I'm inclined to agree with Gen. Berger....The Marines are basically a bunch of uneducated high school flunkies, they are FAR from an elite fighting force and in the words of my college roommate and Delta Force Ranger "nothing more than cannon fodder". In my opinion, they would be perfectly suited for homeland and border protection but little else in the current military climate. Sure, they got to beat up on Iraqi's and Afghan fighters (3rd world) and still got their butts handed to them. I see little need for 180,000 high school flunkies running around with M16's in antiquated tanks when faced with newer technology suck as drones, emp's, tactical nukes etc. I would much rather have 150 highly trained special operators capable of conducting cyber warfare behind enemy lines than 180K damn near retards with guns.
https://twitter.com/EzraACohen/status/1510021707058274321
Summary: Empire builders get mad at new empire builder for destroying their old empire.
https://twitter.com/politico/status/1510013040678379524
How two dozen retired generals are trying to stop an overhaul of the Marines Current plans call for shedding troops and equipment in preparation to take on China. An influential group of over two dozen retired generals has launched a counteroffensive against plans to transform the Marine Corps, and is using their clout in a high-power pressure campaign to get Congress to slam on the brakes.
The roster of personalities includes every living former commandant, along with a slew of other retired four-star generals revered within the Corps. And all of them are bristling at different aspects of foundational changes introduced by Commandant Gen. David Berger, who aims to make the Corps lighter, faster and more capable of doing everything from electronic warfare to sinking ships at sea.
The group of retired generals includes former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, former Joint Chiefs Chair Joe Dunford and John Kelly, a former Homeland Security chief and White House chief of staff.
“This is not a fragmented effort, this is a collective of 30 some generals … including six or seven of the most senior, most credible Marines that I’ve ever worked with,” said Frank Hoffman, distinguished research fellow at the National Defense University and a retired Marine officer. Yet he also noted that Berger’s efforts have already been blessed by Congress and the Pentagon brass, so putting a stop to them now is unlikely.
The Marine Corps’ two-year-old plan represents a fundamental shift in how the Corps equips its troops and goes to war. The Corps’ 400-odd tanks have already been shifted to the Army, helicopter wings put in storage, and infantry units are being reconfigured to become smaller and more nimble.
The changes are part of a wider rethinking of how the military is funded and structured to meet China and Russia, which are challenging post-Cold War U.S. military dominance. It’s no surprise that the Corps in particular, with its mystique of grit and self-reliance, would struggle with such rapid, deep-rooted changes.
A spokesperson for Berger declined to comment on the specifics of the retired general’s criticisms, and instead pointed to statements Berger has made to Congress and in public as to why the modernization push is necessary.
Several of the generals met with Berger on March 3 to voice their concerns, but walked away dissatisfied that they had been heard, Paul Van Riper, a retired lieutenant general who served as head of Marine Corps Combat Development Command, told POLITICO.
That frustration led to a March 26 opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal by Jim Webb, a former Navy secretary and a Marine Vietnam veteran, who said the talks with Berger were “unsuccessful,” and declared “the gloves have now come off.” Similar pieces by retired Marine officers and other backers have appeared in other news outlets, hoping to stir up both the military audience and members of Congress.
The changes Berger is putting forward “do not meet … requirements and do not meet the needs of the combatant commander,” Anthony Zinni, a retired general and former head of U.S. Central Command, told POLITICO. “We think the cuts are far too drastic and really, greatly diminish the capability of the Marine Corps as a combined arms team and move it away from its traditional role.”
Webb, in his Wall Street Journal op-ed, first disclosed the existence of the group. Members meet virtually or in-person on a daily basis to plan their way forward and are stepping up their outreach to members of Congress.
At stake is arguably the most ambitious modernization effort of any of the armed services. It takes to heart the 2018 National Defense Strategy, which said the armed forces need to train and equip to meet the China challenge. The argument in Berger’s new strategy is that in order for the Corps to shift its mission, and absent a massive infusion of new funding, tough decisions had to be made. Getting rid of hundreds of tanks and amphibious vehicles saved about $3 billion, all of which was pumped back into new precision missiles and upgrades for infantry units.
