CIMSEC destroys current Marine Corps doctrine! A MUST READ!

Have you ever been absolutely certain that the "supposedly smartest guys in the room" were smoking crack on a particular subject but you couldn't get others to believe you because it went against conventional wisdom?

If any of the above applies then welcome to my world.  Or at least what was once my world when it came to Marine Corps doctrine until CIMSEC published this article (read it here).  The main take away?  I was right, HQMC was wrong...Check out these tidbits...

The Marine Corps recently rolled out their Expeditionary Force 21 (EF21) “vision,” which states that Marines will need to be able to conduct ship-to-shore operations from 65 nautical miles away—an incredible distance for any kind of surface assault. The analysis (or lack thereof….EF21 was developed independent of the U.S. Navy) behind EF21 is the belief that amphibious ships will be susceptible to coastal-defense cruise missiles (CDCMs). Rather than adhere to joint doctrine, for some inexplicable reason the Marine Corps has decided the way around enemy capability is not to neutralize but rather to swim right through it with future high-speed amphibious combat vehicles (ACVs).

That kinda explains the issues with getting the ACV into service doesn't it.  A massive amphibious assault and the Marine Corps is going solo?  Ain't gonna happen and leadership knew it.

The Marine Corps refuses to accept that the U.S. Navy and the joint force will first set conditions for any possible future amphibious assault in accordance with Joint and Naval Doctrine, which currently allows for the first amphibious assault wave to be launched within 12 nautical miles (or closer)—not 65 nautical miles

How many times have you heard me bitching about the arbitrary distance that Amos was peddling?  How many times have you heard me talk about rolling back enemy defenses and setting up corridors for our AAVs, LCACs, LCUs and JHSVs?

Although the short, take-off, and landing version of the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is possibly the best fighter jet ever built, it is not a close-air support platform and was never intended to be. The F-35 is designed for high-end, air supremacy operations during the setting of battlefield conditions that occur long before landing forces ever arrive in theater.

Maybe the powers that be are finally catching on to what ever Jar Head below the rank of general has known all along.

We can only hope. 

Sidenote:  Make no mistake about it.  Freeman is part of what I call the Special Ops Cabal inside the Marine Corps that has had the ear of the former Commandant.  Notice his comparisons of the Marine Corps to SOCOM over and over again?  He can be right on the doctrine needing fixing and wrong on the solution.  The author fails to realize that SOCOM takes "the best" of the conventional forces, has lavish funding and can call on conventionals for outstanding support.  Additionally they have the option of saying "no" we can't do that.  The doctrine needs fixing, but reality must be acknowledged.  Freeman doesn't do that.