Tag Archives: Marine Corps

Current Events

Finally!

4 Comments

FINALLY!  Generals from all services are beginning to speak out against what CMC is doing to the Marine Corps. Many have met with him, but state, he took notes, asked no questions, and changed nothing. This first article is from a Marine I know very well. I was his Company GySgt for a short while, until I was commissioned and  stayed in the same company; he was a Capt at the time. I served with him again when he was a Colonel and  G-1 of the 2d Marine Division. Then again when I had 2/6 and was going to become 2/8, he was my regimental CO. Then yet again when he was a fresh caught  BG at LFTCLant. So, I know him fairly well.

I and several others pegged him as a future general when he was nothing but a captain at 8th & I. The smartest, most capable Marine officer I ever met throughout my career. When he made four star he was assigned as  Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic and Commander in Chief, U.S. Atlantic Command. Consider the significance of that assignment. The first time ever that a non-naval officer was assigned to that billet. He controlled all the  forces, including the navy ships throughout the Atlantic!

General Jack knows his stuff, so I am heartened by the fact he has finally come to life. Someone had  best listen to him, specifically another four star named Berger!

Wasteful Spending, a Shrinking Force and the Marine Corps’s Big Bet

The Marines may be “the only branch adapting fast for the future” (“U.S. Defense After Ukraine,” Review & Outlook, March 8), but what future and how wisely? The military’s poor record of predicting the next war urges maintaining flexibility. This has long been a strength of the Marine Corps, which maintained itself for decades as a combined-arms force in readiness, rapidly deployable, balanced and able to organize for any mission. This has proved its worth to the nation at all levels of crisis and conflict.

Yet today the Marine Corps is betting all on a conflict with China in the Western Pacific, to the neglect of other contingencies, creating littoral regiments to be scattered in small units across island chains to engage Chinese ships with missiles as part of a campaign for sea control. To pay the bill for this new vision of war, the Marine Corps has already got rid of all its tanks. It is reducing cannon artillery from 21 to five active batteries, eliminating three infantry battalions and reducing those remaining by a third in manpower, and reducing air power and other combat support commensurately. The war in Ukraine shows the folly of this. Or should someone tell the Russians and Ukrainians these systems are all obsolete?

These initiatives risk turning the Marine Corps into a niche force optimized for one conflict that is unlikely to occur, while hobbling its ability to meet security challenges that are certain. This is not what the nation needs or expects from its Marine Corps.

Gen. J.J. (Jack) Sheehan, USMC (Ret.)

Alexandria, Va.

Mr. Sheehan was NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic (1994-97). How dare the WSJ refer to this Marine as “Mr.”

Another general speaks out in the same WSJ article.

The editorial board has been right on its defense analysis for months. Now it is correct about our defense-budget outlook, especially the relationship between the creeping inefficiencies that have plagued the Pentagon and our need to modernize.

If Vladimir Putin is successful, he will not stop at Ukraine. Nor will Xi Jinping stop at Taiwan. America must be ready to combat these threats and adjust to the end of the post-Cold War order. That will require more defense spending—a reality that our NATO allies are coming to grasp as well. But if we don’t get more bang for the buck, these spending increases won’t yield the capabilities we need to defend our freedoms, which are at risk.

Though we spend more today in constant dollars than we did at the peak of the Reagan buildup, we have a smaller force by all measures. The largest drivers of this ever-shrinking fighting force are a broken acquisition system that costs more, takes longer and produces less; the excessive amount of money tied up in the Pentagon’s massive, layered overhead and support functions; and the fully burdened and life-cycle costs of the all-volunteer force, with its outdated personnel management, compensation and retirement programs.

Without reforms, we will not improve our capabilities in either the quality or quantity necessary. The Pentagon and Congress need to establish performance goals that ensure we are better, faster and cheaper than our adversaries. The focus needs to be on outputs, not only inputs.

Congress should also fund the government through a regular process instead of the insanity of never-ending continuing resolutions, which already cost the Defense Department close to $40 billion in purchasing power in this fiscal year. The Pentagon and defense-industrial base need steady, predictable funding. Budget chaos is no way to deter our adversaries.

Maj. Gen. Arnold Punaro, USMC (Ret.)

McLean, Va.

Mr. Punaro is author of “The Ever-Shrinking Fighting Force.”

Your editorial observes that President Jimmy Carter “did a 180-degree turn . . . and began a defense buildup.” This is a bit generous. Alarmed by the enormous Soviet military program and the overthrow of the shah, NATO countries agreed to each undertake a 3% increase in real defense spending. Yet when Mr. Carter offered his budget for fiscal year 1980, his defense numbers were closer to half that, which his spokesmen rationalized with the fatuous claim that the part relevant to NATO had met the target.

