Tag Archives: Navy

Current Events, videos

The New USMC

4 Comments

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

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

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

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

Marine Swords Beaten into Puny Plowshares

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent Posts

Deployed US Navy Has A Pregnancy Problem,

3 Comments
And It’s Getting Worse!
Come on folks, it doesn’t take a genius to have foreseen this problem, you need not even have served. Anybody should be able to understand the problem here. We can thank the idiots pictured here for this disaster. Navy ships at sea MUST be combat ready at all times, capable of going to battle stations at a moments notice, they are essentially in harm’s way once they leave port. You ask why is the defense budget so high, yet we are lacking spare parts, ammunition, and flyable ready air craft? Wake up Americans, as much as I hate to say it that also includes Democrats like Pelosi, et al. This, along with all the many other social experiments imposed by these folks need to be stopped if we are going to be able to cut taxes and institute President Trumps promises. I really dislike picking on our Navy, but they are the ones that are always in harm’s way and they are being degraded by these idiotic policies.
     
Richard Pollock
Reporter
9:28 PM 03/01/2017
 
5504487
A record 16 out of 100 Navy women are reassigned from ships to shore duty due to pregnancy, according to data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Investigative Group.
 
That number is up 2 percent from 2015, representing hundreds more who have to cut their deployments short, taxing both their unit’s manpower, military budgets and combat readiness.  Further, such increases cast a shadow over the lofty gender integration goals set by former President Barack Obama.
 
Overall, women unexpectedly leave their stations on Navy ships as much as 50% more frequently to return to land duty, according to documents obtained from the Navy.  The statistics were compiled by the Navy Personnel Command at the request of TheDCNF, covering the period from January 2015 to September 2016.
 
The evacuation of pregnant women is costly for the Navy.  Jude Eden, a nationally known author about women in the military who served in 2004 as a Marine deployed to Iraq said a single transfer can cost the Navy up to $30,000 for each woman trained for a specific task, then evacuated from an active duty ship and sent to land.  That figure translates into $115 million in expenses for 2016 alone.
 
 
“This is an avoidable cost and expense, leaving a gap for other people to pick up the work slack,” Eden said.
 
“A pregnancy takes you out of action for about two years. And there’s no replacement,’ said Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, a nonpartisan public policy organization. “So everybody else has to work all that harder,” adding that on small ships and on submarines, “you really have a potential crew disaster.”
 
Navy Lt. Cmdr. Nathan Christensen told TheDCNF the Navy tries to plan for the unplanned.
 
“Just as we deal with other unplanned manning losses due to injury or other hardships, we work to ensure that pregnant service members are taken care of and that commands are equipped to fulfill their missions when an unexpected loss occurs,” he said.
 
In January 2015, 3,335 women were pregnant aboard military vessels, representing about 14 percent of the 23,735 women then serving such duty, according to the data.
 
But by August 2016 that number reached nearly 16 percent, an all-time high. The Navy reported 3,840 of the 24,259 women sailors who were aboard Navy ships were pregnant.
 
The Obama administration understated the pregnancy problem throughout its eight years and even suppressed some data about the impact of its “gender-neutral” policies on the Navy.
 
For decades, for instance, the Navy published results from exhaustive surveys of 25,000 men and women in a document called the “Navy Pregnancy and Parenthood Survey.”
 
The reports once were 75 to 100 pages long and disclosed attitudes among men and women and their behavior.  However, the Obama administration published only brief two to three-page summaries from 2012 onward.
 
A civilian attached to the Navy Personnel, Research, Studies and Technology group, which researched and published the surveys, told TheDCNF full reports were completed regularly even though it’s detailed findings were not released to the public. The individual requested anonymity.
 
“The military has been tight lipped over the years about these numbers.  They don’t like to publicize them,” Eden told TheDCNF.
 
The Navy has been dogged for years by lingering claims that some women get pregnant simply to avoid deployment.
 
“We all know that happens. Women do it to avoid deployment,” Eden told TheDCNF.
 
“There do seem to be coincidences,” said Donnelly. “There is a lot of anecdotal evidence.”
 
“This information is considered so sensitive. You just don’t talk about it. And you don’t ask. It’s just something that everybody knows occurs. Don’t ask, don’t tell,” Donnelly said. She served on the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services and on the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces.
 
The sudden departure of pregnant women aboard military vessels severely hurts military readiness and morale for those left behind and who must pick up the slack. The expecting sailors must be transferred from a ship after the 20th week of pregnancy.
 
The Navy officially considered pregnancy incompatible with military service and women who became pregnant were automatically discharged, according to The Alliance for National Defense.
 
However, with the introduction of the all-volunteer military, the Navy provided many lucrative incentives to men and women — including free housing, medical care, recreation and educational opportunities.
 
