Tag Archives: DOD

Recent Posts

Is America Dying?

13 Comments

This was sent to me from a fellow Marine brother with the author unknown, but whoever took the time to write this, he or she has created an absolute masterpiece of gospel truth. I urge you to read it slowly and absorb it all. Then read it again. Nations  of long ago took centuries to fail, not so in today’s electronic world. The script has been written, the play appears to be in its final act – the United States of America as we knew it is doomed. Thank you Al

Men, like nations, think they’re eternal.  What man in his 20s or 30s doesn’t believe, at least subconsciously, that he’ll live forever? In the springtime of youth, an endless summer beckons. As you pass 70, it’s harder to hide from reality…. as you lose friends and relatives.

Nations also have seasons: Imagine a Roman of the 2nd century contemplating an empire that stretched from Britain to the Near East, thinking: This will endure forever…. Forever was about 500 years, give or take…. not bad, but gone!!

France was pivotal in the 17th and 18th centuries; now the land of Charles Martel is on its way to becoming part of the Muslim ummah.

In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the sun never set on the British empire; now Albion exists in perpetual twilight. Its 96-year-old sovereign is a fitting symbol for a nation in terminal decline.

In the 1980s, Japan seemed poised to buy the world. Business schools taught Japanese management techniques. Today, its birth rate is so low and its population aging so rapidly that an industry has sprung up to remove the remains of elderly Japanese who die alone.

I was born in 1945, almost at the midpoint of the 20th century – the American century. America’s prestige and influence were never greater. Thanks to the “Greatest Generation,” we won a World War fought throughout most of Europe, Asia, and the Pacific. We reduced Germany to rubble and put the rising sun to bed. It set the stage for almost half a century of unprecedented prosperity.

We stopped the spread of communism in Europe and Asia and fought international terrorism. We rebuilt our enemies and lavished foreign aid on much of the world.  We built skyscrapers and rockets to the moon. We conquered Polio and now COVID. We explored the mysteries of the Universe and the wonders of DNA – the blueprint of life.

But where is the glory that once was Rome? America has moved from a relatively free economy to socialism – which has worked so well NOWHERE in the world.

We’ve gone from a republican government guided by a constitution to a regime of revolving elites. We have less freedom with each passing year. Like a signpost to the coming reign of terror, the cancel culture is everywhere. We’ve traded the American Revolution for the Cultural Revolution.

The pathetic creature in the White House is an empty vessel filled by his handlers. At the G-7 Summit, ‘Dr. Jill’ had to lead him like a child. In 1961, when we were young and vigorous, our leader was too. Now a feeble nation is technically led by the oldest man to ever serve in the presidency.

We can’t defend our borders, our history (including monuments to past greatness) or our streets. Our cities have become anarchist playgrounds. We are a nation of dependents, mendicants, and misplaced charity.  Homeless veterans camp in the streets while illegal aliens are put up in hotels.

The president of the United States can’t even quote the beginning of the Declaration of Independence (‘You know – The Thing’) correctly. Ivy League graduates routinely fail history tests that 5th graders could pass a generation ago. Crime rates soar and we blame the 2nd Amendment and slash police budgets.

Our culture is certifiably insane. Men who think they’re women. People who fight racism by seeking to convince members of one race that they’re inherently evil, and others that they are perpetual victims. A psychiatrist lecturing at Yale said she fantasizes about “Unloading a revolver into the head of any white person.” We slaughter the unborn in the name of freedom, while our birth rate dips lower year by year. Our national debt is so high that we can no longer even pretend that we will repay it one day. It’s a $30-trillion monument to our improvidence and refusal to confront reality. Our “entertainment” is sadistic, nihilistic, and as enduring as a candy bar wrapper thrown in the trash.  Our music is noise that spans the spectrum from annoying to repulsive.

Patriotism is called an insurrection, treason celebrated, and perversion sanctified. A man in blue gets less respect than a man in a dress. We’re asking soldiers to fight for a nation our leaders no longer believe in.

How meekly most of us submitted to Fauci-ism (the regime of face masks, lockdowns, and hand sanitizers) shows the impending death of the American spirit.