In the face of this foot-dragging, two “defense Democrats,” Sens. Ernest Hollings and Sam Nunn, took matters into their own hands, introducing an amendment to raise the overall number by 3%, as pledged, and by 5% the next year. The Carter administration lobbied strenuously against this, yet it passed 55-42. This began the buildup that was carried much further by the Reagan administration, contributing to victory in the Cold War.

Joshua Muravchik

Wheaton, Md.

Mr. Muravchik was executive director of the Coalition for a Democratic Majority (1977-79).

STRENGTH    RESPECTS    STRENGTH. Always has, always will, Amen

Originally posted 2022-03-12 10:09:43.

Current Events

A Tribute

4 Comments

Another time for a respite, away from the sad commentaries and news of the destruction of our once great Nation. I received the below from Greg, a brother Marine and constant contributor to this blog. Thank you and God bless you Greg! What a beautiful tribute to one of our brothers who is now guarding the streets.

Enjoy and have a great weekend everybody.

Another Marine reporting

By: G. Maresca

 

Robert Jasinski, better known to his old platoon mates as Jazz, loved God, his family, the nation he so faithfully served and the eagle, globe, and anchor he proudly earned so long ago. To Jazz, the Marine Corps’ motto of Semper Fidelis – always faithful – was not just some benevolent military proverb, but a way of life.

Once we reconnected after a nearly 20-year hiatus, we would see each other by attending the annual Army/Navy game. Being the most prestigious rivalry game of college football that there is, the best and most anticipated part of the day for me was always seeing my old friend and once again breaking bread with him. For a brief few hours we got to feel like young men again, Marines, surrounded by all this pomp and tradition wrapped in this timeless venue that seemed more like a giftwrapped time machine for two aging veterans.

The last time we were together, he told me he still had that voicemail I had left years before when we reconnected.  At first, I thought he was kidding, but in retrospect it made perfect sense. In our last communication on his 60th birthday less than a month ago, he reminisced writing: “It has been a wonderful 60 years!  I think of all I’ve learned and the places I have been to. But nothing ever comes closer to being home with family. I miss my parents especially, but I know they are with me.  I dream of yesterday, of my time in the Corps.  We have had so many great examples of such good people in our lives.  I cannot forget to always reflect upon that, as I am sure you do also.”

It was poetic as it was prophetic.

I can see him arriving at the Pearly Gates commiserating with St. Peter about how another Marine was reporting-in, while giving Our Lord’s lead apostle an earful of intercessory prayer and then finally requesting mast for the well-being of his family and the nation he so dearly loved and served faithfully.

Robert Jasinski is on familiar turf once again back on point watching and waiting for the rest of us. I will miss him but take solace knowing he remains in good company until we meet again.

Godspeed, my brother, requiesce in pace.

 

Originally posted 2022-01-29 14:04:00.

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.

Current Events, Recent Posts

My Open Letter to Commandant Berger

221 Comments

Okay gang, here it is, read, enjoy or not, and PLEASE give me your comments — I am not thin skinned. What a sad commentary to have to write, but I had to!

Dear Commandant Berger,

Sir, I pen this open letter to you, not as any form of disrespect, but only one of disagreement—albeit a rather loud and harsh disagreement. I have followed with keen interest much of what you have been carrying out as our 38th Commandant. I have hesitated writing to you since I know there is nothing I or any of my fellow retirees can do to change your mind. We have been watching and reading with much dismay your actions aimed in only one direction—you know, and we know where that is.

Firstly, you are surely wondering who this seemingly brash retiree is writing me? Well succinctly, I am a retired Marine just short of thirty-six years—ten enlisted and twenty-six as an officer. Having received a combat commission as a Sgt during my first tour in Vietnam, I eventually retired October 1993, so I was into my 23rd year when you were commissioned in 1981. I also note from you biography we are fellow Marylanders, you in Woodbine, me in Inverness.

In 1982 I was—as a senior Major—assigned as CO of the Corp’s then largest recruiting station—Chicago. I went in as a “fireman,” my predecessor had been fired. Chicago had ninety-two canvassing recruiters; the only station close to us was Los Angeles with seventy-eight. These two stations required a LtCol as CO because they needed an Assistant Operations Officer to help manage a pool that numbered into the thousands at any given time. If my memory serves me correctly, we annually shipped around 4,000 recruits to MCRD, San Diego.

