reserves lost two full infantry battalions under the FD 2030 axe.

None of this seemed to bother force designers all that much as they also eliminated all—that’s correct all—Marine Corps tanks. So much for lessons learned in Ukraine or the Middle East. Supporters say if the Marines need tanks in a future fight, the US Army will provide them. That’s unlikely to be any kind of high priority for an Army outfit that might well be engaged in its own fight. And even if they were willing to cough up a platoon or two of Abrams, it would likely be at the end of a lengthy and complicated pipeline. Marines need tanks at hand, not in some remote Army motor pool.

Which brings me kicking and screaming to the matter of fire support for what’s left of Marine Corps maneuver battalions in the next fight. God help the grunt commander who needs quick and accurate artillery fire support, a reliable staple of infantry combat in modern times. He might not get it as FD 2030 cut a full 16 battalions of cannon artillery for a firepower reduction of a whopping 76 percent. Savings were spent to stand up 14 rocket artillery battalions which is OK if you’re shooting over the horizon at Chinese ships, but not worth a damn to a grunt outfit pinned down and in need of rapid steel on target at close ranges in crappy weather. We will hopefully live to regret this emasculation of versatile, reliable tube artillery. If you have any doubts about the utility of cannons and howitzers on the modern battlefield, let me direct your attention to the Ukraine where artillery on both sides is proving to be a deciding factor.

Another dumb-ass divestiture under FD 2030 came in Marine Corps aviation. One of the most brilliant assets of forward-deployed Marine units is that they come to the fight carrying their own air support. Both fixed-wing and rotary-wing aviation was quickly available to a MAGTF commander who could call it up and then down on an enemy without having to ask the Air Force or compete with other battlefield priorities. Not so simple these days.

FD 2030 cut almost 30 percent of tactical and logistical aviation support. Offensive aviation cuts included at least two of seven light attack helicopter squadrons which will be sorely missed by grunts on the ground who always appreciate the quickly available support of helicopter gunships. Also eliminated were three of the current 17 Osprey tilt-rotor squadrons and three of eight heavy-lift helicopter units. With the Corps struggling to field a reliable sea-shore connector—the new Amphibious Combat Vehicle is still not approved for deployment—now seems like a hell of a time to be cutting aviation logistic and transportation support.

I could go on here about the elimination of engineer support units such as bridging and breeching units that are always a valuable and versatile piece of the battlefield toolbox, but my morale might not survive it. What’s keeping me afloat as an old but loyal believer in the spirit and inherent value of the Corps, is the controversy at very high and influential levels that surrounds the changes mandated by FD 2030. Wiser heads than mine are arguing for a return to sanity. It may take some long and bloody time to correct our course, but I believe we will do just that.

In the end active-duty Marines, veterans, fans, and friends of the Corps will demand it. As General Brute Krulak wisely said back in 1957, “America does not need a Marine Corps. It wants one.” And the one it wants is not the one that’s being shaped by Force Design 2030.

I was fortunate enough to meet Dale while I was at Marine Barracks, NAS, Lemoore CA. It was during an attempt to have Brian Dennehy as our guest for a birthday ball. Quite an impressive guy to represent our Corps to Hollywood.

OFA

State Dem leaders livid at Obama organizing group OFA

Leaked emails from a Democratic Party listserv account reveal the anger of local and state Democrat leaders at the relaunching of President Obama’s activist group, Organizing for Action (OFA).  Many Democrats around the country believe that the group siphons money and people from state parties, which directly led to the party losing more than 1,000 state legislative seats during the Obama years.

Daily Beast:

The nonprofit, which functions as a sort of parallel-Democratic National Committee, was founded to mobilize Democratic voters and supporters in defense of President Obama’s, and the Democratic Party’s, agenda. Instead, the organization has drawn the intense ire, both public and private, of grassroots organizers and state parties that are convinced that OFA inadvertently helped decimate Democrats at the state and local level, while Republicans cemented historic levels of power and Donald J. Trump actually became leader of the free world.

These intra-party tensions aren’t going away, especially now that OFA “relaunched” itself last week to protect the Affordable Care Act, boost turnout at congressional town halls, and train grassroots organizers gearing up for the Trump era.

This is some GRADE A Bulls**t right here,” Stephen Handwerk, executive director of the Louisiana Democratic Party, wrote in a private Democratic-listserv email obtained by The Daily Beast. Handwerk was reacting to news of OFA’s post-election retooling, which was shared “without comment” to the group of state-level Dems by Crystal Kay Perkins, executive director for Texas Democrats.

“It also to me seems TONE DEAF – we have lost over 1,000 seats in the past 8 years… all because of this crap,” Handwerk continued. “Let’s get through the next two weeks – but then we gotta figure this out and keep the pressure on. WOW.”