How do nations slip from greatness to obscurity?
* Fighting endless wars they can’t or won’t win
* Accumulating massive debt far beyond their ability to repay
* Refusing to guard their borders, allowing the nation to be inundated by an alien horde
* Surrendering control of their cities to mob rule
* Allowing indoctrination of the young
* Moving from a republican form of government to an oligarchy
* Losing national identity
* Indulging indolence
* Abandoning God, faith, and family – the bulwarks of any stable society.

In America, every one of these symptoms is pronounced, indicating an advanced stage of the disease.

Even if the cause seems hopeless, do we not have an obligation to those who sacrificed so much to give us what we had? I’m surrounded by ghosts urging me on: the Union soldiers who held Cemetery Ridge at Gettysburg, the battered bastards of Bastogne, those who served in the cold hell of Korea, the guys who went to the jungles of Southeast Asia and came home to be reviled or neglected.

This is the nation that took in my immigrant grandparents, whose uniform my father and most of my uncles wore in the Second World War. I don’t want to imagine a world without America, even though it becomes increasingly likely.

During Britain’s darkest hour, when its professional army was trapped at Dunkirk and a German invasion seemed imminent, Churchill reminded his countrymen, “Nations that go down fighting rise again, and those that surrender tamely are finished.”

The same might be said of causes. If we let America slip through our fingers, if we lose without a fight, what will posterity say of us?

While the prognosis is far from good. Only God knows if America’s day in the sun is over.

Author Unknown

Postscript: Read it and weep, forward or erase it! I read it three times and am now posting it to you, believing that we are at the moment in time to either stand up, or shut up! We now may soon be at the next stage in our country’s future. I believe it is closer than we think. God help us.

 

 

 

Originally posted 2023-02-08 11:36:04.

Current Events

In The Navy

Video 7 Comments

If you have kids, grandkids, or friends who have some and they want their children to perhaps follow in some distant relative’s’ footsteps and join the U.S. Navy, they need to watch this. It’s a hoot!  You don’t have to watch it all since it’s about 7 minutes long as it won’t take you long to get the idea as to where the Navy’s priorities are today. Aren’t they or shouldn’t they  be defense oriented; I mean they come under the Department of “Defense” right? I don’t think so. And you can be sure the other services are going in the same direction, and yes even our once beloved Corps since our leader supported pride month Folks this is really hard to watch if you are cut from the same cloth as me. I could not stop laughing at these two idiots. I can only imagine what our potential enemies are thinking when they see where our military’s priorities are right now.

Lord, please help us.

Originally posted 2022-06-23 13:23:26.

Current Events, Recent Posts

Task & Purpose

4 Comments
Greg Newbold is one of the smartest, most professional Marines with whom I ever had the pleasure of serving. We were Captains together in the Ninth Marines at Camp Schwab, Okinawa 1977-78. Even among us captains, we all had a sense that Greg was destined  to become a flag officer.
Captains Tad Curtis and Greg Newbold outside the BOQs, Camp Schwab, Okinawa,  1977. Tad was my suite mate.

Knowing him as I do, it comes as no surprise that Greg has been one of the few flag officers of any branch who have come out against the travesty besetting our military today.  He never was one to mince words, and no one could exchange verbiage with him. I remember a story going around from  years ago about, a “word war” ensuing between Greg and his boss. As I recall, Greg was two-star  and at a press conference he used the word eviscerate. Later his boss, a pompous Air Force three-star “tried” to make fun of Greg by saying he didn’t know Marines were smart enough to use such big words like eviscerate. Greg started using words at press conferences that the news reporters didn’t know their meaning. The three-star lost the war.

Greg does a great job of laying it out in simple terms for everyone to read and “hopefully” understand. Of course the arrogant, know-it-all, Woke generals of today in every branch, including our current CMC,  aren’t smart enough to truly understand about which Greg is speaking. Sad. None of them could hold a candle to this Officer of Marines. Read and be informed by someone who has been there , done that!