I knew nothing about recruiting when assigned to this command. However, I was blessed to have a Deputy Director, an ADPP, and two Recruiter Instructors who were recruiting SME’s in every respect—they taught this Grunt Major how to spell recruiting.

With the help of many outstanding Marines, both canvassing recruiters and “A” billets, Chicago slowly rose from a failing station to be the top station for nineteen consecutive months. Because of the mentoring I had by so many experts, including the LtCol running MRRE at HQ, I believe by the time I was reassigned three years later, I was among the select few of the most knowledgeable 8402 officers in the Corps. It was the toughest assignment I ever had during my career—including combat. I learned much about the heritage, values, and the respect Americans had for the word Marine—and about myself as a leader.

So, why am I telling you all this? It isn’t meant to be boastful for I am certain any dedicated Marine would have been able to do the same with such expert mentoring and hardworking recruiters. No, I tell you because recruiting is in my veins. I bleed recruiting. I understand it better than most—including your general running the recruiting command. I think about it often. I have visited RS’s, spoke at poolee functions, and I started and ran a National Young Marine unit in IL for years. So your new “plan”—so cagily named “Semper Fi”—where your recruiting general has asked all veterans to be “faithful” to their Corps and assist in the recruiting effort—which I know is not doing well—really “woke” me up. Pun intended. The sheer audacity of such a request is unbelievable. Do you really think the retired community is going to take up that challenge? If you do, you sir have lost touch with your retired Marines.

I communicate regularly with 100’s of Marines, former, active, and especially retired—the entire non-active Marine force are in agreement that you are destroying “our” Corps. Sadly, I can longer speak with recruiters or poolees without lying, and I will not do that.

I say this with a heavy heart, but I have recently talked to one of our super stars from the Young Marine unit out of joining the Corps. That’s all he wanted to do when he graduated; he wanted to be like me. I even gave him some of my uniforms to wear in the unit. My conscience and respect for him would not allow him to do that—he was too good for that. So he took my advice and went on to college in hopes that by the time he graduates in four years you will not have totally destroyed our Corps. Maybe, just maybe, someone will come along and right all your wrongs.

Your actions are—as you state—”in the interest of bringing our Corps into the modern society” are contrary to everything our Corps has stood for since its birth. Your push for sexual preferences for women, unisex uniforms, women in the combat arms, allowing transgenders, relaxed female grooming standards and acceptance of despicable tattoos, fraternization at all levels, the vapid attacks on the very culture of the Corps, and its alleged racist/sexist heritage is unacceptable to those who have worn the EGA. I have not mentioned the draconian reduction or elimination of combat units and equipment, the destruction of the MAGTF, or your latest thoughts on recruiting cyber experts at elevated ranks without having to attend boot camp or OCS

Enlisting high tech people without having to go through boot camp or OCS? Having never been enlisted, you cannot “feel” the rage your Marines will experience. Those two “initiations” have always been the key ingredient that banded us together and made us a family forever i.e., earning that sacred EGA for life. I spent tours as a DI at Parris Island, and a Sgt Instructor at OCS—I know the intensity with which Marines hold that honor. I took part in instilling it.

Eighteen months of maternity leave. Sounds great—the female gender love it. May I asked which Marine, male or female, will do her job while she is home with her newborn for one and half years? Let’s be honest and ask of what value is this Woman Marine to the Corps? Joins for three years and spends one half of her enlistment on maternity leave. Considering recruit training, MCT, and then MOS training, you may have her for a year or even less. Bad move general.

Allowing a Sikh Major to wear his religious head garb and go unshaven? (Update: Doing more research after a call from a dear brother, it appears this dirt bag is a selected captain, not  a major. I can’t find where I got it that he was a selected major? I highlighted and expanded the pic of him and sure enough he is wearing 1st Lt bars. Sorry.) Are you kidding me? Do you have any idea what other Marines are thinking when they see him? No, I’m sure you don’t, and you obviously don’t care. Your changes are all directed towards pleasing every minority and the hell with everyone else. Is that what you mean about bringing the Corps into the “modern society?” General, that is your modern society, not mine or that of the retired community.

You are watering down our Corps, so we look like everyone else. We never looked like everyone else—we never wanted to look like everyone else. Remember the ad, If everyone could be a Marine, it wouldn’t be the Marines. America doesn’t need a second Army, America has always loved her Marine Corps, but that is slowly changing—some look at us as victims now. It’s amazing the questions I get from knowledgeable people when I am out and about wearing my Marine ball cap. You think America isn’t watching? Guess again general.