Others on the thread shared these sentiments.

“Yes, it sure is,” Katie Mae Simpson, executive director for the Maine Democratic Party, replied. “OFA showed up in Maine, organized a press conference on saving [Obamacare], with one of our Dem legislative leaders speaking, all without ever mentioning that they were in state and organizing. They hired someone I know, which is somewhat helpful, but my god, they don’t have a very good alliance-building process.”

Such grievances, though expressed privately, are nothing new among state Democratic Party leadership.

“[With] all due respect to President Obama, OFA was created as a shadow party because Obama operatives had no faith in state parties,” Nebraska Democratic Party Chair Jane Kleeb told Politico last week.

“I love and adore everything about President Obama except for OFA,” South Carolina Democratic Party chairman Jaime Harrison (who is also running to chair the Democratic National Committee) said at a recent DNC “future forum,” according to The Washington Post.

The friction between the regular Democratic Party and OFA was predictable.  OFA, despite promises from President Obama and OFA’s backers, never functioned as anything except Obama’s private organizing army.  Any coordination with the DNC or local state parties happened only when the political interests of the president dovetailed with those of the local party infrastructure.  Otherwise, OFA monopolized fundraising and hiring political operatives at the expense of the party.

That President Obama didn’t care about down-ballot Democrats is obvious.  Republicans, with the help of the Tea Party, slaughtered the Democrats at the state and local levels.  The party has all but disappeared from many areas, and Democrats will spend the better part of the next decade just getting back to where they were in 2008.

OFA proved adept at backing Obama’s agenda, putting pressure on Washington Democrats to pass the president’s program.  But they were a disaster for Democrats beyond the Beltway, as huge GOP gains at the state level show.

Shame on you Obama!

Originally posted 2017-02-20 11:59:55.

The Paris Climate Conference

THE PHOTOGRAPHER WHO SNAPPED THIS PHOTO, AT THE RECENT CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE, IN PARIS, SHOULD BE GIVEN AN AWARD FOR THE FUNNIEST PHOTO OF THE YEAR…….

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I suspect Kerry is dreaming of how he is going to convince the conference that, in his words, “Air conditioning is the most serious problem facing the world today.”

Originally posted 2017-02-20 11:26:17.

Seventy-Two Years Ago

Iwo Jima: a volcanic island 660 miles south of Tokyo; 2 miles wide by 4 miles long. Today, seventy-two years ago U.S. Marines invaded Iwo Jima after months of naval and air bombardment. The Japanese defenders of the island were dug into bunkers deep within the volcanic rocks. Approximately 70,000 U.S. Marines and 18,000 Japanese soldiers took part in the battle. In thirty-six days of fighting on the island, nearly 7,000 U.S. Marines were killed. Another 20,000 were wounded. Marines captured 216 Japanese soldiers; the rest were killed in action. The island was finally declared secured on March 16, 1945. It was one of the bloodiest battles in Marine Corps history.

As I do every year, I received an email Commander Victor H. Krulak, USN, Chaplains Corps (Ret) who was our battalion chaplain in Second Battalion, Seventh Marines at San Mateo, MCB, Camp Pendleton, CA in the early 70’s. He said:

As is my wont again on this 72nd anniversary of the landing on Iwo Jima, I am sending the remarks of Rabbi Gittelsohn at the dedication of the 5th Division Cemetery at the end of the battle as a reminder of the great cost of this battle that is so much a part of the legacy of the Marine Corps.

S/F, Vic

Rabbi Roland B. Gittelsohn at the Dedication of the 5th Marine Division Cemetery on Iwo Jima.

This is perhaps the grimmest, and surely the holiest task we have faced since D-Day. Here, before us lie the bodies of comrades and friends. Men who until yesterday or last week laughed with us, joked with us, trained with us. Men who were on the same ships with us, and went over the sides with us as we prepared to hit the beaches of this island. Men who fought with us and feared with us. Somewhere in this plot of ground there may lie the man who could have discovered the cure for cancer. Under one of these Christian
crosses, or beneath a Jewish Star of David, there may rest now a man who was destined to be a great prophet — to find the way, perhaps, for all to live in plenty, with poverty and hardship for none. Now they lie here silently in this sacred soil, and we gather to
consecrate this earth in their memory.

It is not easy to do so. Some of us have buried our closest friends here. We saw these men killed before our very eyes. Any one of us might have died in their places. Indeed, some of us are alive and breathing at this very moment only because men who lie here
beneath us had the courage and strength to give their lives for ours. To speak in memory of such men as these is not easy. Of them too  an it be said with utter truth: “The world will little note nor long remember what we say here.” It can never forget what they did
here.”

