Tag Archives: Marines

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.

Current Events

Anonymous

11 Comments

Still working on my letter, but in the meantime,  a quick post from a very old and dear friend who never served . A school classmate who lived up the street from me; a fishing and camping friend. He follows the blog, but since he has no experience in the military he doesn’t feel qualified to comment. So, I will post it for him as Anonymous. I believe he has an interesting theory. Your thoughts? 

I’ve read every post…don’t nearly understand the jargon, but I’ve formed a crazy opinion of what’s going on, so I won’t embarrass myself by exposing it to the general group. It’s this…someone is trying to “blend” the Corps out of existence. What happens if you begin and continue to add water to your favorite Scotch? It will lose its quality. In the case of the MC, I don’t buy this crap of “making it look like our society”. If they continue with the women, homos, Sikhs, etc., the Corps will soon look like any other branch of the service or your favorite high-tech corporation (pick one, FAANG maybe?). In such an event it will be easy for the “management” boys to say how it would be so cost-effective to “merge” the Corps into Branch X. And just like that—over 200 years of history actually becomes history.

Your CMC strikes me as acting like a Trojan Horse. He doesn’t believe that America needs a Corps that we citizen civilians have always admired and respected. He and his fellow Copperheads won’t risk the outcry of dissolving the MC in one fell swoop, so they are going through this charade of “making it look like the rest of America”. I personally don’t understand why they don’t see the value of a highly trained strike force that would be available to serve our country. There are so many potential hotspots as we speak. Ye gods!

I’m looking forward to your next “open letter to___”.

 

Originally posted 2021-12-04 10:26:24.

Current Events

The Corps Part VII

Of course the ANG wants those discharged Marines. First of all they are already trained, disciplined, tough, honorable, and do not have to put up with so much of the woke-ness found in the the active duty services. I happen to know this as a fact. One of my super stars in the Young Marine unit I ran in northern Illinois tried to get into the Corps’ PLC program but was on meds for OCD and was declined, I even wrote the OSO a letter highlighting this young ladies attributes, but it was to no avail. So she went to college under the ROTC program and is now active in ANG and loves it. She says they are not having to put up with all the woke-ness as is the Army. And, as expected, she has risen to a super star in her unit — and is off her meds!.

Why the Marine Corps wants to tank National Guard recruiting efforts

By Philip Athey

From the Marine Times

Historically the Marine Corps has had the lowest retention rate in the Department of Defense, as it intentionally has only kept 25 percent of first-term Marines.

As a result, the National Guard and other services have seen Marines fresh off a first enlistment as fertile recruiting ground, allowing the Guard to swell its ranks with already experienced troops.

The practice is so common the Army National Guard even has recruiters specifically trained and tasked to recruit prior service Marines.

But as the Corps looks to field an older more experienced force, it wants that to change.

“If we do our job right, they’ll never go to the Army or the National Guard to begin with,” Maj. Gen. Jason Bohm, the commander for Marine Corps Recruiting Command, told reporters on Monday.

On Nov. 3, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger released his talent management vision aimed at improving retention by treating Marines “like human beings instead of inventory.”

For those who left the Corps just to realize the grass is not always greener in the Army combat uniform, the Corps wants you back.

“Quite often, not to disparage any of the other services, but we do hear from (prior service Marines) saying ‘This isn’t quite what I expected, is there any chance I can come back?’” Bohm said.

LOL this is so funny. Did any of these so called SME’s in the Marine Corps Recruiting Command stop to consider why that Marine was dissatisfied with the service he/she opted for after the Corps? Perhaps, just perhaps, they missed the loyalty, comradery, pride, brother/sister hood, familial closeness, traditional values, being part of something good, and the sheer joy and honor of wearing the Marine uniform. But now that the Corps is going the way of the other services who started this woke-ness crap way  prior to General Berger arriving will they find the same atmosphere in the “new” Corps? I think so. What happened to the motto: If everyone could be a Marine, it wouldn’t be the Marines, or no one promised you a Rose Garden, or even The Few, the Proud, the Marines. Forget that it’s not important anymore . . . . . I guess?

There already are methods for prior service Marines to return to the Corps, but Bohm said it was not particularly easy.

The Corps will look to streamline that process and welcome the lost sheep back into the Marine Corps’ fold.

The Corps also will improve its efforts to inform Marines who are getting out on ways they can reenter the force if circumstances allow them to return or if they simply change their mind about getting out.

“We are certainly going to maintain contact with those people,” Bohm said.