And what’s this about your comments concerning the Army National Guard recruiting our discharged Marines? Of course they do, why not? They are trained, disciplined, and understand honor, integrity, and commitment. Plus the ANG are not going woke like the Armed Forces. Another of my super stars in the Young Marine unit, a female, could not get into the PLC program at her college, so she went ROTC and is having the time of her life, getting rapid promotions employing the leadership principles she learned in the Young Marines. Remember them general, there are eleven of them in case you never learned them or forgot them.

Moreover, you complain about the other services recruiting our prior service Marines. Again, why not? But you say some of them are disappointed and are asking to come back into the fold. Did any of your recruiting gurus dig into what it was they were dissatisfied with the branch they chose? Probably not. My bet is they missed what the Corps had to offer such as pride, honor, being part of something great, and of course wearing the hard earned EGA. I will watch this action closely for I believe if you allow them a “streamlined” method of coming back, they will find themselves again disappointed by all the changes you have made to the Corps they remembered and loved.

Are we soon to become obsolete and folded into the Army? I mean they have artillery, so we didn’t need them. Is that your plan—we think so. Look above you general—what is the service of your bosses? I am sure they applaud your actions as it falls right in with their desires.

Finally, recruiting older Marines, not 18–20 year old’s as they haven’t achieved full maturity yet —so you say. Tell that to those of us who served in WW I or II, Korea, Vietnam, or the Sandbox. I know and I would “think” your generals would know what type of young man seeks out the Corps. The one we have always—to use the new PC term—vetted and made him a Marine for life. Now you don’t want him. You want the misanthropes, the gender confused, the lost souls, the weak minded, and those we know are poorly suited to the battlefield.

In closing, it appears your changes are destroying everything the United States Marine Corps has stood for in 246 years—the very fabric of the Corps. What happened to “We don’t promise you a rose garden,” or “The Few, The Proud, The Marines?” Now it appears it’s, “Come Join Our diverse organization, all are welcome.”

As I said at the beginning, I mean no disrespect to you general. I know I speak for the vast majority of the retired community when I disagree with all you are doing to “our” Corps. It seems you just don’t know how to say “No” to anything unless it is to diminish our traditional values. How dare you call our heritage racist and sexist. Tell that to four of the last six Sergeants Major of the Marine Corps who were black. My mantra was always, “Mission, Men, Myself.” Having read your Bio and watched intensely what you have done and are doing to our Marine Corps, I must place you in the category of a term I learned long ago as a PFC—Cocker Spaniel Marine! If you are unfamiliar with that term perhaps you need to read my book, We’ll All Die as Marines.”

Semper Fi General (if you can be),
Jim Bathurst
Col, USMC (Ret)
1958–1993

Postscript. You will probably never see this letter, but maybe, just maybe, someone will read it and find a way to get it on your desk. I hope so!

Originally posted 2021-12-05 16:31:52.

Recent Posts

The Corps Part VI

10 Comments

Here is more of CMC’s “Talent Management Plan.” There is that word “Management” again. Seems there are many more “things” attached to this plan than meets the eye. This one will surely shake up the retired community even more than Parts I-V. Read on and cry Marines.

Marine Corps plan calls for some future Marines to skip boot camp.

By Jeff Schogol from Task and Purpose

“We Make Marines,” proclaims a banner at Marine Corps Recruit of  Depot Parris Island, South Carolina, summarizing the service’s ethos that recruits have to prove they have the mental and physical toughness to serve in the Corps by surviving boot camp. By the time men and women receive their Eagle, Globe, and Anchor, they have proven that they have the physical and mental toughness to earn the coveted title of “Marine.”

But Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger wants “exceptionally talented Americans” to be able to bypass the Corps’ traditional rites of passage and begin serving “at a rank appropriate to their education, experience, and ability.”

Berger’s radical new Talent Management plan calls for allowing civilians with critical skills to be able to join the Marine Corps “laterally” as opposed to starting at the very bottom as new recruits.

“As a result of the significant lead time necessary to build expertise, we are unable to respond quickly to changes in the security environment that demand urgent course corrections,” Berger wrote in his plan, which was first made public on Nov. 3. “The rapid rise in importance of the cyber domain, for instance, has challenged us to find creative ways to quickly build critical skills at mid-career and senior levels. Unless we find a means to quickly infuse expertise into the force – at the right ranks – I am concerned that advances in artificial intelligence and robotics, among other fields where the speed of technological change is exponential, will force us into a reactive posture.”

Berger made clear that this option would be limited to certain military occupational specialties, adding it would be “difficult to imagine a scenario” in which a civilian could skip boot camp in order to join a combat arms field like infantry or artillery.