From “Task & Purpose”

BY  | PUBLISHED FEB 10, 2022 9:03 AM

Many Americans, particularly our most senior politicians and military leaders, seem to have developed a form of dementia when it comes to warfare. The result is confusion or denial about the essential ingredients of a competent military force, and the costs of major power conflict. The memory loss is largely irrespective of political bent because all too many are seduced by a Hollywood-infused sense of antiseptic warfare and push-button solutions, while forgotten are the one million casualties of the Battle of the Somme in World War I, or the almost two million in the Battle of Stalingrad in World War II.

This “warfare dementia” is a dangerous and potentially catastrophic malady, because the price for it could alter the success of the American experiment and most assuredly will be paid in blood. The condition is exacerbated and enabled when the most senior military leaders — those who ought to know better — defer to the idealistic judgments of those whose credentials are either nonexistent or formed entirely by ideology.

The purpose of this essay is to explain the fundamental tenets of a military that will either deter potential enemies or decisively win the nation’s wars, thereby preserving our way of life. What follows are the tenets of Critical Military Theory:

1. The U.S. military has two main purposes — to deter our enemies from engaging us in warfare, and if that fails, to defeat them in combat. Deterrence is only possible if the opposing force believes it will be defeated. Respect is not good enough; fear and certainty are required.

  • Relevant Wisdom: “If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for War.” George Washington.

2. To be true to its purpose, the U.S. military cannot be a mirror image of the society it serves. Values that are admirable in civilian society — sensitivity, individuality, compassion, and tolerance for the less capable — are often antithetical to the traits that deter a potential enemy and win the wars that must be fought: Conformity, discipline, unity.

Direct ground combat, of the type we must be prepared to fight, is only waged competently when actions are instinctive, almost irrationally disciplined, and wholly sacrificial when required. Consensus building, deference, and (frankly) softness have their place in polite society, but nothing about intense ground combat is polite — it is often sub-humanly coarse.

  • Relevant Wisdom: “We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to do violence on those who would harm us.” Attributed to George Orwell, possibly originally from Richard Grenier.

3. There is only one overriding standard for military capability: lethality. Those officeholders who dilute this core truth with civil society’s often appropriate priorities (diversity, gender focus, etc.) undermine the military’s chances of success in combat. Reduced chances for success mean more casualties, which makes defeat more likely. Combat is the harshest meritocracy that exists, and nothing but ruthless adherence to this principle contributes to deterrence and combat effectiveness.

  • Relevant Wisdom: “I shall see no officer under my command is debarred….from attending to his first duty, which is and always has been to train the private men under his command that they may without question beat any force opposed to them in the field.” The Duke of Wellington

4. A military should not be designed to win but to overwhelm. In baseball, you win if your total score is one run better than your opponent’s. In war, narrow victories incur what we call “the butcher’s bill.”

  • Relevant Wisdom: “But these things do not belong to war itself; they are only given conditions; and to introduce into the philosophy of war itself a principle of moderation would be an absurdity.” Carl Von Clausewitz.

5. Wars must be waged only with stone-cold pragmatism, not idealism, and fought only when critical national interests are at stake. Hopes for changing cultures to fit our model are both elitist and naive. The failures of our campaigns in Iraq and especially in Afghanistan confirm this.

  • Relevant Wisdom. “They enjoy playing poker with someone else’s chips.” B.V. Taylor

6. A military force’s greatest strengths are cohesion and discipline. Individuality or group identity is corrosive and a centrifugal force. Indeed, the military wears uniforms because uniformity is essential. The tenets of Critical Race Theory – a cross-disciplinary intellectual and social movement that seeks to examine the intersection of race and law in the United States, but which has the unfortunate effect of dividing people along racial lines – undermine our military’s unity and diminish our warfighting capabilities.

Recruit training teaches close order drill and the manual of arms (drill with weapons) not because they still have relevance to maneuvers on the field of battle, but because they instill a sense of how conformity creates efficiency and superior group results. Upon a firm foundation of cohesion, imaginative leaders can spark initiative and innovation. But when we highlight differences or group identity, we undermine cohesion and morale. Failure results.

  • Relevant Wisdom: “Four brave men who do not know each other will not dare to attack a lion. Four less brave, but knowing each other well, sure of their reliability and consequently of mutual aid, will attack resolutely. There is the science of the organization of armies in a nutshell.” Colonel Ardant du Picq.