But women got additional benefits, including free prenatal care, daycare, counseling, and special education for toddlers and children with disabilities or for other “special needs.”
 
“Since benefits offered to recruits who are women are so very generous, it almost becomes an incentive,” said Donnelly.  “One feminist advocate many years ago referred to the military as a ‘Mecca for single moms.’”
 
“I think there are so many carrots.  The military has become a modern-day jobs program,” Eden said.
 
Obama during his eight years in office sought to increase dramatically the number of women on ships.
 
In May 2015, Admiral Michelle Howard announced a quota of 25% women on all ships. “We’re going back and looking at the ships — all of them — and what percentage of women are on the ships. Over time, we’ll modernize them to make sure we get to about 25 percent on each ship,” she said.
 
Former Navy Secretary Ray Mabus in September 2015 pushed the new policy, stating that the Navy SEALs and all other combat jobs in the Navy should be open to women, with no exemptions as part of the Pentagon’s new “gender-neutral” employment policy.
 
Eden believes the policy of increasing women on ships results in failure. “It’s bad policy when you think of ships that have to be battle-ready and then have to transfer women off for pregnancy — something that has to do with controlled behavior or voluntary behavior,” she said.
 

It is unclear how President Donald Trump’s Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis will handle women in the military.  He has been a skeptic, but also said during his confirmation hearing he would support a combat role for women.

Originally posted 2017-03-04 12:47:15.

Current Events, videos

“The Tun”

1 Comment

Well, after all the many years of hard work, dedication, and perseverance, it’s finally happening Marines. We as Marines always took pride in the fact that we were born in bar. And now the tavern is being rebuilt. From the website “TheTun.org” here’s the report:

Lieutenant General Calvert L. Worth, Jr., Commanding General, II Marine Expeditionary Force, and Medal of Honor Recipient Major General James E. Livingston, USMC, (Ret.), joined representatives from the six organizations with a heritage at The Tun in Philadelphia for a groundbreaking ceremony in Philadelphia on November 10, 2024, the 249th birthday of the United States Marines Corps. The Tun Legacy Foundation, Inc., a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, is rebuilding the historic Tun, the birthplace of the Marines, to coincide with the 250th birthday of the United States Marine Corps in 2025 and America250 in 2026. In a nod to The Tun’s significance in the history of the Marines, participants in the groundbreaking used hand-held entrenching tools (E-Tools) for the ceremony.

The Tun Groundbreaking

The Tun Groundbreaking

Please go to the website and read all about the plans as well as look at all the photos of the groundbreaking ceremony on the Corps’ 249th birthday. The Marine in the daper sport coat (5th from the left) is MGen James (“Jungle Jim”) Livingston who was my Regimental Commander when I had 2/6 back in 1987-88. For some reason I was not aware of this event for had I known about it, I would have been there. I will tell you this though, I will be there for the commemoration planned for the Corps’ 250th birthday! Care to join me?

And while you are there, PLEASE make a donation; it’s tax deductible, but that should not be the reason for a donation. We must make this happen! We need our bar back. LOL. I have already made mine; do yours Marine.

Current Events

A Messiah Awaits

8 Comments

Are his comments not a breath of fresh air, and trust me they are not hot.  I am a Floridan, and if there is one thing you can count on from Ron, he means what he says and does what he says. Broward County and Disney learned that the hard way. 

 

From the Wall Street Journal                                          Thursday, 20 July 2023

Next Target for Ron DeSantis: the Military

Ron DeSantis is gradually laying out his presidential agenda, and on Tuesday he unveiled a plan to build a “Mission First” U.S. military. The Florida Governor has several worthy ideas to restore American confidence in the armed forces, though fighting the culture wars isn’t a substitute for preventing an actual war.

“We need a military that is focused on being lethal, being ready and being capable,” Gov. De-Santis said in South Carolina. The U.S. military is suffering from institutional drift, as senior officers rush to associate themselves with progressive causes. One example: Space Force Lt. Gen. DeAnna Burt in a June speech unleashed a political broadside against elected state legislatures for considering what she styled as “anti-LGBTQ+” measures.

One good priority is reviving American military education. Gov. DeSantis is right that the service academies ought to be “narrowly focused” on disciplines such as engineering or military history and leadership. Civilian academics have taken over most military educational institutions such as war colleges, and the instruction is often, as Gov. DeSantis says, “substandard.”

The Governor, a Navy veteran, also says he would review the performance of every four-star flag officer and remove those who aren’t focused on lethality. There is reason to wonder if the services are producing the war fighting talent the country needs by picking leaders on the merits. More aggressive civilian oversight would help.

Case in point: In 2021 a Navy admiral suggested the service should bring back photos as part of promotion boards to achieve more diversity. Gov. DeSantis said he’d ban “race and gender quotas in military recruiting and promotions.”