He also wrote that Marines no longer on active duty who now have “critical career experience” should be able to return to service at a higher rank.

“For example, I can envision a Marine who left active duty as a captain or corporal rejoining our ranks as a lieutenant colonel or gunnery sergeant, respectively, after spending 5-7 years working in a cyber or IT field where the service currently lacks capacity,” Berger wrote. “With the right education and experience, that same corporal might also be eligible to return as a mid-grade or senior officer.”

The new talent management plan could involve a “cultural shift” in how the Marine Corps attracts the best possible people, said Lt. Gen. David Ottignon, deputy commandant for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.

For example, how will Marines who have gone through The Crucible at Parris Island or San Diego respond to the idea of allowing civilians to bypass boot camp to become Marine Corps cyber experts? Ottignon pondered with reporters on Monday.

“How does that line up to a culture of a Marine Corps at roughly 180,000 Marines that go through this exacting training that makes us all one in the same – uniformity in what we do?” Ottignon said. “That’s a cultural thing that we’re going to have to work through.”

The Marine Corps has been here before. Former Commandant Gen. Robert Neller initially considered allowing civilians with cyber skills to become Marines without going through boot camp in 2017.

But Neller faced a conundrum: He did not want to bring in people who did not meet Marine Corps grooming standards.

Then-Marine Brig. Gen Loretta Reynolds, who led Marine Corps Forces Cyberspace Command at the time, recalled in 2016 that Neller once asked her: “Do I have to start letting guys with purple hair and earrings in?”

Ultimately, the Marine Corps decided to establish a Cyber Auxiliary division of civilian volunteers, not Marines. “You can have purple hair, too, but no EGA [Eagle, Globe, and Anchor],” Neller said in 2019.

The question of whether cyber experts who bypass boot camp can hold the title of Marine has not gone away.

“That’s clearly what the commandant has laid out as something to discover and analyze,” Ottignon said on Monday. “And I don’t know the answer to it yet. I don’t think the commandant knows the answer to it yet – other than we know there’s exquisite talent out there.”

That’s why Ottignon’s team is coming up with various options for exactly how the Marine Corps can attract people with the skills that the Corps needs most, he said.

“We think – we could be wrong – you could take a young man or woman, let’s say out of George Mason University that works in cybersecurity and sees opportunities in government; and we show them: Look, no kidding, you’re going to be on an offensive/defensive team and get skill sets; that might be attractive to them. His [Berger’s] point is: How do you do that; and that’s the cultural piece that I offered to you.”
Jeff Schogol

Jeff Schogol is the senior Pentagon reporter for Task & Purpose. He has covered the military for 15 years. You can email him at schogol@taskandpurpose.com, direct message @JeffSchogol on Twitter, or reach him on WhatsApp and Signal at 703-909-6488. Contact the author here.

Perhaps unknown to many we do have people serving in the Corps today and have been for many years who never went through boot camp. They are part of the Marine Corps Band i.e., “The President’s Own” at Marine Barracks, 8th & I, Washington, D.C.  They are recruited annually, contracted for four years, enter as E-6’s, and wear a harp in their chevrons vice cross riffles. I recall when at RS, Chicago, we were given an annual quota to recruit musicians and set them up for a specific date when someone from the Band would come and give them an audition. If my memory serves me correctly we did have a few during my three years who were accepted.

Of course, there are also actual full-fledged Marines serving in the Band. They came from Bands and D&B’s throughout the Corps. Of course they come in at whatever rank they are and they do wear cross rifles in the chevrons. A very good friend of mine, GySgt D B Wright with whom I served at the Barracks was a member of the Band for several years having been recruited from the Barracks’ D&B. I am certain DB will comment on this post.

There is, of course, a reason for needing these members. They are seriously accomplished musicians and some play instruments not found in a normal Marine Band or D&B. The President’s Own plays at all White House presidential events and must be capable of providing peculiar groups depending on the event and who is the guest of honor e.g., a string quartet capable of playing tunes from different countries all over the world.

They are; however, never deployed anywhere in the world, will never ever see combat or anything thing similar. In fact, the president, I believe, actually owns this Band, not the CO, MB Washington, D.C.

Why would an accomplished musician take  four year hitch starting out as an E-6 you ask? Think of the impact on one’s resume having played for presidents  at the White House in the famous Marine Corps Band. That’s huge.

So, does this set a precedent for CMC to bring in folks without the requisite boot camp and MCT. As far as this Marine goes . . . absolutely NOT!

Originally posted 2021-11-29 08:28:39.