7. “The enemy gets a vote.” An objective lens for military theory is how the nation’s foes regard our martial ethos; after all, that is what constitutes deterrence…or lack of it. Ferocity, not sensitivity, prevails.

  • Relevant Wisdom: “We will not fight them. They are not normal. When we shoot at them, they run towards us. If we fight them, we die. They are worse than the sons of Satan.” Taliban radio intercept after engaging U.S. forces.

8. Infantry and special operations forces are different. The mission of those who engage in direct ground combat is manifestly distinct, and their standards and requirements must be as well. Not necessarily better, but different. For direct ground combat units, only the highest levels of discipline, fitness, cohesion, esprit, and just plain grit are acceptable. Insist on making their conditions and standards conform to other military communities, and you weaken the temper of steel in these modern-day Spartans.

  • Relevant Wisdom: “It is fatal to enter a war without the will to win it.” General Douglas MacArthur.

9. Those who enlist in our military swear an oath to carry out dangerous, sometimes fatal duties. We call it “being in the service,” because it’s service to others….selfless sacrifices when the other option was often more comfort, freedom, individuality, and higher pay. Those who occupy the most senior ranks of the military must repay this selflessness with courage that is even rarer — moral courage. Civilian control of the military is indisputable, but its corollary is the ordinary principle that advice is sought, offered, and seriously considered before crucial decisions are made. My personal experience provides examples — the willful exclusion of military judgments in the build-up to the Iraq War with the attendant consequence that the invasion force was too shallow (thereby creating a vacuum which the insurgents quickly filled), and the decision to disband the Iraqi Army (the single most unifying institution in that country) after the collapse of the Baathist regime. A more recent example worth considering involves the Afghanistan withdrawal.

  • Relevant Wisdom: “There’s a great deal of talk about loyalty from the bottom to the top.  Loyalty from the top down is even more necessary and is much less prevalent.” General George S. Patton.

So what’s the problem? The problem today is one of both priorities and standards. We signal a dangerous shift in priorities (as just one example) when global warming, not preparedness to defeat aggressive global competitors, is considered the greatest problem for the Department of Defense and headquarters and rank inflation blossom out of control to the point that the support element greatly diminishes the ground combat element that wins wars. A problem of standards when every service and the Special Operations community dilute requirements based purely on merit in favor of predetermined outcomes to favor social engineering goals, and when new training requirements crowd out expectations and measurements of combat performance.

This principle is the most clearly and frequently violated in our current military environment. Although the examples are many, the most egregious sidestepping of scientific evidence occurred when the U.S. Marine Corps’ lengthy examination of the effects of integrated (coed) ground combat performance was refuted and ignored (often by those who hadn’t read it). This brings to mind the verbiage used in another context: “inconvenient truths.”

The critical tasks outlined above may omit some essentials, but these serve as a starter and perhaps as a wake-up call. We have witnessed extraordinary and sacrificial service by our Armed Forces — too good to squander by confusing our military’s purpose with those of individuals who don’t pay in blood for their errors. And too good for a foe to misjudge our intrinsic toughness. In any case, these are not Critical Military Theories; these are Critical Military Facts.

Greg Newbold is a retired Marine Corps Lieutenant General who commanded at every level from platoon to division.  His last assignment was as Director of Operations for the Joint Staff in the Pentagon. In retirement, he operated a science and technology think tank, and co-founded a private equity firm and consulting group. He has been a director on a dozen non-profit and for profit companies.

Originally posted 2022-02-16 11:49:12.

Current Events

We Are Screwed!

14 Comments

First it was gays and lesbians,, then it was the transgenders, and now the nonbinary. Had to stop and think about that one . I mean I knew , or at least I thought I knew, what binary meant, but just in case I went to old Man Webster. He says the noun binary means: ” a system of two stars that revolve around each other under their mutual gravitation.” Got that? 

Pentagon Quietly Looking into How Nonbinary Troops Could Serve Openly

18 Jan 2022
Military.com | By Rebecca Kheel

The Defense Department has quietly begun looking into how it can allow troops whose gender identity is nonbinary to serve openly in the military, three advocates familiar with the situation told Military.com.