Berger and his supporters have said equipment such as tanks and artillery tubes aren’t suited to that Pacific fight. Rather, modern threats require the U.S. to have long-range precision rockets, small loitering armed drones, and mobile ship-killing missiles that Marines can use to protect U.S. and allied vessels.
But the land war against Russia has shifted Washington’s strategic calculations, and given new impetus to the retired generals’ mission. One of the group’s more vocal forward-facing members, Vietnam vet Bing West, wrote in a recent article that urban battles taking place in Ukraine, and similar fights in Vietnam like Hue City and Fallujah in Iraq prove the need for tanks and heavy armor in modern combat. Without them, Marines “today are less capable than two decades ago.”
In a Marine Corps Times op-ed, Van Riper bemoaned that “the Corps will have more space experts, cyber warriors, influence specialists, missileers and others with unique skills” than “Marines prepared to close with and destroy the enemy.”
Those arguments, some say, fail to take into account the changes in the technologies that China and Russia can bring to the modern battlefield, even if Russia is struggling to use them in Ukraine.
But some experts agree with Berger’s planned changes as the way to evolve the Marine Corps into a force that can compete with China.
Berger’s efforts are the result of “a lot of years looking at the evolving threat environment and the impact of technology” said Dakota Wood, senior research fellow for defense programs at The Heritage Foundation. “Maneuvering is more difficult because things can be spotted, logistic lines are going to be much more challenging to maintain and so when you’re faced with this kind of new battlefield, wouldn’t you want the force to be less logistically intensive and more maneuverable?”
The plan at the heart of the fight, dubbed “Force Design 2030” and released in March 2020, has won praise from many members of Congress and leaders from the other services also seeking to modernize their formations
https://twitter.com/EzraACohen/status/1510021707058274321
Summary: Empire builders get mad at new empire builder for destroying their old empire.
https://twitter.com/politico/status/1510013040678379524
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/01/corps-detat-how-two-dozen-retired-generals-are-trying-to-stop-an-overhaul-of-the-marines-00022446
How two dozen retired generals are trying to stop an overhaul of the Marines
Current plans call for shedding troops and equipment in preparation to take on China.
An influential group of over two dozen retired generals has launched a counteroffensive against plans to transform the Marine Corps, and is using their clout in a high-power pressure campaign to get Congress to slam on the brakes.
The roster of personalities includes every living former commandant, along with a slew of other retired four-star generals revered within the Corps. And all of them are bristling at different aspects of foundational changes introduced by Commandant Gen. David Berger, who aims to make the Corps lighter, faster and more capable of doing everything from electronic warfare to sinking ships at sea.
The group of retired generals includes former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, former Joint Chiefs Chair Joe Dunford and John Kelly, a former Homeland Security chief and White House chief of staff.
“This is not a fragmented effort, this is a collective of 30 some generals … including six or seven of the most senior, most credible Marines that I’ve ever worked with,” said Frank Hoffman, distinguished research fellow at the National Defense University and a retired Marine officer. Yet he also noted that Berger’s efforts have already been blessed by Congress and the Pentagon brass, so putting a stop to them now is unlikely.
The Marine Corps’ two-year-old plan represents a fundamental shift in how the Corps equips its troops and goes to war. The Corps’ 400-odd tanks have already been shifted to the Army, helicopter wings put in storage, and infantry units are being reconfigured to become smaller and more nimble.
The changes are part of a wider rethinking of how the military is funded and structured to meet China and Russia, which are challenging post-Cold War U.S. military dominance. It’s no surprise that the Corps in particular, with its mystique of grit and self-reliance, would struggle with such rapid, deep-rooted changes.
A spokesperson for Berger declined to comment on the specifics of the retired general’s criticisms, and instead pointed to statements Berger has made to Congress and in public as to why the modernization push is necessary.