The perception that the military is a political institution may be hurting enlistment, and the Army looks likely to come up at least 10,000 soldiers short this year. Gov. DeSantis says he will “restore national pride” in the armed forces, to include a school program explaining that the U.S. military “ has been a force for justice and good in the world,” which is at least a start. But an under-appreciated reason the services are struggling to recruit is that the force is too small and ill-equipped to fulfill its current missions. This wears out troops. President Trump boasts that he rebuilt the U.S. military, but he offered a one-time increase that only started to rebuild the readiness burned in President Obama’s two terms.

The defense industrial base also continued to erode on Mr. Trump’s watch. Contractors are now recalling retired engineers in their 70s to teach new workers how to build Stinger antiaircraft missiles that haven’t been in production for decades.

Gov. DeSantis’s special operation against wokeness will thrill his base, and he has correctly identified China as the top threat to U.S. security. His harder task will be building public support for a larger and more capable U.S. military that can deter the Communist Party from a terrible mistake such as invading Taiwan.

That will require convincing skeptical Republicans to increase defense spending—for example, building two attack submarines a year for the U.S. Navy, up from 1.2 now. Or speeding up the new Air Force strategic bomber. Or building a long-range missile inventory that can last more than three nights of fighting in the Taiwan Strait.

An aide to the campaign says Gov. DeSantis still plans to offer a broader defense agenda. But on U.S. support for Ukraine he’s too often catered to the isolationist right that would, in Ronald Reagan’s words, play innocents abroad in a world that’s not innocent.

Still, the Pentagon’s growing preoccupation with identity politics is corrosive to an institution built on cohesion and self-sacrifice. The country would be better prepared for a fight if a new President started to right the ship.

Has he nailed the problems or what? “. . . review the performance of every four-star flag officer and remove those who aren’t focused on lethality.” Wow, that would sure open up the promotions for three stars, albeit he should look at all flag officers, not just the four-stars.

Increase defense budget bother you? He’ll find other areas to reduce the funding e.g., all the woke shit, welfare, immigrant benefits, and many more. Ron is not a big spender, just ask a Floridan. Trump hasn’t talked about any of thee issues, because he is too busy calling people names.

My dream team would be Ron and  SC Senator Tim Scott. What a team that would make. Sorry guys but if you didn’t already know it, I am no longer a Trumper. He simply will not shut the hell up!

Originally posted 2023-07-20 09:26:59.

Current Events

Toxicity

6 Comments

A VERY WELL written article from US & World by someone who must have been a Marine. I looked him up and here is who he is: Prioleau Alexander, who is a native of Charleston, South Carolina, and a graduate of Auburn University, is a former Marine officer and a self-employed advertising entrepreneur. And trust me he pulls no punches. Enjoy. And oh BTW, I personally agree with everything he says. What say you?

US & WORLD

Fitness News – Independen. Unapologetic

Here he is with my favorite 2024 Presidential candidate

Prioleau Alexander: The Marine Ethos

Current administration making changes that go against the Corps’ congressionally mandated responsibilities …

by E Prioleau Alexander May 3, 2023 

I don’t know much about the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Coast Guard, but I do know a bit about the Marines … and I can tell you that since 1775, there is a singular mission that gets a United States Marine out of the bed before sunrise: Killing those who wish harm to the United States.

That’s it.

To understand a Marine, you must know they have one thing they fear far more than death: Failure to perform in a way worthy of those who worn the uniform before them – a reputation built on blood, pain, and death.

The Corps, you see, is not a branch of the military – it is a cult.

This is because Boot Camp and Officer Candidate School tear men down to the edge of their souls, then rebuild them as men who believe they could go head-to-head with Hell’s most powerful demons. These young men and women leave that training with the belief that there is no greater or harder-to-earn honor than wearing the Eagle, Globe, and Anchor insignia. With that goes their belief that “every Marine is a rifleman.”

Are there not men such as these in the other branches? Absolutely, but each branch has its own mission – and serving as America’s “force in readiness” rests with the Marines. It is their job to be the first to fight – taking charge of hostile situations by deploying extreme violence. In the Korean War, North Korea overran the south until there was but a tiny patch of land left unoccupied. The Marines landed, and in short order the retreat of the enemy began.

Who are the Americans who sign on to be a part of this? As liberals would say, “toxic males” join the cult because they are old-fashioned patriots – and want to be a part of America’s most elite fighting team. Tough and driven women who also want to be a part of something elite often join, even if it means certain jobs and promotions won’t be available to them.

Life is much easier for a woman in the other services, but female Marines aren’t looking for “easy.”

What binds these men and women? Their ethos. The belief that they are different from Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen. That they can do the impossible, despite a lack of funding and using the Army’s hand-me-down gear. That they can accomplish the difficult in short order – and the impossible with a little extra time.