At least for now the Army National Guard does not seem to expect much to change on its end.

“The Army National Guard Recruiting and Retention Force always seeks to recruit and retain the best available talent for the Guard,” Christina Mundy said on behalf of Army National Guard Recruiting and Retention in a Tuesday email.

Marine Corps Times has previously asked the National Guard for numbers on how many prior service Marines it enlists each year and has not heard back.

While the Marine Corps is looking to improve overall retention, the Corps is planning to downsize over the next few years and has completely eliminated certain military occupational specialties.

In 2021 the Corps had an authorized active-duty end strength of 181,200 Marines. By 2030 the Corps looks to shrink the active duty force to roughly 174,000 Marines, the smallest the Corps has been since 2002.

To slowly reduce numbers while improving retention the Marine Corps expects that it will reduce its recruitment goals.

As part of its redesign to faceoff against China the Marine Corps has eliminated its tank battalions, active duty law enforcement battalions and its bridging units.

Marines with military occupational specialties that were eliminated had been offered easy transfer into the Army, where tank battalions are still going strong.

Berger said the Corps needs an older and more mature force to handle the increased complexities of a potential war against a near-peer opponent.

On the future battlefield Marines will have more responsibilities pushed down to lower levels than ever before.

”The machine gunner who is also corpsman, a medic, also has to be able to talk to MQ-9 UAVs and bring in ordnance and understand the satellite connection that is required to do that,” Berger told reporters in early November.

The Corps is also leaning on updated science that shows people do not fully mature until they are in their early to mid-twenties and that peak physical performance does not happen until someone is in their late 20s.

“We based our force on an assumption that (18 to 20-year-olds) were indestructible supermen,” Berger said. “Turns out it’s not. We don’t peak physically or cognitively until our late 20s.”

“We can’t have a force full of 18 to 21-year-olds,” Berger said. Really? Tell that to the Marines of WW I, WW II, Korea, or Vietnam. I wonder how old these Marines are?

Recruits with Delta Company, 1st Recruit Training Battalion, run up the Reaper during the crucible at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California. (Cpl. Grace J. Kindred/Marine Corps)

There are so much coming out of CMC’s mouth, I can’t keep up with them, Therefore, I’ll simply provide links to some of the “stuff,” and should you desire to lower your blood pressure even more please click on the link below and read more of this goobly-gook. I find no reason to publish this as a post. It’s simply filled with more BS.

Smarter Not Harder

Originally posted 2021-11-30 08:37:51.

Current Events

The Corps Part V

1 Comment

LOL. This one is funny even if it is a tragedy. I can see it coming. Cpl  Finicnick reports to his company commander that his Lt is an asshole and uses drugs. It matters not that Cpl Finicknick was a Sgt six months ago. OMG This reminds me of the HQMC imposed HumRel classes in 1970  that required us to sit in groups of officers and enlisted and everyone was allowed to say whatever they wanted. LOL, That did not happen in our battalion thanks to Major John I. Hopkins (MajGen, USMC (Ret) Deceased). God Bless him.  But I heard absolute horror stories from my peers from other units.

The Marine Corps wants junior Marines to have a say in who their leaders are

“Beginning in 2022, we will institute 360-degree feedback for leaders, on a pilot basis” says Commandant Berger.

BY  | PUBLISHED NOV 24, 2021 8:51 AM

Junior Marines could help determine whether officers and senior enlisted leaders are selected for promotion as part of the Marine Corps’ efforts to revamp its evaluation process.

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger is calling for promotion boards to incorporate “360-degree feedback” into their decisions about which leaders will be selected to advance to the next rank.

Berger’s direction on using 360-degree feedback is part of his Talent Management plan, which was released on Nov. 3. The plan also requires the Marine Corps to retain more first-term Marines and creates the possibility that civilians with critical skills could bypass boot camp to join the service.   This will be Part VI, so stay tuned.

Currently, promotion boards largely base those decisions on Marines’ fitness reports, which only include notes on their performance from two of their supervisors, Berger wrote. In some cases, those supervisors do not serve in the same location as the Marines they are evaluating or don’t interact with them often.

“[Three hundred and sixty]-degree feedback, by contrast, includes the perspectives of a larger number of seniors, peers, and juniors and can include unflattering feedback that is prohibited from inclusion in a Marine’s FITREP,” Berger wrote.

This type of evaluation is already in use elsewhere in the Defense Department and it has shown to be effective in “identifying traits of toxic leadership” and helping to reduce the chances that toxic leaders will be promoted, according to Berger’s plan.