No, our poor power of speech can add nothing to what these men and the other dead who are not here have already done. All that we even hope to do is follow their example. To show the same selfless courage in peace that they did in war. To swear that by the grace
of God and the stubborn strength and power of human will, their sons and ours shall never suffer these pains again. These men have done their job well. They have paid the ghastly price of freedom. If that freedom be once again lost, as it was after the last war, the unforgivable blame will be ours not theirs. So it is we the living who are here to be dedicated and consecrated.

Too much blood has gone into this soil for us to let it lie barren. Too much pain and heartache have fertilized the earth on which we stand. We here solemnly swear: This shall not be in vain! Out of this, and from the suffering and sorrow of those who mourn this, will come — we promise — the birth of a new freedom for the sons of men everywhere.

God Bless them all, each and every one of them. These events are all but forgotten to the youth of today’s America. Our new educational system rather teaches worldly events of no value or consequence to our own country. I pray that will change with the new leaders!

Originally posted 2017-02-19 12:55:26.

They Just Won’t give up

Another day, another “controversial” Trump nominee confirmed.

This time it’s Scott Pruitt, Trump’s pick to lead the EPA:

The Senate confirmed President Donald Trump’s nominee, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, to lead the Environmental Protection Agency on Friday in a mostly party line vote.

The confirmation vote came after contentious hearings during which Democratic lawmakers questioned Pruitt over his ties to fossil fuel companies, his multiple legal challenges to EPA regulations and his public statements questioning the science behind climate change.

Senate Democrats boycotted a committee vote to move forward Pruitt’s nomination earlier this month and stretched debate before the full Senate into the early hours of Friday. On Thursday evening, some Democrats again called for Pruitt’s confirmation vote to be delayed after an Oklahoma judge ordered his office to turn over thousands of communications with fossil fuel companies to a watchdog group.

Make no mistake: This is a great pick, and the hysterical liberal campaign to discredit Pruitt was absolutely insane.

First, the notion that he shouldn’t be secretary because he sued the EPA. So what? Oftentimes Environmental Protection Agency policies have serious consequences for Americans. Pruitt’s efforts as Oklahoma Attorney General were aimed at restoring the state’s role in setting its own environmental policy.  Pruitt, and others recognize that regulations that apply to all states do not apply equally. States like West Virginia, Louisiana, and Oklahoma might be disproportionately harmed by sweeping environmental regulations favored by folks in California and New York. Indeed, even the most committed environmentalists acknowledge that centralized, Washington based regulation often fails to take into account the individual environmental challenges faced by the states. 

Second, the notion that he’s a “climate change” denier is absurd. More broadly, the term “climate change denier” needs to go. Acknowledging that global temperatures have shifted in one direction or another is something very few people can deny. What’s worth debating is what impact human activity has had on this, and what we might do to adapt or remedy it. But liberals aren’t interested in debate, they’re interested in shutting down the conversation and authorizing billions of dollars in programs for alternative energy and thousands of pages of business stifling regulations.

So what does Pruitt actually believe? As Daniel Payne at the Federalist notes, his beliefs are pretty tame:

Well, back in May, Pruitt co-wrote a column at National Review in which he noted, correctly, that “[the climate change debate] is far from settled. Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind. That debate should be encouraged — in classrooms, public forums, and the halls of Congress. It should not be silenced with threats of prosecution. Dissent is not a crime.” That’s it. That’s literally the only evidence they provide that Pruitt is a “climate change denialist.”

Pruitt’s failure to make common cause with global warming people who were telling us that a new ice age was upon us thirty years ago suggests he’s a critical thinker. A measured approach to problems isn’t dangerous, it’s rational. Rational is good. Right?

Well, not according to the mainstream media. Here’s how they’re framing it:

 

Thanks for the editorial on the Pruitt confirmation, @washingtonpost pic.twitter.com/SSgH8b1aXZ

— Jay Caruso (@JayCaruso) February 17, 2017

That’s not all. EPA employees, in a show of the rank politicization that infects the agency, have been calling senators and urging them to block Pruitt’s nomination.

We can see why. For years, the out of control agency’s priorities have been at odds with those of normal Americans. As every dire prediction about global warming has turned out to be totally false,

It’s safe to say that Pruitt will be quick to drain the swamp over there.
Read more at http://trumptrainnews.com/articles/great-again-trump-s-latest-victory-is-going-to-drive-tree-hugging-hippies-absolutely-crazy#HX68hSpzOJiRLoLd.99

Originally posted 2017-02-18 12:07:34.

Conservatism

Verified by MonsterInsights