Several of the generals met with Berger on March 3 to voice their concerns, but walked away dissatisfied that they had been heard, Paul Van Riper, a retired lieutenant general who served as head of Marine Corps Combat Development Command, told POLITICO.
That frustration led to a March 26 opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal by Jim Webb, a former Navy secretary and a Marine Vietnam veteran, who said the talks with Berger were “unsuccessful,” and declared “the gloves have now come off.” Similar pieces by retired Marine officers and other backers have appeared in other news outlets, hoping to stir up both the military audience and members of Congress.
The changes Berger is putting forward “do not meet … requirements and do not meet the needs of the combatant commander,” Anthony Zinni, a retired general and former head of U.S. Central Command, told POLITICO. “We think the cuts are far too drastic and really, greatly diminish the capability of the Marine Corps as a combined arms team and move it away from its traditional role.”
Webb, in his Wall Street Journal op-ed, first disclosed the existence of the group. Members meet virtually or in-person on a daily basis to plan their way forward and are stepping up their outreach to members of Congress.
At stake is arguably the most ambitious modernization effort of any of the armed services. It takes to heart the 2018 National Defense Strategy, which said the armed forces need to train and equip to meet the China challenge. The argument in Berger’s new strategy is that in order for the Corps to shift its mission, and absent a massive infusion of new funding, tough decisions had to be made. Getting rid of hundreds of tanks and amphibious vehicles saved about $3 billion, all of which was pumped back into new precision missiles and upgrades for infantry units.
Berger and his supporters have said equipment such as tanks and artillery tubes aren’t suited to that Pacific fight. Rather, modern threats require the U.S. to have long-range precision rockets, small loitering armed drones, and mobile ship-killing missiles that Marines can use to protect U.S. and allied vessels.
But the land war against Russia has shifted Washington’s strategic calculations, and given new impetus to the retired generals’ mission. One of the group’s more vocal forward-facing members, Vietnam vet Bing West, wrote in a recent article that urban battles taking place in Ukraine, and similar fights in Vietnam like Hue City and Fallujah in Iraq prove the need for tanks and heavy armor in modern combat. Without them, Marines “today are less capable than two decades ago.”
In a Marine Corps Times op-ed, Van Riper bemoaned that “the Corps will have more space experts, cyber warriors, influence specialists, missileers and others with unique skills” than “Marines prepared to close with and destroy the enemy.”
Those arguments, some say, fail to take into account the changes in the technologies that China and Russia can bring to the modern battlefield, even if Russia is struggling to use them in Ukraine.
But some experts agree with Berger’s planned changes as the way to evolve the Marine Corps into a force that can compete with China.
Berger’s efforts are the result of “a lot of years looking at the evolving threat environment and the impact of technology” said Dakota Wood, senior research fellow for defense programs at The Heritage Foundation. “Maneuvering is more difficult because things can be spotted, logistic lines are going to be much more challenging to maintain and so when you’re faced with this kind of new battlefield, wouldn’t you want the force to be less logistically intensive and more maneuverable?”
The plan at the heart of the fight, dubbed “Force Design 2030” and released in March 2020, has won praise from many members of Congress and leaders from the other services also seeking to modernize their formations
I'm inclined to agree with Gen. Berger....The Marines are basically a bunch of uneducated high school flunkies, they are FAR from an elite fighting force and in the words of my college roommate and Delta Force Ranger "nothing more than cannon fodder". In my opinion, they would be perfectly suited for homeland and border protection but little else in the current military climate. Sure, they got to beat up on Iraqi's and Afghan fighters (3rd world) and still got their butts handed to them. I see little need for 180,000 high school flunkies running around with M16's in antiquated tanks when faced with newer technology suck as drones, emp's, tactical nukes etc. I would much rather have 150 highly trained special operators capable of conducting cyber warfare behind enemy lines than 180K damn near retards with guns.
(post is archived)