The Pentagon has asked the Institute for Defense Analyses, or IDA, which operates federally funded research centers, to study the issue, said the advocates, one of whom requested anonymity to disclose a sensitive topic.

Someone who is nonbinary identifies as neither male nor female, often using “they” and “them” as their pronouns and marking their gender as “X” on forms that have that option.

It is unclear exactly how long the research has been going on, but SPARTA, an advocacy group for transgender troops, put researchers in touch with several nonbinary service members this month.

SPARTA President Bree Fram, an Air Force lieutenant colonel, likened the effort to the study the Pentagon asked Rand Corp. to conduct in 2015 before lifting the ban on transgender people serving in the military. Bet this LtCol was fun to work for.

“Speaking with non-binary troops and defense officials to understand what regulation changes may be necessary is a great first step,” Fram said in a statement to Military.com. “We are hopeful this will allow non-binary individuals to serve authentically and realize their full potential in the military.” Why should they, do we need them? 

Jennifer Dane, executive director of LGBTQ military advocacy group Modern Military Association of America, said members of her organization have also spoken with IDA and believes initial conversations about open service by nonbinary troops began last year.

Asked for comment, IDA referred Military.com to the Pentagon, which declined to comment “at this time as we do not provide information that may or may not be part of the Department’s research efforts.”

There is no explicit ban on nonbinary service members, but there is also no official recognition of their existence or guidance about how they should adhere to gendered policies, such as what uniform to wear or where to shower.

Advocates say policies allowing transgender troops to serve openly have made it somewhat easier for nonbinary service members, but add they still face hurdles because there is no official recognition of nonbinary gender identities.

If policies are changed to allow nonbinary troops to serve openly, it would be the latest move to make the military more inclusive for LGBTQ people. Again, why? Do we need them or do they need us to forward their agenda?

It’s been just over a decade since the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the law that banned open service by gay, lesbian and bisexual troops.

In 2016, the Obama administration lifted a ban on transgender troops. Former President Donald Trump reinstated the ban in 2019, but President Joe Biden lifted it last year shortly after taking office.

Dane said she is hopeful the research on nonbinary troops will lead to policy changes, but expressed concern that “there’s going to be a lot of hurdles, more so than transgender, I think, because there’s no binary on it.”

But as more people in younger generations identify as nonbinary, including in official documentation such as passports and driver’s licenses, Dane said an open service policy will be crucial to recruitment and retention. A 2021 study by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law found about 1.2 million U.S. adults identify as nonbinary 76% of whom are under age 29. Don’t you just love it when they spout figures like this? How did they determine these numbers? Certainly one has to trust them, I mean look from where they came. Ha!

“To get the talent, obviously, you’ve got to kind of get with the times,” Dane said. What talent are we talking about. You mean men and women to find, close with, and destroy the enemy?

Dane also pointed to a recent Air Force decision to allow email signatures to include someone’s pronouns, including they and them, as “opening the door to further conversation” about nonbinary troops. “Aim High”

The Biden administration has taken steps to be inclusive to nonbinary people at agencies besides the Pentagon.

The State Department last year issued a passport with an “X” gender marker for the first time.

The Department of Veterans Affairs also recently announced that transgender and nonbinary veterans can identify as such in their official department medical records.

While stressing that he could not speak to the military’s current research efforts, Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, which researches issues of gender and sexuality in the military, said he believes there are three categories of policies the military might have to consider as it looks into open nonbinary service.

The first are policies that likely won’t need to change at all, such as nondiscrimination policies that already ban discrimination based on gender identity.

The second are policies that could be made gender neutral, such as some uniform standards – changes Belkin said would benefit not just nonbinary troops but also female troops.

The third category are policies the military can’t or won’t make gender neutral, such as where to shower. In those cases, Belkin said, commanders could consult with the individual nonbinary service member about which gender’s standards would be more appropriate to follow. Oh, that’s nice, As a Nonbinary I get to choose with whom I shower.