“Beginning in 2022, we will institute 360-degree feedback for leaders, on a pilot basis,” Berger wrote. “This feedback will be made available to the Marine and their reporting senior, with the aim of encouraging leadership growth. No later than 2024, we will incorporate 360-degree feedback into the selection board and assignments processes to ensure that this important input is properly considered by those selecting and assigning our future leaders.”

The Marine Corps has looked for lessons from business leaders as well as other military branches as it developed the pilot program for the 360-degree reviews, said Yvonne Reed-Carlock, a spokeswoman for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.

“The purpose of implementing 360-degree leadership reviews is to equip Marine leaders with real, honest feedback to identify their hidden strengths and unidentified weaknesses and to provide them with professional coaching to further develop and advance the capabilities of our force,” Reed-Carlock said. “To accomplish this, the pilot will solicit input from a Marine’s seniors, peers and subordinates to fully inform the picture provided to the Marine.”

The pilot program early next year is expected to include about 200 people to fine-tune the questions leaders are asked and to make sure that the right type of feedback is collected, said Lt. Col. Jim Armstrong, who works for the Marine Corps’ Manpower Management Division.

The Marines taking part in the pilot program will be field grade officers – majors, lieutenant colonels, and colonels – as well as senior enlisted leaders such as master sergeants and sergeants major, said Armstrong, who serves as the operations officer for the officer assignments branch.

Based on the pilot program’s results, Marines at other ranks and leadership positions could also receive 360-degree feedback, Armstrong said.

A 360-degree evaluation system is meant to prevent the promotion of senior leaders who may later be deemed unfit to command, such as one colonel who asked a former captain if she had been drinking before she was raped rather than referring her to trained staff for help. More robust performance evaluations may have also identified a brigadier general as a toxic leader before his subordinates reported him to the Department of Defense Inspector General’s Office, which determined that he had “disparaged, bullied, humiliated them, and devalued women.” 

For years, proponents have been calling for the Marine Corps to adopt a 360-degree evaluation system, but other military branches such as the Navy and the Air Force have used this type of feedback sparingly and for certain leaders and civilian executives.

After the Fiscal 2014 National Defense Authorization Act required the defense secretary to look into using this sort of feedback in evaluations, a study from the RAND Corporation recommended against doing so. Wow, sanity from the RAND Corporation for a change.
A sergeant instructor, evaluates officer candidates during close order drill at Marine Corps Officer Candidates School aboard Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, June 21, 2019. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Phuchung Nguyen)

Many of the people whom RAND interviewed for the study, including experts within the Department of Defense, said they did not feel that 360-degree feedback was the best tool to combat toxic leadership, especially in cases where toxic leaders had no desire to change their ways.

“Participants again pointed to other ways of finding these people that would be much more cost-effective (such as through anonymous reporting channels, climate surveys, informal discussion, or inspector general complaints),” the study says.

While federal agencies have used 360-degree feedback as part of coaching and mentoring, the government as a whole – including the Defense Department – has been reluctant to include this type of feedback for promotions, said Katie Kuzminski, a senior fellow and director of the Military, Veterans, and Society Program at the Center for a New American Security think tank in Washington, D.C.

“There was a fear that if the [360-degree feedback] were used for promotions or true evaluations as opposed to personal development that there could be some challenges with that – particularly if your peers in your unit are also your competition: There would be a way to skew the outcomes to make yourself look good by making someone else look bad,” Kuzminski said.

Berger is going much further than the rest of the military by looking at how the Marine Corps can use this type of feedback for promotions, she said.

“I do think that if any service can take the lead on this front, I think it would be the Marine Corps,” Kuzminski said. “Just from a cultural perspective, I think the real value that they place on taking care of fleet really matters – and certainly for more senior positions, there’s this saying that you hear from senior folks: If you had a helicopter full of 10 general officers in the Marine Corps crash today, you would have equally high competitive talent remaining to replace them.” Really? In today’s Corps? Hell that may even help save us. Let’s make it a C-130 with 50 on board. LOL Just kidding, of course.
I trust everyone caught the name of this new plan; the “Talent Management Plan..” That says it all; when was the last time you heard anything coming out in the Corps dealing with “management.” In my day that word was toxic to Marines. Oh well, just another day in the “New” Corps. When will it end? Surely this action will help recruiting; just knowing they can have an effect on their mean Gunny should help. 

Originally posted 2021-11-28 08:33:35.