The importance of Marines believing themselves to be a breed apart cannot be overstated. Writing about the current failures of Marine Corps leadership, Marine Medal of Honor recipients Maj. General Jim Livingston and Colonel Jay Vargas state, “The structure of the Corps or the weapons they are provided can be changed or reversed. Ethos is different—and once extinguished, it is gone forever.”

Marines have always been told they are America’s shock troops. They are the force the President uses when it’s time to call 911. Take that away, and you might as well offer them a beret and roll them into the Army.

For Marines, “the good order and disciple” of a combat unit is paramount, and that good order and disciple is based one primary belief: We are all the same. Yes, we are different colors of green, but we are all green. We are Marines, nothing will divide us, and no one will be singled out for any kind of special treatment.

The first open strike of the Marines’ ethos came with the reversal of “Don’t ask don’t tell,” a policy that worked well for the Marines. Openly gay individuals began serving in the Corps despite the fact the Corps is mostly comprised of “toxic males” who object.

Then came women in combat arms, and many “toxic” males in the business of gunfighting don’t want to be burdened by a female who may slow them down, or receive undue attention from instinctually-concerned males if wounded in combat. (For men, hearing a man scream in pain is very different than hearing a woman scream in pain).

U.S. Marines (USMC)

Finally, we come to admittance of openly trans individuals, with the military paying for their gender mutilation surgery. This needs no further analysis.

Is honoring the particular friction a person likes during sex worth disrupting the ethos of America’s one military unit capable of serving in every clime and place? Liberals would say, “If they don’t like it, they can get out.” They are. Liberals also say, “If they don’t like the new system, don’t join.” They aren’t.

If you haven’t served in the Corps, Marines don’t care about your opinion on “toxic” men… because they know first-hand these men are the best at stacking up enemy dead like cord wood. These “toxic “males speak of themselves only as Marines, without the need for adjectives pointing out their differences.

The current mumbling point for those in favor of this lunacy is that “the Corps is stronger with diversity.” No statement could be further from the truth: The Corps has been feared by enemies of America for centuries because there’s no diversity. Everyone is green, and committed solely to the accomplishment of the mission.

Is that offensive? Too bad … the truth can hurt.

In addition to the sexual revolution in an organization that lives and dies by unit cohesion, Marines find themselves with a new Commandant — General David Berger — who seems to have lost his mind … to the point of making changes that go against the Corps’ Congressionally mandated responsibilities.

No two words sum up this evolution better than the Commandant’s retention efforts being touted as “Talent Management.” First, these warriors aren’t “talent” — they are Marines. Second, Marines don’t “manage” anything – they lead. I confess I laughed out loud at the Commandant’s cluelessness when I read the words “talent management.”

U.S. Marines (USMC)

General Livingston and Colonel Vargas sum up the current Commandant’s other changes quite succinctly, pointing to the erosion of the Corps’ ethos: “The decision has been made to eliminate all armor, and scout sniper platoons in infantry battalions. The Corps is moving forward with drastic cuts in the infantry, cannon artillery, assault amphibious vehicles, aviation, military police, assault beaching and combat service support. They have crippled the Marine Corps capabilities to respond to global crises and contingencies across the spectrum of conflict. And they are investing in experimental weapons that simply replicate war-fighting skills offered by other services.”

It is madness to make cuts to anything having to do with the man-to-man warfighting skills and equipment needed to destroy the enemy, because man-to-man warfighting is the Corps. Tanks, assault amphibian vehicles, combat engineers, artillery, and the air wing exist solely to assist infantry grunts in planting the American flag on enemy soil. The rest of the Corps exists solely to support those combat arms units. The Army, Navy, and Air Force can handle the other warfighting needs — and they are quite good at it.

If you were to meet General Livingston or Colonel Vargas in person, even if they were attired in their Dress Blues and wearing their Medal of Honor decorations, it would be perfectly acceptable for you to forgo the formalities of their rank, and greet them by saying, “Hello there, Marine.”

That is part of the uniqueness of the Corps—that rank and awards take a distant second to the honor of being called a Marine.

If the Corps isn’t going to react on a moment’s notice to rain hell on an enemy that pops up in some remote area of the globe, who will?

I hope Congress and the Corps’ current leadership will get together for a discussion centering on the question, “Why are we trying to strangle the life out of the very things that make Marines who and what they are?” There are hundreds of thousands of former Marines out here who’d love to know the answer, and they’ll be joined by a few million civilians when they no longer hear the words, “The Marines have landed, and the situation is now under control.”

I never met Colonel Vargas, but I know MajGen Livingston very well. He was my 6th Marines regimental commander when I was blessed to have had command of 2/6, Huxley’s Harlots. There is no better warrior in my book. A Marines’ Marine through and through.

Originally posted 2023-06-21 18:41:14.