“The opponents to nonbinary service, just like they did for Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and just like they did for Obama’s transgender policy, they’re going to insist that implementation is so complicated and so hard, in fact it’s so complicated that it can’t be done. That’s complete bull—-,” Belkin said. “Implementation is not complicated. Period, full stop. The military could easily pull this off tomorrow. It would not be a big deal.”

Aaron Belkin himself. Of course it would not be a big deal says Belkin. He knows this as a fact because he has experience in what military service? NONE!

 

Finally, you MUST watch this short video as it deals with the reality of the question, what is the DOD doing. Preparing the militaries for war or developing a national social club for the minority groups? Surely that will help with recruitments and retention. Watch and you decide. I believe we’re screwed.

Yes, I believe we are certainly screwed folks.

Originally posted 2022-01-19 10:40:04.

Current Events, Recent Posts

Is This The Plan?

6 Comments

For those unfamiliar, the Proceedings is a monthly journal published by the U.S. Naval Institute, which is a non-profit membership association serving a community of individuals who participate in an open forum to debate key issues in the Sea Services. There is no government support and they do not lobby for special interests. It is an  independent, professional military association with a mission, goals, and objectives that transcend political affiliations. In other words it “ain’t” woke  or non-woke. Every essay published in the Proceedings is very well documented and researched; they are strictly opinion pieces, but oh so interesting.

Please read this well thought-out and thoroughly documented essay that could very well be “The Plan.” Pay special attention to paragraph I have highlighted in blue. God help us!

Welcome to the U.S. Naval Institute

The home of influential debate since 1873

The U.S. Naval Institute provides an independent forum for those who seek to advance and strengthen the naval profession.

By Commander Norman R. Denny, U.S. Navy Reserve (Retired)
December 2021

Vol. 147/12/1426

COMMENTARY
For decades, the U.S. Marine Corps has attempted to tweak its force structure to enhance performance within a constrained funding environment. Rather than continuing to make changes around the margins, we would be better off revisiting a debate started following World War II and prematurely truncated during the Korean War. Does the United States need a light infantry force specializing in amphibious operations as a separate service, or should the Marine Corps be resized to the small police force it was prior to World War I and the amphibious organization incorporated into the Army?
The discussion after World War II was primarily prompted by President Harry S. Truman, along with General of the Army George C. Marshall (who later served as a Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense) and General of the Army and future President Dwight D. Eisenhower. While admittedly all three were Army (President Truman was a captain in World War I and rose to colonel and regimental commander in the reserves), they were clearly knowledgeable about the U.S. defense requirements. Although the discussion ceased with Korea, the question was effectively answered in 1957 by Brigadier General Victor Krulak in a letter to then Marine Corps Commandant General Randolph Pate, “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.”
Krulak was right in 1957, and what he said is even more true today. The Army, Navy, and Air Force are fully capable of performing the Marine Corps’ missions. The Army can assume the light infantry and amphibious assault responsibilities. The 1944 invasion at Normandy, the largest invasion in history, was solely an Army effort for the United States. As far as Marine Corps air, the Navy and Air Force are fully capable of close air support, while the Army can also execute the needed rotary and tilt wing missions. The nation wants the Marines. The question may be how to keep the aspects the nation wants, while eliminating the Marines as a separate branch and reaping the benefits of a simplified chain of command, smaller overall force, and another base realignment and closure (BRAC) evolution.

Deconstructing the Marine Corps

So, what aspects does the nation want? If the Marine Corps answers that question, the answer will probably be what it currently has, but with better funding. The informal Marine Corps propaganda apparatus, which President Truman begrudgingly complimented as second in the world only to Joseph Stalin’s, will demand the status quo. For the first time in a generation, the lack of significant numbers of former service members in Congress—coupled with national fatigue after fighting an unsuccessful, two-decade-long war—may allow this topic to be discussed seriously.

Perhaps the easiest part of the current Marine Corps to remove is aviation. There is unlikely to be a huge support community with the nation for Marine aviation, especially the fixed-wing aspects. For most Americans, their knowledge of Marine aviation is likely limited to watching Flying Leathernecks (1951) and The Great Santini (1979). Likewise, the average citizen may see no difference between Marine rotary and tilt-wing aviation and its Army equivalents. The average citizen likely sees no difference because the differences that do exist—primarily the ability to fly from ships—are minor. The nation does not need a separate Marine Corps aviation force and few in the nation likely know enough about it to want it. Eliminating Marine aviation by incorporating it into the Army and Navy would halve the size of the service, which currently is around 184,000 active-duty members.

The U.S. public is far less likely to accept the complete disappearance of the Fleet Marine Forces, the ubiquitous “Mud Marine.” Stripped of aviation, the Marine Corps would resemble the Army’s XVIII Airborne Corps, both in size (approximately 88,000 troops) and capabilities—both are light infantry, both are air-mobile, and both are capable of airborne and amphibious operations. Both consider themselves to be “elite” forces with strong esprit de corps. Transition of the Fleet Marine Forces into the Army’s yet-to-be created XIX Marine Amphibious Corps would retain the needed amphibious expertise, simplify the chain of command, and could be done in a way that retains many of the unique elements that make a Marine a Marine.

Establishing the Army’s XIX Marine Amphibious Corps at Camp Pendleton on the west coast would give the nation a light infantry “center of excellence” on each coast. Reducing the Marine Corps Commandant to a three-star general, mirroring the XVIII Corps commander, would help reduce the gradual increase in rank structure seen over the past 50 years across the Department of Defense (DoD). Army traditions are likely flexible enough to retain many of the cherished Marine Corps’ accoutrement, like the dress blues and the eagle, globe and anchor emblem. The Army airborne troops currently have their maroon berets and cavalry units have their cowboy hats and spurs. Also, if the XVIII Corps can informally use the term “top” for the command first sergeant, the XIX Corps might well use “gunny” for E-7s. Likewise, young men and women could enlist to be Marines and continue to go through Parris Island for boot camp.

Incorporating the Marine Corps into the Army would significantly simplify the DoD chain of command and eliminate the need for the Commandant to go to the Army and beg for future armor and artillery support. Likewise, the Marines of the XIX Corps would have an equal chance of obtaining any new capabilities integrated into the Army, while potentially allowing Army leaders to reduce the operational tempo of both Corps, although both will still be rapid-deployment units.

To say that Marines would resist incorporation into the Army and Navy is a gross understatement. However, there are concessions that might make it slightly less toxic for the Marines and less objectionable to the public and Congress. Allowing Marine fixed-wing pilots inducted into the Navy to finish out their career using Marine Corps ranks and uniforms would likely help and given the Navy’s history of mixed uniforms, would probably go unnoticed by the public. Similar concessions for the generation of current Marines incorporated into the Army could potentially ease their transition. But regardless of how successful these mitigation efforts are, the DoD would likely be looking at a decade of angst and occasional confusion. The key will be Congress, which will have to rewrite legislation, including U.S. Title 10. As mentioned previously, there are fewer Marines in Congress today than at any time since the early 1950s (there are 15 Marine Corps veterans in the 117th Congress). This, coupled with the inevitable savings from another round of base closures, might be enough to see the initiative championed by President Truman and advocated by Generals Eisenhower and Marshall completed.

General Krulak correctly stated the United States does not need but wants the Marine Corps. For the best interests of the nation, the DoD should at least learn if the U.S. public and Congress will accept a XIX Marine Amphibious Corps. If the answer is yes, then a myriad of questions will have to be answered: Does the nation need two separate light infantry corps? Which Marine Corps installations will be closed or reduced? How many Marine Corps military and civilian personnel, made redundant by the changes, will be discharged? And what, if anything, will remain as a Navy police force? If the topic is given a fair hearing, the answers may surprise us all.

Commander Norman R. Denny, U.S. Navy Reserve (Retired)

Commander Denny is a retired reserve naval intelligence officer with service beginning in Vietnam in 1972 as an aviation electrician’s mate and retiring in 2010 as a commander. In addition to his reserve service, he was a civilian electronics engineer for the Army Missile Command and an intelligence analyst for the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), with four deployments to Iraq. After retiring from DIA, he served as a senior intelligence analyst for U.S. Central Command with one additional Iraq tour.

Originally posted 2021-12-13 12:27:55.